Another University President Accused of Plagiarism

Last week, Ellie Wolfe at the Baltimore Banner reported that University of Maryland Eastern Shore (UMES) President Heidi Anderson was accused of lifting seven paragraphs from her 400-page 1986 dissertation, which she submitted to Purdue University.

The allegations came from Donna Satterlee, a former associate professor at UMES who has filed a lawsuit against the university alleging reverse discrimination.

At the time, it seemed as if the story would blow over. The allegations involved a relatively small part of the dissertation and, as long as no further instances were found, the most it would have most likely amounted to was a correction.

However, earlier this week, Luke Rosiak at The Daily Wire reported that additional passages from the dissertation were plagiarized. This includes passages copied verbatim or near-verbatim from sources that were not cited in the references.

Following that news, Anderson announced that there would be an “assessment” of her research, although she did not provide details about the nature of the assessment or who would conduct it.

The scandal follows a similar one that involved the President of the University of Maryland, Darryll Pines. Pines was accused of committing plagiarism in a 2002 paper that Pines, along with his co-author, published in “Proceedings of SPIE—The International Society for Optical Engineering.”

The investigation in that case is still ongoing, more than a year later.

This, in turn, puts the focus back on Anderson and asks a simple question: How serious is the plagiarism now?

Understanding the Allegations

Disclosure: I was heavily quoted in the original article. As such, I’m focusing more on the new allegations and developments in the case.

The allegations center on Anderson’s 1986 dissertation, which she submitted as part of her doctoral program at Purdue University.

The allegations were first filed against President Heidi Anderson by a former associate professor at the school, who is currently involved in an ongoing lawsuit alleging reverse discrimination. She filed the complaint with the university’s Office of Internal Audit, which is responsible for evaluating such complaints.

The initial allegations dealt with a relatively small portion of the 400-page dissertation. Seven paragraphs of copied text, while not good, aren’t necessarily the end of a dissertation or a career in academia. This is especially true since the source in question, a 1981 paper by Robert M. Coldwell, was cited.

Both Dr. Debora Weber-Wulff, another expert, and I agreed that this was worrisome, but needed further investigation before a final determination could be made. That, for a time, appeared to be the end of the matter.

Then, on Monday, Luke Rosiak published an article on the Daily Wire, calling out significantly more passages, including a 1,000-word section that was copied verbatim or nearly verbatim from a different Caldwell paper, one published in 1984.

The article also highlighted copying from other sources, including a 1981 paper by Elaine G. Boettcher and a 1984 paper by Christopher R. Brigham and Martin Kamp, among others.

When the original story ran, Tina Wilson, the chair of the UMES Board of Visitors, published a letter saying that the allegations were “a reckless, anonymous accusation sent to The Baltimore Banner attempting to undermine Dr. Anderson’s academic credentials are emblematic of [a] disturbing trend.”

However, with the second round of allegations, Anderson herself has responded, saying, “Integrity, accountability, and trust are the foundations of my leadership, and I take these concerns with the utmost seriousness. Consistent with University System of Maryland policy, there will be an assessment of these allegations.”

That said, it is unclear who will be performing the assessment and when the findings are expected to be announced.

How Serious is It?

Right off the bat, we have to acknowledge the elephant in the room. These accusations are not coming from neutral parties seeking to improve academic/research integrity, but from sources that have a particular axe to grind against Anderson.

Satterlee is already suing the school over alleged reverse discrimination. The Daily Wire is a conservative publication that has been at the center of numerous plagiarism allegations targeting university employees perceived as “DEI hires” or those who support diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. These are not neutral parties.

Given that Anderson is the black president of an HBCU (historically black colleges and universities), it’s easy to see why she would be the target of such groups.

However, that doesn’t, by itself, mean that the allegations are faulty. It simply means that they must be scrutinized closely and judged on their actual merits.

To that end, the first round of allegations wasn’t particularly worrisome. A few copied paragraphs in a 400-page dissertation is not a good look. However, it represents a small portion of the complete work and can be attributed to sloppiness or an error.

So, while this is clearly bad, it’s not necessarily the end of the world.

However, the same cannot be said for the new allegations. These involve many times the amount of words, more sources and longer stretches of text. Here we are exiting the realm of mistakes and entering the realm of either negligence or malice.

The integrity of the dissertation has been legitimately called into question, and with that, so has Anderson’s degree.

The frustrating thing is that this investigation was not started sooner. Weber-Wulff and I, along with others, all said that such an investigation was necessary. It clearly did not begin. Now that one is beginning, it’s unclear who is conducting the investigation, what authority they will have and how long it will take.

However, that’s emblematic of a larger problem. Daryll Pines’ case has dragged on for over a year. To be clear, that isn’t, by itself, unusual. Investigations in academia often take many months to complete.

But this isn’t a typical investigation. It’s an allegation against the school’s president. Schools need to be able to respond quickly and transparently to these kinds of stories.

The University of Maryland didn’t do so with Pines; there’s little reason to believe it will do so with Anderson.

Bottom Line

Regardless of how you feel about the source of these allegations or their intentions, schools must be prepared for them and ready to respond. The University of Maryland has had two bites at this apple and has not done well with either.

The perfect illustration of this is that the Anderson story is competing for headline space with the first anniversary of the Pines case.

While I understand the reasons that such cases can take a long time to parse, these need to be treated more like public relations issues and less like regular research/academic integrity cases. Because that is what they are.

Yes, research and academic integrity are essential and the core principles upon which academia is built. However, cases like these are often attempts to erode trust in academic institutions, regardless of whether the integrity issues are serious or not.

As for Anderson, this is an excellent example of why this is the case. The original accusations, though problematic, were relatively mild. The school had a week to conduct its own analysis, identify any other issues, and take some form of action. They didn’t do that.

Instead, we, along with the rest of the world, learn about these issues through the news media.

There is no excuse for this. This has been the “new normal” for over two years. Schools like the University of Maryland need to do better.

Header Image: Honors Lane, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons