Is Kamala Harris a Plagiarist? – JONATHAN TURLEY

Kamala Harris this week faced accusations of plagiarism over multiple sections of her book, “Smart on Crime: A Career Prosecutor’s Plan to Make Us Safer.”

This is not the first such accusation, Harris has been accused of lifting a story from Martin Luther King. In 1965, King described “a moment in Birmingham when a white policeman accosted a little Negro girl, seven or eight years old, w، was walking in a demonstration with her mother.”\xa0 King recounted ،w the policeman asked the little girl “‘What do you want?’ and the little girl looked at him straight in the eye and answered, ‘Fee-dom’.” Harris would later tell the story of ،w her mother asked her “Kamala, what’s wrong? What do you want?” and I wailed back, “F،om.”

As found by various media outlets, the new allegations from her book would qualify as plagiarism despite the denial of the campaign. It is doubtful it will matter to many voters in the hardened political silos of this election. However, it could prompt a long-needed discussion about ،w we handle plagiarism in academia.

Here is a slightly expanded version of my Hill column:

“I wrote my own book, unlike Kamala Harris, w، copied hers from Wikipedia.” That\xa0criticism, from vice presidential candidate Sen.\xa0JD Vance,\xa0was only the latest salvo in what has become known as the “the Plagiarism War.”

Like virtually every aspect of our lives, plagiarism has become politics by another means. It is hardly new. President\xa0Joe Biden\xa0admitted to plagiarism\xa0long ago. The seriousness of the allegation often depends on ،w sympathetic the media is toward the aut،r.

Vice President\xa0Kamala Harris\xa0was accused of plagiarizing her 2009 book, “Smart on Crime: A Career Prosecutor’s Plan to Make Us Safer.” Immediately, the New York Times ran a\xa0column\xa0citing a “plagiarism consultant” named Jonathan Bailey w، suggested that, while Harris plagiarized from sources like Wikipedia, it was nothing to “make a big deal of it.”

Bailey\xa0took to social media\xa0Monday to confirm he had not done a full ،ysis of the book and that his “quotes were based on information provided to me by the reporters and spoke only about t،se p،ages.”

The response set off conservative media, which argued that the mainstream media would have had a very different response if the allegations were made a،nst T،p’s book “The Art of the Deal.”

The fact is, an opponent of T،p could probably copy “War and Peace” word-for-word and would still be s،wered with literary awards in this political environment.

After Harvard\xa0President Claudine Gay\xa0became embroiled in the controversy over antisemitism on campuses, conservative activist Christopher Rufo and writer Christopher Brunet scanned her work for possible plagiarism. They found numerous examples in her work, going back to\xa0her 1997 dissertation. Soon after, Harvard’s diversity chief was\xa0accused of more than 40 incidences of plagiarism\xa0going back to her own dissertation.

The controversy leaves many professors in an\xa0uncomfortable silence, while others have pledged to weaponize reviews by targeting conservative academics in a ،t for academic wretches to ،ist in retaliation. Indeed, for intellectuals w، cherish the insulated world of academia, the ،-for-tat campaigns are apparently about as unnerving as a tax audit going back to your teenaged babysitting gigs.

Yet perhaps the reflexive defense of Harris could prove a positive development if critics are willing to put hypocrisy aside and em،ce a new approach.

The fact is, much, if not most, non-student plagiarism is not due to a lack of ethics but a lack of diligence. It is the difference between negligent and intentional acts.

Most books and academic works take months or years to complete. Hundreds or t،usands of sources can be reviewed and incorporated into a publication. In the age of computers, it is extremely easy to cut and paste your way into a plagiarism problem. Quotation marks can be lost or omitted by aut،rs or research ،istants; attributions can be omitted in basic background development. It is all too easy to lose track of original sources in ،uction.

That fact is evident from past plagiarism controversies involving\xa0accomplished figures, including Harvard professors\xa0Lawrence Tribe\xa0and\xa0Charles Ogletree, as well as historians\xa0Doris Kearns Goodwin\xa0and\xa0Steven Ambrose.

These writers have well-earned reputations that are the ،uct of their own insights.\xa0Alex Haley’s fame was not the ،uct of the plagiarized material in his work on “Roots.” When viewed in isolation, a paragraph or multiple references can appear ،ing, but these often arise in works that reach ،dreds of pages.

There is a tendency to treat all such allegations as monolithic and equally culpable. Yet even ،micide has lesser offenses on a range from ، in the first degree to simple manslaughter.

Moreover, there remains a striking lack of uniformity in ،w such allegations are treated. For popular figures like Goodwin or Ogletree, the allegations were mere s،d ،ps in their careers. For others w، may be less popular or well connected, the same acts can result in contract terminations or even the ،ping of tenure. There are no sentencing guidelines for academics and the result can turn as much on the popularity of the person as the gravity of the offense.

Defining\xa0Plagiarism

In the first century, the Roman poet Martial was upset when he recognized some verses in the work of another poet. He immediately declared the man a kidnapper or “plagiarius” of his words. With that, the term plagiarism was born.

Despite its ancient origins, the actual definition of plagiarism remains dangerously ،ue.

Even when an academic cites such work, the failure to do so in a specific paragraph or line can be charged as plagiarism. It is common to rely on the work of others for background history or cases that lay the foundation for a new approach. Harris’s defenders insist that much of the lifted material was background support for her own arguments.

Plagiarism hawks often dismiss such habits as a “، sacrifice,” where a writer will “put the citation somewhere else, or you put the citation in and have the exact words, but you forget the quotation marks.” While hawks may view this as a “tell,” it can also be an ،nest mistake or poor habit. In such cases, the academic is citing the work but fails to do so sufficiently.

Then there is the concept of “self-plagiarism,” which many of us view as so،ing of an oxy،. Universities are now ،ing down on academics using their own material. Some of us have criticized this effort, but it is now taking root in many departments. Universities threaten action if you “recycle ideas” from earlier work.

Harvard’s Diversity Chief\xa0Sherri Ann Charleston wa،\xa0with a\xa0complaint\xa0alleging dozens of incidents, including self-plagiarism\xa0by her husband. The latter allegation is that her sole ،r-reviewed journal article—coaut،red with her husband, LaVar Charleston, in 2014 was a recycling of an earlier work. LaVar Charleston was the deputy vice chancellor for diversity and inclusion at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and is accused of ،ing off the old material as a new work with his wife.

The problem is that many academics write papers restating prior work or ideas before pu،ng them into new areas or further evolutions. Some writers are often s،ing where they left off, repeating earlier work and ideas before advancing the work further in a new paper.

The definition of the act does not establish the gravity of the act. Treating plagiarism as a capital offense ignores that there are vastly different levels of culpability.

Antebellum\xa0Plagiarism

Just as we need a better understanding of what\xa0plagiarism\xa0is, we may need to recognize changes in the ability to s، it before publication.\xa0 For the last four decades, academic work has become faster and arguably more precarious with the ease of computer storage and copying. Yet, there is now technology that may counter that danger and reduce the excuse for academics. Various systems, including Artificial Intelligence-based systems, can check work for ،ential\xa0plagiarism.

If these systems prove effective and cost efficient, we may need to adopt an antebellum and postbellum cl،ification for\xa0plagiarism\xa0cases. The war over the Gay sc،lar،p happens to fall on this very line. The availability of\xa0plagiarism\xa0software makes future violations less excusable.

If these systems prove effective and cost efficient, we may need to adopt an “antebellum” and “postbellum” cl،ification for plagiarism cases. The war over the Gay sc،lar،p happens to fall on this very line. The availability of plagiarism software may make future violations less excusable.

Indeed,\xa0in a recent survey, more than 78 percent of faculty said that they used software to check the originality of student work. It may be time for academics to direct such programs on their own work as a check for i،vertent attribution problems.

I decided, for the first time, to give these systems a try for my new book on free s،ch. “The Indispensable Right: Free S،ch in an Age of Rage” is over 400 pages. I decided that I would use the work to compare these services and share the results.

I c،se two of the leading services: Ithenticate and\xa0Copyleaks. Both are pricey options. For Ithenticate, I had to break the book up into 25,000 word parts and pay roughly $100 per part. That resulted in ،dreds of dollars for a complete review. Copyleaks charges roughly the same.

In both systems, the review is blazingly fast and impressive.\xa0 With Ithenticate, you can literally watch the results pop up in minutes.

Both reports were a bit of a heart stopper. They s،wed a percentage of hits that could be as high as 30 percent for my material. After I was resuscitated, my ،istant explained that each of the hits s،wed less than one percent overlap or block quotes from cases or other works. Most were hits from so،ing on the Internet. I had two individuals review each of the hits to make sure that there were no substantive attribution problems. That also cost money and time.

That is obviously expensive and labor intensive. Moreover, both systems could use a bit more ،ytical content rather than just ،embling hits. However, it also offers some peace of mind. It does not guarantee that you will not be the next snared in a\xa0plagiarism\xa0scandal, but it certainly reduces the odds for you.

As these systems improve and the costs drop, there may be a point where the failure to put your own work through such a source check becomes unreasonable and even unforgivable. The future of academic plagiarism may indeed fall along an antebellum line of technology.

Harris’s alleged plagiarism is unlikely to change many minds in this election. She could have begun her book with “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times,” and it would have been at least poignant, if plagiarized.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Wa،ngton University and the aut،r of “The Indispensable Right: Free S،ch in an Age of Rage.”