UMD’s $600,000 Plagiarism Blunder

Last month, I covered the conclusion of the investigation into the president of the University of Maryland (UMD), Darryll Pines. In that article, I reported that the University System of Maryland (USM) had cleared Pines of wrongdoing in a 2002 paper he co-authored, but that USM had declined to release any details of how that conclusion was reached.

The announcement capped off a 15-month investigation into Pines that began in September 2024 when Luke Rosiak at The Daily Wire reported that roughly 1,500 words from the paper first appeared on a website published in 1996. Neither the site nor its author was attributed in any way.

Pines was one of several high-ranking academics who was accused of plagiarism as part of an ongoing attack on black university officials and others either seen as or working as part of Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (DEI) efforts. Though the validity of the allegations have been hit-and-miss, in Pines’ case, many, including myself, expressed concern about the complete lack of attribution and the volume of words copied.

Though USM was correct in seeking out an outside firm to perform the evaluation, when announcing the findings, they provided no details about how those conclusions were reached.

Ellie Wolfe at the Baltimore Banner attempted to get a copy of the report via public disclosure under Maryland law. The school declined to do that, saying that the report was a “personnel record” and was exempt from public disclosure.

However, her reporting did add new details and context to the report, the most important detail being the total cost of the investigation.

The $600,000 Question

According to Wolfe’s investigation, the contract, which was with the Ropes & Gray law firm, was initially for $199,000 during an “inquiry phase” but a second contract enabled the firm to continue working, as long as the total did not exceed $600,000.

According to the report, the firm underwent three rounds of review, which included a broadened scope that included other co-authored articles and works by Pines. The contractor’s billing rate during the investigation was $1,200 per hour.

To be clear, we don’t know how much the actual report cost, just that it was somewhere between the initial $199,000 paid and the $600,000 cap. However, without the report, it’s difficult to say what the university got for its money.

While it’s a positive sign that the report was expanded to include other works by Pines, we still don’t know what works were checked, how they were examined, who did the examining and how the conclusions were drawn. That is a lot of blanks, and it doesn’t do a great deal to restore faith in confidence in either Pines or UMD.

I completely understand the position UMD and USM are in. The allegations against Pines were made in bad faith and for dubious reasons. The university, understandably, doesn’t want to give credibility to those allegations or undermine their president.

But the allegations did point to a potentially serious issue. 1,500 words, as many have noted, is not a small amount of plagiarism. We’re not discussing a missed quote or omitted reference. This is a very significant chunk of text that that was not attributed in any way.

While it could be as simple as the copying being the work of the co-author and not Pines, we don’t know that. At this point, I doubt we ever will.

That means, rightly or wrongly, this cloud will hang over Pines for the rest of his tenure.

The Simple Solution

The solution is actually simple: Pines could release the report.

He can waive his own privacy and, perhaps with other redactions, release the report. However, that doesn’t seem likely.

For one, I have to acknowledge that it wouldn’t silence his critics. Even if the report does fully exonerate Pines, his critics would likely glom on to details from the report, the cost of the report and other elements. In short, since these allegations began with a political motivation, releasing the report isn’t likely to stop the allegations, just change their focus.

Second, Pines doesn’t really have a motivation to release it. The school has repeatedly backed him and said that he has their full support. His job is not in any danger. Though there are plenty in academia who are concerned and could be swayed by the report, they aren’t the decision-makers. They’ve already decided.

Because of this, it doesn’t make sense for Pines or USM to release the report. But just because a move is tactically sound doesn’t make it ethically sound. Universities and their officials need to be held to a higher standard. This is how academia builds, or perhaps rebuilds, trust. Not by ignoring issues and obfuscating, but by addressing them with radical transparency.

Bottom Line

Allegations like the one filed against Pines aren’t just about targeting specific officials or schools, they’re about weakening the faith of the public in academia at large.

Critics of academia see the institution as deeply flawed, corrupt and working against the public. Plagiarism allegations are simply an easy way for those critics to hurt those that they see as the worst representation of these issues.

Withholding a report, as in this case, may be the best tactic to address a specific allegation or issue, it plays into the critics’ hands on the broader issues.

The fact is simple, the university spent a great deal of money and took a great deal of time on this report. For all the effort and resources spent, we don’t get to see the findings for ourselves. That is difficult to justify and gives the appearance that either Pines or USM is hiding something.

Even if that isn’t the case, the illusion can be harmful enough. But that harm isn’t just to Pines, UMD or USM, it’s to all academia.

Trust can’t be rebuilt without risk. Playing it safe may make this case drift away, but it makes the next one and the next one all the more difficult. It’s good tactics but bad strategy. It’s winning the battle, but giving up ground in the larger war.