Germany’s Green Party Chancellor Candidate Accused of Plagiarism

Two weeks before the upcoming German election, a plagiarism expert accused the Green Party candidate for chancellor, Robert Habeck, of plagiarism in his 2001 dissertation.

The expert, Stefan Weber, posted the allegations to his blog on Monday (German). Throughout 163 slides, he accuses Habeck of multiple plagiarism issues, including failure to cite secondary sources and failure to indicate quoted text.

However, Habeck went on a preemptive media blitz before the allegations were published. He roundly denied the plagiarism allegations and said that the school, the University of Hamburg, had already cleared the paper.

According to the University, “Standards of good scientific practice were neither intentionally nor grossly negligently violated.”

This starkly contrasts Weber’s statements, who previously called the dissertation a “scientific simulation.”

While the case seems like yet another politician facing plagiarism allegations before an election, there are two key differences. The first is how the alleged plagiarism was discovered, and the second is how Habeck responded.

Understanding the Allegations

Disclosure: The dissertation, allegations and much of the coverage are in German. As such, I’ve used automatic translation tools to gather information. I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the translations.

To be clear, this is not a typical plagiarism analysis. Rather than finding matching text, detecting AI writing or seeking out poorly paraphrased passages, Weber’s focus is on the citations. According to Weber, he used a “citation-based approach,” which shows that Habeck never consulted the primary sources he cited.

This is commonly referred to as secondary source plagiarism. It’s a process where a primary source (such as a study) is given credit for information when a secondary source (such as a news article about the study) is used.

We examined this extensively in 2017 when then-Supreme Court candidate Neil Gorsuch was accused of plagiarism in a 2006 book. This was another politically charged plagiarism allegation over this same issue.

To that end, Weber does a decent job of proving at least some of his allegations. Of the ones I sampled, some didn’t definitively prove Weber relied on secondary sources. Others, however, found copied text, similar mistakes and other “smoking guns” that strongly indicate an issue.

However, the problem with the allegations isn’t whether it happened. It’s whether it was serious.

A 2013 survey by Turnitin found that secondary source plagiarism was the “least serious” and one of the more common types. Some even disputed that it was a problem at all.

So, even though the plagiarism is apparent, at least in some cases, the University of Hamburg may still be justified in its conclusions. It seems that the consensus, rightly or wrongly, is that this isn’t a significant transgression.

Weaponization and Counterattack

To put it bluntly, this is a clear example of the weaponization of plagiarism. Weber wrote about the allegations in August 2024 but didn’t publish his findings until weeks before the election.

However, Weber seems to acknowledge this. In his post intro, he explains, “We only get attention for the same old problem with qualification papers before the elections.”

But the goal shouldn’t be to get attention. If one seeks to correct academic sins and errors, it should be reported to the schools and publishers, not newspapers. Getting massive amounts of media attention doesn’t serve any academic goal. It should be used as a last resort, not a first.

Weber also made a similar claim against Green Party Chancellor candidate Annalena Baerbock in June 2021, shortly before another federal election. That case also was not that serious. It involved a book she had used a ghostwriter on, not an academic work, and the quantity was limited.

While I don’t know Weber’s political affiliations, this suggests that the allegations are politically motivated. That doesn’t mean they aren’t valid, but they must be taken with a grain of salt.

But what is most interesting for me is how Habeck responded to the allegation. I did not first hear about this case from Weber’s post or its coverage. Instead, I heard about it from his preemptive denial.

Even before Weber’s post went online, multiple articles from Habeck’s camp were published denying the allegations and highlighting the University’s determination. This heavily blunted the impact of Weber’s allegations.

Given that Weber first discussed the allegations in August, that’s plenty of time for Habeck and the University to review the paper and formulate a response. They did so masterfully, getting ahead of the story before it broke.

Bottom Line

On one hand, this appears to be a pretty standard plagiarism case. A politician accused of plagiarizing their dissertation (or other academic work) ahead of an election. This has been a common thing, especially in Germany.

On the other, it’s very unusual. Not only was the alleged plagiarism detected through a different means, but the politician got ahead of it, breaking the story first and on his terms.

Ultimately, I don’t see these allegations carrying much weight. As we’ve seen in other German cases, if the school revokes the degree or has a serious challenge, it can have dire consequences. However, the University of Hamburg has already dismissed these allegations in very strong terms. As such, that’s not likely.

That said, I view secondary source plagiarism as a type that should be addressed. While I agree that revoking a degree might be extreme, other ways exist to correct the record. Most notably, correcting the paper.

Still, the way that Habeck got ahead of this story makes it one to watch. German politicians have a long history of facing and responding to plagiarism allegations. However, this is the first time a politician got in front of it.

From a PR standpoint, Habeck handled this case better than any politician I’ve seen.

While it likely won’t matter much in the larger picture, it’s still an interesting story and one to monitor.