As a sidelight to the December 5, 2023, House Committee on Education testimony of several presidents of elite universities, the media is currently feasting on a debate over plagiarism. Here, I argue that there is a difference between intentionally stealing another’s ideas and simply lazy, borderline-incompetent scholarship. I find that the allegation of plagiarism in this case is unfounded, while the blatantly incompetent scholarship that has led to the allegation is shocking.

The congressional testimony of Claudine Gay of Harvard, Elizabeth Magill of Penn, and Sally Kornbluth of MIT reeked of hypocrisy. Many have noted how substituting the word “Jew” on the protest signs and slogans with any other protected class would result in immediate expulsion from their institutions. That the presidents of some of the most prestigious universities cannot state the obvious—namely that the attacks of October 7 constituted cold-blooded, premeditated murder (and sexual violence against women and children)—is itself a crime against the human intellect.

Instead, these glittering jewels of diversity-hiring spouted talking points laid down by their lawyers, a cowardly bid to avoid the truth. But I will not dwell on this vile manifestation of what passes for public discourse in our country today.

I want to focus on another aspect: the allegations of plagiarism that have also been leveled against Gay, who appears to have cut and pasted passages from other authors into her dissertation and in publications. Scholars in her field are lining up on both sides, neatly forming a circular firing squad. So, it’s worth addressing the general issues of plagiarism, attribution, and citation vis-à-vis the almost insane obsession that academic societies maintain on this issue, mostly for show.

Image: Claudine Gay (edited). YouTube screen grab.

I repeat, so my position is clear: most of the screeching done by learned societies regarding plagiarism is a nonsensical sideshow meant to fool outsiders. It’s nothing more than self-glorification. Look at us, we’re so virtuous, pure, and superior. But you probably suspected that already.

Now, don’t get me wrong, stealing the ideas and writings of another and passing them off as your own is reprehensible and should rightly be disqualifying. At the extreme, intellectual property theft for profit is, in fact, a criminal act that should be more vigorously pursued by DOJ. I have written about my own experiences in this regard.

But honestly, overt and intentional plagiarism is rare, especially in recent years. During my 40 years as a research scientist, I published (with my students) over 270 peer-reviewed journal papers and nine books. About 15 years ago, I submitted a research article to a fuel science journal. It was reviewed, revised, and then accepted by the editor. A few days later, the editor (a friend and colleague) sent an email saying: “Tom, I’m sorry, but I have to reject your paper, call me.” WTF?!

On the phone, he said that a new computer program found that the technique I used on a novel fuel was the same that I used on a previous fuel. Didn’t matter that the fuels were entirely different. Didn’t matter that the USAF needed results published before a flight test. Didn’t matter that I, in fact, invented the method and that many labs were then using it. Didn’t matter that I properly cited my previous paper describing the invention. I was accused of plagiarizing myself!

Ridiculous as this might sound, the tizzy over self-plagiarism was caused by a (very small) few researchers who would send nearly the same work to several journals to pad their résumé. Not good. But using a method you invented (and used previously) on a new fuel is different, right? Nooooo! Equally ridiculously, the fix was to simply put the entire discussion of the method into quotes. Voila! The program ignored the entire section, and my paper was off to publication!

Later on, I became a journal editor myself, and I now have the same program on my computer. If this program (seemingly carried down the mountain by Moses) finds 20% “similarity” with anything, the paper is sent back to the author, and by now, we all know how to deal with it. Only once in about 12 years as editor did I catch blatant dishonesty. A Nigerian author pirated not only the method but figures of an Asian author. In fact, he used the exact same photographs and much of the same prose! For his trouble, this author was debarred from future publication, effectively ending his career. As I mentioned, this is extremely rare.

So what are we to make of the Claudine Gay plagiarism allegation? Since I have the plagiarism program, I figured I would download some of her public domain works and take a look. No-Go. They have been sanitized (just like my fuel paper, by inserting quotes). Fortunately, Rufo and Brunet of Substack, not being as lazy as I am, did by hand what I couldn’t with my program: they analyzed passages from her publications.

Indeed, there are passages that are alarmingly like the works of others. Should she have done better work? Absolutely. Did she blatantly steal the ideas of others and claim originality? I’m not so sure. However, her work is extremely sloppy. She is indeed guilty of intellectual indolence, which means her scholarship is not even close to what Harvard should demand.

If Harvard is content to harbor “scholars” whose work is as sloppy as Gay’s, the reputation developed (since George Washington was in diapers) will ultimately crater. But what she did does not approach the deceit of the Nigerian paper I mentioned.

All too often, we conservatives jump on a horse we think is a thoroughbred only to find it is a dobbin (look it up, I had to). Fixating on Gay’s plagiarism is a horse that ain’t getting us to the bank. Instead, focus on two real issues: her blatantly substandard scholarship and the vile antisemitism that she and her ilk willingly protect.

Dr. Bruno, a scientist retired after more than 40 years in research, amuses himself writing books and editing scientific journals, along with wood and metal working.