This is how we deal with plagiarists at William & Mary.

But according to the posters at Red State who have decided to stand by their Ben, it's no biggie:

Assume, for a moment, that the plagiarism charge is true. For the sake of argument, assume that.
Now, having accepted this, what are we left with?
1. It is the sole critique of Domenech by the left with any objective merit.
2. It does not have much merit, as the profferred examples are:
-- Old, dating wholly from Domenech's teen years.
-- Confined wholly to movie reviews.

I have always felt that "plagiarist" has been one of the weakest criticisms of someone claiming to be a journalist. There as such more effective molotovs to toss such as "falafel fetish." This, I believe, is a much more effective critique of someone's acumen.

Another of BenDom's defenders writes, "The plagiarism stuff is hardly relevant to Ben's clear talent for writing." Good lord. Do these people even read what they write? Or do they have an army of trained monkeys typing for them?

And for the record, here is how the College of William & Mary actually handles cheaters and plagiarists. (thanks to Dan for the link)