The New York Times is under fire for defending Vice President Kamala Harris against plagiarism allegations in her 2009 book *Smart on Crime*, after the expert they cited admitted he didn’t fully analyze the evidence.
The New York Times is facing intense scrutiny after its recent effort to clear Vice President Kamala Harris of plagiarism allegations related to her 2009 book, *Smart on Crime*. The controversy erupted after journalist Christopher Rufo accused Harris of copying large portions of her book from other sources, including Wikipedia, without attribution. Rufo’s bombshell, supported by renowned “plagiarism hunter” Dr. Stefan Weber, alleged that Harris had plagiarized at least a dozen sections of the book, including nearly an entire Wikipedia article, and even fabricated a source reference.
Despite the weight of these accusations, the *Times* swiftly published a piece downplaying the seriousness of the claims. Their headline, “Conservative Activist Seizes on Passages From Harris Book,” set the tone for an article that dismissed Rufo’s findings, arguing that none of the passages in question amounted to serious plagiarism. The *Times* enlisted Jonathan Bailey, a plagiarism expert, to back their claim, asserting that the errors in Harris’s book were minor and did not involve the theft of ideas or thoughts from other writers.
However, the *Times*’ defense has started to unravel. Rufo responded by accusing the paper of lying by omission, claiming they deliberately underreported the number of plagiarized sections—18 instances, according to the full dossier he provided. He also argued that the *Times* misled their readers by focusing on only a portion of the evidence, ignoring significant parts of the allegations. One of the most damning examples Rufo presented was Harris’s wholesale copying of a Wikipedia page, which directly contradicts the *Times*’ claim that no ideas or thoughts were taken from other sources.
Adding to the controversy, Bailey, the *Times*’ own expert, admitted on social media that he had not conducted a full analysis of the material. His assessment was based solely on the information provided by the reporters, calling into question the validity of his exoneration of Harris. Bailey now faces a dilemma: acknowledging Harris’s plagiarism could risk his professional reputation, while defending her despite the evidence could forever tarnish his credibility.
As this scandal unfolds, it puts the *Times* in a precarious position, as critics accuse the paper of protecting the Democrat presidential nominee rather than holding her accountable for apparent ethical lapses. For Harris, already grappling with policy reversals and a contentious campaign, the plagiarism allegations may become yet another obstacle as she seeks the presidency in 2024.
.png)