Is It Plagiarism?
Unpacking the allegations against prominent Princeton historian Kevin Kruse
Many things can be true at once.
In this essay, I hope to distinguish what is arguably true — what can be reasonably asserted using the evidence at hand — from what is either insufficiently-supported speculation, flawed interpretation, or intentional misrepresentation.
It would be both lovely and rare for polemicists who have already decided what they think about this controversy to read my entire essay and then challenge any points with which they disagree. However, this is the internet, so I am keeping my expectations in check.
Let me set out in brief what I can say is true about the claims made in the Reason article about Kevin Kruse’s writing — what I can reasonably assert from the evidence at hand. Then I will discuss the claims in that piece that are either insufficiently supported, flawed, or flat-out wrong. Finally, I will attempt to assess these accusations in their totality.
Here’s what is true.
The introduction/methodology section of Kevin Kruse’s dissertation includes six sentences that are slightly-altered versions of other authors’ work without including a citation for the original sources, which indicates that those six sentences are probably…
