HBCU President Sues Plagiarism Accuser

Back in October, I discussed Heidi Anderson, the president of the University of Maryland Eastern Shore (UMES), a historically black college or university (HBCU) in Princess Anne, Maryland.

At the time, the story was relatively straightforward. A former professor at the school, Donna Satterlee, accused Anderson of plagiarizing in her 1986 dissertation at Purdue University. Satterlee is currently embroiled in a lawsuit with the school, alleging that she was discriminated against because she is white.

Initially, the allegations did not seem that serious. The content that Satterlee pointed out was a relatively small part of the dissertation, and the source was cited, just not the use of the text. Other experts and I agreed on this, but called for an investigation into the dissertation to ensure that these were the only issues.

However, shortly after the initial allegations, Luke Rosiak published an article on the Daily Wire, a conservative publication, highlighting additional passages. This included a 1,000-word section copied nearly verbatim from a different paper, as well as other passages.

At the time, Anderson said she welcomed an investigation and that one would be conducted. However, months later, it’s unclear if such an investigation has begun and who is conducting it if it has.

Still, just weeks after the allegations, Anderson filed a defamation lawsuit against Satterlee, alleging she had suffered “severe reputational damage” and “emotional distress.” She is seeking $1 million in damages.

Satterlee, for her part, is unbowed. She said the lawsuit is “vicious retaliation” and is an attempt to intimidate her. However, she also notes that she does not have an attorney and is representing herself in the unlawful termination lawsuit.

However, this lawsuit faces a significant challenge. Regardless of what one thinks of the allegations against Anderson, proving that Satterlee’s claims rose to the level of defamation is going to be daunting.

Defamation of Public Figures

In the United States, defamation law distinguishes between two types of plaintiffs: public figures and private figures.

Private figures are exactly what you would expect. They are private individuals with no public position or celebrity status. For a private figure, proving defamation is as simple as showing that the statement was false and that the person making it was negligent.

Public figures include politicians, celebrities, activists, and people in the news, among others, who, for one reason or another, have prominence in the public eye. To that end, there’s not much doubt that Anderson, as a university president, is a public figure.

Public figures have to meet a much higher standard. They have to prove that the false statements were made with actual malice. This means that the defendant wasn’t just negligent or made a mistake, but that they knew the statement was false and knew it would harm their reputation and made the statement anyway.

That is an incredibly high bar to meet in almost any defamation case. That already tilts the playing field against Anderson.

But then comes the most significant problem: even though Satterlee is upset with Anderson and remains so, she can show the reasons she made the claim. She used Turnitin, a well-known name in academic plagiarism, to examine the paper. That report came back showing significant portions were copied.

Anderson’s arguments don’t deny the overlapping text, and other experts and I agreed that the evidence warranted further investigation. It’s going to be challenging to show that not only was Satterlee wrong, but that she knew she was wrong or had a reckless disregard for the truth.

But even if Anderson can do that, what would it prove? Ultimately, not much.

A Case Where No One Wins

If Satterlee wins the lawsuit, it doesn’t prove that Anderson is a plagiarist. It just proves Satterlee wasn’t malicious enough in her statements to rise to the standard of actual malice.

If Anderson wins, it doesn’t prove that she isn’t a plagiarist. Especially if Satterlee continues to represent herself, it could just show that Anderson was better represented.

Defamation lawsuits are not purely arbiters of truth. While truth is an absolute defense in a defamation case, many cases hinge on how reckless or defamatory the statements were, not on their veracity.

There is almost no way that this lawsuit is worthwhile. It is keeping the story in the headlines, it won’t really settle the questions over plagiarism, and even if Anderson wins, there isn’t likely to be enough in damages to make the ordeal worthwhile.

To be clear, I don’t think that Anderson filed this lawsuit purely in bad faith. I genuinely believe that she feels she didn’t plagiarize and was understandably upset at the accusations. But it’s hard to see an outcome in this case that would make either side happy.

Bottom Line

As someone who has been writing about plagiarism for over 20 years, I consider a defamation lawsuit among my greatest fears. It’s why I carry insurance, it’s why I’m careful when I write, and it’s why I am as thorough as I am.

To date, I have been threatened dozens of times but, fortunately, none have resulted in an actual case being filed.

This lawsuit, however, does worry me. We have a university president suing a colleague who is accusing her of plagiarism for defamation. While the accusations definitely come from a problematic source, they were serious enough that others and I felt they warranted an investigation.

Even if you feel the allegations are false, they aren’t so outrageous that they fail even the most basic tests. There are legitimate disagreements about what constitutes plagiarism, and this case speaks to some of those disputes.

To be clear, I’m not a fan of Satterlee’s approach, nor do I support the weaponization of plagiarism, in particular, how it’s been targeted against black academics and those involved in Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (DEI) programs.

But this lawsuit is an escalation and one that risks having a chilling effect on legitimate plagiarism and integrity complaints. Worst of all, there’s no outcome in this case that actually resolves the issue.

It’s a pointless escalation that will ultimately do more harm than good.