Vice President Kamala Harris’s “plagiarism scandal” has taken a more troubling turn. Jonathan Bailey, a plagiarism consultant for The New York Times, admitted on Thursday that the issue is far “more serious” than he originally indicated. This revelation came after an initial assessment of Harris’s 2009 book, Smart on Crime, in which multiple passages were found to have been lifted from sources like Wikipedia and the Associated Press. While the Times initially downplayed the plagiarism, referring to it as “not serious,” new developments have complicated that narrative.
On Monday, The New York Times acknowledged that Harris had borrowed significant chunks of text from various sources without proper attribution in Smart on Crime. Despite this, the paper characterized the plagiarism as a relatively minor infraction, attributing it more to carelessness than malice. However, Harris’s campaign quickly responded, denying the claims outright. They rejected the idea that Harris had plagiarized multiple passages, setting up a stark contradiction between her camp and the media outlets reporting the allegations.
Jonathan Bailey’s original review of the plagiarism allegations echoed The New York Times’s earlier assessment, stating that the situation was not as grave as critics made it out to be. However, upon further investigation, Bailey received a fuller dossier that included additional evidence of Harris’s plagiarism. This new information caused him to revise his previous statement.
Bailey, who also runs Plagiarism Today, published a follow-up article in which he admitted that the situation with Harris’s book was worse than he had originally thought. He explained:
“With this new information, while I believe the case is more serious than I commented to The New York Times, the overarching points remain. While there are problems with this work, the pattern points to sloppy writing habits, not a malicious intent to defraud.”
Bailey’s revised assessment acknowledged the gravity of the situation but still sought to distance Harris from claims of intentional deception. He noted that while there were clear instances of plagiarism, he did not believe they amounted to wholesale fraud. “It sits somewhere between what the two sides want it to be,” he said, positioning the scandal in a gray area between outright plagiarism and minor carelessness.
The dossier in question reportedly contains around 29 specific allegations of plagiarism. Of these, 18 focus on Harris’s book, and an additional 11 center on instances of alleged self-plagiarism from later speeches and writings. While Bailey downplayed the self-plagiarism claims, saying politicians often reuse their own words, he admitted that the accusations involving external sources were more concerning.
The plagiarism scandal was brought to light by conservative journalist Christopher Rufo, who based his findings on research conducted by Dr. Stefan Weber, an Austrian expert in plagiarism. Weber’s analysis identified numerous examples of Harris copying text from other sources without providing proper citations. This research became the foundation for the allegations, and conservatives were quick to seize upon the scandal as evidence of Harris’s untrustworthiness.
As the plagiarism scandal grew, Harris’s campaign sought to paint it as a smear tactic orchestrated by desperate political operatives. James Singer, a spokesman for the Harris campaign, issued a statement alleging that “right-wing operatives are getting desperate as they see the bipartisan coalition of support Vice President Harris is building to win this election.” Singer further claimed that conservatives were using the plagiarism claims as a distraction from the issues that matter most to voters.
Despite the mounting accusations, Harris has largely avoided direct questioning about the plagiarism scandal in high-profile interviews. Notably, neither Fox News anchor Bret Baier nor radio host Charlamagne tha God raised the issue during their recent interviews with the vice president, leaving some critics wondering why the topic has not been more aggressively pursued.
While Bailey’s new revelations cast the plagiarism scandal in a more serious light, he continued to maintain that Harris’s actions, while problematic, do not rise to the level of deliberate fraud. He explained that the majority of the plagiarism claims pertained to sloppiness rather than intentional deception.
“I have to dismiss the self-plagiarism allegations out of hand,” Bailey stated, referring to the accusations that Harris had recycled her own past speeches and writings. “Politicians repeat themselves, and it’s not surprising to see them reuse words and passages.”
Bailey also noted that while plagiarism is a serious issue, the specific instances in Harris’s case were relatively minor in comparison to more egregious cases of intellectual theft. Nonetheless, his admission that the situation is worse than originally reported has added fuel to the controversy, drawing more attention to the issue just as Harris prepares for the 2024 election.
While Harris’s supporters continue to dismiss the plagiarism scandal as a politically motivated attack, the mounting evidence suggests that this is not a minor issue. As Bailey’s revised assessment shows, the allegations of plagiarism are more extensive than initially thought, and they could cast a shadow over Harris’s credibility as she seeks to convince voters of her competence and integrity.
As the scandal continues to unfold, it remains to be seen how much of an impact it will have on Harris’s political future. With the 2024 election fast approaching, every misstep is likely to be scrutinized, and this latest controversy could be a stumbling block for Harris’s campaign. For now, the plagiarism allegations remain a point of contention, with both sides continuing to debate their significance.
