Thread by @AmPowerBlog

I’ve written a Ph.D. dissertation. Section one here is a nefarious, scurrilous, and indefensible smokescreen for what’s going on with Kevin Kruse. Blaming dropped footnotes on word processors? Pfft. Not a thing. I could go on, and I will. 🤨 #KevinKruse #Plagiarism @Princeton

https://twitter.com/LDBurnett/status/1539238496337989632

Any well-read non-academic would lol, lol, lol at your argument after reading the actual comparison of Ronald Bayor and #KevinKruse passages. Your plea here for “common knowledge” is eminently risible. Kruse’s graf is a classic copy and paste job. Good as a reputable thief’s.

.@Princeton See here: 🤔📚🤨 #KevinKruse #Princeton #Plagiarism reason.com/2022/06/14/twi…

Next you write, “A prominent scholar with many admirers and many detractors has been publicly and credibly accused of plagiarizing six sentences in his dissertation…” That’s argumentum ad verecundiam (arguing from authority). That’s model use of logical fallacy as method. Shame.

.@Princeton It does not matter if #KevinKruse is a “prominent scholar with many admirers.” He could a horribly inept scholar with no admirers and the same rules of honesty and integrity in writing would apply. #Plagiarism #Princeton

At the same graf: “Everyone who believes they have something to gain by damaging that scholar’s reputation will now be poring over everything he has ever published to see if they can find some further examples of unattributed use.” …

… As well they should. It’s not like social science and history in academe have some angelic reputation already. No one needs an axe to grind in wanting to restore the prior credibility and esteem of the historical profession. You’re making a straw man argument. #KevinKruise 🫤

More, you write: “To say ‘it is not clear how much else Kruse borrowed’ implies that he did in fact borrow some amount of content from these authors or other authors, and that the lack of clarity is merely over the question of quantity, ‘how much’.” And then …

… “This sentence from the Reason piece is bad-faith argumentation on steroids.” As someone once said, “It takes one to know one.” Who’s *really* making the bad faith argument here? Defending the indefensible is not a good look, and two can play the partisan motivations game. 🙄

Further, you write: “In either case, it’s unfortunate that the author of the Reason piece has accidentally or intentionally mischaracterized aspects of standard and responsible historical practice as instances of academic dishonesty.” “Accidentally” and “intentionally”…

… is doing the devils work here. You’re ascribing, in identical language, the absence of integrity of the accused to author of the accusations. This is rank moral equivalence when there is none. #KevinKruse’s work deserves — no, demands — a thorough investigative review. 😠📚🤔

But it appears, as far as you’re concerned, it’s better to kill the prosecutor than have the defendant stand trial. If and when the case of #KevinKruse goes to “committee” you will have poisoned the well before anyone’s had a draft. #Princeton @Princeton

Finally, there’s this: “It’s certainly possible that the author of the Reason piece does not understand standard and responsible historical scholarship and thus is unable to distinguish between unattributed paraphrase, attributed paraphrase…” That’s ad hominem. … #KevinKruse

… An against the man argument. You’ve already claimed the Reason author is perhaps ignorant of the historian’s practice. Now you’re just trying to besmirch his name, which is both unserious and reprehensible. The question is why are you doing this? 😡🤷‍♂️📚 #KevinKruse @Princeton