‘White Fragility’ Author Accused of Plagiarizing Doctoral Thesis

Robin DiAngelo, the author of the 2018 best-seller White Fragility, is facing allegations that she plagiarized her 2004 doctoral thesis, including copying from minority scholars.

The Washington Free Beacon first reported the allegations, which were made in an anonymous complaint filed with the University of Washington. The school is where the dissertation was submitted, and DiAngelo is employed as an affiliate associate professor of education.

Though anonymous, the complaint matches similar complaints against other high-profile academics connected with diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI). This includes former Havard President Claudine Gay, the DEI head at Columbia University, and the head of a DEI program at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA).

That said, the complaint against DiAngelo is unique for two reasons. This is the first time the campaign has targeted a white academic and one who is not a university official. That said, her work focuses on racial discourse, making her an obvious target. This is especially true as her book, White Fragility, is a best seller.

The other allegations in this campaign have been mixed. Though some have highlighted real issues, others have attempted to make mountains out of molehills.

So, which is this? To answer that, we need to examine the allegations and determine how serious they are.

Examining the Allegations

The 20-page complaint makes 20 separate allegations against DiAngelo. The allegations are not in page order and skip around the dissertation.

Most of the 20 allegations are either not examples of plagiarism or are, at best, very weak. For example, the first allegation deals with just 13 words. Though DiAngelo doesn’t cite the alleged source in that passage, she does elsewhere. Both sources describe a third paper and are likely pulling language from that.

Similarly, in the second allegation, DiAngelo does cite the alleged source. Though some text does overlap, it is only 14 words. While this is poor paraphrasing, it doesn’t sustain the argument that DiAngelo is trying to steal the work of other academics.

To be clear, these aren’t good. In an ideal world, you would not have passages like these. But they are not the greatest of academic sins either.

That’s not to say that there aren’t any problematic allegations. The twelfth one is probably the most troubling for me. It features a roughly 200-word passage clearly copied and pasted from an earlier source. DiAngelo does cite the source, but the citation is above the section in question, and there’s no indication that she is quoting the passage.

All in all, if someone handed me this document, I would recommend corrections and updates. However, given that many of the allegations are dubious and, even in total, only cover a small percentage of the dissertation, stronger action seems unwarranted.

The Wrinkle in the Story

At this point, the story follows the format of others we’ve seen. Though it highlights some legitimate issues, the complaint exaggerates the severity of the plagiarism, and the reporting around it has left off much of the nuance.

However, DiAngelo is unlike the other academics the campaign has targeted. She is a public figure, first and foremost. Her accountability statement says she will seek to “Always cite and give credit to the work of BIPOC people who have informed your thinking. When you use a phrase or idea you got from a BIPOC person, credit them.”

That did not happen here, at least not entirely.

While I don’t believe the evidence points to a malicious intent to steal others’ work, there was a lack of care and due diligence in places. In this case, I would argue that she did not live up to her accountability statement.

To be clear, I understand this pressure. As the author of a site named Plagiarism Today, I work hard to ensure my citations are as clean as possible. Often, I deliberately overcite out of an abundance of caution. However, I’m sure I’ve made mistakes over the past 18 years. But I acknowledge that my field and my presentation make those mistakes more problematic.

Still, it’s important to put this complaint into perspective. This complaint is not a good-faith attempt to improve academic or research integrity. It’s a targeted attack on a political or ideological opponent. But even if we take the whole complaint as truth, it represents approximately 2,000 words in a 72,000-word thesis. That equals roughly 3% of the completed dissertation.

While I agree that some corrective action is needed, that’s not what the complaint filers want. There’s no room for nuance or discussion when the goal is to discredit an ideology rather than address the actual issues in the work.

Bottom Line

In the past, I’ve criticized this particular campaign on two grounds. First, as I said above, it’s a bad-faith effort to discredit political opponents, not an attempt to improve academic integrity. Here, plagiarism is simply a tool for political gain, not an issue to be addressed.

Second, the complaints have routinely tried to exaggerate the amount of plagiarism. In my reading of the complaint, 5-7 allegations warranted some response. However, 20 allegations look more impressive, even if most don’t hold up. It’s easier to get headlines with bigger numbers.

During the height of the original scandals, I talked about the weaponization of plagiarism and how it is used to target political and ideological opponents. As someone whose focus is plagiarism, that is deeply worrying to me.

Plagiarism, citation and attribution are important issues in and of themselves. However, discussing plagiarism requires a degree of nuance and care that isn’t possible when wielding it as a weapon.

That, in turn, is how weaponizing plagiarism cheapens it. It becomes a tool to be used rather than a problem to be solved.

That is very true in this case. Dubious claims have buried genuine issues, and a rush to condemn has replaced a nuanced conversation. This story should worry you regardless of how you feel about DiAngelo and her work.

Robin DiAngelo Headshot: JasonPToews, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons