Michigan State University Dean ‘Exonerated’ of Plagiarism

Yesterday, The State News reported that Michigan State University (MSU) had “exonerated” Jerlando Jackson, the College of Education Dean, against plagiarism allegations made against him.

In a report provided to the paper following a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, the school said it had conducted a “preliminary assessment” of the allegations and determined that an inquiry was not warranted.

According to the school’s policies, this amounts to an exoneration for Jackson. As such, he will not face any disciplinary action in the matter.

However, the report isn’t likely to dissuade critics of the school. The preliminary analysis report is almost entirely redacted, providing no meaningful information about the process. The paper appealed the decision, but additional documents provided by the school did not offer any new information about the specific case.

So, while the report likely marks the end of Jackson’s case, it’s also just another page in the ongoing saga of DEI-focused plagiarism allegations. To that end, it’s a page that many will likely want to forget.

Background of the Case

Those following this site over the past year will know I’ve talked about Jackson several times. His name has come up three times in the spate of DEI-related plagiarism allegations.

The first was in February 2024. Jackson is the co-author of a paper that features LaVar Charleston as the lead author. However, the paper had significant overlaps with a different Charleston paper, one published two years prior.

These allegations actually targeted Sherri Charleston, the chief diversity officer at Harvard.

Though the allegations against Sherri Charleston faded, the allegations against LaVar Charleston did not go away. Earlier this month, he was removed as the University of Wisconsin-Madison’s head of DEI. However, the school cited mismanagement of funds, not plagiarism, in the dismissal.

As for Jackson, he found himself at the center of his own plagiarism allegation in October 2024. These allegations included the previous paper but added new complaints against his dissertation and a 2003 paper he published.

The allegations against Jackson were relatively weak. Jackson has over 100 publications, but only three were under scrutiny. One of those, the dissertation, was incredibly thin. However, the allegations against his papers, including the original allegation, warranted analysis and possibly correction or retraction.

The question was: what would MSU do?

The answer, it seems, was not much.

Analyzing the Response

According to the documents, the school received a complaint in October and initiated their process. Within fourteen days, the school completed its preliminary review and decided not to proceed with an inquiry.

According to the school’s policies, this amounts to an “exoneration” of Jackson.

However, the documents don’t provide significant information about that process. The report is almost entirely redacted, with very few lines being readable. We don’t know what the school examined, who performed the examination or how they reached their conclusions.

Given the time frame, the school will unlikely have had time to analyze the works thoroughly. Harvard’s investigation of Claudine Gay, for example, took nearly two months and was heavily expedited.

We also know that the school didn’t contact some of those involved. One of the scholars Jackson allegedly copied from says the school did not consult him. This means, most likely, that the school limited the investigation to the allegations themselves. They did not independently examine the works involved.

The petitioner could theoretically appeal this decision. However, the filer submitted the claim anonymously; this is not an option. As such, this is the final decision.

Why This Happened

At the end of the day, what the school received was an anonymous complaint that was politically and racially motivated. Whether or not the issues were valid, the complaint was in bad faith.

The school, understandably, did not wish to entertain this.

As I noted in my original analysis, the allegations were vague and unclear. Their author left out crucial details, such as whether Jackson cited the sources and generally did a poor job arguing the case.

To draft my article, I had to perform some independent analysis. So, if the school didn’t delve past the claims, I would agree with their decisions.

But the question is whether they should have. Based on the allegations they had access to, probably not. Simply put, it’s impractical for a school to investigate every random complaint in depth. At some point, the filer has an obligation to prove their case. Here, I agree that they didn’t.

That said, the complete lack of transparency is still a serious problem. It’s worth noting that the limited information we have only came after a FOIA request. Even after that, we still know very few details.

The school may have made the right decision, but it fails to justify it with the information provided.

Bottom Line

Last month, we examined the case of Pamela Whitten, the president of Indiana University. The school took a similar approach to MSU, saying that it had cleared Whitten of plagiarism and was moving on.

At the time, I expressed frustration at the lack of transparency but acknowledged that it was likely the wiser move from a public relations standpoint. After all, schools that had been more transparent, such as Harvard, only faced additional criticism.

However, this case is different. The State News filed a FOIA request and still obtained little useful information even after appealing the decision.

Now, the school will face criticism regardless of what it does. It would have been criticized for its investigation if it had provided all the relevant information. Instead, the school redacted the relevant information and was criticized for the lack of transparency.

To be clear, this is a no-win situation and an unfair choice for the school. However, the allegations were unfair from the outset. It’s up to the school to find the best approach for themselves, their faculty and the public.

This doesn’t feel like that answer.

While the school could reasonably argue for dismissing the allegations without a review, it fails to make any argument. While they would face criticism no matter what, this feeds those who feel that academia is a shadowy cabal hiding its true intentions.

It may be what’s best for the school, but it is likely worse for academia overall.