On Plagiarism…

Guest Column by Michael R.

[Introduction: This comment by Michael R, in response to the Jason Arday post, “On The Left’s Horrifying Lack Of Integrity In The Wake of The Arday Scandal: I’m Sorry I Was So Right, And How I Wish I Were Wrong. Now What?” is sufficiently extensive and covers such an umortant ethics issue that I deem it worthy of a Guest Column. He begins by referencing the “Everybody Does It” attempted exoneration of the late Cambridge fraudster Facebook post that was favored on the platform by my old friend, a history professor who should know better but who is apparently completely woke-blinded…]

To your long-time Georgetown history professor, you can reply that all he has done is demonstrate why the left has lost all credibility. He thinks he is showing how it is fine to plagiarize. All the has shown is that those institutions no longer care about academic rigor and have no credibility.

Now about the plagiarism. There are different grades of plagiarism. Let me explain why the current round of plagiarism is so devastatingly bad.

When I was in grad school, many of us were asked to carefully check the introduction chapters of foreign students’ dissertations. Because of the difficulty of writing in a foreign language and the differing intellectual property standards in different cultures, there was a lot of plagiarism and the advisors were very careful to detect it and get it corrected before the defense. This is a mockup of a typical Asian student’s introduction.

“Poorly worded original sentence. Sentence directly copied from source 1. Two sentences directly copied from source 2. Poorly worded original sentence tying the thoughts together.Four sentences from source 3. One sentence from source 1. One sentence from source 4. A poorly worded original sentence tying them together. Rinse and repeat.”

You can see what is going on. They lack the English language skills to really blend the thoughts from the different sources together, so they just copy whole sentences (occasionally paragraphs) from many sources and tie them together with some original sentences. This is plagiarism, but this is pretty easy to fix. They are writing a typical intro, they just aren’t doing the paraphrasing and integration of the ideas needed. We would work with the students to get this fixed so that there weren’t any problems. There are probably a lot of programs that didn’t do this, resulting in a massive amount of plagiarism. I am fairly sure this is pretty common in dissertations, especially the Introduction chapters (which are typically reviews of the literature and not original research).

The Jason Arday Ethics Train Wreck

This is another ethics story that I delayed writing about. The Jason Arday Ethics Train Wreck is yet another of the sub-wrecks under the umbrella of the long-running DEI Ethics Train Wreck, and a particularly gob-smacking one.

Jason Arday became the Cambridge University’s youngest black law professor in 2023 (remember what I wrote yesterday: in the DEI era and the plague of The Great Stupid, beware of “firsts”). Recently, however, as Simon & Schuster prepared to publish Arday’s memoir, “Great and Unfortunate Things,” allegations of everything from plagiarism to outrageous lies about his background began emerging. In some respects, his sudden fall from academic rock-star status mirrors that of Claudine Gay, Harvard’s underqualified DEI president who was forced to resign after being exposed as engaging in the level of plagiarism that would get any Harvard student expelled. Arday, however, is in his own disturbing category.

It was a series of seemingly incredible claims about his background that drew attention to his scholarly work. He claimed in a 2022 interview that he had been part of the British documentary series “The Seven Ups,” which began before he was born. He claimed in interviews to have raised millions for charities over a 20-year period by running 30 marathons in 35 days He also once claimed to have run 600 miles in six days. When asked about his seemingly impossible fund-raising prowess Arday “clarified” that the money was raised with the help of “many fundraising collectives over a two-decade period.” He said he couldn’t name any names to corroborate his claims because he had signed NDAs preventing him from disclosing that information.

Ethics alarms ringing!

Arday had fake credentials on his faculty web page. He claimed to be a visiting professor in Glasgow’s School of Education, but a school spokesman said that Arday “was never a visiting professor here.” He said he was a visiting professor at the University of Ohio. A university spokesman said the school had “no record of an employee by that name” and that “visiting professors appear in our employment records.”

He had a fake book listed too. Arday claimed that he was the author of “Being Young, Black and Male: Challenging the Dominant Discourse,” exploring stereotypes about black masculinity, and included the title in his biography’s list of publications as well as in promotional material for speaking events. No such book was ever published.

There is so much more—too much to list in one post. He claims to have been so autistic that he didn’t speak until he was 11 and couldn’t read or write until he was 18. Several experts in the field have opined that nothing in his speech patterns suggests neurodivergence. My favorite may be the “Pig’s Head Story.” Arday claims a pig’s head was sent to his parents’ home and that he intercepted the package and threw it away. He said that the police had investigated and identified the source, a local butcher shop in south London. When reporters checked those details with the local butchers Arday had named and the police, they were told by the butchers that the story was mistaken and by the police that no investigation had taken place.

In a Competitive Commencement Season, Evelyn Harris Makes a Strong Bid For Most Unethical Speech of 2025

Favorites Tim Walz, Scott Pelley and Kermit the Frog may have fallen to an underdog: “musician and activist” Evelyn Harris (whoever she is) may have succeeded in embarrassing her host school the most of all with her 2025 commencement speech.

For some reason, Smith College, which has apparently become too woke to function, included Harris, a relatively obscure singer (but more importantly, an activist) among its all female honorees this year. The most prominent one of these would probably be far-left historian Danielle Allen, who has several items in her Ethics Alarms dossier. Or maybe it would be the (historic!) highest ranking trans official in US history, former assistant secretary for health for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Service Rachel Levine, one of Biden’s DEI appointments. Then there was new age-y guru Preeti Simran Sethi, the only one of the four who is a Smith grad. All of these, however, whatever their issues, at least managed to compose their own speech to give to the graduates.

Harris didn’t. Smith officials learned that her entire speech had been cribbed from other sources without attribution (you know, like Joe Biden once did), and had to inform the Smith community that it had been deceived. “It has come to our attention that one of our honorary degree recipients — musician Evelyn M. Harris — borrowed much of her speech to graduates and their families from the commencement speeches of others without the attribution typical of and central to the ideals of academic integrity,” the letter read in part.

Continue reading

“Monica Crowley and the Death of the Plagiarism Scandal,” The Sequel

President-elect Trump today nominated Monica Crowley to be “Ambassador, Assistant Secretary of State, and Chief of Protocol,” a position that will coordinate and oversee U.S.-hosted events of note such as America’s 250th Independence Day anniversary in 2026; the FIFA World Cup in 2026 and the Olympic Games in Los Angeles in 2028.  The position requires Senate confirmation. In reporting the nomination, The Hill described Crowley as “a former Fox News contributor,” which is deceitful and a cheap shot: she was that, but her experience is much more varied than that would suggest, and Crowley has legitimate credentials for that job—more, in fact, than many other recent nominations announced by Trump.

Crowley also, however, is a serial plagiarist, and her latest assignment from Trump—the previous one was in 2019, when then-President Trump announced Crowley’s appointment as Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs in the Treasury Department—is another canary dying in the ethics mine.

Continue reading

More on the Kamala Harris Book Plagiarism Episode

In a post three days ago, Ethics Alarms examined Christopher Rufo’s claim that Kamala Harris engaged in plagiarism in her first book, and concluded, based on the New York Times reportage, that unlike, for example, the substantial plagiarism indulged in by ex-Harvard president Claudine Gay, prompting her exit, Harris’s uncredited lifting and copying (in a book written with a co-writer, or maybe not written by Harris at all) was careless and accidental rather than deliberate.

Now another metaphorical shoe has dropped.

The Times claimed to show plagiarism expert Jonathan Bailey the passages Rufo cited as plagiarized. It reported that he ruled that the material taken without attribution “were not serious, given the size of the document.” Now Bailey writes that he was unaware of a full dossier with additional allegations.” That means that the Times gave readers the impression that he had seen all of the questionable sections when he had not.

Now that he has reviewed everything, Bailey’s conclusion is a bit different. He writes that he now believes that the “case is more serious than I commented to the New York Times.” And with that, we are thrust into a sick version of Johnny Carson’s launching pad quiz show, “Who Do You Trust?” I will not leave you in any unnecessary suspense : the answer is “Nobody.”

Continue reading

So It Looks Like Harvard Students Aren’t Learning Logic, Ethics or History, But Damn If Those Kids Don’t Know How to Play the Race Card!

Harvard student pundit Maya Bodnick authored an indignant column in the Harvard Crimson arguing that “A Witch Hunt Is Targeting Black Harvard Faculty.” Bodnick, the niece of high-powered tech exec Sheryl Sandberg (not to suggest that her connection to a wealthy former CEO of Meta had any bearing on her admission, mind you), gives us this argument: because conservatives (like Christopher Rufo) have uncovered genuine plagiarism on the part of prominent black members of Harvard’s administration and faculty, including deposed Harvard president Claudine Gay, it is clear that the objective is to target black academics and scholars, and thus is racist.

To begin with, it would be nice if someone being educated at Harvard understood what “witch hunt” means. After all, it’s a historical reference, in fact, it’s a historical reference to an infamous event that occurred not all that far from Harvard. You see, there were never any witches, because they don’t exist. Various members of the Salem community in colonial days exploited the fear of witches to get innocent people tried, ruined, and executed. “Witch hunt” means a contrived and organized effort to falsely accuse and harm an innocent person for other, sinister motives. However, plagiarism, unlike witchcraft, is real, and the Harvard plagiarists the investigations have uncovered deserved the consequences of their dishonest scholarship. This last part is apparently beyond the ability of Bodnick to comprehend.

Continue reading

Speaking of Conflicts of Interest and To Prove I’m Occasionally Right: Let’s Revisit “‘Baseball Super-Agent Scott Boras Has Another Super-Conflict And There Is No Excuse For It,’ the Sequel”

I have never recycled a post so soon (this one was was featured in January) but these are special circumstances:

  • After my analysis of the Fani Willis conflicts scandal did not jibe with the judge’s decision, my self-esteem is at a low ebb, and I feel the need to point out my prescience in this matter
  • This, like Willis’s self-made disgrace, is a conflict of interest, and one involving law as well…but also baseball.
  • The conflict of interest I flagged in January has now had some of the adverse results I predicted, and attention should be paid.
  • Baseball is one of the few things that has a chance of cheering me up right now, having gone through my first two weeks without Grace’s companionship and support. We followed the seasons (and the Red Sox) together since before we were married, as I taught her the game by taking her to watch the Orioles play Boston in old Memorial Stadium.

Two months after I wrote the post that follows, Spring Training is almost over and the season is less that two weeks away. Yet the two star pitchers I flagged as the victims of their agent’s greed and unethical conduct remain unsigned. I strongly believe that the reason they are unsigned is that the agent/lawyer they foolishly employ has been pitting teams against each other while using each pitcher as leverage to benefit the other, or so Scott Boras would argue. There is no question in my mind that if Blake Snell (above, right) and Jordan Montgomery (above, left), both talented left-handed starting pitchers that fill the same niche, were represented by different agents, both would have signed rich, long-term contracts by now. Because they have allowed themselves to be marketed by the same agent–an unconscionable conflict that baseball should prohibit and Boras’s bar association should sanction—they will not be ready to start the season even if both signed tomorrow. Pitchers who have had to miss large portions of Spring Training have frequently had off-years as a result: Boras’s greedy practice of representing competing talents may result in off seasons and even damage to their careers.

All of this could have and should have been avoided, and would have been, if baseball’s agents were subjected to any genuine ethical regulation.

Now here is the post… Continue reading

KABOOM! Harvard’s Chief Diversity Officer Is a Worse Plagiarist Than Even Claudine Gay!

And there goes my head. I just painted the ceiling of my office, too.

Unbelievable! The Washington Free Beacon, in an exclusive (hey, you wouldn’t expect the New York Times, the Washington Post or the Boston Globe of “Spotlight” fame to do any investigative journalism that might embarrass a black, female DEI officer at Harvard, would you?), revealed that Harvard University’s Sherri Ann Charleston appears to have “plagiarized extensively in her academic work, lifting large portions of text without quotation marks” and even taking credit for a study done by her own husband according to a complaint filed with the university yesterday. Charleston was the chief affirmative action officer at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, then joined Harvard in August 2020 as its first chief diversity officer—you know, because the negligent death of an overdosing career crook in Minnesota meant that Harvard had to launch a new bureaucracy. And what to you know? Charleston contributed to the fateful selection of former Harvard president Claudine Gay!

Charleston’s Harvard bio describes her as “one of the nation’s leading experts in diversity,” whatever that means. Oh wait…it means that she’s aces at “translating diversity and inclusion research into practice for students, staff, researchers, postdoctoral fellows and faculty of color.”

The allegations against Charleston look irrefutable and damning. From the Free Beacon report:

Continue reading

Ethics Dunce: Business Insider

And here is yet another despicable example of an unethical backlash in reaction to Claudine Gay’s wholly deserved exit as president of Harvard University.

Billionaire hedge fund manager, major Harvard donor and Harvard alum Bill Ackman has been among the most outspoken critics of Gay, beginning with his disgust at the then-Harvard president’s infamous performance under questioning at a Congressional hearing. He was adamant that the subsequent plagiarism revelations mandated Gay’s resignation, and after she did resign earlier this week, he wrote on X that Gay should be fired from the faculty as well. “Students are forced to withdraw for much less,” Ackman tweeted. “Rewarding her with a highly paid faculty position sets a very bad precedent for academic integrity at Harvard.”

Is anyone seriously going to dispute that? The only argument can be that Harvard has allowed other professors to get away with plagiarism with no more than some embarrassment as their punishment. See my Ethics Scoreboard post The Plagiarizing Professor, and the weekly Standard’s Laurence Tribe and the problem of borrowed scholarship. (And don’t forget that my professor at Harvard for the American Presidency course was Doris Kearns, later Goodwin, who had a major plagiarism scandal after leaving the faculty.) In another post on the topic, I concluded, “Harvard …has a full-blown plagiarism problem among its faculty, and it is more than likely that it has extensive company among other prestigious universities. Institutions of higher education must unite and begin serious and extensive inquiries into the extent and the causes of a trend that threatens the integrity of scholarship and undermines the ethics of America’s students.”

Needless to say—well, apparently it does need saying because the “Everybody does it” excuse has been cited repeatedly in defense of Gay—the way to fix a faculty plagiarism problem is to stop tolerating plagiarism by members of the faculty.

But I digress. This post is about Business Insider. What BI broke as a scoop late yesterday was that its minions had uncovered evidence of plagiarism by Bill Ackman’s wife Neri Oxman, who was a tenured professor at MIT from 2017 to 2021. “Oxman plagiarized multiple paragraphs of her 2010 doctoral dissertation, Business Insider found, including at least one passage directly lifted from other writers without citation,” Business Insider crowed.

To which I respond, “So what?” Sure, shame on her, but why is that newsworthy? Oxman’s plagiarism has nothing to do with the president of Harvard. It has nothing to do with Harvard. It does not mitigate Gay’s misconduct in any way. It does not prove that Bill Ackman is a hypocrite: he’s not a scholar, nor an academic, and he presumably married his wife for reasons unrelated to scholarly attribution practices. At best, BI is engaging in obnoxious “whataboutism.” At worst, its slap at Ackman through his wife is like the plague of “swatting” going around lately. Ackman helped bring down Gay, so Business Insider sets out to disrupt Ackman’s family.

Nice.

Assholes.

Oxman addressed the question of her plagiarism on Twitter/X, and also revealed that she was blindsided by the Business Insider reporter, who contacted her yesterday and gave her little time to review his findings and respond before BI’s hit piece went up. She described the aspects of her dissertation that had attribution issues and involved quotes without quotation marks, said she regretted them, apologized to the authors involved, and said she would ask M.I.T. to allow her to make corrections where necessary. Her post is a completely reasonable response to BI’s findings, indeed exactly the kind of response Gay should have made, but didn’t and hasn’t.

But again, it doesn’t matter. Oxman isn’t the president of a university. She isn’t a university faculty member. She isn’t a candidate for political office, like Joe Biden was when he plagiarized a speech, or Elizabeth Warren was when it was revealed that she copied someone else’s recipes for her cook book, “Pow Wow Chow.” Oxman authored one scholarly product while a student that inadequately credited sources; Gay’s plagiarism was present in several separate works published as professor. Oxman was targeted by Business Insider to strike at her husband.

So this is the way its going to be, is it?

You can find my honors thesis on “The Great Man Theory and the American Presidency” in Widener Library, guys, and my book (with historian Ed Larson) can be purchased here. Go for it.

“Baseball Super-Agent Scott Boras Has Another Super-Conflict And There Is No Excuse For It,” The Sequel

Sharp-eyed Ethics Alarms readers who pay attention to my baseball posts might recognize this one. It is like the most inexcusable lazy Hollywood franchise film, a sequel that is nearly identical to the original. I’m going to see how much of the post’s predecessor I can duplicate without having to change anything

Twelve years ago, Ethics Alarms began a post about baseball agents in general and Scott Boras in particular engaging in a flaming conflict of interest that harmed their player clients this way…

Baseball’s super-agent Scott Boras has his annual off-season conflict of interest problem, and as usual, neither Major League Baseball, nor the Players’ Union, nor the legal profession, not his trusting but foolish clients seem to care. Nevertheless, he is operating under circumstances that make it impossible for him to be fair to his clients.

I could have written that paragraph today. Nothing has changed. Literally nothing: as baseball general managers  huddle with player agents in baseball’s off-season and sign players to mind-blowing contracts, the unethical tolerance of players agents indulging in and profiting from a classic conflict of interest continues without protest or reform.

I may be the only one who cares about the issue. I first wrote about it here, on a baseball website. I carried on my campaign to Ethics Alarms, discussing the issue in 2010, 2011 (that’s where the linked quote above comes from), 2014, 2019, and in 2019 again,  and last year, in 2022. There is no publication or website that has covered the issue as thoroughly as this one, and the unethical nature of the practice is irrefutable. But I might as well be shouting in outer space, where no one can hear you scream. The conflict of interest, which is throbbingly obvious and easy to address, sits stinking up the game. Continue reading