nature and his existentialnnature man speaks ofncreation, (p. 125)nnature and his existentialnnature man speaks ofn”creation.” (pp. 45-46)nKing has not only lifted this entire passage from Boozer’sntext, but he has even copied an error in punctuation. Thengrammatically incorrect comma between the two words Inhave italicized in both paragraphs does not appear in the textnof Tillich, who correctly punctuated with a period. Boozer,nin quoting these lines from page 252 of volume one ofnTillich’s Systematic Theology, mistakenly copied the periodnas a comma, and King simply copied Boozer’s mistake.nMore problems arise in the pages concluding King’snsection on Tillich. On page 159 King states that both he andnthe reader have now come to a question that has beenn”cropping up throughout our discussion of Tillich’s Godconcept,nviz., the question of whether Tillich holds to annabsolute quantitative monism.” The reader can feel thenbuild up to King’s exposition of his thesis, the pivotal pointnto which his previous one hundred and fifty pages have beennleading. Not surprisingly, this just happens to be one of thencrucial questions to which Boozer also builds. As Boozernstates on page 60, “We come now to a crucial issue for annunderstanding of Tillich. Is man a part of God in annabsolute quantitative monism?” Virtually every line ofnKing’s concluding remarks on pages 159 and 160 can benfound on pages 60 through 63 of Boozer’s dissertation.nKing:nPerhaps Tillich’s mostnexplicit statement ofnmonism is his contentionnthat “man’s love ofnGod is the love withnwhich God lovesnhimself . . . The divinenlife is the divinenself-love.” . . . Passagesnsuch as these citednindicate an absolutenmonism. . . . Tillichnaffirms that there wouldnbe no history unless mannwere to some degree free;nthat is, to some extent,nindependent from God.n. . . He [man] is to somenextent “outside” thendivine life. This meansnthat he stands “innactualized freedom, in annexistence which is nonlonger united withnessence.” (p. 160)nBoozer:nBut perhaps the mostnconvincing statement ofnmonism is in terms ofnlove, that “man’s love ofnGod is the love withnwhich God lovesnhimself. . . . The divinenlife is the divinenself-love.” . . . Passagesnsuch as these certainlynindicate an absolutenmonism. . . . Therenwould be no historynunless man were to somendegree free; that is, tonsome degree independentnfrom God. … Hen[man] is to some extentn”outside” the divine life.n”To be outside the divinenlife means to stand innactualized freedom, in annexistence which is nonlonger united withnessence.” (pp. 62-63)nKing couldn’t even resist Boozer’s concluding comparisons.nBoozer, page 61: “The similarity of Tillich’s theology withnHegel’s philosophy of spirit and Plotinus’ philosophy of thenOne inclines one to interpret Tillich as an absolute monist.”nKing, pages 159-160: “The similarity of Tillich’s view at thisnpoint to Hegel’s philosophy of spirit and Plotinus’ philoso­n28/CHRONICLESnnnphy of the One inclines one to interpret Tillich as annabsolute monist.”nIt is amid these concluding remarks that King commitsnanother error. King quotes the following from Tillich onnpage 159 of his thesis: “God is infinite because he has thenfinite within himself united with his infinity.” Boozer usesnthis same quotation on page 61 of his thesis. Boozer,nhowever, mistakenly credits it to page 282 of volume one ofnTillich’s Systematic Theology, whereas the correct pagennumber is 252. King again copies Boozer’s mistake and alsontypes page 282 for his footnote to this quote. Interestinglynenough, Boozer’s next line in this paragraph is anothernquotation from page 252 of Tillich’s text—“The divine lifenis creative, actualizing itself in inexhaustible abundance.”nNot surprisingly, King follows with the same quote. Thisntime, however. Boozer correctly cites page 252 in hisnfootnote. King, still following Boozer’s previous mistake,ncondnues incorrectly to cite page 282.nNo further evidence is needed to conclude that Kingnplagiarized his doctoral dissertation. But many questionsnremain, such as how Professor L. Harold DeWolf, the firstnreader of both Boozer’s and King’s dissertations, could havenoverlooked — intentionally or unintentionally — the similaritiesnbetween the two theses. And what are we to make of thendisingenuous statements made by the editors of the Kingnpapers, whose reputations — by their own admission — arenon the line? The idea that they needed nine months tonreview the evidence is absurd. A few hours with each text isnall that is necessary.nThe story of King’s plagiarism has been suppressed fornone simple reason: fear — fear of the massive retaliation thatnwill be visited upon anyone who attempts to set the historicalnrecord straight, not just on King and his dissertation but onnany historical incident on which the powers that be havendeclared an ofiEcial position. Perhaps the editors of thisnmagazine would have been wiser had they ignored thisnentire matter. But evidence of a cover-up made up ournminds. We have learned, for example, that high-levelnadministrators at several major universities have attempted tonsuppress this story and that at least one scholar has beennbullied into silence. We also wonder why the NationalnEndowment for the Humanities, which funds the Kingnpapers project and is well aware of the charge of plagiarism,nhas yet to take any action.nBut other academic issues are also at stake. If one cannbelieve the stories, plagiarism is on the rise in Americannuniversities. The most noted victim of plagiarism, StephennNissenbaum, has remarked {The Chronicle of HighernEducation, March 28, 1990) both upon the frequency ofnthe crime and upon the academy’s refusal to do anythingnabout it for fear of getting involved or appearing to passnjudgment. As he concludes, “To be willing to pass judgmentnis to protect everybody — not only those who are victimizednby plagiarism, but also those who are falsely accused of it.”nThen there is the reproof administered by the “adninterim” president of Boston University (see the Polemics &nExchanges section of this issue). Mr. Westling insists thatnscholars have “scrupulously examined and re-examined”nKing’s dissertation without being able to identify “a singleninstance of plagiarism” — no “misattributed quotations,” non”misleading paraphrases,” and no “thoughts borrowed with-n