The Frustrating Case of Rachel Hardeman

Over the past week, three scholars accused University of Minnesota health policy professor Rachel Hardeman of plagiarism.

Hardeman has gained notoriety as an academic for her studies of the health effects of structural racism. However, her work drew national mainstream attention following the murder of George Floyd in May 2020.

In 2021, she was awarded $5 million to found the Center for Antiracism Research for Health Equity (CARHE) at the University of Minnesota (UMN).

The longest and most damning allegations came from Jé Judson, who worked with Hardeman at CARHE. She accused Hardeman of plagiarizing multiple grants that she had submitted and managing the entire project. This included taking on more grants than they could reasonably fulfill and creating a toxic work environment.

In Judson’s post, she mentioned Brigette Davis. Davis posted her own version of the events on LinkedIn, claiming that Hardeman had plagiarized her dissertation for a grant. Finally, Naomi Thyden reposted Davis’ post and corroborated Davis’ account of the events.

After the posts, Hardeman announced that she was stepping down from the university. However, she claims that the plagiarism allegations are not the cause and that the decision had “been in the works for over a year.”

Regardless of the reason for her departure, the scandal has clouded her and the school’s reputations. The worst part is that they could have easily avoided this.

Understanding the Allegations

Judson’s post does the best job of laying out the specific allegations. It includes a slideshow that contains examples of the alleged plagiarism.

Of the examples highlighted, Davis’ story is the most concerning. According to Davis, in 2019, she was working on her dissertation and asked Hardeman to review her prospectus. Hardeman did so as part of a mentor/mentee role, but copied significant portions from it for a grant she submitted.

Davis became aware of this in late 2022. Hardeman asked her to join CARHE and work on the now-funded project. What she found was her words, equations, and other elements in the grant Hardeman submitted.

She stayed with CARHE for two years, but refused to work on that project. She confronted Hardeman via email, and Hardeman told Davis she had “f’d up.” However, Hardeman did not attempt to correct the record.

According to Judson, Hardeman was reported to authorities on three separate occasions. In 2023, an anonymous complaint was filed with the school. In February 2024, the school brought in a woman identified as Claire as the interim head of CARHE. However, when she learned about the plagiarism, she filed a formal complaint with the university and backed away from the position.

A third complaint filed with the NIH is ongoing. However, the school closed both of the complaints filed with it and took no disciplinary action.

And that is a serious problem because these allegations aren’t like others we’ve seen recently. The filers are not politically motivated. They attempted to use legitimate channels but were denied. Finally, the evidence points to a very serious issue that, by all accounts, no one involved has addressed.

A Different Kind of Case

At first blush, it’s easy to confuse this case with the slew of politically and racially motivated plagiarism allegations over the past year and a half.

However, this case has almost nothing in common with those. First, the allegations come from coworkers and other academics, not outsiders. Second, they tried multiple times over several years to go through proper channels, but were denied. Finally, and most importantly, the allegations are serious and paint an abysmal picture of Hardeman’s work.

With many of the previous DEI-focused examples, the allegations focused on short passages that amounted to poor paraphrasing. While the allegations pointed to poor writing techniques and other issues, it didn’t indicate a massive attempt to defraud.

That is not the case here.

According to Judson’s slideshow, Hardeman used verbatim paragraphs from Davis’ dissertation, as well as charts, equations, and other elements from Davis’ work. It is about as clear as such a case can get.

Judson further notes that this is not the only grant with this problem. She claims that they ran all the grants through Turnitin, and they “lit up like a Christmas tree.” In most cases, Hardeman cited the papers but did not indicate she was quoting from them.

Though I cannot validate those allegations independently, if the copying is similar to the comparison in the presentation, it is profoundly troubling and points to a pattern of poor ethics, not just poor writing.

Why This Case is Frustrating

In the United States, academia has become heavily politicized. This is especially true for diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs and those seen as “DEI hires.”

Over the past year and a half, this politicisation has repeatedly manifested itself in the format of plagiarism allegations. To be clear, some of those allegations pointed to serious issues. However, most were attempting to make mountains out of molehills. They were trying to take minor problems and vastly overstate their importance.

That’s not what this case is.

These are serious allegations levied by three separate colleagues of Hardeman. They back up their allegations with damning evidence. At the very least, they make a strong case that the school needed to investigate Hardeman’s work seriously but failed to do so.

Now, Hardeman is precisely what those attacking DEI in academia claim all such scholars are. She plagiarized heavily and avoided repercussions for it. Regardless of the reasons for her departure, she’s unlikely to face any direct consequences.

To be clear, this is not the fault of Judson, Davis, or Thyden. The blame lies with Hardeman and the school. If the university had adequately addressed these issues two years ago, it would have been just another case of research integrity. Now, it’s a news story.

That doesn’t behoove anyone involved. But those involved felt they had no other choice. Even I, someone staunchly against the weaponization of plagiarism, have to agree.

Bottom Line

There’s another wrinkle in this case that makes the story even more ironic. In January of this year, a student sued UMN, alleging that they were unfairly punished for using AI.

The school clearly wants to appear tough on academic integrity. However, when it came to this case, it seems they quickly dismissed serious allegations of research integrity violations.

I won’t speculate on why the school dismissed the claims so quickly. However, even a cursory check of these grants should have highlighted the issues. If the evidence presented is accurate, the school did not investigate seriously. Otherwise, they would have seen these issues years ago.

I find this incredibly frustrating. As a supporter of academia, I often defend it against detractors who disingenuously attack it. But I cannot defend this.

This is serious plagiarism, and it should have been detected and stopped years ago. Hardeman and UMN let down not only their faculty and staff but also all of academia.

It’s a tragic case that could have and should have been avoided.