Giving proper attribution to your sources is a matter of academic integrity. It’s also a matter of principle outside of academia, whether you’re writing a blog or a major news website, you have to give credit to your sources.

Basically, you have two options when you’re drawing on a source: You can use direct quotes or you can paraphrase. Either way, you need to give an in-text citation and list your sources at the end of the paper on a works cited page. Problems can arise, though, when a student doesn’t properly give credit to the source through a variety of errors and missteps. 

For example, a student might choose to paraphrase a source, give credit in terms of their in-text citation and works cited page, but fail to really put it in their own words. In this case, the student’s paraphrase too closely mirrors the original text, perhaps cribbing certain terms and phrases from the original. (SEE ALSO: Mute Point? You Want To Say “Moot Point”)

It’s easy to see how this could become a problem. If the writer doesn’t have an organic understanding of the issue at hand, it’s hard for her to paraphrase “in her own words,” seeing as that she doesn’t even really know what she’s talking about. The best solution in this case is to use direct quotes instead of using a paraphrase. When you go into a topic with some background knowledge, however, it is easier to paraphrase the ideas of a source and integrate it seamlessly into your own writing. 

If the writer doesn’t have an organic understanding of the issue at hand, it’s hard for her to paraphrase.

According to Owl Purdue, paraphrasing is “One legitimate way (when accompanied by accurate documentation) to borrow from a source.”  That’s an elegant way to put it; the fine line between paraphrasing and stealing and how to do paraphrase ethically. 

This brings us to the controversial topic at hand: Did Harvard President Claudine Gay plagiarize her doctoral dissertation?  

When people hear this, they might associate the word “plagiarism” with literally copying someone else’s work and passing it off as their own. This is the impression from the headline of Chris Rufo’s Substack, “Is Claudine Gay a Plagiarist.” To be clear, Rufo does marshal some good evidence on this question. In this case, Harvard President Gay did something that could technically be considered plagiarism, but it’s a lot more subtle. Therefore, she herself might not have even realized she plagiarized per se, because she might not precisely understand the rules around plagiarism and citing other academics’ work. 

Rufo dissects Gays 1997 PhD dissertation, “Taking Charge: Black Electoral Success and the Redefinition of American Policies,” and finds several examples of improper or altogether absent citations or attributions. In some cases, Gay attempts to paraphrase but uses language which mimics too closely her source material.  Although Gay does give an attribution, that is still considered plagiarism. According to Rufo (and he provides the evidence), Gay stole entire passages “verbatim,” passing them off as her own paraphrase. This is to say that she did give her source, in this case a paper called “Race, Sociopolitical Participation, and Black Empowerment” credit, but she doesn’t use quotation marks in language that should not be passed off as Gay’s own. 

Rufo provides the text from Gay’s dissertation and the source paper: 

Using 1987 national sample survey data . . . the results show that blacks in high-black-empowerment areas—as indicated by control of the mayor’s office—are more active than either blacks living in low-empowerment areas or their white counterparts of comparable socioeconomic status. Furthermore, the results show that empowerment influences black participation by contributing to a more trusting and efficacious orientation to politics and by greatly increasing black attentiveness to political affairs.

Rufo then provides the language from Gay’s paper: 

Using 1987 survey data, Bobo and Gilliam found that African-Americans in “high black-empowerment” areas—as indicated by control of the mayor’s office—are more active than either African-Americans in low empowerment areas or their white counterparts of comparable socioeconomic status. Empowerment, they conclude, influences black participation by contributing to a more trusting and efficacious orientation towards politics and by greatly increasing black attentiveness to political affairs.

Rufo points to Harvard’s own rule on plagiarism, which states that a writer: 

“...must give credit to the author of the source material, either by placing the source material in quotation marks and providing a clear citation, or by paraphrasing the source material and providing a clear citation.”

Meanwhile, Harvard investigated the matter and concluded that it was “inadequate citation.” That’s probably fair, although it doesn’t address that the president of Harvard doesn’t know how to do citations. 

Every set of writing guidelines, such as MLA, APA, or otherwise, has similar rules, because it all comes down to a principle, which is, again, giving credit to others where warranted and not passing off others’ ideas and writing as your own. Gay fails on this front, though possibly due to incompetence rather than malevolence. 

Clearly Gay is on the wrong side of plagiarism due to not using quotation marks for a passage that too closely resembles the original.  But perhaps Gay just doesn’t understand how to cite her sources properly. I mean, she’s only the president of Harvard. 

Follow Michael Machera Blog on Facebook and Twitter

Comment below: