Kamala Harris was recently exposed by Chris Rufo as a plagiarist, having found that she literally copied and pasted huge sections of her first book from various sources, including Wikipedia.
The New York Times quickly went to bat for her…but now the evidence is so overwhelming that they’re taking it back.
Here’s what happened.
At a glance:
- Kamala Harris is accused of plagiarizing multiple sections of her 2009 book Smart on Crime.
- Christopher Rufo, who brought the allegations, claims Harris copied entire paragraphs without proper attribution.
- The New York Times dismissed the claims, but their expert later admitted to not conducting a full analysis.
Kamala Harris is facing accusations of plagiarism regarding her 2009 book Smart on Crime, co-authored with Joan O’C. Hamilton. Journalist Christopher Rufo exposed these claims, providing examples of Harris allegedly copying sections from other sources, including entire paragraphs from a Wikipedia article, without proper citation. Dr. Stefan Weber, a plagiarism expert, supported Rufo’s findings, identifying more than a dozen instances of plagiarism.
Rufo accused Harris of not only failing to attribute these copied sections but also fabricating references, such as inventing a non-existent page number. One notable example involved Harris using a Wikipedia article word-for-word, a clear violation of academic and ethical writing standards.
In response, the New York Times quickly dismissed these accusations, claiming the alleged plagiarism involved copying statistical information and descriptions of programs, which they said did not constitute serious plagiarism. The Times consulted Jonathan Bailey, a plagiarism expert, who initially stated the issue was not serious, considering it involved only 500 words in a 200-page book.
However, Rufo countered this by stating that the Times deliberately downplayed the issue, claiming there were at least 18 instances of plagiarism in total. Furthermore, Bailey later admitted that his assessment was based only on limited information provided by the Times, and he had not conducted a thorough review of the full evidence.
This revelation raises concerns about the accuracy of the Times’ defense of Harris and suggests the allegations of plagiarism may be more serious than initially reported. As Harris continues her campaign for the presidency, these claims could have lasting consequences for her credibility.
