whitewash in a January 16 article in thenChronicle of Higher Education. In antangle of half-truths and misrepresentations,nMr. Carson comes to the nubnof the matter: “His legitimate utilizationnof political, philosophical, and literaryntexts — particularly those expressingnthe nation’s democratic idealsn— inspired and mobilized many Americans,nthereby advancing the cause ofnsocial justice.” Translation: plagiarismnis excusable if done for the furtherancenof “politically correct” causes. Havingnsettled the ethical question for us, Mr.nCarson then says we are to admiren”King as the pre-eminent Americannorator of the 20th century,” even whilen”recognizing that textual appropriationnwas one aspect of a successful compositionnmethod.” It has always beennrealized that orators and scholars dontheir work in a tradition in which ideasnand expressions can become commonnproperty, but what would we think ofnBurke or Lincoln if they systematicallynattempted to pass off the work of othernmen as their own? The answer is clear:nwe would classify them with the likes ofna Joe Biden — or a Martin LuthernKing.nMr. Muelder’s letter also clarifiesnsomething about Jon Westling of BostonnUniversity: it reveals the seriousnessnwith which Mr. Westling viewednthis matter. After John Reed’s letter,nMr. Westling contacted Mr. Mueldernand had the latter contact Mr. S. PaulnSchilling of Maryland, the secondnreader of King’s dissertation. Mr.nWestling then contacted Mrs. Kingnand the Center for King Studies innAtlanta, Clayborne Carson of Stanford,nwrote John Reed in North Carolina,nand even felt the need to addressnthe “false story” of King’s plagiarism,nwhich by his own admission wasnspreading “like whooping coughnamong the unvaccinated,” by writingnChronicles the now infamous Octobern5 letter. Mr. Westling obviously ran upna lot of phone bills and used a lot ofnstamps.nWhy, then, if Mr. Westling so clearlynunderstood the seriousness of thisnmatter and the serious repercussionsnthat such a story could have for thenreputation of the university he represents,ndid he rely exclusively on informationnfrom outside sources, some ofnwhich would have an obvious interestnin seeing such a charge denied andn6/CHRONICLESnsuch a story suppressed? Why, in othernwords, did he do everything but thensimplest and most logical and conclusivenaction of all, that of picking up thentheses and examining the evidence fornhimself? Or why, at the very least, didnhe not have an aide, or his theologyndepartment, do it for him? After all, henand Boston University were in the bestnposition of anyone to either deny ornsubstantiate the validity of the charge.nBoston University is the only universitynin the world that has both King’s andnBoozer’s dissertations.nMr. Westling has floated a numbernof excuses to justify his actions. Hisnplea to the Chicago Tribune was thatn”I’m just an academic administratorntrying to keep the story straight.” Westlingnapparently is even trying to discreditnChronicles by telling people thatnwe sat on the evidence and deliberatelyndelayed our story all in an effort tonmake him look bad. In fact, we receivedna copy of Boozer’s dissertation anmere two weeks before Mr. Westlingnsent us his letter, and we receivednBoozer’s actual dissertation from BostonnUniversity’s Interlibrary Loan Departmentnonly four days before; hisnown library would be happy to substantiatenthis fact. A first draft of my articlenwas completed within two weeks ofnreceiving the evidence, which thennbegan the three-month publishingnprocess through which all Chroniclesnarticles must pass.nBoston University had the opportunitynto control the cards in thisnmatter, but Mr. Westling gave away thengame. By placing his and his university’snreputation in the hands of ClaybornenCarson and his coterie at thenKing Papers Project, Mr. Westlingnearned the academic dunce cap awardednto him by James Warren of thenChicago Tribune.nAs we now know, a number ofnmajor newspapers knew the facts ofnthis story but deliberately refused tonpublish them. According to CharlesnBabington’s January 28, 1991, articlenin the New Republic, the WashingtonnPost, the New York Times, the AtlantanJournal/Constitution, and the NewnRepublic had all refused to run articlesnthough at least one editor at eachnpublication knew of this story as farnback as last spring. The backpeddlingnof the Wall Street Journal has beennparticularly entertaining: the Journalnnnreported the plagiarism on Novembern9, ran a November 15 editorial thatnsays King’s plagiarism doesn’t reflectnon the character of Mr. King but rathern”tells something about the rest of us,”nand then published a January 21 editorialnby a Professor George McLeannthat praises King’s plagiarized dissertationnas “a contribution to scholarshipnfor which his doctorate was richly deserved.”nThe way in which the Journal reportednthis story did not go unnoticednby the London Telegraph, whichnwrote: “such is the cravenness of thenU.S. media when it comes to race thatnno newspaper followed [our Decembern1989] story, until Friday. Then, innan article full of apologetic, mealymouthednphrases, the Wall Street Journalnconfirmed our findings.” But perhapsnthe Journal’s cravenness shouldn’tnhave surprised us. After all, the Journalntipped its hand in its November 15neditorial, when it stressed the importancenof covering this story in a “carefullynmodulated” way.nLast September we received an interestingncall from a man who describednhimself as a black college professor.nHe called in response tonThomas Fleming’s September Perspective,nthe essay in which the chargesnagainst King were mentioned andnwhich engendered the October 5 letternfrom Jon Westling. Our caller said twonthings. First, that if we had evidencenthat King was indeed a plagiarist, thennwe should publish it forthwith, whichnwe assured him we were in the processnof doing. Second, he stated that if thencharges proved to be true, then henwould propose to his colleagues thatnthe name of the hall his college hadnnamed in honor of Mr. King be immediatelynchanged. Lecturing about academicnstandards in “Martin LuthernKing Hall” would be the height ofnhypocrisy and an insult to his college,nhe said.nSuch painful honesty is apparentlynbeyond the capacity of most academics,nadministrators, and American journalists.n— Theodore PappasnWHEN NEA CHAIRMANnFrohnmayer announced last Septembernthat the funds Congress left to thenNEA after taking out a big chunk forn