Vice President Kamala Harris's plagiarism allegations regarding her 2009 book have escalated in severity according to new expert evaluations.
When the New York Times first reported allegations of plagiarism against Vice President Kamala Harris concerning her book "Smart on Crime," the initial findings were deemed not severe. However, this perspective has taken a significant turn following further investigation.
Breitbart reported that Jonathan Bailey, a plagiarism consultant who initially downplayed the allegations, reassessed his position after a comprehensive dossier filled with additional claims was presented to him.
Bailey's evolving stance raises questions regarding the nature of these allegations and their impact.
The controversy began to gain traction after a detailed analysis by plagiarism expert Dr. Stefan Weber, whose findings were reported by conservative journalist Christopher Rufo. These findings sparked a broader discussion on the integrity of Harris's literary work.
The dossier that influenced Bailey's revised opinion includes 29 alleged instances of plagiarism, with claims mostly centered around "Smart on Crime."
Upon reviewing these allegations, Bailey found significant evidence of duplicated content from sources such as Wikipedia and the Associated Press.
Bailey shared his revised views in an article published on Plagiarism Today. He clarifies that while the plagiarism postulates a lack of diligence rather than deceit, it still raises concerns about Harris’s methods and the original assertions about the gravity of the allegations.
Discussing his updated analysis, Bailey stated, "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."
In addition to the plagiarism accusations, the dossier also contains accusations of self-plagiarism, which Bailey was quick to dismiss. He argues that politicians often repeat themselves, indicating that the reuse of certain passages in different contexts is to be expected and not necessarily unethical.
"Politicians repeat themselves, and it’s not surprising to see them reuse words and passages,” Bailey explained, dismissing the self-plagiarism claims but confirming the more critical allegations of copying from other sources.
The Harris campaign, represented by spokesman James Singer, responded robustly to the allegations, attributing them to political motives. "Rightwing operatives are getting desperate as they see the bipartisan coalition of support Vice President Harris is building to win this election," Singer argued.
Despite the controversy, major media figures and outlets have shied away from pressing Harris directly on these allegations.
Personalities like Fox News’s Bret Baier and Charlamagne Tha God have not raised these issues in interviews with or related to Harris, leaving a gap in public interrogation concerning her actions.
This absence of direct media inquiry might result in potential gaps in public understanding or scrutiny just as the election approaches. The hesitation to engage with this topic openly raises both concerns and curiosity about the media’s role in political accountability.
Is it problematic? Yes. But it’s also not the wholesale fraud that many have claimed it to be," Bailey affirms, concluding his reassessment of the situation. "It sits somewhere between what the two sides want it to be," he adds, indicating a complexity in the situation that defies simple categorization.
Regardless of the outcome, this situation highlights a critical moment of accountability and transparency that will likely influence public perception and electoral decisions.