Gosh, we humans love a good scandal, don’t we? The recent allegations against Liberal leader Mark Carney regarding plagiarism in his 1995 Oxford doctoral thesis raise important questions about how we define, detect, and respond to plagiarism in academic and public life.
Drawing from both the specifics of Carney’s case and broader discussions about academic integrity, several important themes emerge:
The Pattern of Plagiarism Witch Hunts
In my January 2024 blog post, “Plagiarism Witch Hunts Cause Harm,” about the case of former Harvard University President, Dr. Claudine Gay, I pointed out that we appear to be in an era where plagiarism is increasingly weaponized against public figures. Following the resignation of Dr. Gay amid plagiarism allegations, we have seen a troubling pattern of using academic integrity as a political weapon rather than an educational concern.
This weaponization is particularly concerning when we consider the broader landscape of academic integrity issues.
In my 2020 investigation “Is the Hon. Demetrios Nicolaides, Alberta Minister of Advanced Education involved with contract cheating?”, I showed how careful we must be in assessing evidence before making accusations. That investigation highlighted the need for rigorous verification when claiming someone has violated academic integrity, especially when political motivations might be involved. For the record, the analysis that I conducted for that blog post took me several days to complete.
The National Post’s investigation of Carney’s thesis identified several instances of alleged plagiarism, including unattributed quotes and paraphrasing from authors such as Michael Porter and Jeremy Stein. This follows a pattern seen in previous high-profile cases where decades-old academic work is scrutinized through modern lenses of academic integrity.
The Complexities of Defining Plagiarism
One critical aspect highlighted across these cases is the lack of universal agreement on what constitutes plagiarism. There is no singular or universally accepted definition of plagiarism. Oxford University defines it as “presenting work or ideas from another source as your own.” However, interpretations of definitions, as well as the definitions themselves can vary from one university to the next, as I have pointed out elsewhere.
In Carney’s case, his doctoral supervisor defended his work, stating she saw “no evidence of plagiarism in the thesis,” whereas academics consulted by the National Post disagreed. One professor, Dr. Geoffrey Sigalet, a political science professor at the University of British Columbia Okanagan (UBCO) stated that the unattributed quotes are “what we call plagiarism.” According to the National Post article, Dr. Sigalet is a member of the UBCO’s institutional president’s advisory committee on student discipline, “which handles cases of plagiarism for the university”. This disagreement underscores the subjectivity in evaluating academic integrity.
If you are curious about the UBCO Rules for President’s Advisory Committee on Student Discipline, they are publicly available here. Of note is that in allegations of academic misconduct, section 9.c of the regulations state that the committee must “provide the student with a copy of the Statement of Case and any documentary evidence and list of any witnesses”, and it is expected that the individual alleged to have engaged in misconduct has a right to know the case being brought against them before the matter is decided. This is a basic principle of procedural fairness in academic misconduct investigations and case management.
Upon reading the National Post article, one question that I had was: was Mr. Carney informed of the allegations before they were investigated?
Post-Facto Investigations and Their Consequences
The timing of these allegations is noteworthy. Investigating work completed nearly 30 years ago raises questions about motives and impact. As I have pointed out previously when I commented on the Dr. Claudine Gay case, “a retroactive investigation into a person’s academic work while they were a student is often an exercise in discrediting someone in their current professional role.”
For Carney, these allegations emerge as he serves as Liberal Leader and campaigns in a federal election—timing that raises questions about political motivations rather than genuine concerns about academic integrity.
The Role of Academic Supervision
An often-overlooked aspect of these cases is the responsibility of academic supervisors. I asked this question with respect to the Dr. Claudine Gay case, and it bears repeating: Where are all the graduate supervisors? In Carney’s case, his supervisor, Dr. Margaret Meyer, Oxford University has defended his work, noting it was “evaluated and approved by a faculty committee.”
This comment is not insignificant because highlights the collective responsibility of the academic community in ensuring academic integrity. As in other high-profile cases of student PhD theses being scrutinized for plagiarism post-graduation, a big question — and I mean, a really big question —is, how could the academic supervisors, faculty committee members, and academic examiners, allow a student to pass their PhD thesis if it was rife with plagiarism? We may never be able to answer this question in this case, or in the cases of countless other allegations of academic misconduct that arise after a student has graduated.
If we take a wraparound approach to student success, then everyone in the educational ecosystem plays a role in supporting to students to write and research ethically. This is, quite literally, our job as professors.
So, Did Mark Carney Plagiarize or Not?
The answer is, I don’t know. When I conduct an analysis of text for possible plagiarism, it is a meticulously in-depth and detailed process. I start with the allegedly plagiarized text and I go through it line-by-line comparing it to the original sources from which text has been allegedly lifted without attribution. That can show whether or not there is a potential ‘text match’. There are examples of possible text matches in the National Post article, but they are selective. I cannot make a call on whether or not there was plagiarism based on excerpts. I would want to see the full texts (original and allegedly plagiarized), not bits and pieces.
If we can identify a possible text match, then we need to look for additional evidence. Was this sloppy scholarship or poor academic literacy? For example, were the original sources perhaps listed in the bibliography, but the direct quotations were not attributed in the main body of the text? In the context of the entire thesis, would it appear as though the student was deliberately trying to deceive their supervisor or academic advisory committee. (Intent to deceive is difficult, if not impossible to prove in many cases.)
Were there drafts of the work that were reviewed by the supervisor or committee that commented on the content, as well as as technical aspects of citing and referencing? If not, how was the student supported to ensure that their research was done properly?
When I conduct an analysis of text for plagiarism, it can take me days or weeks, depending on the length of the text and the complexity of the case. When an individual’s reputation is on the line, I take even greater care, knowing that my findings might have an impact on their career or their future. There can be a great deal at stake in high-profile cases of plagiarism. A thorough investigation takes time and expertise and quite frankly, any plagiarism expert worth their reputation would insist on taking the time they need before drawing conclusions in such matters.
So, dear readers, if you are looking for me to weigh in with a definitive stance on this case, you are going to be disappointed. I simply have too many questions to draw a reasonable conclusion on the matter.
Human Rights and Due Process
What I can say is this: due process, procedural fairness, and human rights matter. When we allege, investigate, and manage cases of plagiarism or misconduct, the accused, regardless of whether they are a student, a professor, a politician, or anyone else, deserves at the very least to have their human rights upheld.
Even though Article 11 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights states everyone is “entitled to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal” in case after case of public allegations of plagiarism, we can observe that there is due process is often bypassed, with accused individuals presumed to be guilty and forced to prove their own innocence.
The topic of how basic human rights and dignity are dismissed in academic cheating cases is something I have written about in some detail. No matter who you are, if you are accused of misconduct, you have the right to be treated with basic human dignity while the matter is under investigation and being decided. Whether you are a member of the United Conservative Party of Alberta alleged to have engaged in contract cheating, a Black woman who is president of Harvard University accused of plagiarism, or the liberal prime minister of Canada, human beings are entitled to dignity and due process.
Moving Forward: Balance in Academic Integrity
The Carney case, like those before it, shows a need for a balanced approach to academic integrity that:
- Distinguishes between technical citation errors (i.e., sloppiness) and an outright intention to deceive (even if intent is difficult to prove).
- Considers the standards and practices of the time when work was produced.
- Respects due process and presumes innocence until proven guilty.
- Acknowledges the shared responsibility of academic communities, and in particular, the responsibilities of graduate supervisors and academic advisors.
- Recognizes when allegations may be politically motivated.
- Prioritizes educational responses over punitive approaches (i.e., providing students with an opportunity to learn how to cite and reference properly).
Rather than using plagiarism as a weapon to discredit public figures, we could focus on strengthening current academic integrity practices and supporting students and researchers to write and research well, which includes proper attribution. Academic integrity is a foundation for ethical decision-making in everyday life and in one’s career.
As we evaluate these allegations against Mark Carney, we should consider not just the specific instances cited but also the context, timing, and potential consequences of how we frame and respond to questions of academic and professional integrity in public life.
Final note
For what it is worth, if this case had been against Pierre Poilievre instead of Mark Carney, my position would be exactly the same, because integrity matters no matter which side of the political bench you sit on.
________________________
Share this post: Academic Integrity on Trial: Mark Carney’s Case and the Politics of Plagiarism – https://drsaraheaton.com/2025/03/29/academic-integrity-on-trial-mark-carneys-case-and-the-politics-of-plagiarism/
This blog has had over 3.7 million views thanks to readers like you. If you enjoyed this post, please ‘Like’ it using the button below or share it on social media. Thanks!
Sarah Elaine Eaton, PhD, is a Professor and Research Chair in the Werklund School of Education at the University of Calgary, Canada. Opinions are my own and do not represent those of my employer.
Posted by Sarah Elaine Eaton, Ph.D. 
Learning, Teaching and Leadership 
You must be logged in to post a comment.