Plagiarism expert Jonathan Bailey has conducted a comprehensive analysis of the allegations against Vice President Kamala Harris and found them to be more serious than initially believed. While Bailey still maintains that the issues are more related to negligence than malicious intent, he did identify two paragraphs in Harris’ book that he classified as clear examples of plagiarism. Bailey emphasized that copying directly from Wikipedia, which Harris did in these instances, is indeed plagiarism, especially as Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source.
Bailey clarified that his earlier statements were based on limited information provided by the New York Times, and upon reviewing the complete dossier prepared by another expert, Dr. Stefan Weber, he found that the case against Harris was more serious. However, Bailey also noted that the overall problem seemed to stem from sloppy writing habits rather than a deliberate attempt to deceive.
The allegations against Harris were initially reported by conservative activist Chris Rufo, who accused Harris and her co-author of committing acts of plagiarism in their book “Smart on Crime.” Despite the revelations of plagiarism, Bailey noted that Rufo may have exaggerated the severity of the issue. While Bailey’s analysis may not satisfy everyone, he believes it strikes a balance between acknowledging the seriousness of the plagiarism and understanding the broader context of the situation.
Source
Photo credit nypost.com
