Plagiarism, Transparency and the Case of Pamela Whitten

Last month, an anonymous tipster accused Indiana University President Pamela Whitten of plagiarizing her 1996 dissertation.

However, Indiana University quickly dismissed the allegations. A spokesperson said the allegations recycled “assertions made in August of 2024 that were investigated and found to have no merit by an independent law firm.”

The University of Kansas, where Whitten submitted the dissertation, did not comment on the story.

The story garnered considerable media attention but fizzled out over time like many such stories.

However, Indiana Public Media (WFIU/WTIU) did not drop the story. They submitted a public records request to the university for the report that supposedly cleared her. However, the university denied the request, saying it was “protected by the attorney-client privilege and work product privilege.”

The denial came just days after the school’s trustees voted to give Whitten a significant raise and extend her five-year contract without advance notice.

At a time when greater transparency is desired from higher education, Indiana University appears to be taking the opposite approach. The school is shutting out the media, making it difficult to check their processes and verify their findings.

This is not a good look, but, unfortunately, it may not be a bad move.

The Background of the Story

Whitten’s story is very similar to those of several other university officials over the past 18 months.

The first university official to face such scrutiny was Claudine Gay, then-President of Harvard University. Gay was in the national spotlight following a heavily criticized hearing before the House Committee on Education.

However, she was just the first of several university officials to face such allegations. Most of the allegations targeted university officials who were advocates of Diversity, Equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs or were seen as “DEI hires.”

Whitten’s case, however, was somewhat different. She drew national attention for her strong stance against pro-Palestenian protestors and advocates. This included calling police on student protestors, terminating a professor who improperly booked a room for a pro-Palestinian event and canceling a museum exhibit by a Palestinian artist.

In April 2024, 93.1 percent of voting faculty members said they had no confidence in Whitten. However, the Board of Trustees released a statement in support of Whitten, saying that she would be serving as President “for years to come.”

When the Chronicle of Higher Education reported the plagiarism allegations in January 2025, the school quickly rebuked them. A spokesperson said the allegations were identical to the ones they examined in August 2024. The school said an independent law firm investigated the claims and ruled they were meritless.

However, no one has seen that report, and it’s unlikely that anyone outside the school will.

A Clear Lack of Transparency

The Chronicle consulted several experts about the story, myself included. Opinions differed, but most agreed that the evidence called for a response. I proposed a correction of the dissertation, while others pushed for harsher measures.

While I can see how someone could legitimately find the allegations meritless, we don’t know anything about this report. We know that it was written in August 2024 by an “independent law firm.” However, we don’t know who wrote it, if they are an expert, what their actual findings were and how they came to those conclusions.

We only have the university’s word that the allegations were without merit.

This stands in stark contrast to Harvard’s handling of the Claudine Gay allegations. Though Harvard’s handling of the allegations was flawed, it was at least reasonably transparent.

In January 2025, the school released details about the investigation, including an eight-page timeline summary. This included names and titles of those involved in the investigations and summaries of their findings. While we don’t have the complete reports, we at least know more about who did what during the inquiry.

With Indiana University, we don’t even have that.

To be clear, the reasons IU cited for withholding the report are valid. However, the school could have waived those privileges but chose not to. As an expert witness in legal cases, I’ve had many of my reports made public. The school, for whatever reason, decided not to do that.

It’s disappointing, but it may not be the wrong move, especially when dealing with the media.

Bottom Line

I strongly advocate for and push for transparency in plagiarism (and other academic/research integrity matters). From that perspective, this case is deeply disappointing.

However, from a purely practical standpoint, I wonder if it was not the best move.

Transparency didn’t save Claudine Gay or protect Harvard. Gay resigned weeks before Harvard released the information, and even though the investigation was thorough, the transparency generated more controversy for the school. The media punished the school for being transparent.

If IU had granted the request, it likely would have led to a new round of media coverage of the report and a thorough analysis of every detail in it. By declining the order, there’s only a brief article on the WFIU/WTIU website and this post.

This is to say nothing about the University of Kansas, where Whitten submitted the dissertation. They have not responded to the allegations in any way and have stayed completely out of the headlines.

To be clear, I don’t think that schools should be playing these kinds of shrewd games regarding academic and research integrity. The stakes are too high.

However, it’s also a natural response to the weaponization of plagiarism. Bad-faith actors are using plagiarism allegations in politically motivated attacks on university officials. It is shrewd and inappropriate in equal parts.

It makes sense that schools and officials would respond in kind, especially after more than a year of watching these cases unfold. As someone who holds academia in high esteem, I find this disheartening.

However, it’s another example of how dubious plagiarism allegations weaken academia. They reward non-transparent behavior and hurt academic/research integrity. They also cheapen the severity of serious integrity violations by obscuring nuance, leading to false equivalencies.

In short, no one wins here. The school looks like they are hiding something, Whitten can’t fully remove the stain from the allegation, and the issues will go uncorrected.

Nothing good comes of this.