By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Daily Princetonian reported that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s 2003 Princeton senior thesis contains eight instances of plagiarism, according to three expert reviewers. These instances included uncredited material, sham paraphrasing, and verbatim copying from sources such as a Washington Post article. While experts disagreed on the severity of the violations, some passages were deemed serious breaches of Princeton’s academic honesty policy, while others were considered minor. The thesis, a significant requirement for graduation, analyzed modern presidential rhetoric and its relationship to global threats.
Read the original article here
The Daily Princetonian, Princeton University’s student newspaper, recently published an article alleging plagiarism in the senior thesis of Pete Hegseth, the current US Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness. This accusation, based on an analysis of Hegseth’s 2003 thesis, “Modern Presidential Rhetoric and the Cold War Context,” has ignited considerable discussion.
The article details eight instances of what three plagiarism experts deemed “uncredited material, sham paraphrasing, and verbatim copying” within Hegseth’s thesis. These instances range from nearly verbatim reproduction of sentences to paraphrases lacking proper attribution. One striking example involves a passage mirroring a description of President George W. Bush’s reaction to the 9/11 attacks from a Washington Post article; Hegseth’s thesis uses the same phrasing without acknowledging the source.
While the experts consulted by the Princetonian largely agreed that these instances violated the university’s academic honesty policy, opinions diverged on the severity of the violations. Some experts labeled certain instances as “borderline cases,” suggesting that the level of plagiarism was not egregious enough to warrant significant concern. Others highlighted passages as clear violations, emphasizing the cumulative effect of numerous minor instances contributing to a pattern of plagiarism. The discrepancies in expert opinions highlight the complexities inherent in determining the severity of plagiarism, especially in cases involving multiple minor infractions.
The Princetonian’s investigation involved running Hegseth’s thesis through plagiarism detection software, which flagged twelve passages. Experts then reviewed these passages and determined that only eight constituted serious violations, leaving the remaining four as less significant, though still contributing to an overall pattern of questionable sourcing. This nuanced approach underscores the difficulty in definitively labeling every instance of unattributed material as deliberate plagiarism versus unintentional oversight.
The significance of the plagiarism allegations stems from the prestige associated with a Princeton senior thesis. It’s understood as the culmination of an undergraduate education, a crucial academic achievement. Therefore, allegations of plagiarism in such a significant piece of work carry substantial weight, potentially casting doubt on the integrity of the degree itself. The fact that the accusations come from the university’s own student newspaper only adds to their potential impact.
The reaction to the article has been mixed, with some dismissing it as irrelevant given Hegseth’s current position and the passage of time. Others argue that the accusations are serious, irrespective of when they surfaced, suggesting that academic integrity should remain a priority regardless of subsequent career achievements. The debate emphasizes the ongoing tension between holding public figures accountable for past actions and the potential for such accusations to be used for partisan purposes.
Ultimately, the Princetonian’s article presents a compelling case for a review of Hegseth’s senior thesis. The varied expert opinions emphasize the intricacies of evaluating plagiarism, a nuance frequently absent from broader public discussions of academic integrity. However, the weight of the collective evidence, while possibly not amounting to a “smoking gun,” raises legitimate concerns about Hegseth’s adherence to academic standards. The enduring relevance of this story lies not only in the alleged plagiarism itself, but also in its implications for academic integrity and the accountability of public figures. The case highlights the persistent challenge of striking a balance between acknowledging past errors and moving forward, and the complexity of judging the severity of academic misconduct.