In response to the accusation, the incoming administration’s Communications Director, Eugene Arhin, is alleged to have taken to Fb to state that he “unreservedly apologize[d] for the non-acknowledgement of [the] quote to the unique writer.”He referred to as the error a “full oversight” and famous that there had been different quotes within the speech that had been attributed to their unique sources.
By dismissing the shortage of quotation as an “oversight” and noting different quotes that have been attributed Arhin is inferring the act is forgivable. It is like he is saying, this was only a little bit of plagiarism, so it is okay. The issue is there is not any such factor as slightly little bit of plagiarism, similar to there is not any such factor as being slightly bit pregnant. You both are otherwise you aren’t. Any quantity of plagiarism is plagiarism.
The very fact different sources have been acknowledged and these two weren’t may bolster the argument that there was a deliberate try and move off the speech as an unique work. So, we’re confronted with two variations of actuality: at greatest an instance of shoddy work by a presidential staffer and at worst the unequivocal theft of mental property, neither of which bode nicely.
In discussing the incident on a radio interview, a former speechwriter for each Invoice and Hillary Clinton, Lisa Muscatine, stated, “the language was so particular, and the thought was so particular, the prose itself was simply similar. You’ll be able to’t actually escape the conclusion that it was borrowed if not deliberately, definitely extraordinarily irresponsibly and recklessly”.
Reckless is the phrase certainly. In 2017 when data lives within the palm of our palms, it is nearly incredulous that the speechwriter would have the temerity, the shortage of diligence, or the confluence of the 2 sins to make such a mistake.
To be handed such a privilege and to provide such unmetered unoriginality is an insult to the place and an affront to the viewers.
Justifications have additionally been made by members of the general public that the assertion taken from President Bush’s speech was initially uttered by Woodrow Wilson, many different distinguished politicians have borrowed the language of others with out acknowledgment, and lastly, that the nation has larger fish to fry than the pilfering of some letters and the commas that glue them collectively. These reactions are simply as, if no more, troubling then the plagiarism itself.
The argument that the blunders of others make our personal missteps permissible is one which we should have extra pleasure in ourselves than to which to resort. We should resist the temptation to carry ourselves to a false customary as this solely breeds the very mediocrity president Akufo-Addo promised to exorcise from authorities and encourages us to eschew as a nation.
As for the notion that we should not be distracted by a factor as small because the “borrowing” of some phrases, we should keep in mind that the theft of any property, irrespective of how intangible the property, remains to be theft. To disregard the deplorable act of plagiarism is to condone an incarnation of corruption that will appear innocent however units an insidious precedent for disingenuity and carelessness to go unpoliced.
The episode of plagiarism is an unlucky word upon which President Akufo-Addo begins his time period. The president himself was possible unaware that the remarks, ready on his behalf, contained plagiarized language, nonetheless the onus of response is now on him.
He acquired off on the appropriate foot on his first day in workplace, praised broadly for the non-partisan transfer of naming his predecessor and former opponent, John Dramani Mahama, as his consultant on the ECOWAS mini-summit on Gambia’s present disaster. This controversy, nonetheless, presents him with an early alternative to point out us all that past Ghana being, in his phrases, “open for enterprise,” he too means enterprise when he says there will likely be no place for mediocrity in his authorities.