A plagiarist, says my 1926 Webster’s, is “an artistic or literary thief.” The word comes from plagium, Latin for “kidnapping.” To plagiarize, then, is not simply to steal, but to steal something as important as someone else’s child. This past week, sadly, we’ve seen two high-profile literary kidnappings.

The less important (though more widely reported) happened at Harvard, where sophomore Kaavya Viswanathan saw her first novel withdrawn from bookstores by publisher Little, Brown. The reason? As many as 40 passages of her popular book copied language and situations from two earlier books by novelist Megan McCafferty. Ms. Viswanathan has claimed that she unintentionally “internalized” McCafferty’s words and that “any phrasing similarities between her works and mine were completely unintentional and unconscious.” The parallels were first reported by the Harvard Crimson.

That sounds suspiciously like the excuse given by Raytheon CEO William Swanson, the week’s other kidnapper. His 76-page booklet, “Swanson’s Unwritten Rules of Management,” had catapulted him to guru-dom for its pithy, common-sense maxims about management. Now, thanks to the sleuthing of a California chemical engineer, some 17 of his 33 rules can be traced to The Unwritten Laws of Engineering, a 1944 book by W. J. King, an engineering professor at UCLA. Not only is the language identical, but the rules even appear in the same order.

Of the two, his is the worse offense. Not only as CEO but now as management doyen, his example stands to influence future Kaavya Viswanathans by the thousands. Surveys by the Center for Academic Integrity find that undergraduates may be particularly susceptible to the temptations of plagiarism: Some 40 percent of them already plagiarize, and about two-thirds don’t see anything wrong with doing so. Unfortunately, Mr. Swanson’s eight-sentence statement, issued after his outing, seems to agree. It provides ammunition for sophomore plagiarists to argue that, in fact, plagiarism isn’t a very important crime.

“The lessons that lie at the heart of the ‘Unwritten Rules,’ ” Swanson begins, “were gathered over a lifetime of experience, reading and listening.” Student translation: As long as I have important things to say about my own life, what’s a little kidnapping got to do with it?

“The result,” he continues, “is an unpublished work that is available free of charge to any interested reader.” Translation: I’m not publishing this student paper for profit, so what’s the fuss?

While that sentence doesn’t apply to Ms. Viswanathan, who signed a half-million-dollar deal with her publisher, the next one should give her comfort. “I sought to provide credit at the front of the ‘Unwritten Rules,’ ” Mr. Swanson explains, “to all those unnamed sources who had, over the course of my life, contributed a thought or an idea relevant to the compiled work.” Translation: Any amount of plagiarism can be covered by a blanket statement crediting unnamed sources, with no need for the annoyance of having to credit exact sources.

Only then, four sentences deep, comes the acknowledgement that should have been the lead sentence: “The similarity of the language between Professor King’s 1944 book and some of the rules within the ‘Unwritten Rules’ is beyond dispute.” But the tone of this admission doesn’t even hint at chagrin, regret, or apology. The next sentence, in fact, brushes off the core of the kidnapping charge — “the similarity of the language” — with an extraordinary assertion that “the originality of the material was never the rules themselves, but my expression of them in terms of my experience over the years.” Translation: Take whatever you want, and as long as you apply it to your own experience, you’ll never have to fess up to its source.

Finally, he notes that “I regret that over the course of the years and in the process of compiling the ‘Unwritten Rules,’ any reference to Professor King’s work was not properly credited.” Good. But what action will he take? Will he withdraw the booklet? Revise it? Admit that his earlier explanation — that his rules were scrawled at different times on slips of paper that he then happened to assemble into the same order as King did — was disingenuous?

No, nothing of the sort. Instead, he ends dismissively, trying to make light of the whole affair. “This experience has taught me a valuable lesson — new Rule #34: ‘Regarding the truisms of human behavior, there are no original rules.’” Translation: Since nothing is original, there’s no need to honor human creativity — and, therefore, there’s no such thing as plagiarism.

What lies ahead for these two kidnappers? Ms. Viswanathan, after editing and reissuing her book, could become a celebrity author, widely known but forever tainted. Or, after some soul-searching, she could become a recognized exponent against kidnapping, speaking out powerfully against plagiarism.

Mr. Swanson already has public recognition, which he’s using to send a deeply confused signal to today’s youth. But his story is not over. Might he also, on deep reflection, realize that last week changed his life forever and take to the bully pulpit as a reformed kidnapper?

©2006 Institute for Global Ethics

“It is time for national leadership in the war on gun violence, and if the leadership won’t come from Congress or come from the White House, then it has to come from us. When Congress does not take the lead on a major problem that affects the whole nation — whether it’s global warming, welfare, immigration — it’s up to the cities and states to do it.”

– New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg (R), announcing a new initiative by mayors from 15 U.S. cities to combat illegal firearms and gun violence. Mayors from Boston, Dallas, Milwaukee, Philadelphia, Seattle, and Washington were among those joining Bloomberg in accusing the federal government of failing to act responsibly to tackle the problem. (“Seeking a National Voice, 15 Mayors Meet on Gun Violence,” New York Times, Apr. 26)

SEOUL
In what local and international media characterize as an astounding development, prosecutors in South Korea last week arrested and jailed the chairman of Hyundai Motor Corporation, Chung Mong-koo, on charges that he embezzled more than $100 million to create a slush fund used to influence government officials.

The Associated Press reported that the arrest followed weeks of investigations and has refocused attention on the role of giant corporations in South Korea and the way powerful tycoons operate those firms as virtual family empires.

According to a report from Barbara Demmick, the Seoul correspondent for the Los Angeles Times, the arrest was virtually unprecedented in South Korea’s history: “The sight of Chung Mong-koo, square-jawed titan of the ruling establishment, being led off to jail sent a shock wave through the country,” she wrote. “Although there have been past campaigns to clean up South Korea’s chaebol, as conglomerates are known here, rarely has anyone so prominent been arrested in such a public spectacle.”

The Seoul-based Korea Times reported that the arrest has shaken deeply the giant automaker, with management scrambling to reorganize. The aftershocks were felt immediately, the Times reported, when on Friday, Hyundai affiliate Kia Motors said it would scrap its plan to build plants in Thailand and in other South Asian countries, which were supposed to produce 100,000 cars annually.

Anxieties are running deep about the future direction of the probe, according to the Chosun Ilbo, one of Korea’s largest daily newspapers. Prosecutors are poised act against those suspected of taking kickbacks — an ominous development for many politicians because local elections are scheduled for May 31 — and say they plan to indict “nine or 10″ more Hyundai executives.

LONDON
The head of a public watchdog agency last week accused British prime minister Tony Blair of not giving enough priority to ethics in government.

Sir Alistair Graham, chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, told members of Parliament that he is “disappointed that this particular prime minister does not have a high sense of priorities on ethical issues,” the Manchester Guardian reported.

Graham specifically cited the “cash for honors” scandal, in which it is alleged that contributors to favored projects of Blair’s government were given seats in the House of Lords, the unelected upper chamber of British Parliament.

Things went from bad to worse for Blair last week as it was revealed that his deputy prime minister, John Prescott, had an affair with his secretary. Lurid details of the relationship have been splashed across the front pages of London’s tabloid media and have dominated headlines in mainstream media as well.

While the British seem generally more accepting than the U.S. public of a dividing line between public life and private indiscretions, the affair could carry some serious political repercussions, according to the BBC. Watchdog Graham stated that while private behavior is only an issue if it affects ministers’ jobs, there could be an issue in this case because a civil servant was involved.

According to a report from the London Daily Telegraph, opponents want to know if the affair amounted to using civil servants for political purposes because Prescott had his secretary, Tracey Temple, accompany him on the last election tour. They also want to know if Prescott used his official government residence for romantic trysts.

UPI reports that Blair’s bad week got even worse when it was revealed that Home Secretary Charles Clarke admitted that hundreds of foreign nationals were mistakenly released from British prisons without any steps taken to deport them. The London Independent is also claiming that Clarke attempted to downplay the incident by withholding a breakdown of the serious crimes for which the prisoners had been sentenced.

WASHINGTON
House Republican leaders appear poised to vote on a new ethics reform bill this week, but the measure faces a variety of obstacles, including dissention from within the party, a narrow procedural vote last week that almost scrapped the deal, and some skepticism that any real reform will result from the measure.

Late last week, the house voted 216-to-207 to advance debate on the bill, but only after GOP leaders engaged in some back-room arm-twisting that involved persuading members of the Appropriations Committee to agree to provisions that limit so-called earmarks, special-interest projects tacked on to broad spending packages, according to reports from the Associated Press.

UPI reported that the toughened earmark language would require increased disclosure of who inserted the special spending measures. Currently, lawmakers are allowed some measure of anonymity when attaching pet projects to a spending bill.

According to USA Today, the bill as advanced also would require more frequent disclosure reports of lobbying activities, mandatory ethics training for lawmakers and staff, harsher penalties for violating disclosure rules, a ban on corporate-funded travel until the end of the year, and a limit on donations to independent political groups.

But the package still faces virtually unanimous opposition from Democrats, who say the measure falls short of what Congress needs and are seeking to exploit Republican ethics scandals in the upcoming midterm elections. Some opposition also comes from a dozen or so moderate Republicans who say the bill is too weak, according to a report from the Knight Ridder news service.

VARIOUS
The ethical dimensions of immigration were highlighted in a variety of unfolding stories last week. A snapshot of some of the key issues:

• Nationwide demonstrations planned for May 1 to support immigrants’ rights are causing some divisions among pro-immigration factions. Organizers have called on immigrants to skip jobs and school, but many immigrants fear losing their jobs or worry that not showing up for work or classes will simply send the wrong message. In San Jose, California, where the student population is 51 percent Latino, officials last week asked children not to skip school but urged teachers to discuss immigration in class, according to the San Jose Mercury News.
• With a flood of Mexicans entering the United States illegally, some Americans and U.S. lawmakers are countering claims that the United States takes advantage of immigrants by asking why Mexico shouldn’t be expected to treat its citizens better, thus stemming the exodus, according to an analysis from Voice of America. According to the report, many observers assert that Mexico keeps its economy centered in the hands of a few wealthy and powerful groups that have no interest in benefiting anyone in Mexico except the business elite. Researchers cited in the piece say that Mexico regards illegal immigration to the United States as an economic “safety valve” and relies on money sent back home by immigrants as a major source of revenue.
• The immigration issue is blinking brightly on the political radar in France, where a politician known for a get-tough stance is gaining traction in a country recently torn by demonstrations fueled partly by the frustrations of immigrants who say they face discrimination and limited opportunity. The Paris-based International Herald Tribune reported that Nicolas Sarkozy, characterized by the paper as a “media-savvy interior minister with presidential ambitions,” has raised emotions and eyebrows with a recent remark to the effect that if immigrants are bothered by conditions in France, they shouldn’t be afraid to leave. France’s National Assembly is slated to begin debate this week on an immigration reform bill sponsored by Sarkozy.

OTTAWA
A 30-year-old trade war between the United States and Canada appears to have been tentatively settled.

Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper said that under terms of the seven-year deal, the United States would not impose tariffs on Canadian software lumber exports to the States, according to a report from the Toronto Globe & Mail.

In addition, the CBC reported, the United States has agreed to return $4 billion of the $5 billion in duties it imposed on the Canadian lumber industry.

For its part of the deal, Canada has agreed to set quotas on the amount of lumber sold to the United States.

The dispute centers on U.S.-imposed duties on Canadian softwood lumber instituted in retaliation for the Canadian government’s alleged subsidization of lumber companies and the dumping of Canadian lumber in U.S. markets at artificially low prices — charges that Canada denied and appealed to the World Trade Organization, which ruled that imposition of the duties was in violation of international trade rules.

While final ratification of the pact may take weeks or months, according to the Toronto Star, the agreement was made at the highest levels, apparently fast-tracked after a conversation between Prime Minister Harper and President Bush.

IRVING, Tex.
Last week’s announcement that ExxonMobil earned more than $8 billion in its first quarter — dissonantly timed with record prices at the pump along with the announcement of a U.S. Senate probe into oil company profits — has started a debate about how much money a company can ethically earn.

The Texas-based firm sought to minimize the damage by paying for full-page ads in major newspapers claiming that its massive profits would not only benefit shareholders but would ultimately help consumers by allowing the firm to expand refining capacity, explore for new reserves, and develop environmentally friendly technologies, ABC News reported.

But critics, among them several prominent congressional Democrats, argue that corporate profiteering is at the root of high gas prices, rather than supply and demand factors related to crude oil supplies, according to reports from the Agence France-Presse and the Chicago Tribune.

An analysis by the Fort Worth Star-Telegram noted that depending on one’s point of view, “justifiable” opinions of oil company profits can be found at several points of the ethical compass. “From a capitalist perspective, it’s great,” said Southern Methodist University business professor Mel Fulgate. Shareholders, he said, may argue that they “can’t earn too much.”

But “then you have the consumer, who can argue, ‘Yes, you can make too much.’ Big Oil is an oligarchy…. You don’t need a Ph.D. to realize gas is over $3 a gallon again, and it matters, that people suffer because of it,” Fulgate told the Star-Telegram.

HOUSTON
Former Enron chairman Ken Lay went on the offensive during cross-examination in his fraud and conspiracy trial last week, acknowledging that he violated Enron’s code of ethics and tried to contact witnesses in the case against him, but denying that he misled investors about the company’s health.

According to reports from the New York Times and Forbes, Lay admitted running afoul of an ethics code he had implemented by investing in a company run by a friend of codefendant Jeff Skilling. Lay however maintained that his attempts to contact potential witnesses were simply efforts to see if their recollection of a meeting matched his, and did not amount to witness tampering, as characterized by the prosecution.

Under cross-examination, Lay maintained that it was a “classic run on the bank” that brought down Enron, not fraud or pilfering by executives. Lay said that panicky press reports fueled the exodus by investors, and claimed that if the public had not dumped Enron shares and if the financial community had not shied away from lending more money, the firm would have remained solvent, the Associated Press reported.

Lay also blamed other Enron executives for providing him with inaccurate financial data.

Lay, known as a smooth and courtly executive, took an unexpectedly aggressive approach, often interrupting his own lawyer as well as the prosecutor, a stance that many courtroom observers speculate will hurt him in the long run, the Houston Chronicle reported. Previously, codefendant Jeff Skilling — known for his explosive temper — remained calm and firm through withering cross-examination and maintained that he, too, was the victim of unscrupulous and incompetent underlings as well as panic among Enron investors.

WASHINGTON
The U.S. Supreme Court last week appeared split along liberal-conservative lines on a troubling ethical and legal question that has surfaced in a recent high-profile case: Do prisoners executed by lethal injection suffer undetectable but agonizing pain as they are dying?

According to the New York Times, the Supreme Court case balances on the narrow legal issue of whether an inmate who has lost an appeal in federal court can challenge the method of execution. In arguments last week, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Antonin Scalia argued against that contingency, saying that inmates would use the new category of suits to delay executions.

The Boston Globe noted that the eventual outcome may rest on the shoulders of Justice Anthony Kennedy, now regarded as the court’s swing voter following the retirement of Sandra Day O’Connor. During the back-and-forth that often accompanies oral questioning of lawyers before the Supreme Court, Kennedy chided his fellow justices for their levity, saying, “This is a death case. It’s not that amusing.”

The case in question involves Florida inmate Clarence Hill, who is attempting to secure a hearing to challenge lethal injections on constitutional grounds, saying the practice violates protections against cruel and unusual punishment, Reuters reported.

Hill, according to USA Today, was convicted of murdering a police officer in 1982.

His lawyers argue that the three-drug process — an anesthetic, a paralyzing agent, and a poison that stops the heart — can cause pain because the potassium chloride poison burns the lining of the veins. If poorly trained personnel botch the administration of the anesthetic, Hill’s lawyers argue, the inmate will suffer excruciating pain that will be undetectable because of the paralysis, the Washington Post reported.

TORONTO
A Canadian pediatric cardiologist last week warned parents that instilling proper eating habits in their children has become a critical ethical decision that may produce an unprecedented crisis.

Dr. Brian McCrindle says a growing body of evidence shows that childhood obesity has become such a severe problem that this may be the first generation in history where parents routinely outlive their children, the Toronto Sun reported.

McCrindle, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Toronto, said that doctors are seeing an alarming increase in obesity-related illnesses in children, according to the Globe & Mail. He noted that in addition to drastically increasing early mortality, the problem could stretch the health-care system to the point of bankruptcy.

“This epidemic of pediatric obesity may become the most important and devastating public health challenge of the twenty-first century,” McCrindle said, according to a report from CTV.

CTV noted that Canada and the United States have a high percentage of obesity-related illnesses compared to the rest of the globe, and that in the United States an estimated one-half of hospitalized inpatients weigh more than 300 pounds.

MINNEAPOLIS
Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, a 600-employee company in Waterbury, Vermont — a firm that sends its employees on trips to monitor conditions where their coffee is grown — was voted No. 1 this year on the list of the 100 Best Corporate Citizens complied by Business Ethics Magazine.

According to the magazine, Green Mountain has become increasingly active in the countries where coffee is grown and has supported the so-called fair trade movement, which pays coffee growers stable, fair prices. The company began sending employees to visit coffee-growing sites in the early 1990s, and supports various social programs in the areas where it harvests coffee.

The rest of the top 10 is dominated by tech firms: Hewlett-Packard, is No. 2, followed in order by Advanced Micro Devices, Motorola, Agilent Technologies, Salesforce.com, Cisco Systems, Dell, and Texas Instruments.

The magazine says its list is compiled by measuring how well firms provide good jobs for employees, a clean environment, responsible relations with the community, and reliable products for consumers.

From Business Ethics:

“Business Ethics Magazine has released its annual survey of the ‘100 Best Corporate Citizens’ in the Spring 2006 issue published today. The closely-watched survey has gained national recognition as an indicator of best practices in the area of corporate social responsibility.

“This year’s ‘100 Best’ list is led by Green Mountain Coffee Roasters of Waterbury, Vermont, which was cited for its ‘meticulous attention to corporate social responsibility,’ including its pioneering work in the fair trade movement, which pays coffee growers stable, fair prices. Green Mountain has been among the top 10 companies on Business Ethics’ list for four years running.

“Now in its seventh year, the list for 2006 is striking because of the dominance of technology firms among the top 10….

“Why the strong showing by tech? ‘Surprisingly, it’s not due to financial out-performance,’ said Marjorie Kelly, Editor of Business Ethics, ’since none of the top tech companies ranked in the top 10 in financial returns.’ Instead, Kelly noted, most top tech companies do well on environmental issues. They also tend to be active in their communities and score high in employee relations, she said. ‘These firms know that to attract and retain talent, it pays to be socially enlightened. High-tech seems to be a genuinely socially responsible sector.’

“The list saw quite a bit of turnover from 2005, with 33 companies appearing for the first time. Newcomers Johnson & Johnson and McGraw-Hill Companies score particularly high in workforce diversity. Newcomer Milwaukee-based Johnson Controls rates high marks because of products that help conserve energy….

“The universe of companies considered for the list encompasses U.S. firms in the Russell 1000, the S&P 500, and KLD’s Domini 400 Social Index. These firms are ranked on their performance in eight stakeholder categories: shareholders, community, governance, diversity, employees, environment, human rights, and product….

” ‘Being a good corporate citizen requires focus, dedication, and hard work. The companies on our list are to be congratulated’ said Michael Connor, Publisher and Executive Editor of Business Ethics….”

“All higher motives, ideals, conceptions, sentiments in a man are of no account if they do not come forward to strengthen him for the better discharge of the duties which devolve upon him in the ordinary affairs of life.”

– Henry Ward Beecher (U.S. clergyman, 1813-1887)