While I appreciate your attempt to reclaim some ground for the plagiarists amongst us, I am deeply saddened that your analysis errs too closely to the romantically bourgeois. You contend that the last centuries plagiarism has been legitimated through modernist and post-modernist pilfering. I agree. But why do you limit the legitimacy of plagiarism to that which is some edukant’s conception of reference and play, tig and tag? Scott: what about a revolutionary courage?

In every book I write I do my utmost to steal enormous sections of prose from those who I have recently read: I consider these thefts to be undermining the bourgeois attitudes to private (intellectual) property which are far too common in our arts establishments. I do not reference these thefts. Astute readers may cop onto them, though none have yet and certainly no cops have. Nor am I one to wittily self-promote through self-policing. Astute readers are as rare as authors who reject bourgeois values.

At the same time, we publish these works through the Lawrence & Gibson publishing collective so that our authors are neither exploiting or exploited, nor alienated from the methods of production. I have spent summers pruning trees which have been destined for the pulper, perhaps just so that I may be closer to the production process. The Remarkable Pleasures of Embodied Anarcho-Capitalism.

But my strategies have not met with the cheer of comradeship. So I respond to the bourgeois public by appropriating their loved texts and serving them back to them. Ti he! This publishing is the equivalent of dumpster-diving and serving the scavenged results at tickle-your-fancy books launch (which we have also done; never trust the hummus). Theft is not just for the twinkling of the eye, but to buttress oneself against the thoroughly repugnant socius. Have you not yet seen your errors, Mr Hamilton?

Good day,
RK Meros

I am communicating directly with staff and students on the matter concerning Professor Witi Ihimaera which has received considerable media publicity. Much of the public comment has been ill-informed and made in ignorance of the facts. This is notwithstanding our explanations to the media of how this matter was handled and the procedures involved.

On 3 November, Professor Ihimaera alerted the University to claims of plagiarism against him which were being investigated by the Listener. In accordance with the University’s “Guidelines for the Conduct of Research (Part 2, Procedures for Dealing with Concerns of Misconduct in Research)” his Head of Department, Professor Tom Bishop, then conducted a preliminary assessment of the allegations. This found that a small amount of material in Professor Ihimaera’s novel, The Trowenna Sea, had been published without attribution or acknowledgement. On the basis of his review of the material of concern and Professor Ihimaera’s response, Professor Bishop concluded that the material had been inadvertently included in the novel without proper acknowledgement and that the instances were not sufficient to constitute misconduct as defined in these Procedures.

Plagiarism in any form is unacceptable and Professor Ihimaera has publicly acknowledged that he erred in using unattributed passages as he did. He has repeatedly apologised in public and is taking appropriate steps to remedy his error. The book has been withdrawn from sale at considerable financial cost to Professor Ihimaera. This will enable him to undertake a review of the text and to check it against the sources upon which he drew. The review will determine the acknowledgements and referencing to be included in a future edition of the book.

There have been claims in the media that Professor Ihimaera has been treated leniently and that a severe sanction, including dismissal, should have been imposed. It is also being said that different standards would have applied to a student in the same position. These claims are patently untrue. Students and staff are subject to essentially the same policies and procedures in cases of alleged plagiarism. The University does not condone plagiarism, but recognises the need to take into account a range of factors such as intention, seriousness and extent. Were a small amount of unattributed material to be discovered in a doctoral thesis, for example, the student would be required to rewrite the thesis with appropriate attribution — precisely the action Professor Ihimaera will be taking of his own volition.

The University deplores plagiarism in any form and has robust processes for dealing with allegations of academic misconduct by either staff or students. The University’s approved process for addressing allegations of staff misconduct in research was followed scrupulously in this case. To do otherwise would be to breach Professor Ihimaera’s rights as an employee of the University.

Stuart N. McCutcheon
Vice-Chancellor

[Please note that this comment was not posted by Stuart McCutcheon, and nor was the comment that followed subsequently. Though pseudonymns can be acceptable, we encourage of your name for comments. Using other people's names is not acceptable. - SRB]