Thread by @BrooksDSimpson

Perhaps the most curious response from some people determined to soften recent accusations of plagiarism levelled at a prominent scholar who embraces social media is that to some extent all historians do this, especially early in their career.

I've even seen it excused because the most recent example comes from the accused dissertation, as if that fact makes the plagiarism more acceptable or expected.

Really?

First, let's recall that the scholar who brought our attention to this issue has highlighted it in the accused's writing at a much later point in their career.

Second, a comparison of the texts under question offers detailed evidence of similarity over multiple sentences.

That evidence seems sufficient to me to dismiss any efforts to excuse it as accidental or unconscious.

We punish undergrads for doing this ... certainly they are at an earlier point in their careers than someone finishing a dissertation.

The silence from the accused and from many prominent self-styled #twitterhistorians who have posted on other matters since this issue arose in the last few days feeds a sense that scholars do not apply rules of professional conduct and ethics across the board.

That's going to be raised the next time we see someone post, "Historian here...." Why trust people with such blatantly situational ethics?

To those who want us to look at the motives of the people who advanced this allegation or celebrate it (I'm looking at you, @DineshDSouza), I say two things:

First, pay equal attention to the motives of the silent and those who exculpate.

Second, set aside your speculation about everyone's motives and just weigh the case on its merits.

If you want to say early career scholars make the same sorts of mistakes ... offer an example from your own work.

I have little patience for such weak defenses of what is clearly historical malpractice. Ask @HaroldHolzer.

cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2011/01/27/har…

Look, if I write a sentence off the top of my head that covers the same event that I've read about or others have written about, someone might yell "plagiarism!"

Here's an example:

"In the early morning hours of April 12, 1861, the Confederates commenced bombarding Fort Sumter."

I'm sure someone has written something approximating a version of that sentence somewhere.

But would anyone call the above a plagiarized sentence? I doubt it.

But the examples offered up cover multiple sentences that are easily traced to a single source. That's a bit more troubling.

So is the prolonged silence from the accused's employer and the feeble response of the accused. That's simply fueled discussion.

This issue isn't going away. People will remember how it unfolded and how people responded (or didn't respond) to it. Historians visible on Twitter are putting their credibility as authoritative and respected sources on the line. How does our profession go about its business?

*accused's dissertation.

What I have seen from some defenders of the accused is an attack on the scholar who made the original comment, focusing on motives.

Folks, first, you're not exactly helping the accused. You certainly aren't defending him.

Second, you're inviting a response in kind. Good job!

Princeton has responded:

dailycaller.com/2022/06/17/pri…