The Pete Hegseth Plagiarism Controversy

Disclosure: I was interviewed and heavily cited in the original Princetonian article. That coverage has appropriately been distributed across a variety of sources. As such, I won’t focus on the details of the case. Rather, I will focus on where it fits into the current plagiarism dialogue.

Earlier this week, The Daily Princetonian, the student newspaper at Princeton, published an article outlining plagiarism allegations against the current United States Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth.

The controversy centers around his thesis, which he submitted to Princeton in April 2003. Across the 90-page document, the paper found multiple passages that contain verbatim or near-verbatim text from other sources that were not appropriately cited.

This includes one passage quoted verbatim from a previously referenced source and another clearly rewritten from a source that was not cited.

The reporter, Sena Chang, asked several plagiarism experts, including me, about the case. Though we all acknowledged that it amounts to plagiarism and violates Princeton’s Rights, Rules and Responsibilities, there was much debate about the severity.

To that end, I landed on the side of it being less serious. It fit the pattern of other plagiarism scandals from the dark ages of academic plagiarism. Ultimately, it pointed to poor writing habits rather than an intent to plagiarize.

But what’s most interesting in this case isn’t the allegations themselves, but the turnabout it represents.

A Familiar Story with a Twist

Over the past year and a half, we’ve seen a slew of plagiarism scandals similar to this one. On at least ten different occasions, plagiarism allegations have been filed against academics and others connected with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs.

Those allegations have ranged from extremely serious and worrisome to extremely minor. In all cases, the plagiarism allegations were made not to improve academic integrity, but out of political motivations.

Now, we are seeing the opposite. Hegseth is a staunch conservative who holds a high-profile position in the Trump administration. However, a few things separate this case from the earlier ones beyond the politics.

First, the allegations were not reported by an anonymous source. Here, the paper requested the thesis from the library and performed the analysis themselves. Second, the paper did great due diligence, talking to multiple experts and reporting the case with nuance.

That said, it’s still a weak claim. While I agree that these are issues with the paper, we have to remember that it’s a 90-page work. This represents a relatively small portion of the paper and, as I noted, the pattern indicates poor writing practices more than malicious intent.

What is perhaps most interesting is what happened after the report came out.

Another Political Plagiarism Scandal

Once the story broke, other outlets began to report on it. Many with much less nuance.

According to Ground News, of the 14 outlets they tracked that covered the story, the bias distribution was 58% left.

As I said in my article about the tools I use to find quality sources, I care more about accuracy than bias. However, many of these stories, like conservative publications during the various DEI allegations, did not treat the story with nuance.

Some outlets said it was a “bombshell report” or he was in “hot water” over the allegations. Neither of those statements is accurate. However, I also don’t think it’s “pure desperation,” a claim one of the few conservative outlets covering the story made.

The coverage, regardless of bias, was not very accurate. As I’ve said many times before, plagiarism is a nuanced topic, and political plagiarism scandals do not lend themselves to such a discussion.

How one feels about this case probably says more about one’s views of Hegseth than anything related to plagiarism.

It’s a truth as old as plagiarism itself, and it’s one pattern this case didn’t break.

Bottom Line

The Daily Princetonian did an excellent job with this story. They took the issue seriously and interviewed various experts, including getting comments from Hegseth’s representatives. Though one can argue if they needed to report it, they handled it well when they decided to move forward.

In the end, this story highlights how much of this kind of plagiarism existed during this time. The dark ages of academic plagiarism are a challenging time to revisit. You’ll likely find similar plagiarism in a large percentage of academic papers from this time.

To be clear, the endemic problems from that period are still present today. The difference is that we now have the tools to spot the issues early and correct them. Academia lacked those in 2003.

As I said in April 2024, the issue is academia, not DEI. This problem is not isolated to one school, one race or one political ideology.

It’s about as universal as anything can get.