King’s plagiarisms “laborious.” To setrnthe record straight, the task is nothingrnof the sort; the plagiarisms are so blatantrnthat their detection is easy.rnRumors of King’s plagiarisms andrneven of his prime source, Jack Boozer,rnhad circulated in scholarly circles forrnmany )ears. The London Telegraph liadrnwritten about them two years earlier, inrn1989. But even if Jon Westling didn’trnknow about Boozer’s thesis before hernbegan his “laborious” investigation.rnKing’s principal source for his dissertationrnis nevertheless easy to ascertain.rnKing acknowledges in his introduction,rnon page seven, that three years earlierrnat B.U. Boozer had written a “fine” thesisrnon the same subject of Paul Tillichrnand that he would cite it appropriatelyrnwhenever he drew upon it. Even thernmost cursory perusal of King’s footnotesrnis sufficient to see that King scarcelyrnmentions Boozer at all.rnMr. Wood also denies that B. U. attemptedrnto whitewash this issue. Onrnthe committee that B. U. President JohnrnSilber convened to analyze King’s andrnBoozer’s theses sat the university’s “MartinrnLuther King Professor of SocialrnEthics,” John Cartwright. After monthsrnon the committee supposedly analyzingrnthe dissertations, and long after evenrnClayborne Carson had given up the charadernand admitted that King’s thesis wasrnreplete with “textual appropriations,”rnB. U.’s professor of “social ethics” stillrnpublich’ claimed that “there is no obviousrnindication in the dissertation thatrnhe [King] inappropriately utilized material.”rnA better example of whitewashingrncould hardly be found.rnIt was B. U.’s reputation, not Mr.rnKing’s, that was riding on the committee’srnhandling of this controversy. Wernall know what King did; the onlv questionrnwas whether B. U. as an institutionrndevoted to the pursuit of truth wouldrnhave the honesty and integrity to admitrnits mistakes and acknowledge King’srnwrongdoings. Mr. Wood tells us the answerrnis no.rnOn ‘Communist Crimes’rnI could not agree more with Murray N.rnRothbard’s commentar’ (Cultural Revolutions,rnOctober 1992) on the “glaringrndouble standard” displayed by the Establishmentrnin its treatment of Nazi andrnCommunist state criminals. The asymmetryrnis so grotesque that even such anrnEstablishment figure as ZbigniewrnBrzezinski broke ranks to complain of it.rnhi December 1990 Brzezinski wrote:rnHitler’s crimes are still being justlyrnpunished. But in the SovietrnUnion there are literally thousandsrnof ex-killers and ex-torturersrnliving on official pensions, attendingrnvarious revolutionary celebrationsrndecked out in their medals,rnand perhaps even reminiscingrnabout their struggle against “enemiesrnof the people.” Recently,rnseveral direct participants in thernmass murder of the defenselessrnPolish officers in Katyn and elsewherern—15,000 of them shot onernb- one in the back of the head—rnhave been identified. . . . ThernEichmann of the operation, a formerrnNKVD major by the name ofrnSerepenko who was in charge ofrnthe “logistics” of the operation,rnlives comfortably in Moscow.rnTo take the case of the Soviet Unionrnalone: Robert Conquest’s estimate ofrn20 to 30 million killed in the Red terrorrnis accepted by Roy Medvedev, Hellerrnand Nekrich, Stephen Cohen, and othersrn(Solzhenitsyn’s estimate is considerablyrnhigher). Where is the er to bring thernsurviving killers to justice? A few yearsrnago, the whole wodd resounded with therninfamy of Kurt Waldheim, who, whilerna lieutenant and translator with thernWehrmacht, was supposed to have hadrnsome knowledge of Nazi atrocities. Yet,rnon July 26, 1991, Lazar MoisevichrnKaganovich, the “Butcher of thernUkrame” during the terror-famine andrnthe official in charge of the purges inrnthe Moscow district in the mid-1930’s,rndied in Moscow, peacefully in his bed.rnLip service, of course, is paid to thernawful scale of Soviet atrocities, but powerfulrninhibitions stand in the way ofrndrawing out their implications. Onernmajor reason is, as Professor Rothbardrnstates, the latent sympathy of the leftistrnintellectual and media class for thosernwho, whatever their faults, were basical-rn1}- fighting the good fight.rnAnother reason, however, has to dornwith the whole world of fairy tales thatrnhas come to surround World War II,rn”the last good war.” Now, the fact isrnthat the great majority of the victims ofrnSoviet communism were killed beforernthe Nazis undertook the massacre of thernJew s and others and before Churchill andrnRoosevelt allied themselves with Stalin.rnOnce granted that Stalin killed morernpeople than Hitler, and killed them earlier,rnthen what becomes of the GreatrnCrusade, unparalleled in its pristine purityrnin all the annals of human conflict?rnAnd how does one prevent the openingrnof a host of other questions that the bienrnpensants have declared taboo for half arncentury, such as: Could the AmericarnFirsters have been right after all? DidrnPius XII have good reason to be terrifiedrnof a Soviet inundation of Europe?rnDo all those who fought on the Germanrnside against the Red Army, for instance,rnthe Slovaks led b Monsignor Jozef Tiso,rndeserve to be branded “Nazi puppets”rnwhile the Czech accomplices of Stalinrnled by Eduard Benes are honored asrndemocratic heroes? And—tlie explosivernquestion that began the German Historikerstreitrnof a few years ago—wouldrnthe Nazi massacre of the Jews have occurredrnat all if the Communists had notrnbeen preaching and practicing the annihilationrnof whole classes of human beingsrnfor decades?rn—Ralph RaicornBuffalo, NYrnLIBERAL ARTSrnIN SEARCH OF . . .rn”A former typesetter at the JewishrnNews has sued the newspaper, sayingrnlier supervisor routinely made anti-rnJewish remarks and told sexuallyrnsuggestive jokes. Joy Gardin, 43, allegedrnin her suit. . . that she was firedrnfrom her part-time job when sherncomplained. The paper’s associaternpublisher, Arthur Horowitz, dismissedrnher claim, saying ‘There is nornanti-Semitism at the Jewish News.’rnGardin, an Orthodox Jew, worked atrnthe paper 11 years before she wasrnfired in October.”rn—from the January 6rnChicago Tribune.rnMARCH 1993/5rnrnrn