If there was anything that has frightened me the most during my career as a student, it was the idea that I would be accused of plagiarizing someone else’s work. Even as a 12-year-old, with just a minor concept of how to cite sources, the fear was instilled in me by my teachers. Now I know that there is probably little chance that I’ll ever accidentally plagiarize, since I’m as diligent as can be when citing sources in paper, and I’d never knowingly plagiarize.

I’m assuming that most other students here at UW-Eau Claire are adverse to plagiarism, too. But it doesn’t seem that Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) feels the same way.

Recently Paul has been called out for plagiarising from multiple sources in his speeches, Washington Times column and three pages of Paul’s book “Government Bullies.” MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow first called out Paul for stating verbatim, the Wikipedia plot description of the movie “Gattica.” Following Maddow’s report, Buzzfeed found another example of plagiarism in a June 2013 speech Paul made on immigration — this time taking the Wikipedia plot description of the movie “Stand and Deliver.” According to Buzzfeed, the speech text on Paul’s website was quickly updated to include footnotes.

It came out later that some of Paul’s Washington Times columns were taken from news articles and studies from The Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute. And what’s more, according to Buzzfeed’s political reporter Andrew Kaczynski, around 1,300 words in a section of Paul’s book, “Government Bullies” was “copied wholesale” from a Heritage Foundation case study. According to the same article, “Paul included a link to the Heritage case study in the book’s footnotes, though he made no effort to indicate that not just the source, but the words themselves, had been taken from Heritage.”

It’s been two weeks since Paul was first accused of plagiarizing, and since then Paul has made some statements in the vein of an apology, and has been suspended from his Washington Times column. Paul has basically stated the reason there is un-cited sources in his speeches and books is because there wasn’t a good system among his staff for the incorrect, or no, citations in his works, which was going to change. The Huffington Post stated Paul said he “was a victim of ‘haters’ who are holding him to a higher standard because of his position as a U.S. Senator.”

And that’s where it all boils down — yes, we need to hold Paul to a higher standard. As someone who has a medical degree and is a senator, he should have a high standard and knowledge of how to give proper credit in his writings.

As college students, we all have a working knowledge of how to cite. Proper citations and the idea that you shouldn’t plagiarize has been increasingly ingrained into our minds since high school, at the least. As we’ve moved through our schooling, the ante has been increased to the point that we shouldn’t think twice about whether or not something needs to be cited.

The consequences of knowingly, or even unknowingly, plagiarizing the work of someone on a class assignment can end with a failing grade. As someone who’s had extensive schooling, and has risen to a position where he can influence policy, Paul should be held to an equally high standard, or an even higher standard than
college students.

I think it comes down to this: Paul wants his readers and constituents to think he’s smart and clever enough to come up with these ideas and statements by himself. What Paul doesn’t realize, though, is that quoting a source, and giving credit where credit is due, makes you much more credible, and lets people realize you’re someone who can be trusted.