Annual Fundraising Appeal
Over the course of 21 years, we’ve published many unflattering stories about Henry Kissinger. We’ve recounted his involvement in the Chilean coup and the illegal bombings of Cambodia and Laos; his hidden role in the Kent State massacre and the genocide in East Timor; his noxious influence peddling in DC and craven work for dictators and repressive regimes around the world. We’ve questioned his ethics, his morals and his intelligence. We’ve called for him to be arrested and tried for war crimes. But nothing we’ve ever published pissed off HK quite like this sequence of photos taken at a conference in Brazil, which appeared in one of the early print editions of CounterPunch.
100716HenryKissingerNosePicking
The publication of those photos, and the story that went with them, 20 years ago earned CounterPunch a global audience in the pre-web days and helped make our reputation as a fearless journal willing to take the fight to the forces of darkness without flinching. Now our future is entirely in your hands. Please donate.

Day11

Yes, these are dire political times. Many who optimistically hoped for real change have spent nearly five years under the cold downpour of political reality. Here at CounterPunch we’ve always aimed to tell it like it is, without illusions or despair. That’s why so many of you have found a refuge at CounterPunch and made us your homepage. You tell us that you love CounterPunch because the quality of the writing you find here in the original articles we offer every day and because we never flinch under fire. We appreciate the support and are prepared for the fierce battles to come.

Unlike other outfits, we don’t hit you up for money every month … or even every quarter. We ask only once a year. But when we ask, we mean it.

CounterPunch’s website is supported almost entirely by subscribers to the print edition of our magazine. We aren’t on the receiving end of six-figure grants from big foundations. George Soros doesn’t have us on retainer. We don’t sell tickets on cruise liners. We don’t clog our site with deceptive corporate ads.

The continued existence of CounterPunch depends solely on the support and dedication of our readers. We know there are a lot of you. We get thousands of emails from you every day. Our website receives millions of hits and nearly 100,000 readers each day. And we don’t charge you a dime.

Please, use our brand new secure shopping cart to make a tax-deductible donation to CounterPunch today or purchase a subscription our monthly magazine and a gift sub for someone or one of our explosive  books, including the ground-breaking Killing Trayvons. Show a little affection for subversion: consider an automated monthly donation. (We accept checks, credit cards, PayPal and cold-hard cash….)
cp-store

or use
pp1

To contribute by phone you can call Becky or Deva toll free at: 1-800-840-3683

Thank you for your support,

Jeffrey, Joshua, Becky, Deva, and Nathaniel

CounterPunch
 PO Box 228, Petrolia, CA 95558

Golden Age or Reign of Error?

Elena Kagan’s Harvard

by FRANK MENETREZ

When Elena Kagan was dean of Harvard Law School, her mishandling of a plagiarism case cost an innocent person his job while allowing the plagiarist, Professor Alan Dershowitz, to escape punishment.  Dershowitz has said that when Kagan was dean “it was a golden age” and “a very good time for the faculty.”  The Senate and the public deserve to know about the dark side of that “golden age.”

In 2003, an untenured professor at DePaul University named Norman Finkelstein accused Dershowitz of plagiarism.  Dean Kagan ordered an investigation the following year.  The investigation completely cleared Dershowitz, concluding that no plagiarism had occurred.

Harvard is the nation’s most prestigious institution of higher learning, so its vindication of Dershowitz was widely perceived as definitive.  Armed with that vindication, Dershowitz relentlessly attacked Finkelstein in letters to DePaul faculty and every available media outlet.  Those attacks would likely have been dismissed as sour grapes if the Kagan-ordered investigation had come out the other way.

My independent research later revealed, however, that Dershowitz did in fact commit plagiarism and that no honest and competent investigation could have missed it.  The University of California Press (and CounterPunch) published my findings in 2008, but by then it was too late.  Dershowitz and his official exoneration by Harvard had already killed his tenure application, and effectively ended his academic career.

One reason the whole episode is so mystifying is that, from the start, the case against Dershowitz seemed to be supported by powerful evidence.  Finkelstein argued that Dershowitz’s book The Case for Israel contained obvious errors that were identical to errors in an earlier book by a different author, so Dershowitz must have just copied that author’s work, errors and all.  Finkelstein explained the point in detail in an exchange with Dershowitz that was published in The Harvard Crimson in October 2003.

The identical errors issue was consequently well known and central to the plagiarism dispute when Kagan ordered an investigation in 2004.  But the Kagan-commissioned investigation still concluded that no plagiarism had occurred.  What happened?  Were there really no identical errors after all?

I decided to check for myself, and I quickly discovered enough identical errors to prove the plagiarism charge against Dershowitz beyond any reasonable doubt.  I looked at one of the passages identified by Finkelstein, a long quotation from Mark Twain, and found that Dershowitz’s version of the quotation and the version in the book Dershowitz was accused of plagiarizing contained 20 identical errors in a mere 21 lines of text.  Some of the errors were large (such as the omission of 87 pages of text without an ellipsis) and some were small (such as altered or missing words or punctuation), but the cumulative weight of the evidence was overwhelming.  There was no way Dershowitz could have independently generated exactly those 20 errors—he must have copied them.  It was an open-and-shut case.

So what exactly did the Kagan-commissioned investigation look at?  Did it address the identical errors issue?  (I put that question to the Harvard Law School administration myself when Kagan was still dean, but they refused to answer.)  If not, why not?  Did the investigation not even go so far as to read Harvard’s own student paper, in which the identical errors point had been raised?  And now that the truth has come out, does Kagan (or anyone else at Harvard) have anything they’d like to say to Finkelstein, the innocent man whose career was ruined?  To date, Kagan and Harvard have remained resolutely silent.

 Granted, these questions might seem of limited significance for Kagan’s Supreme Court nomination.  The answers will not tell us what she thinks about originalism or abortion or the scope of federal executive power.  But they are still relevant, because they will shed light on something equally important.  In the end, all of us will be forced to assess Kagan on the basis of what we make of her character, because the written record of her judicial philosophy is so sparse.

We consequently have no choice but to cast about for evidence that she has a good heart, a genuine commitment to justice.  Her answers to questions about the Dershowitz-Finkelstein affair might reassure us that she does.  But continuing silence would give us reason to be skeptical.

FRANK MENETREZ  contributed a detailed report on the Finkelstein/Dershowitz affair on this site in April of 2007.  He can be reached at                   frankjmenetrez@gmail.com

 

WORDS THAT STICK