October 17, 1991
On jAagianzed papers:
"As many as nine out of ten suidents
have plagiarized a paper somclime during
their college careers, according ID a survey
conducted by Miami Universily of Ohio
Professor Jerold Hale and two colleagues.
Of the 234 suidents surveyed. 91.2
peiccnl admitted to having coounitled at
least one of four academically didicnest
practices in connection with written
assignments: 74.2 percenl failed to cite a
reference for paraphrased or cpioied material,
442 percent passed off another suident's
work for their own, 40.8 percent failed to
note a word-for-word quoieas adirccl
quotation and 38.9 percenl used misleading
references to hide plagiarism."
From the College Press Service
On how God is conceived:
"God is conceived differently in
differcnl traditions. Bui we find unity in
these many conceptions, in that God is
posed as an answer to the human condition,
more or less satisfying, but in any case the
best we can do. God reflects the deqiesl
longings of the human soul and qpirit In
God we find a more perfect reflection of flie
creativity, transcending personality and love
which is the fruit of the human soul and
qnriL In God the human soul and spirit
find strength to move forwaid in love, even
in the fiill Cace human tragedy.”
Frnm in Posttiberal PersoectBlC
by Daniel Liechty
PEE WEE THOMAS
The person who dies of
Alzheimer's disease dies slowly.
The mind goes; memory goes; the
victim loses control of bodily
functions. All terminal diseases
Congress: Listen up
It’s wrong to silence 'her words'
^ opinion on Clarence Thomas:
Thomas is not as articulate as Antonin
Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day
O'Connor. He is no match for the
scholarly David Souter in his mastery erf
case law. But Thomas wiD bring other
assets to the hi^ court. He has known
discrimination, and he has known poverty.
These are good teadien. Hehaskamed
useful lessons from them.
The question is asked, will Thomas, an
aocredited conservative, make a difference
on the court? Forthe near future we may
expect Thomas to mind his manners on the
bench. I would not look for anything
eventful from Thomas in the coming term.
Prom an article by nationally syndicated
columnist James Kilpatrick
It was her word versus his. Just a he-said,
she-said sort of thing, as Sen. John Danforth
had put it, dismissing the "October Surprise,"
the "smear campaign," the eleventh hour
accusation of sexual harassment that had
thrown Clarence Thomas' sure thing into full
Who was this ’’she" anyway? The
senators who found her "crediWe called her
Professor Anita Hill. The others called her
"the woman," or "this lady, or even, in the
strange case (rf Sen. Alan Simpson, "the lady
who was lured."
Before Anita Hill stepped into her
televised Oklahoma classroom, measured and
earnest, dignified and strained, the Senates
judiciary commioce had simply dismissed her.
Before Professor HiU said, "It is an unpleasait
isoif It is an ugly issue," they had decided to
deal with her charges the old-fashioned way.
Anyway you cut it, some of these men
had known since mid-September that the
former bead of the civil rights enforcement
agency was accused of violatmg a womans
civil rights. Anyway you run the sequence of
events, they had known before ^ committee
vote that a Supreme Court nominee had been
accused of sexual harassment as defined by that
But like businessmen running a fwivate
corporation, they handled this "delicate matter"
discreetly, among their own kind. Why.Arlen
Specter, the very model of judiciousness had
gone to Claence TTiomas in person, eyeball to
eyeball, and gotten a forceful denial. Dennis
DeConcini had "made the judgment, right or
wrong, that he was credible to me."
Ii was her word versus his. They took his
without hers. They didn't tell the of us.
Would it have been better if Hill had gone
The Boston Globe
public earlier? Sure, although anyone who
wonders why she was reluctant can listen to
the messages on her telephone tape. Did the
senators have any legitimate reason for
protecting Thomas' privacy? Sure. FBI files
are full of scurrilous attacks.
But anyone with half an investigative eye
open could have discovered that Anita HiU was
"no kook." as Sen. Paul Simon put it And
anyone doing his job, should have understood
thai ihis is a subject that deserved as much
attention as Douglas Ginsburg's uAes of
This portrait of men in power is not very
pretty. Cajntol Hill is not just a i^ace where
you can bounce checks with impunity and
discriminate without fear of the law. (Civil-
rights laws don't apply there.) It's a placc
whoe men can listen to Clarence Thomas’
straight-faced claim that he had no o|Hnion on
abortion, and then question Aniu Hill's
If these men kept the lid on the charges of
sexual harassment, however, it was not just to
protect Clarence Thomas. To many,.Anita
Hill is their worst nightmare. The woman
who could come riding out of the past waving
a charge. False, of coiffse, or maybe true.
Women have always lived with a sense of
vulnerability. They have been vulnerable to
rape, to harassment, to abuse; on the street, at
See Goodman, Page 4
some are worse
AIDS and cer-
tain cancers as
the most ang
uishing of all.
Dr. David A.
food and drugs,
vividly described Alzheimer's in a
talk on July 15. "Patients face the
demeaning realization that they
will become a burden to others.
They face the terror of a relentless
descent into oblivion." The
disease is cruel and relentless,
merciless and terrifying. "It robs
its victims of their essential
The FDA commissioner was
in Bethesda, Md., to talk to one of
FDA’s advisory committees. The
committee had met to consider
whether access diould be expanded
to a drug known as tacrine, or
Cognex, developed by Warner-
Lambert Co. Preliminary trials
had indicated that tacrine appeared
to benefit some victims of
Alzheimer's. The company
proposed a massive test, involving
50,000 subjects, to provide data
on which a final decision on
approval would be based.
The committee's answer,
essentially, was no. Not now.
Further preliminary studies would
have tt> be made at higher dosages.
Then the big study might be
reconsidered. Dr. Kessler affirmed
the committee’s recommendation.
"Above all." he said, "we must
mmntain our standards."
Above all? Really? Must the
FDA's precious "standards* be
maintained above any
consideration of humanity or
compassion? These "standards"
are not carved in stone. We are
talking about the lives of very
Under federal law. the FDA's
responsibility is to approve only
See Kilpatrick, Page. 4