Staff Reports
Vice President Kamala Harris seems to be racking up more than just frequent flyer miles as the election approaches. In what can only be described as a classic case of “repeat after me,” Harris is now under fire for alleged plagiarism in her 2009 book, “Smart on Crime.” The news broke through the great sleuthing of Christopher Rufo, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, who took the liberty of providing the world with some rather eye-opening examples of Harris’s apparent borrowing.
Rufo’s exposé paints a picture that’s hard to ignore: various passages from Harris’s book are nearly identical to those found in other academic materials, press releases, and even a Wikipedia page. What a shocker! The book seems less like an introspection into criminal justice reform and more like a game of “copy and paste.” Reports suggest that her publisher, Chronicle Books, is scrambling to manage the fallout by sending reporters straight to the company’s higher-ups when inquiries about the alleged plagiarism come knocking. Clearly, they’d rather deal with their top brass than face the music about their author’s questionable academic integrity.
The 🇺🇸 election was never going to pass without a Rufo bomb.
"Harris’s book contains more than a dozen 'vicious plagiarism fragments' . . . similar in severity to those found in Harvard president Claudine Gay’s doctoral thesis."https://t.co/DLxhQAmJ7Q
— Alex Brown (@alexbrown17) October 14, 2024
The evidence presented by Rufo is anything but subtle. Five examples of matched or nearly identical text were highlighted, coming from sources that predate the book’s publication. From a Bureau of Justice Assistance report in 2000 to some light reading from Wikipedia in 2008, Harris seems to have borrowed from various documents that she either chose to ignore in her bibliography or conveniently forgot to attribute. It’s hard not to wonder if Harris has taken “being smart on crime” to mean being smart about sidestepping the rules of honest writing.
In response to the growing scandal, the Harris campaign has attempted to brush this mess under the rug, labeling it as a tactic straight from the playbook of “desperate right-wing operatives.” Oh, the irony! One might say that flipping the narrative is the oldest trick in the book—no pun intended. A spokesperson for Harris waved off the accusations, claiming that the Vice President had clearly cited her sources throughout. However, the timing of this denial seems a bit suspicious, much like the timing of the “coincidental” similarities in text.
Republican Ohio Senator J.D. Vance wasted no time in capitalizing on this opportunity, throwing some well-deserved shade at Harris. Vance’s remarks underscored the crux of the issue: if Americans desire originality and leadership grounded in genuine ideas, they ought to cast their ballots for Donald Trump. On the flip side, those wishing for a book authored by an “expert” in Wikipedia might just settle for Harris. Social media commentators also took aim at Harris’s writing prowess—or lack thereof—and echoed the sentiment that it’s no surprise a leading member of the Biden administration struggles with crafting original content. As the election nears, it seems this PR nightmare for Harris is just what conservatives ordered: a classic case of irony wrapped in a heaping dose of comeuppance.
