UMD President Darryll Pines Cleared of Plagiarism

Late Friday, the University System of Maryland (USM) announced that the University of Maryland (UMD) president Darryll Pines had been cleared of plagiarism accusations.

Pines’ plagiarism saga began in September 2024. That was when Luke Rosiak at The Daily Wire reported that a 2002 paper Pines co-authored contained roughly 1,500 words that were first published on a website in 1996. The site was not mentioned or credited in any capacity.

That text was also in a second paper, this one from 2006, that shared the same coauthor.

According to USM, they tapped an outside law firm, Ropes & Gray, to conduct the investigation. They then conducted three rounds of external review, which also examined other co-authored journal articles and Pines’s work over the years.

The press release and report acknowledged that the two papers “contained select portions of text previously published by another author in the introductory sections.” However, it said that “Pines was not found responsible for the inclusion of such text in any of the three works, nor was he found responsible for scholarly misconduct of any kind.”

The press release concludes by reaffirming USM’s faith in Pines. “We continue to have great confidence in President Pines’s leadership and strongly affirm his role leading the University of Maryland, College Park.”

Though this brings an end to Pines’ plagiarism saga, there are still a few questions that Pines and the school need to address.

What Went Right

Right off the bat, the university did a lot of things right. First, it immediately sought outside counsel to investigate the allegations. Though using a law firm is an interesting choice, a law firm is an independent body capable of conducting such an investigation without fear of reprisal.

Second, according to the press release, the investigation was expanded to other work by Pines. Though the two papers in question obviously needed to be the focus, it is crucial to check other works to ensure that no new issues lie in wait.

Finally, the findings, as presented, seem reasonable. The university acknowledges that there is significant matching text, but says that Pines was not responsible for it. The question of the co-author lingered over the allegations from the beginning. That co-author, Liming Salvino, has been quiet through this entire process.

The university stops short of accusing Salvino of putting the language in the papers. Instead, they merely say that “President Pines was not found responsible for the inclusion of such text.” This could mean either that Salvino committed the plagiarism or simply that there wasn’t enough evidence to confirm (or deny) that Pines did.

Given that these papers are over 20 years old, the latter seems more likely. However, without the full report, we cannot know that for sure.

That, in turn, is one of the bigger problems with UMD’s handling of this case.

What Went Wrong

The biggest problem with UMD’s handling is how long it took. This story started in September 2024 and took 15 months to conclude. It took so long that multiple media outlets published stories about it taking 10 months, 12 months, etc.

This didn’t help anyone. It kept the cloud of plagiarism over both Pines and the school. To be clear, this is not an unusual time frame for an investigation of academic or research integrity. But this isn’t an ordinary case. While it is an integrity issue, it’s also a public relations issue. The school did Pines a disservice by not recognizing that and moving accordingly.

It’s also worth noting that we have no idea how the school and the investigators reached this conclusion. The public does not have access to the report, even in redacted form. That makes it difficult to gauge how complete this exoneration is.

Finally, nothing is being done about the two papers that contain the plagiarized text. The press release doesn’t deny that the text was plagiarized. However, it does couch it by saying the text is “select portions of text previously published by another author in the introductory sections.”

Either way, these papers need to be retracted or corrected. There’s no mention of the fate of these papers in the press release.

Bottom Line

If this had come out a year ago, I would have thought that it was a pretty well-handled investigation. But 15 months is far too long. That length of time sends a message not of thoroughness, but that the inquiry is a low priority.

Still, USM did get a great deal right, and the conclusion seems reasonable on its face. However, without the full report, I can’t confirm that, and it would send a strong message against plagiarism to require that the papers involved either be retracted or corrected.

Ultimately, the findings are almost moot. By allowing this story to linger as long as they did, I suspect a lot of people have made up their minds about Pines and USM’s handling of the case. A report 15 months later isn’t likely to change that.

While that’s true for many people regardless of how long the investigation takes, letting it linger for so long means that many people likely won’t even hear about this report. The news cycle has moved on many times over, and all that many will remember is the initial allegations.

That was likely the goal of the accusers. But it’s something the school could at least have mitigated. No one was served by dragging this case out.

Hopefully, other schools can learn from this and be better prepared should something similar happen to them.