Democratic presidential hopeful Kamala Harris is rejecting claims of plagiarism tied to her 2009 book discussing the U.S. criminal justice system. The campaign suggests that these accusations are merely attempts by “rightwing operatives” to divert the public’s attention from more pressing issues.
Experts analyzing the allegations opine that many of them are either inconsequential or stem from unintentional errors, rather than intentional wrongdoing.
The allegations erupted following conservative commentator Christopher Rufo’s publication on Substack, where he highlighted several excerpts he claims were taken from other sources without proper citations. He commented that these actions could be considered a breach of academic integrity, noting that Harris and her co-author allegedly reproduced extensive text nearly word-for-word without adequate attribution or quotation marks.
James Singer, a representative for the Harris campaign, emphasized in an email that the accusations regarding her co-authored book are politically motivated, referencing its publication over a decade ago. He stated, “Rightwing operatives are feeling desperate as they witness the bipartisan support Vice President Harris is garnering. Meanwhile, Trump has retreated to a conservative bubble, evading inquiries about his dishonesty.” Singer also insisted the book, which has been available for 15 years, includes properly cited sources throughout its contents.
Rufo referenced a study conducted by Stefan Weber, a noted Austrian academic recognized in Europe for his scrutiny of plagiarism. The study claimed that Harris’s 248-page book cited material from a Wikipedia entry and allegedly fabricated a childhood story plagiarized from Martin Luther King Jr.
Additionally, Republican Senator JD Vance of Ohio took to social media to leverage the situation against Harris, proclaiming, “Hi, I’m JD Vance. I wrote my own book, unlike Kamala Harris, who copied hers from Wikipedia,” referencing his own memoir, Hillbilly Elegy.
One significant allegation involves a narrative about Harris’s mother questioning her as a child, a tale wherein Harris recounts her response of yearning for “Fweedom.” Weber contends that this narrative is taken without acknowledgment from a 1965 interview with King.
However, some plagiarism authorities are downplaying the gravity of these allegations. Jonathan Bailey, a consultant and founder of Plagiarism Today, pointed out that while the tale about King emerged back in early 2021 and remains unproven, the issues regarding supposed copying from Wikipedia are more concerning. Nevertheless, he believes these issues demonstrate careless writing rather than a deliberate intent to deceive.
According to Bailey, while certain instances, like the Wikipedia issue, display a lack of diligence, the overall context suggests issues of negligence rather than malice.
Miguel Roig, a psychology professor who researches plagiarism, acknowledged that the lapses noted by Weber fit the criteria for plagiarism but insisted that these mistakes do not indicate an aim to deceive. He noted that such slips comprise a minor part of the overall work and are “hardly an attempt to defraud.”
Roig suggested that when minor issues arise, the authors should recognize and rectify them, then move on.
Harris penned “Smart on Crime” during her tenure as San Francisco’s district attorney, outlining her vision for enhancing public safety and refining the criminal justice framework. She ascended to the role of attorney general of California the year following the book’s release.
Co-author Joan O’C. Hamilton is recognized as a collaborator and ghostwriter on various works, per her professional site.
Weber, who conducted the investigation into Harris’s book, clarified that an associate, whose name remains undisclosed, facilitated much of the review. He stressed that this effort sprung from a personal initiative, not political motivations; this marked Weber’s first exploration into an “international case.”
Weber also expressed surprise upon learning of Trump and his publications before assessing Harris’s work. He encouraged scrutiny of Trump’s writings, emphasizing transparency in academic research.
Debora Weber-Wulff, a professor at a German university, echoed Bailey’s sentiments and remarked that the publishing house would have to determine whether these issues could warrant removing the book from circulation. She noted that any potential legal dispute would likely be avoided, as pursuing such actions would be financially burdensome for the original authors of the allegedly plagiarized content.
“No one in their right mind would welcome such a lawsuit,” she concluded, adding, “Only the lawyers benefit.”