On October 14, 2024, conservative activist Christopher Rufo dropped a bombshell on his Substack page. He alleged that US Vice President Kamala Harris, running for the 2024 presidential election, had copied sections of her 2009 book "Smart on Crime" from various sources, including Wikipedia. Social media went wild, with former President Trump’s running mate, Senator JD Vance, spreading the accusation. News outlets from The New York Times to the New York Post picked up the story.

Then, on October 22, The Washington Free Beacon, another conservative outlet, claimed that Harris had copied most of a congressional statement she made in 2007 while serving as San Francisco’s district attorney. This statement was similar to one given by Paul Logli, district attorney of Winnebago County, Illinois, two months earlier. The similarities in the passages are undeniable, but it turns out that the statements were prepared by staff aiming for consistent messaging.

Plagiarism experts like Jonathan Bailey from PlagiarismToday weighed in, noting that while Harris’ book showed "problems, " it wasn’t outright fraud. He argued that it was more a result of poor writing habits than deliberate copying. Bailey pointed out that plagiarism isn't just about copying ideas but whether the expectation was for original work.

The situation with the congressional statements is complex. Using identical language for consistent messaging isn't unusual in politics or law. However, the ethical debate remains open. Bailey highlighted that similar cases, such as Melania Trump’s speech and Joe Biden’s 1988 campaign, often involve more about character assassination than genuine plagiarism.

"Plagiarism investigations can be weaponized, " Bailey said. His article criticized how such allegations can be more about discrediting individuals than upholding integrity. The allegations against Harris serve as a reminder of the importance of careful research and context before judging.

Plagiarism Claims Against Harris: Fact or Fuss?

Actions