Comments by "Mark Pawelek" (@mark4asp) on "I Can PROVE Woke College Teachers Are CORRUPT! – Peter Boghossian" video.

Andrew Gold asks "why did DiAngelo do it"? Why not simply cite the authors she plagiarizes? Simple: Because she wanted to say something (make something up) but the texts she was reading did not explicitly support what she said. Detailed: See below. Some of the passages DiAngelo plagiarizes are summaries by ONE source of other sources. For example Nakayama and Krizek cited Gans(1979) to make a point. Then on Waters(1990) to elaborate on that point. But they were applying their conclusions to a "small group of white people" whom they interviewed. DiAngelo plagiarizes Nakayama and Krizek, and included the citations to Gans and Waters to subtly change the point being made. For example DiAngelo makes it about Tiffany and she uses that plagiarized work of Nakayama and Krizek to change to thrust of the argument by changing key passages. Because Nakayama and Krizek cited Gans and Waters to make specific points their research had a logic to it. But DiAngelo takes those passages from Nakayama and Krizek (without attributing them to the authors), cites Gans and Waters as well to make a slightly different point. But is her writing valid? Did she read the texts by Gans and Waters which she cites? Are the conclusions DiAngelo comes to logically valid. It seems not likely. Her work could just be made up! So this is why she plagiarizes. She cuts and pastes serious sounding text to cite writers (Gans and Waters) who she's probably not read to make the argument she wants to make. It's novel. Because no one said before. So it gets the PhD. But it's likely not true. Because she never read Gans and Waters. She merely read other people who had read them. Gut 'n' paste PhD. Some of the passages DiAngelo is accused of plagiarizing. https://freebeacon.com/campus/robin-diangelo-plagiarized-minority-scholars-complaint-alleges/
3