Apparently Trump University had no plagiarism policy, because, when Melania Trump addressed the Republican National Convention Monday night, she copied several sentences from Michelle Obama’s 2008 “First Lady” speech. Initial responses to Ms. Trump’s speech were positive, but shortly afterwards the plagiarism came to light, and the Republican Convention got the dose of show biz Donald Trump had promised.
First came denial. Trump’s campaign chair, Paul Manafort, told everyone to move along, there’s nothing to see here. He insisted that Melania Trump just used some common words, which explains the similarity between the two speeches. But a McGill university scientist calculated that there was an eighty-seven million to one chance of so many words occurring in the same fourteen phrases, in the same order. So Manafort was wrong, there was something to see.
Screen cap of New York Times comparison of two of several similarities between Ms. Trump’s speech and that of Michelle Obama.
Then, Donald Trump’s not-vice-presidential-candidate Chris Christie defended Ms. Trump’s speech because, even though it bore some similarity to Michelle Obama's speech, it was 93% original. This meant Melania Trump's speech contained 7% post-consumer verbiage, but New Jersey’s governor, hoping to attract interest from the Green Party, decided that word recycling is good for the planet. A few Trump insiders did acknowledge the 7% solution was plagiarism, or at least unauthorized heavy lifting, and heads should roll.
Eyes may have been rolling, but heads weren’t. That's because, although English teachers care a lot about plagiarism, nobody else does. No one expects politicians to write their own speeches, and as for politicians’ spouses, well, like Caesar’s wife, why should they have to be above suspicion? Oh wait—nah, never mind. Nobody cares.
Plus, if Nixon fans were unfazed by a presidentially-authorized breaking-and-entering, why would Trump fans worry about a few stolen words? It wasn’t plagiarism, they insisted, plus, they hate the Obamas so much that no one would take Michelle Obama’s stupid words, so it wasn’t homage either. If you want to know the difference between plagiarism and homage, ask an English teacher.
And anyway, the Obamas have no right to own American words, because Trump and his fans are pretty sure they aren’t even Americans. Once that wall gets built (see the 2016 Republican Platform, p. 26, which places the party squarely behind the wall), Trumpers will be able to appropriate all the words they want—even though the Platform opposes taking private property for public use (p. 15) and it guarantees religious freedom, except for Islamists (pp. 11, 42, 52, among others).
Speaking of the Republican Platform, trivializing Melania Trump’s plagiarism, or denying it outright, conflicts with the Platform’s intellectual property plank, which stresses the “Fifth Amendment” protection guaranteed to authors and inventors. A strict reading of that plank suggests that Melania Trump, or whoever wrote her speech, may be criminally liable. Also, because the platform treats intellectual property as a national security issue, theft of words could even give treasonous aid and comfort to the enemies of the nation:
Private property includes . . . intellectual property like books. . . . Intellectual property is a driving force in today’s global economy . . . . It is the wellspring of American economic growth and job creation. . . . Protecting intellectual property is also a national security issue. . . . We call for strong action by Congress and a new Republican president to enforce intellectual property laws against all infringers, whether foreign or domestic. [Platform, p. 15]
Fortunately, no one is calling for a strict textualist interpretation of the Republican Platform—it’s not a constitution, after all, though the platform does remind us that “the Constitution was written not as a flexible document, but as our enduring covenant” (p. 4).
I’ve known writers who were outraged when their work was plagiarized. When a student plagiarized an essay of mine, I didn’t know whether to be angry or flattered. In the end, I settled for bemused: apparently someone thought my words were worth cutting and pasting. But the White House, class act that it is, had no comment on the Trump appropriation of Michelle Obama's intellectual property.
Anyway, there are more important things at stake in the presidential race than distinguishing between plagiarism and homage. It's no surprise that the media chose to snicker about an “academic” infraction by someone clearly unaccustomed to public speaking, rather than confront head on the fear, hate, and paranoia that drives the Trump campaign. Eventually, the New York Times constructed an account of how Melania Trump’s speech veered away from the professionally-written version first given to her, and wound up as the equivalent of rhetorical costume jewelry. But by that time, the news cycle had moved on to the nomination, and Melania Trump’s words, the ones she borrowed, stole, thought up independently, or was simply given by a handler to read aloud, began to fade. Because teachers care about plagiarism, but really, nobody else does.
UPDATE: The media stayed on the plagiarism story after all. On Wednesday, Meredith McIver, a Trump ghostwriter, claimed responsibility for what she termed an "innocent mistake"--perhaps she was inspired to borrow freely because the RNC is in the Quicken Loans Arena. McIver's account, published on the Trump campaign website, claimed that Ms. Trump "always liked...Michelle Obama"--perhaps a more startling revelation than admitting plagiarism. Melania Trump read some passages from the 2008 speech to her over the phone, and McIver later incorporated them into Trump's revised speech without checking their provenance.
Donald Trump rejected McIver's offer to resign over the mistake, and later tweeted his delight that his wife's speech got so much attention. Trump clearly didn't care about the plagiarism. After all, it's not like he was the head of a school or university.
