Photo credit: abcnews.go.com
WASHINGTON — The campaign of Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris is refuting claims that she plagiarized portions of her co-authored 2009 book discussing the U.S. criminal justice system, characterizing the allegations as a ploy by “right-wing operatives” to divert attention from key issues.
Experts specializing in plagiarism have examined the accusations and found many to be inconclusive or attributable to lack of diligence rather than deliberate misconduct.
These plagiarism allegations were first highlighted when conservative commentator Christopher Rufo published an article on his Substack, alleging that several excerpts from the book “Smart on Crime: A Career Prosecutor’s Plan to Make Us Safer” were copied from various sources without sufficient credit.
Rufo claimed, “Overall, there is certainly a breach of standards here. Harris and her co-author have replicated substantial passages almost word-for-word without appropriate citation, which fits the definition of plagiarism.”
James Singer, a spokesperson for the Harris campaign, released a statement defending the work: “These allegations represent a partisan attack on a book published over a decade ago. As right-wing actors grow anxious about the bipartisan support Vice President Harris is attracting, they resort to desperate measures.” He further emphasized that the book features properly cited sources throughout.
Rufo’s critiques are bolstered by research from Stefan Weber, an academic known for his work on plagiarism. His study of Harris’s 248-page book outlined instances where content was allegedly derived from a Wikipedia article and recounted a childhood anecdote incorrectly attributed to Martin Luther King Jr.
Additionally, Republican Senator JD Vance joined the argument, stating on X, “Hi, I’m JD Vance. I wrote my own book, unlike Kamala Harris, who copied hers from Wikipedia.” His own memoir, Hillbilly Elegy, details his upbringing in Kentucky and Ohio.
A specific claim involves a story Harris recounted from her childhood about wanting “freedom,” which Weber alleges she lifted from a 1965 interview with King without proper acknowledgment.
However, some plagiarism analysts question the gravity of these allegations. Jonathan Bailey, a consultant and operator of Plagiarism Today, remarked that while some charges might appear troubling, they more likely point to “sloppy writing habits, not a deliberate attempt to deceive.” He maintained that even the more serious claims could stem from negligence rather than malicious intent.
Miguel Roig, a psychology professor focused on plagiarism analysis, observed that while the cited issues could fall under plagiarism, they were minor enough that they did not indicate an intention to defraud. He suggested that Authors should acknowledge any errors and rectify them where possible.
Harris wrote “Smart on Crime” while serving as the district attorney for San Francisco, presenting her perspectives on enhancing public safety and reforming the criminal justice system. In 2010, shortly after the book’s release, she was elected as California’s attorney general.
Harris’s co-author, Joan O’C. Hamilton, is known for her work as a book collaborator and ghostwriter, as noted on her professional website.
Weber reported that the investigation of Harris’s book was significantly conducted by a colleague of his, who approached this task with personal interest rather than political motivations. He noted that this case was his first inquiry of this nature involving an international subject.
He added that he had not considered prior to this review whether Donald Trump, the Republican nominee, had authored any books.
Debora Weber-Wulff, a professor at Berlin University of Applied Sciences, aligned her opinion with Bailey’s, highlighting that the decision of the book’s publisher would ultimately determine the need for any market actions in light of the allegations. She also remarked that significant legal pursuits over such issues are improbable, as the cost would deter most original content authors from initiating litigation.
“Pursuing a case like this is hardly appealing for anyone,” Weber-Wulff concluded. “Ultimately, only attorneys stand to benefit.”
Source
abcnews.go.com