Tuesday, July 19, 2016

What counts as plagiarism?

As a teacher at Brigham Young University--and as the English Department ombudsman, tasked with helping resolve conflicts between students and teachers--I've had many dealings with plagiarism. Students fall into plagiarism in a number of ways--because they genuinely don't understand the concept or, more often, because of laziness or out of desperation. In the old days, when students typed their papers, I could sometimes catch plagiarism because I recognized the content or because the style of a paper differed so much from a student's usual style--or from anything I would normally encounter in an undergraduate's authentic writing. Now we have programs to catch plagiarism--though it still requires judgment to determine what counts as plagiarism. A short phrase here and there could be a matter of coincidence or common phrasing. But a whole passage--with most of the words, or clumsy synonyms for the words, being the same, in the same order--clearly counts as plagiarism. It defies credibility that such clear copying and pasting, even with minor modifications, could be accidental.

Most students I've known have confessed to plagiarism when confronted. We've managed to turn the wrongdoing into a learning experience, not only about the technicalities of plagiarism but about the deeper question of integrity. And some students have found the experience cathartic and helpful in moving forward with a more clearly defined sense of personal responsibility and a determination to be as completely honest as they could be.

The hardest and saddest cases I've dealt with have been when a student denies plagiarism even when faced with obvious evidence. Some have apparently felt they could avoid consequences by maintaining a denial to the bitter end. I've worked with a few who suffered from what seemed to me serious pathologies.

One young woman claimed that the long passages she had plagiarized came from her "photographic memory" of passages she had read online and then forgotten she had seen there. These passages then, she argued, worked their way spontaneously into her writing with the exact wording AND punctuation of the original. I told her that if she really had that remarkable ability, it would be newsworthy and ought to be better known and even studied. But I had no evidence from her other work in the class that she really had such an ability--and that, coupled with learning she had faced accusations of plagiarism in previous classes, led me to plead with her to make a clean break with past patterns and to deal with the current situation honestly. When she still refused to admit any wrongdoing, I pleaded with her to consider the consequences for her character, even her soul. Because of the religious affiliation of the university where I teach, I tried to appeal to her sense of her eternal identity and possibilities. Nothing I said appeared to persuade her.

The Honor Code at Brigham Young University includes the following: "BYU students should seek to be totally honest in their dealings with others. They should complete their own work and be evaluated based upon that work. They should avoid academic dishonesty and misconduct in all its forms, including but not limited to plagiarism, fabrication or falsification, cheating, and other academic misconduct." (See the Appendix at the end of this article for BYU's complete "Academic Honesty Policy.")

Such standards are not limited to religiously affiliated universities. All universities--and I think it's fair to say, all institutions of learning in the United States--have essentially the same expectation: that students present as their work only work they have actually done. And that includes presenting as their own writing only what they have written (not just copied and pasted from elsewhere) and giving credit for words and significant ideas they have borrowed from elsewhere, with quoted words in quotation marks.

One of the things we especially warn students against is "half-baked paraphrase," where a source is quoted but with occasional substitution of similar words and minor omissions or additions. This is considered a very bad practice, even when credit is given to the source. Why? For one thing, the source is not accurately quoted (so the "paraphrase" should not be put in quotation marks) but the same material is presented, at essentially the same length, with modifications that either maintain or diminish the quality of the original. (In other words, it would make more sense to quote the original rather than make a few "half-baked" modifications.) Worst of all, because "half-baked paraphrase" is not put in quotation marks, it is presented deceptively as the student's own language when it is mostly echoing the source. The point is that genuine paraphrase needs to represent a more thorough digesting and recasting of the original--and usually that means the paraphrase will be much shorter than the original. (And the source still needs to be credited.)

Though cultural standards vary somewhat, the expectation that writing submitted as one's own actually be one's own is not just American, but for the most part is worldwide. And it is not limited to educational institutions. This expectation applies in all fields that involve words, including professional writing and publishing, speech making, public communication in general, and therefore many aspects of business, journalism, and politics.

In the world of business and politics, however, some allowance is made for assistance especially in speech writing. Speech writers--usually professionals paid to do such work--draft a speech for a business leader or a politician, who then modifies it (either superficially or profoundly) and approves what has been written and presents it in his or her own voice. Ideally, the speaker also has some input at the beginning of the process, and in some cases the speech writers know the speaker so well that they can convey not only the ideas but the personal style of the speaker. In any case, this is a widely accepted practice, and of course the speech writers allow the speaker to claim the words as his or her own because that is what the writers are paid to do.

Nevertheless, it is a commonly accepted moral and professional standard that such speeches must still avoid plagiarism. That is, any quotations from other sources--other speakers or writers or public figures--should be credited. Half-baked paraphrase would still be considered plagiarism, especially if the original source is not credited.

As I write this, a public controversy has erupted involving a speech given at the Republican National Convention. Last night (July 18, 2016), Melania Trump gave a speech--well delivered and well received, upbeat, and more positive and inclusive than most of the previous speeches of the day. This was her biggest public moment to this point in her life. That moment was soon marred by suggestions that parts of her speech were plagiarized--taken, almost word for word, from Michelle Obama's speech at the 2008 Democratic National Convention. (See below for a comparison of the speeches.)

Let me start by saying that, in at least one respect, this is an open and shut case. The passages in question were without doubt lifted from Michelle Obama's earlier speech. This is a clear case of plagiarism. It is as clear as any case I have encountered when dealing with students I have worked with as a teacher or as the English Department ombudsman. Teachers differ in the consequences they mete out for plagiarism. At the very least, almost any teacher would fail a paper with egregious plagiarism of this kind or would require the student to rewrite it. Some would give the student a failing grade for the course. I've known of one case where--even though the student may have simply been unable to wrap his mind around how to properly use sources in a paper--the student ended up leaving the university as a result of plagiarism.

 As of this morning, the Trump campaign chair has denied that any part of Melania Trump's speech was lifted from Michelle Obama's and has even called the accusation "just really absurd." (See http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/19/politics/melania-trump-michelle-obama-speech/index.html for an article about the controversy.) He further says that "These were common words and values. . . . To think that she'd be cribbing Michelle Obama's words is crazy." Of course, plagiarism has to involve more than simply expressing common values in common words--it's a question of using essentially the same phrasing in the same order so that the passages are so recognizably similar that it defies belief to think the similarities are merely accidental. In this case, the campaign chair is trying to cover by denying the obvious.

In all of this I don't blame Melania Trump. For one thing, she is not an experienced politician. Though she said (before giving the speech), "I wrote it . . . with little help as possible," almost everyone assumes that the speech was written by a speech writer (who had consulted with her in some way) and that she then read over and approved what she was given, possibly making a few changes. I suspect she had no way of knowing that part of her speech was plagiarized. (If, on the other hand, she really did write the speech, she must have done some copying and pasting from the Internet and perhaps simply doesn't understand accepted standards concerning plagiarism.)

Almost certainly a speech writer knowingly lifted the passages from Michelle Obama's speech and made a few "half-baked" changes. And almost certainly that writer knew that such plagiarism would be considered unacceptable--unprofessional and morally wrong. Either that speech writer hoped no one would notice or, if he or she thought the plagiarism would be discovered, had some other, perhaps nefarious, agenda. It seems obvious that the speech writer in question should confess and probably resign.

I can understand the campaign chair wanting to give a positive spin to the whole episode. But I believe simply denying that the passages were plagiarized will have seriously negative consequences. People are used to politicians stretching the truth. But this is such a blatant denial of clear-cut reality that it is likely to lead to even deeper public cynicism or, for those who manage to persuade themselves to agree with the denial, a dangerous submission to willful self-deception. For many it may also lead to confusion. Some, including the very students we try so hard to educate about plagiarism, will wonder whether the accepted standards of integrity on such matters really apply in the "real world."  Some will be tempted to redefine plagiarism to mean something different from what it normally means. In any case, the lines of both moral and intellectual integrity will become fuzzier. This is not a good thing.

In case you haven't had a chance to compare the passages in question, here they are (I'll also supply a video version so you can hear them):

(From http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/19/politics/melania-trump-michelle-obama-speech/index.html)
This is a clear case of "half-baked paraphrase"--or more properly, of "barely warmed" paraphrase, since very few changes were made. The parallels--and in most cases straight copying--are clear:

Melania: "the values that you work hard for what you want in life, that your word is your bond and you do what you say and keep your promise, that you treat people with respect."

Michelle: "the same values: that you work hard for what you want in life; that your word is your bond and you do what you say you're going to do; that you treat people with dignity and respect, . . ."

Melania: "And we need to pass those lessons on to the many generations to follow. Because we want our children in this nation to know that the only limit to your achievements is the strength of your dreams and your willingness to work for them."

Michelle: ". . . and to pass them on to the next generation. Because we want our children--and all children in this nation--to know that the only limit to the height of your achievements is the reach of your dreams and your willingness to work for them."

The first pair of passages are essentially the same except for Melania's addition of the phrase "and keep your promise" and omission of "you're going to do" and "dignity." The second pair are almost identical except that Melania's speech omits a few phrases ("and all children"; ""the height of") and provides substitutes for a couple of Michelle's words: "to follow" in place of "next" and "strength" in place of "reach." These are the standard ways that "half-baked" paraphrase works (also called "Plagiarism mosaic" in BYU's Academic Honesty Policy), but they are applied so lightly here that the passages are much closer to being the same than different.

I hope that the Trump campaign can stop denying that this is a case of plagiarism (and stop blaming anyone beyond their campaign for the problem). A clear admission, especially by the person responsible, would help reaffirm the standards of integrity that we should all want to be maintained in public life.

[NOTE: For a follow up to this blog post including a report of what ended up happening, see "Plagiarism, part 2"-- http://secret-memo.blogspot.com/2016/07/plagiarism-part-2.html.]



APPENDIX: BYU's Academic Honesty Policy
The first injunction of the Honor Code is the call to "be honest." Students come to the university not only to improve their minds, gain knowledge, and develop skills that will assist them in their life's work, but also to build character. "President David O. McKay taught that character is the highest aim of education" (The Aims of a BYU Education, p. 6). It is the purpose of the BYU Academic Honesty Policy to assist in fulfilling that aim.
BYU students should seek to be totally honest in their dealings with others. They should complete their own work and be evaluated based upon that work. They should avoid academic dishonesty and misconduct in all its forms, including but not limited to plagiarism, fabrication or falsification, cheating, and other academic misconduct:

Plagiarism

Intentional plagiarism is a form of intellectual theft that violates widely recognized principles of academic integrity as well as the Honor Code. Such plagiarism may subject the student to appropriate disciplinary action administered through the university Honor Code Office, in addition to academic sanctions that may be applied by an instructor. Inadvertent plagiarism, whereas not in violation of the Honor Code, is nevertheless a form of intellectual carelessness that is unacceptable in the academic community. Plagiarism of any kind is completely contrary to the established practices of higher education, where all members of the university are expected to acknowledge the original intellectual work of others that is included in one's own work. In some cases, plagiarism may also involve violations of copyright law.
Intentional Plagiarism—Intentional plagiarism is the deliberate act of representing the words, ideas, or data of another as one's own without providing proper attribution to the author through quotation, reference, or footnote.
Inadvertent Plagiarism—Inadvertent plagiarism involves the inappropriate, but nondeliberate, use of another's words, ideas, or data without proper attribution. Inadvertent plagiarism usually results from an ignorant failure to follow established rules for documenting sources or from simply being insufficiently careful in research and writing. Although not a violation of the Honor Code, inadvertent plagiarism is a form of academic misconduct for which an instructor can impose appropriate academic sanctions. Students who are in doubt as to whether they are providing proper attribution have the responsibility to consult with their instructor and obtain guidance.
Examples of plagiarism include:
Direct Plagiarism—The verbatim copying of an original source without acknowledging the source.
Paraphrased Plagiarism—The paraphrasing, without acknowledgment, of ideas from another that the reader might mistake for your own.
Plagiarism Mosaic—The borrowing of words, ideas, or data from an original source and blending this original material with one's own without acknowledging the source.
Insufficient Acknowledgment—The partial or incomplete attribution of words, ideas, or data from an original source.
Plagiarism may occur with respect to unpublished as well as published material. Acts of copying another student's work and submitting it as one's own individual work without proper attribution is a serious form of plagiarism.

Fabrication or Falsification

Fabrication or falsification is a form of dishonesty where a student invents or distorts the origin or content of information used as authority. Examples include:
1.     Citing a source that does not exist.
2.     Attributing to a source ideas and information that are not included in the source.
3.     Citing a source for a proposition that it does not support.
4.     Citing a source in a bibliography when the source was neither consulted nor cited in the body of the paper.
5.     Intentionally distorting the meaning or applicability of data.
6.     Inventing data or statistical results to support conclusions.

Cheating

Cheating is a form of dishonesty where a student attempts to give the appearance of a level of knowledge or skill that the student has not obtained. Examples include:
1.     Copying from another person's work during an examination or while completing an assignment.
2.     Allowing someone to copy from you during an examination or while completing an assignment.
3.     Using unauthorized materials during an examination or while completing an assignment.
4.     Collaborating on an examination or assignment without authorization.
5.     Taking an examination or completing an assignment for another or permitting another to take an examination or to complete an assignment for you.

Other Academic Misconduct

Academic misconduct includes other academically dishonest, deceitful, or inappropriate acts that are intentionally committed. Examples of such acts include but are not limited to:
1.     Inappropriately providing or receiving information or academic work so as to gain unfair advantage over others.
2.     Planning with another to commit any act of academic dishonesty.
3.     Attempting to gain an unfair academic advantage for oneself or another by bribery or by any act of offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting anything of value to another for such purpose.
4.     Changing or altering grades or other official educational records.
5.     Obtaining or providing to another an unadministered test or answers to an unadministered test.
6.     Breaking and entering into a building or office for the purpose of obtaining an unauthorized test.
7.     Continuing work on an examination or assignment after the allocated time has elapsed.
8.     Submitting the same work for more than one class without disclosure and approval.

Procedures for Handling Incidents of Academic Dishonesty or Other Academic Misconduct

Faculty are responsible to establish and communicate to students their expectations of behavior with respect to academic honesty and the student's conduct in the course. Responsible instructors will investigate these incidents, determine the facts, and take appropriate action. Finally, the instructor must notify the Honor Code Office of the final disposition of the incident as a means of encouraging behavior change and discouraging repeat violations. If the incident of academic dishonesty involves the violation of a public law, e.g., breaking and entering into an office or stealing an examination, the act should also be reported to University Police. If an affected student disagrees with the determination or action and is unable to resolve the matter to the mutual satisfaction of the student and the instructor, the student may have the matter reviewed through the university's grievance process (Student Academic Grievance Procedure).

Applicable Actions

A wide range of possible actions exists for cases of academic dishonesty. Instructors should take actions that are fair and equitable under the circumstances and should attempt to reach an understanding with the affected student on the imposition of an appropriate action. In some cases, the department, the college, or the university may also take actions independent of the instructor. Examples of possible actions include but are not limited to the following:
For instructors, programs, departments, and colleges:
Reprimanding the student orally or in writing.
Requiring work affected by the academic dishonesty to be redone.
Administering a lower or failing grade on the affected assignment or test.
Administering a lower or failing grade for the course (even if the student withdraws from the course).
Removing the student from the course.
Dismissing the student from the program, department, or college.
Recommending probation, suspension, or dismissal.
For the university:
The university may elect to place an affected student on probation or to suspend or dismiss the student and to place a temporary or permanent notation on the student's permanent academic transcript that he or she was suspended or dismissed due to academic misconduct.
The university may report an incident of academic misconduct to appropriate law enforcement officials and may prosecute an affected student if the act in question involves the commission of a crime (e.g., breaking into an office or building, stealing an examination, etc.). 

Honor Code Office Involvement

The Honor Code Office will maintain a record of all violations of the Academic Honesty Policy reported to it by the faculty. If the occurrence is sufficiently egregious or if a pattern of dishonesty or misconduct is discovered, the Honor Code Office may take additional action on behalf of the university based upon the nature of the infraction(s). The Honor Code Office, in consultation with the involved academic personnel, including the associate academic vice president in charge of undergraduate studies as needed, may determine to place a student on probation or to recommend that a student be suspended or dismissed for academic dishonesty and other forms of academic misconduct.

Shared Responsibility Policy Statement

Students are responsible not only to adhere to the Honor Code requirement to be honest but also to assist other students in fulfilling their commitment to be honest.

Faculty Academic Integrity

The substantive standards of academic honesty stated in this policy apply a fortiori to faculty. Indeed, all members of the BYU community are expected to act according to the highest principles of academic integrity.
Sources
A large number of publications and policies of colleges and universities were reviewed in creating BYU's Academic Honesty Policy. Some of the content and structure of this policy were adapted from the following sources:
1.  
“Academic Honesty,” a brochure produced by the Office of Judicial Affairs, University of Florida.
2.  
“Academic Honesty and Dishonesty,” a brochure produced by the Office of the Dean of Students, University of Delaware.
3.  
“Academic Honesty and Dishonesty,” a brochure produced by the Dean of Students Office, Louisiana State University.
4.  
“A Statement on Plagiarism,” a committee report from the October 1994 Conference on the Center for Academic Integrity, Tom Langhorne, Binghamton University (chair).
5.  
“Definition of Plagiarism,” by Harold C. Martin, taken from The Logic and Rhetoric of Exposition, by Harold C. Martin, Richard M. Ohmann, and James H. Wheatly, 3rd ed. (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1969).
6.  
Legal Aspects of Plagiarism, by Ralph D. Mawdsley (Topeka, Kansas: National Organization on Legal Problems of Education, 1985).
7.  
“Plagiarism—The Do’s and Don’ts,” a brochure produced by the Office of Student Judicial Affairs of the University of California—Davis.

Tuesday, February 23, 2016

More on filling vacancies in the Supreme Court



I've written elsewhere about the current controversy involving replacing Justice Antonin Scalia. In connection with that controversy, I have thought about several situations where the Constitution indicates that certain things "shall" happen but without giving an explicit time frame. I think there could be some benefit to the vagueness, to allow flexibility that might be needed in different circumstances. On the other hand, there's the potential for abuse of that vagueness, even the possibility such vagueness could lead to a constitutional crisis.

In particular, I have wondered whether a delay in filling a Supreme Court vacancy could theoretically be indefinite. That is, could a president indefinitely delay nominating a justice--including a chief justice--and could the Senate indefinitely delay giving consent, not to mention delay even considering the nominee? By "indefinitely" I mean (theoretically) forever. In practical terms, it might mean until the parties involved knew they could get what they wanted. For instance, a president could leave a vacancy open until he was sure there would be support in the Senate for his nominee. Or the Senate (meaning those holding power in the Senate) could delay until circumstances allowed them to entertain a nomination that pleased them. Suppose, for instance, that a Republican president served for two full terms and that during those terms the Senate was controlled by the Democratic Party. Suppose further that the chief justice of the Supreme Court died or resigned and that a number of associate justices died or resigned--theoretically, as many as the entire Supreme Court. Could the president constitutionally fail to nominate anyone (for fear that the Senate would reject his nominations), or--more likely--could the Senate refuse to approve or even to consider any of the president's nominations, leaving the court without a chief justice, perhaps without several justices, even (theoretically) with no one at all on the bench?

As I've suggested, such delays could lead to a constitutional crisis. The Constitution assigns important functions to the Supreme Court, so that the lack of a functioning court would make it impossible for some constitutionally mandated duties to be fulfilled--not to mention the general distress and confusion that would result.

I've wondered about similar problems that might arise in interpreting the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. Section 2 of that amendment specifies that "Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress." Though I assume that the intent was that these actions should take place relatively quickly, there is no explicit reference to when the actions should be taken. The provisions of section 2 have been followed twice: first, when Gerald Ford was chosen two replace Richard Nixon's vice president, Spiro Agnew; next, when Nelson Rockefeller was chosen to replace Ford as vice president when Ford succeeded to the presidency after Nixon's resignation.

In both cases, the process took place relatively quickly. Nixon nominated Ford as vice president two days after Agnew's resignation. Ford was approved by the Senate within about six weeks and by the House of Representatives about a week and a half after that. After becoming president, Ford took 11 days to nominate Rockefeller as vice president. It took about four months before congressional approval was completed and Rockefeller could be sworn in as vice president. In both cases, the process covered months--two months in the first case, a little over four months in the second.

But since the Constitution does not indicate a deadline for either nomination or approval, could either the president or Congress in these cases have delayed indefinitely--for instance, until new elections had taken place or even until a series of elections had taken place? Again, I don't think that is the intent of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. But since a deadline isn't specified, I imagine such delays might be possible, even if their effects might be disastrous.

I suppose parties who consider such indefinite delays to be unconstitutional might take the issue to the courts, and the issue might be decided by the Supreme Court (assuming there is a functioning court capable of making a majority decision). Someone has pointed out to me that--since elections are held every two years for the House of Representatives--the people could make their will known by electing representatives who could do something to end the crisis. But as long as he is in office, a president could continue to delay even in the face of congressional opposition (though Congress would have various ways to make life difficult for the president). And if Congress is the branch of government delaying, it could continue delaying for years if it had sufficient popular support--even if the delays effectively resulted in a failure to fulfill the provisions of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment.

The current controversy concerning filling a Supreme Court vacancy seems to me similar. The Constitution indicates who "shall" do what. Article 2, section 2, says that the President "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint . . . Judges of the supreme Court." But there is no explicit indication of how soon after a vacancy the President "shall" make his nomination and no explicit indication of how quickly the Senate should give its consent. So theoretically, again, either the President or the Senate could delay indefinitely--unless the issue, the issue, that is, of failure to fulfill constitutionally mandated duties, were brought to the courts and it were decided that delay constituted such a failure. Another way of resolving the issue would be through elections that changed presidents or changed who held power in the Senate. Yet another way out of the crisis might be impeachment of the president.

I've found one similar situation in the Constitution proper--in Article 1, section 2. There we read that "When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies." When a senator or representative from a state dies or resigns, such a vacancy should be filled in the manner indicated. But could the "Executive Authority" of the state delay taking action indefinitely? Again, no deadline is indicated. But I find it hard to imagine that the framers intended anything other than a timely fulfillment of the duties indicated. And again, deliberately extended delay could constitute an abuse of the process.

This--constitutional law--is in no way my area of expertise, and so I happily invite comments from anyone who knows more than I do. Has delay in fulfilling the provisions I've mentioned--or similar ones at various levels of government--ever been tested in the courts? Is there any sort of consensus about how quickly those assigned the duties noted in these provisions need to fulfill those duties? 

Saturday, October 17, 2015

Mormons need more Democrats? and Democrats need more Mormons?

I'll start with a question that really shouldn't need to be asked—but that does get asked from time to time, sometimes with surprising degrees of underlying emotional intensity.

Can a good person—a good Latter-day Saint—be a Democrat? Of course. If common sense weren’t enough, the fact that Elder Marlin K. Jensen (among many faithful Latter-day Saints) identifies himself as a Democrat should make the answer obvious. And can a good person, and a good Latter-day Saint, be a Republican? Yes, of course. Again, common sense should make the answer obvious—as should the Republican affiliation of many faithful Latter-day Saints, including such prominent leaders as the late Elder Neal A. Maxwell.

I mention Elder Maxwell because it was he who encouraged Elder Jensen to take part in an interview with the Salt Lake Tribune many years ago on the very issue of whether the values of the Democratic Party are compatible with LDS values and beliefs. Elder Maxwell, like other leaders in the Church, was concerned about the public perception identifying the Church with the Republican Party and about the imbalance in Church members’ affiliation with the two major parties. Though unstated, at least one motivation behind that concern could be summed up in the words, “The Democratic Party needs more Mormons.”

Actually, the Church has been concerned that many Church members, busy with Church, family, and other responsibilities, have been relatively uninvolved in the activities of either major party. Why the concern? Besides our belief that we have a responsibility to be involved in our communities, the concern comes from evidence that both parties become more extreme and unrepresentative when only zealots are involved. If mainstream members of the LDS Church don’t attend party caucuses, where delegates and other leaders are chosen, then especially in Utah, a very large portion of the electoral—and a relatively moderate portion—goes unrepresented. In recent years, the LDS Church has strongly re-emphasized its political neutrality and has encouraged members to participate in the party of their personal preference. The Church has also set rules for local Church units intended to avoid holding activities that would interfere with attending party caucuses. As a result, both Republican and Democratic meetings have been flooded with far more participants than used to attend. For me, it was exciting to see people I knew as neighbors, local Church leaders, and temple ordinance workers at the meetings I attended.

I would reaffirm my view that the Democratic Party needs more Mormons and Mormons need more Democrats. Why? I hold with some but not all of the values of the Democratic Party. In general, I like the Democratic approach to international relations, the environment, immigration, racial tolerance and equality, concern with the poor and needy, and the dangers of increasing income inequality. I do not share the predominant Democratic Party position on abortion and same-sex marriage. On some of the issues I've listed, the Democratic and Republican positions are not really polar opposites; it's more a matter of emphasis and approach. And there are other issues on which both Democrats and Republicans agree (more or less), some of which I think Democrats have a better handle on, others of which I think Republicans would be better at dealing with. Depending on the day, I think I might be found to be about 60-80% in agreement with Democratic Party positions and 20-40% in favor on Republican Party positions. In any case, I think having more faithful Mormons involved in the Democratic Party would help that party be more moderate, more diverse, more genuinely tolerant, and more pragmatic.

I think Mormons need more Democrats for a number of reasons. One is to improve the image of the Church. I know some good people who have had a very distorted image of the Church in part because they associated it with the most extreme elements in the Republican Party. What changed their view of the Church was partly coming to know real Mormons and learning that, for the most part, we are kind, respectful, and sane, even reasonably intelligent, people. Something else that changed their view was learning that we share many of their concerns and attitudes—that many Latter-day Saints have a genuine appreciation of racial and cultural diversity, that we not only have compassion for but work actively to help those in need, that we favor peace over war, that we care for the environment and are well-informed on scientific issues. You don’t have to be a Democrat to make a good impression on such people. But it can be helpful if the Church is not so strongly identified with one party as it is often perceived to be.

Also, I think it would help many Church members to have a deeper and more balanced understanding of the gospel if they didn’t confuse it so much with political conservatism or the current attitudes of the Republican Party. There are some social issues where that confusion is understandable. But some views held by many members of the Church seem to me incompatible with, or at least in some degree of discord with, the gospel of Jesus Christ. I’m thinking of issues having to do with war and peace, race, and the environment, among others. And while many of these are complex issues to which the gospel doesn’t offer a simplistic solutions, to identify the gospel with the predominant Republic view on these issues (or the predominant Democratic view, for that matter) seems to me to prevent a deeper, truer understanding of the gospel.

Among these complex issues is the role of the community in caring for the poor and needy. The Church teaches that we need to seek to apply principles of work and self-reliance in our own lives, help others learn and practice those principles, and also care for those in need. Those principles, used with intelligence, discernment, and compassion, could lead to a variety of practical solutions on such matters as health care, education, and tax policy. The complaint that government programs are imperfect and sometimes ineffective is probably valid. But that doesn’t mean government has no role to play in these matters. The idea that people should be left to fend for themselves, that people bring their financial difficulties on themselves, or that people deserve the wealth and privileges they have because they have “earned” everything they have—and therefore should have complete freedom in doing whatever they want with what belongs to them—seems to me clearly antithetical to gospel teachings. (I've written elsewhere on these issues.)

I have heard Latter-day Saints say things that sounded to me troublingly like the teachings of Korihor, an “anti-Christ,” whose teaching are condemned in the Book of Mormon: that “every man fare[s] in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every man prosper[s] according to his genius, and that every man conquer[s] according to his strength” (Alma 30:17). In contrast, the gospel teaches that we are interdependent and that nothing we have really belongs to us—we are stewards with a responsibility to use what we have to serve God and to benefit those around us. Failure to care for those in need is one of the most serious sins we can commit—and even attributing their problems to their inferiority or lack of effort puts us seriously out of harmony with God. (See Mosiah chapters 2 and 4, among other sources.)

As a side note: At a practical level, it seems obvious to me that there is no clear correlation between how hard a person works and how much money they make. Family background, location, timing, and chance have a lot to do with success (as Malcolm Gladwell has beautifully illustrated). Even if intelligence and talents play a role, as they certainly do, those gifts are in fact gifts—they may be developed or neglected, but they were never in a fundamental sense earned. They were given, and along with their being given came the responsibility to use them to benefit others.

Having said all of that, I should add that, while identifying as a Democrat, I do not see being a Democratic as part of my essential identity. I identify as a Democrat partly because I live in Utah and feel that somebody needs to belong to the minority party and that that somebody should include faithful Latter-day Saints. Excessive political imbalance is not good for a community. It is not good even for the majority party. I also identify as a Democrat because I’m more comfortable with the Democratic Party’s positions on many issues that matter to me, and in general I prefer the tone and attitude of the Democratic Party, especially the very moderate Democratic Party of Utah.

But I know and respect many, many Republicans and know that for the most part we value the same things. I even love and respect some people whose views I find appalling—because their views have little (I’m happy to say) with the goodness of their characters and lives. I am as unhappy with the intolerance and disrespect shown by some Democrats and liberals as I am with that shown by some Republicans and conservatives. Republicans and conservatives too often demonize their opponents; Democrats and liberals often do the same to their opponents and perhaps more often engage in condescending mockery and misrepresentation. None of that, on either side, is good.

I’ve mentioned liberal and conservative. I like to think of myself as moderately liberal. That self-perception would probably be borne out by a survey of my opinions on most current political issues. But I recognize that liberalism and conservatism are slippery and unstable concepts. Different people have different views of what they mean. They have certainly changed over time and will continue to do so. If I were to leave my feelings aside and look at them objectively, I would have to say that both encompass positive values and principles that I would endorse. An ideal understanding of life and an ideal program for practical governance would have to include elements of both. One of the oddest realities of our political life is that the constant combat between liberal and conservative ideologies seems to prevent the combining of elements from both that might offer the best solution to many problems.

In any case, my deepest sense of who I am and what life is all about has very little to do with political ideology or party affiliation. I agree with something Elder Dallin H. Oaks said many years ago: “Those who govern their thoughts and actions solely by the principles of liberalism or conservatism or intellectualism cannot be expected to agree with all of the teachings of the gospel of Jesus Christ. As for me, I find some wisdom in liberalism, some wisdom in conservatism, and much truth in intellectualism—but I find no salvation in any of them” (“Criticism,” Ensign, Feb 1987, 68ff.). If I am sure of anything, it is that the gospel of Jesus Christ is far more profound, more intellectually satisfying, and more transcendently true and truly empowering than any human ideology.

Saturday, February 28, 2015

HEART OF AFRICA: New film to be set in the Democratic Republic of the Congo


A new film titled Heart of Africa is in development.  Based on real events taking place in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, it will be directed by Sterling Van Wagenen, co-founder of the Sundance Film Festival and producer of Academy-Award winning film Trip to Bountiful,  The film's script has been written by novelist and documentary-maker Margaret Blair Young.  With some B-roll shot, funds for the next stage of production are currently be raised through Kickstarter.  According to the film's Kickstarter page:

"Heart of Africa" is a feature film set in the Democratic Republic of Congo, a country consistently misrepresented. We will show it in its dignity and beauty.  The film is based on experiences of  missionaries there, both African and Anglo. One of the missionaries is a Congolese former revolutionary and another a young man from Idaho who has heretofore not seen black people. Aime Mbuyi, who was a revolutionary before he became a missionary, has provided the screenwriter with full descriptions of the revolutionary meetings, including the songs sung at the boarding school where the revolutionaries lived.
The film will be bi-continental, much of it filmed in South Africa using the "Out of Africa" production team, with portions shot in Kinshasa, DR-Congo.
For more information on Heart of Africa, see https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/868807300/heart-of-africa and https://www.facebook.com/HeartOfAfricaFilm.


*********************************

If you are interested in supporting the project, you can go to the Kickstarter page here:


(Note: Fundraising on Kickstarter ends on March 16.  For details, see http://secret-memo.blogspot.com/2015/02/heart-of-africa-kickstarter-campaign.html.)


For background on the events represented in the film, see the following series on Meridian Magazine:


The film is also discussed in a blog post by renowned biologist Steve Peck reporting on his travels in Africa:



More information on the director, Sterling Van Wagenen:

In  addition to co-founding the Sundance Film Festival, Van Wagenen was the founding executive director of the Sundance Institute in association with Robert Redford, He has directed four feature films as well as several documentaries and television episodes, and has produced over fourteen feature films, documentaries, and television series, including The Trip to Bountiful, co-produced with playwright Horton Foote and starring Geraldine Page and John Heard. He collaborated again with Foote on Convicts, starring Robert Duvall and James Earl Jones. In 1986 he and Foote were nominated for an Independent Spirit Award as producers of The Trip to Bountiful, and in 1987 they won a Wise Owl Award for the film. In 1992 he won a Crystal Heart Award as director of Alan and Naomi.



HEART OF AFRICA: Co-founder of Sundance Film Festival (Sterling Van Wagenen) to direct new film set in the Congo


Sterling Van Wagenen, co-founder of the Sundance Film Festival and producer of Academy-Award winning film Trip to Bountiful, is scheduled to direct a new independent film titled Heart of Africa.  The film, with a script written by novelist and documentary-maker Margaret Blair Young, is set in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and is based on real events.  With some B-roll shot, funds for the next stage of production are currently be raised through Kickstarter.  According to the film's Kickstarter page:

"Heart of Africa" is a feature film set in the Democratic Republic of Congo, a country consistently misrepresented. We will show it in its dignity and beauty.  The film is based on experiences of  missionaries there, both African and Anglo. One of the missionaries is a Congolese former revolutionary and another a young man from Idaho who has heretofore not seen black people. Aime Mbuyi, who was a revolutionary before he became a missionary, has provided the screenwriter with full descriptions of the revolutionary meetings, including the songs sung at the boarding school where the revolutionaries lived.
The film will be bi-continental, much of it filmed in South Africa using the "Out of Africa" production team, with portions shot in Kinshasa, DR-Congo.


In  addition to co-founding the Sundance Film Festival, Van Wagenen was the founding executive director of the Sundance Institute in association with Robert Redford, He has directed four feature films as well as several documentaries and television episodes, and has produced over fourteen feature films, documentaries, and television series, including The Trip to Bountiful, co-produced with playwright Horton Foote and starring Geraldine Page and John Heard. He collaborated again with Foote on Convicts, starring Robert Duvall and James Earl Jones. In 1986 he and Foote were nominated for an Independent Spirit Award as producers of The Trip to Bountiful, and in 1987 they won a Wise Owl Award for the film. In 1992 he won a Crystal Heart Award as director of Alan and Naomi.

For more information on Heart of Africa, see https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/868807300/heart-of-africa and https://www.facebook.com/HeartOfAfricaFilm.


Saturday, February 14, 2015

Heart of Africa: The Kickstarter campaign (February 7 to March 17, 2015)

Margaret Blair Young (my brilliant and beautiful wife) is working on a feature film titled Heart of Africa, focusing on struggles to overcome prejudice and build relationships across racial and cultural lines. The film's director will be Sterling Van Wagenen--one of the industry's best. (See https://www.kickstarter.com/profiles/868807300/bio, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterling_Van_Wagenen, and IMDB.com.)

Margaret Blair Young and Bruce Young

Margaret is currently raising funds through a Kickstarter campaign that ends on March 17--meaning midnight at the end of the day on March 16.  The goal is $30,000, which will allow filming to begin.  But far more is needed to complete the filming.  She is also seeking funding from foundation grants and is hoping either that the Kickstarter campaign will lead to two or three (or more) times the goal she has set, or that she will secure investors after the end of the Kickstarter campaign.

Either way, a successful Kickstarter campaign is critical.  As you may know, the way Kickstarter works is that we must reach our goal or else we'll get nothing.  In other words, none of the contributions end up being charged to those who have contributed unless the goal of $30,000 is reached by midnight on March 16.  Then on March 17, the contributions are charged to the contributors' accounts.  If the goal isn't reached, nothing happens.

We are currently on track but must sustain this activity for another couple of weeks in order to attain the goal.  (When I first wrote this post--on February 14--we had a little over a month left.  We're now down to a little over two weeks.)  Of the many who are interested in what Margaret is doing, we need a couple of hundred more to contribute for the Kickstarter campaign to be successful.  In a nutshell, we need--and deeply appreciate--your help and support.

Margaret's Kickstarter page-- https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/868807300/heart-of-africa --includes a brief video and a description that will tell you more about the project.  You'll also find a list of rewards for contributions at various levels.  Here I want to share some thoughts about what it will take to attain the goal.  I'll also provide links to other material related to the project.


How much should you contribute?

The short answer, of course, is however much you'd like. Any amount is helpful and is appreciated. We understand that people's circumstances vary. And besides people's ability to contribute, their excitement about and commitment to the project may motivate them to stretch further than they would otherwise.  (As you become familiar with the project, I believe you will in fact be excited about it and want to help support it.)

Given all the variables, I thought it might be helpful for you to know where we're at right now and how much it will take for the campaign to be successful.

As of this moment1--early morning on Friday, February 27--279 people have contributed, and the total contributed is $22,582.  The average contribution is about $81, but contributions range from several at $5 to six $1000 contributions.  17 days remain to reach the goal of $30,000.  (As I noted above, if the goal is not reached, we get nothing.)

We hope for additional contributions at the $1000 level or even higher.  But obviously the bulk of contributions will be smaller than that.  If we can sustain an average contribution of $75 to $100, we are very likely to make our goal.  If the average drops below that, we will simply need more people to contribute.

Here's what the math says.  To attain the remaining $7418, we would need one of the following:
*1484 people contributing $5 each
*297 people contributing $25 each
*149 people contributing $50 each
*99 contributing $75 each
or
*75 people contributing $100 each

I'm sure there are another 100 people or more out there willing to contribute, so if we average $75 for each contribution, I think we're safe.  But to really be safe, I think we're going to need to increase the average contribution or persuade a couple of hundred people or more to contribute.  So consider this an invitation to contribute.

Here's what I recommend:

If you can only give a little, I hope you can contribute at least $25--though een less than that will help, and will be appreciated.  If you have the means to do so, I would recommend contributing $50 or $100 or more, depending on how strongly you feel about Margaret's project.

For those of you who genuinely have enough and to spare in abundance, contributions of several hundred dollars or even a thousand or more would be greatly appreciated and would not only help guarantee the campaign's success but would help ensure adequate funding for the beginning stages of the project.  (And if you've looked at the list of reward, you'll know that a contribution of $5000 means you'll be invited to the premiere in Africa or the later premiere in the U.S.)


Aimé and Steffy Mbuyi
 just after their sealing in the Accra Ghana Temple
 (
Aimé is the former Congolese revolutionary on whose experiences Margaret's film is based)

Why contribute?

I realize that even those of you who are blessed with great abundance have many competing projects to which you might lend your support.  All I can say is that Margaret's film is among the projects worthy of your support.  This is more than just your everyday feature film.  The plan is for it to premiere in Africa and help launch an almost non-existent film industry in the Congo.  The film will help change perceptions of Africa--especially central Africa, about which many terribly inaccurate misconceptions remain.  Margaret has visited the Congo and spent time with families there.  We knows that these are beautiful, gifted, intelligent, peace-loving people with the potential to accomplish wonderful things.

The film also will convey a powerful message about building relationships and understanding across cultural and racial divides.  It is based on real experiences of Mormon missionaries in central Africa and helps portray the struggles and miracles experienced by people we have come to know and love.

Other items of interest

I'll be adding more material here over time.  But I'll start will a link to the "teaser" or more accurately a sort of mock up trailer for the film.  This was intended to give some idea of what the film would be about--but not necessarily using the actors or locations that will end up in the finished film.  (For one thing, I have my screen debut here--but I don't plan to be in the finished film.)

HEART OF AFRICA trailer: https://www.dropbox.com/s/3sanbsefr5btx16/Heart%20of%20Africa%206-22.mp4

(See additional links below.)

The filming of the trailer was directed by Mallory Everton (well known as a member of BYU Television's Studio C).  Here are some photos of the filming:





ADDITIONAL LINKS:

Heart of Africa Q&A (at "Wheat & Tares")

"Coming Soon: Heart of Africa (and more!)" (at LDS Cinema Online) 

"Mormon Woman, Artist, Filmmaker on Heart of Africa" (Margaret's Interview with Lisa Torcasso Downing)

"Will Mormon missionaries lead the way out of racism?" (Margaret's guest post on Jana Riess's "Flunking Sainthood")

"Heart of Africa with Margaret Blair Young" (podcast with Brian Kissell at "Rational Faiths")

"Studio C and Heart of Africa" (the story of the involvement two Studio C members--Mallory Everton and Stacey Harkey--have had with the project)

The provisional trailer (directed by Mallory Everton)

also a series of articles at Meridian Magazine:
(1) http://ldsmag.com/the-revolutionary-takes-a-bride/
(2) http://ldsmag.com/the-problem-with-an-eight-cow-wife/
(3) http://ldsmag.com/divine-orchestration-in-africa/
(4) http://ldsmag.com/monuments-to-a-dark-past-and-a-bright-future-in-africa/


********************************
1What I originally wrote when I published this post was this: "As of this moment--Saturday morning, February 14--76 people have contributed, and the total contributed is $7601.  The average contribution is about $100, but contributions range from several at $5 to three $1000 contributions.  30 days remain to reach the goal of $30,000.  (As I noted above, if the goal is not reached, we get nothing.)"  Obviously, we have continued doing well since then.  My next revision of the post read: "As of Wednesday, February 18, at 3:30 p.m.--168 people have contributed, and the total contributed is $12, 858." The average contribution had dropped to a little over $75.  My estimate of what remained to do on February 14 was this:
   "To attain the remaining $22,400, we would need one of the following:
    *4480 people contributing $5 each
    *896 people contributing $25 each
    *448 people contributing $50 each
    or
    *224 people contributing $100 each"
The revised version of the post (above) gives my current estimate.