Senate Candidate Accused of Plagiarism in His Book

Last week, Darrell Ehrlick at the Daily Montanan published an article accusing Montanan Senate candidate Tim Sheehy of plagiarizing portions of his book.

The book Mudslingers: A True Story of Aerial Firefighting covers the history of aerial firefighting and Sheehy’s experience as a firefighter.

However, according to the report, at least four passages in the book were copied from earlier sources. Though one source is cited in the bibliography, the others are not, and none of the passages are quoted.

Neither Sheehy nor his publisher have responded to the allegations.

The allegations come amid other controversies involving the book. This includes Sheehy’s campaign promoting the book, which led to accusations of potential self-dealing. Sheehy also said he plans to donate the book’s money to a lobbying organization, creating a potential conflict of interest.

However, this story stands out in an election cycle that has been rife with plagiarism allegations. But it doesn’t stand out because it’s unusual or uncommon, but rather because it’s a very ordinary plagiarism allegation in a very unusual time for plagiarism.

Analyzing the Allegations

The allegations themselves deal with four sections in the 309-page book.

In the first section, Sheehy is accused of copying 26 words from the Wikipedia definition of “smokejumper.” In the second passage, he is accused of copying roughly four paragraphs from Wildfire Today’s website. Sheehy only modified the paragraphs lightly and added some new information.

The third passage came from The Backseat Pilot, an aviation website targeted at pilots. It includes some 75 words that were copied verbatim. The final section involves roughly 40 words copied from a 2022 article in the San Marino Tribune about the Afghan Air Force.

The article only provides images of the second section. However, given the description of the other three, the copying appears very clear and only has minor edits.

However, the sections at issue comprise a very small portion of the book. Out of the 309 pages, less than four have plagiarized text. That means this text represents just over 1% of the total book.

To be clear, this is still plagiarism. However, it doesn’t suggest that this book was a work of wholesale plagiarism. Instead, it suggests that the author was sloppy and mixed outside text with original writing.

When I discuss writing in a clean room, this is precisely the kind of plagiarism I am trying to help authors avoid. You don’t paraphrase someone else’s work by rewriting or editing it. You paraphrase by taking the information and writing wholly new language to express it.

When you fail to do that, plagiarism like this inevitably slips through.

In the end, I agree with Ehrlick that this story isn’t likely to make a major difference in the campaign. Between the relatively small amount of plagiarism and how deeply divided the political landscape is, it’s unlikely that many will change their mind about Sheehy.

Still, it’s an interesting plagiarism scandal, but not because it’s unique. Rather, because it’s ordinary.

Why This Story Stands Out

To be clear, there’s nothing unique about this story. In fact, Sheehy isn’t even the first candidate in a Montana Senate race to be accused of plagiarism.

In 2014, Senator John Walsh was accused of plagiarizing his thesis. As a result of the scandal, Walsh dropped out of the race. The Army War College, where Walsh submitted the thesis, also revoked his degree.

But, while this story may be an ordinary political plagiarism scandal, it has not been the norm this year.

Over the past year, we have seen at least eight significant plagiarism scandals involving black academics in high positions and others who are proponents of academic diversity.

Though the stories have targeted academics, they are every bit as political as checking a candidate’s book for plagiarism. These stories aim to discredit diversity initiatives and academic diversity more broadly. The goal is not to improve academic integrity.

When the allegations started late last year with the Claudine Gay allegations, what made it unusual at the time was that an academic figure, namely a university president, was the target of a politically-motivated plagiarism allegation.

However, since then, that has become the norm, with such targeted allegations continuing to this day.

It has become so common that Sheehy’s allegations stand out. In this cycle, it’s been rare to see candidates themselves targeted for plagiarism. The focus has been elsewhere.

Bottom Line

To be clear, just because plagiarism allegations are politically motivated doesn’t mean they aren’t valid. It just means we must consider the source of the allegations when examining them.

In this case, the allegations point to genuine issues in this book. There’s not much doubt that these passages are examples of plagiarism.

However, between the small percentage of the book involved and the non-academic nature of the work, it’s not a major scandal. If this were any other author writing this kind of book, I would expect the publisher to fix the issues in the next printing.

That said, I would expect the publisher to thoroughly check the book and ensure these are the only issues. There’s enough here not to dismiss the issue as a one-off mistake. Clearly, Sheehy’s writing process was flawed, and it’s important to ensure that these are the only issues that were created.

Ultimately, this isn’t likely to move the needle in the election. Between the deep divisions and the limited amount of text involved, no one is likely to change their vote because of this.

Still, it’s surprisingly comforting to have a more “normal” plagiarism scandal after a very unusual year.