Doug Wilson’s Plagiarism Problem

Last updated on: December 15, 2015 at 10:14 pm by Libby Anne

Doug Wilson’s Plagiarism Problem 2015-12-15T22:14:12-04:00 Libby Anne

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Last Thursday blogger Rachel Miller revealed numerous instances of plagiarism in The Justice Primer, a book coauthored by reformed evangelical leaders Doug Wilson and Randy Booth and published by Canon Press. The accusations were so serious and so well substantiated that Canon Press immediately discontinued the book. In author statements released by Canon Press, Booth took all of the blame. For his part, Wilson merely noted that he “was disappointed to find out . . . that there are serious citation problems” in the book. Citation problems—that’s a rather fancy name for plagiarism.

Let me provide a quick word of background. Doug Wilson is a reformed evangelical pastor who has established his own denomination and Christian school association and written both books and school curriculum. Wilson has been under fire for decades for his 1996 work of slavery apology and his continued glorification of the Confederacy, as well as his extreme homophobia and endorsement of patriarchy and female submission, and, more recently, his mishandling of sexual abuse cases in his church. You can see everything I’ve written about Doug Wilson here.

With that out of the way, I should note that the evangelical World Magazine was highly critical of Wilson’s statement. “Wilson did not admit any wrongdoing in his statement,” writer Emily Belz noted, continuing as follows:

In 2013, Wilson wrote a blog post in response to plagiarism accusations against Mark Driscoll, the former pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle: “[T]he person whose name is on the cover of the book is responsible to put things completely right if a problem surfaces. He may not be guilty, but he is always responsible—as basic covenant theology teaches us.”

The point being, of course, that Wilson was doing exactly what he condemned Driscoll for doing—refusing to take responsibility for plagiarism in a book that bore his name on the cover, and instead pinning the blame on his co-author. Then, on Saturday, Wilson wrote a blog post in which he took full responsibility—sort of.

In the future, more might need to be said about this issue, and that might include some differences of opinion. But now is not the time or the place to try to anticipate that sort of thing. Right now, I simply want to acknowledge what happened, and take responsibility for all that I can.

. . .

Consequently, I want to take full responsibility for having my name on the cover of a book containing plagiarized sections, and where the contributions from the authors were undifferentiated. In such circumstances, when plagiarism is detected, the one who finds it has every right to look at the cover and decide right on the spot who is responsible. The names on the cover are the ones with the authorial responsibility, which is the primary responsibility according to contract, and the editorial imprint is the one with the publisher’s responsibility, also specified by contract. Further investigation might reveal where particular culpability lies, but the responsibility for the project flows (according to God’s design) to the names on the cover.

I appreciate that Wilson took responsibility—more or less—but this doesn’t relieve my concern. After all, as World Magazine noted, Wilson also said this in 2013, when speaking of the accusations against Driscoll:

“It is quite easy for me to envision a situation where an author is responsible for plagiarism, misquotation, or a screwed up citation, but not be guilty of it. It is always proper to hold the author responsible, but if in the heat of controversy people are demanding that he acknowledge his personal guilt, as though [he] did it himself on purpose, his refusal to do so might not evidence a lack of integrity, but rather the opposite.”

Responsible for . . . but not guilty of? What in the world kind of definitions is Wilson working with? To plagiarize is generally defined as follows: “to use the words or ideas of another person as if they were your own words or ideas.” Passing off someone else’s words as your own is plagiarism whether or not you did it “on purpose.” I’ve had time where I’ve taken notes sloppily, not noting what was a quotation and what was my summary, and I kick myself when I do that because I have to either go back and check or assume it’s a quotation and create a new summary to ensure I don’t plagiarize. But you know what? That’s called being responsible!

And no, I’m sorry, but refusing to own up to what you did as a reaction to people telling you to come clean is not integrity. It’s petty, and it displays a lack of leadership skills and a lack of integrity.

It is the responsibility of the writer to ensure that everything that should be cited is cited, and that the words of others are in quotation marks, period. There is no “I didn’t realize I did it” or “that was an accident” pass for plagiarism. If you passed off the words of another as your own, you messed up, and you need to take full responsibility for it—none of this “responsible for” but “not guilty” of bullshit. I’ve been in academia for a decade now, and this is basically drilled into you, because it matters.

More than this, though, this isn’t Wilson’s first brush with plagiarism. Take a look at this explanation from the World Magazine article:

Wilson faced accusations of plagiarism over a 1996 booklet he co-authored with Steve Wilkins titled Southern Slavery: As It Was. He later wrote about the accusations: “I won’t go into how it happened, but the end result was that some passages from a book that should have been cited weren’t cited (Time on the Cross), and it was entirely and completely accidental. It was an embarrassing editorial screw-up, not plagiarism.”

Um no, it wasn’t “an embarrassing editorial screw-up,” it was plagiarism—and blatant plagiarism at that. It’s simply false that it was only citations at issue, and not copied text (more here). Frankly, it is this track record—and this inability to really and truly take responsibility for the full depth of the problem—that makes me wary of Wilson’s statements in his current plagiarism scandal. After all, you would think he would have learned the last time how not to write a book. That he would repeat this mistake is more than embarrassing, it’s suggestive of a more longterm problem.

And more than that, Wilson’s alluding to “differences of opinion” and his discussion of further investigation revealing “where particular culpability lies” suggests that Wilson is still holding back, reticent to admit to the breadth of the book’s plagiarism problem or his full culpability in allowing a book with plagiarism issues to be published under his name, regardless of who wrote the passages in question.

It’s almost like in Doug Wilson’s world, Doug Wilson can do no wrong.

I would be remiss if I didn’t mention that Canon Press has released a second statement stating that they’ve run the text through plagiarism-detecting software and that the plagiarism occurred in Booth’s sections of the book, but not in Wilson’s sections. This may indeed be the case. Still, Wilsons’ dissembling doesn’t give me a lot of hope that he either understands plagiarism or fully grasps the depth of the problem with the current book. And for someone with as high a profile as Wilson, that’s more than a bit concerning.

Evangelicalism/Fundamentalism

Doug Wilson

Previous Post

December 15, 2015

TTUAC: Pacifiers Make Children Fat

Next Post

December 16, 2015 Jessica Jones Open Thread

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Atheism Evangelicalism/Fundamentalism Family Feminism Homeschool Meta Parenting Patriarchy Politics Purity Quiverfull Social Justice Uncategorized Worthwhile reads

Select a Month February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

According to Hebrews, what two things cannot be shaken?

Select your answer to see how you score.

A kingdom that cannot be shaken The word and Spirit Faith and love Heaven and earth