In a rather revealing admission, The New York Times acknowledged that Vice President Kamala Harris had plagiarized multiple passages in her 2009 book, Smart on Crime. Conservative journalist Christopher Rufo, working off research by Austrian plagiarism expert Dr. Stefan Weber, uncovered the instances of copied material. However, the Times downplayed the severity of the plagiarism, stating that it was “not serious” and only represented a small portion of the book.
The story first broke on Rufo’s Substack, where he pointed out roughly 500 words that had been copied across the 200-page book. Harris, who co-authored the book while serving as San Francisco’s district attorney, was accused of copying descriptions of programs and statistical information without proper attribution.
While The New York Times confirmed that these passages had been lifted, they were quick to emphasize that the material did not involve the theft of ideas or opinions—what the Times deemed to be a more serious form of plagiarism.
EXCLUSIVE: Kamala Harris plagiarized at least a dozen sections of her criminal-justice book, Smart on Crime, according to a new investigation. The current vice president even lifted material from Wikipedia.
We have the receipts. 🧵
— Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@realchrisrufo) October 14, 2024
In an effort to soften the blow, the Times quoted Jonathan Bailey, a plagiarism consultant, who downplayed the issue, calling the lapses “not serious” in light of the book’s overall length. The article shifted focus from the substance of the plagiarism to Rufo himself, characterizing his investigations as part of a broader conservative effort to target Black scholars in fields like diversity and inclusion. This framing, of course, implied that the scandal could be seen through a racial lens, rather than as an objective critique of Harris’s academic and professional integrity.
Rufo’s expose wasn’t the first time Harris has been accused of plagiarism, and it certainly fits a broader pattern of media attempting to downplay controversies surrounding her. Sen. JD Vance, the Republican vice-presidential nominee, seemed to predict this response, suggesting the media would treat the scandal as insignificant because Harris had only copied parts of her book.
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
This particular case of plagiarism, while not involving any stolen ideas or major intellectual thefts, still raises questions about transparency and professional ethics. Harris allegedly copied passages from sources like Wikipedia—widely regarded as an unreliable source, especially for scholarly or professional work. For the Times, this kind of plagiarism would typically be categorized as a serious issue when it involves other public figures, yet they are quick to brush it aside in this case.
The Times’ handling of the story feeds into a larger pattern, where media outlets either ignore controversies involving Democratic figures or minimize their impact. Breitbart News’ John Nolte predicted as much, arguing that the corporate media would likely downplay the incident, which is exactly what happened. By focusing more on Rufo’s motives than Harris’s actions, the media seems intent on shifting the conversation away from accountability.
