Controversy Erupts As Harris Faces Plagiarism Accusations

Vice President Kamala Harris faces plagiarism accusations for her 2009 book “Smart on Crime,” igniting a political firestorm with potential implications for the upcoming election.

At a Glance

Conservative activist Christopher Rufo accuses Harris of copying portions of her 2009 book.
Allegations involve about 500 words from various sources, including Wikipedia.
Harris’ campaign dismisses claims as politically motivated attacks.
Plagiarism experts suggest errors are minor citation mistakes rather than intentional deception.
Publisher Chronicle Books handling the situation with caution.

Accusations Surface

Conservative activist Christopher Rufo has accused Vice President Kamala Harris of plagiarism in her 2009 book “Smart on Crime.” Rufo claims that approximately 500 words across five sections of the 65,000-word book were lifted from sources including Wikipedia, news reports, and official documents without proper attribution.

The allegations have sparked controversy, with Rufo posting screenshots of internal emails from Chronicle Books, Harris’ publisher, indicating they are treating the situation with sensitivity. The publisher’s executive director of marketing and publicity, Lauren Hoffman, has instructed staff to forward all inquiries to senior management due to the delicate nature of the issue.

Examining the Claims

The New York Times reviewed the book and found that while the questioned passages did copy descriptions and statistical information without using quotation marks, they did not involve taking ideas or thoughts from other writers, which is considered serious plagiarism. Plagiarism consultant Jonathan Bailey stated that the errors were not serious and amounted to citation mistakes rather than an intent to deceive.

“This amount of plagiarism amounts to an error and not an intent to defraud,” he said, adding that Mr. Rufo had taken relatively minor citation mistakes in a large amount of text and tried to “make a big deal of it.”

Specific sources allegedly plagiarized include a 2000 Bureau of Justice Assistance report, a 2004 Urban Institute report, a 2007 John Jay College press release, a 2008 Associated Press article, and a 2008 Wikipedia article. While some passages include footnote citations, not all examples were properly quoted, and in one case, a different report was cited as the source.

Political Implications

The Harris campaign has dismissed the plagiarism claims as politically motivated attacks by “rightwing operatives.” They argue that the book, which Harris co-authored when she was San Francisco’s district attorney, includes citations in footnotes and endnotes, though not all examples were properly quoted.

Hi, I'm JD Vance. I wrote my own book, unlike Kamala Harris, who copied hers from Wikipedia. https://t.co/tkZvK8LrI3

— JD Vance (@JDVance) October 14, 2024

The Trump campaign and other political figures have seized on the allegations, criticizing Harris’ authenticity and originality. The potential impact on voters remains uncertain, with historical context provided by President Joe Biden’s past plagiarism scandal during his earlier political career.

This Kamala Harris plagiarism story is gonna keep growing. JD Vance called her out on it today. Remember Joe Biden’s 1987 Presidential run was ended because of plagiarism. pic.twitter.com/YwiUUfBRLl

— Don Keith (@RealDonKeith) October 15, 2024

Publisher’s Response

Chronicle Books, the publisher of “Smart on Crime,” has yet to provide an official comment on the situation. However, internal communications suggest they are treating the matter with caution. The book’s ghostwriter, Joan O’C. Hamilton, appeared surprised by the allegations when contacted by The New York Post.

“Oh gosh,” Joan O’C. Hamilton told The Post on a brief phone call Monday. “I haven’t seen anything. … I’m afraid I can’t talk to you right now, though, I’m in the middle of something. Let me go try to figure that out.”

As the controversy unfolds, it remains to be seen how these allegations will impact Harris’ political standing and the broader landscape of the upcoming election. The incident has reignited discussions about academic integrity and the scrutiny faced by public figures in the digital age.