Law review author says she isn't bothered by Gorsuch's use of similar sentences in book
The author of a 1984 Indiana Law Journal article says she isn’t troubled by U.S. Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch’s use of sentences that closely track her own in his book on assisted suicide.
Politico and Buzzfeed News contacted the law review author, Abigail Lawlis Kuzma, after their analyses found Gorsuch’s book appeared to duplicate Kuzma’s sentences without attribution. Gorsuch’s book is The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia.
Kuzma said in a statement provided via a team of White House staffers working on Gorsuch’s nomination that she does “not see an issue here, even though the language is similar,” both publications reported.
Politico examined several documents provided to it (the source is not named) and concluded that he copied the structure and language of several authors. Politico acknowledges that the writing it examined represents only a small portion of Gorsuch’s work. The publication contacted six experts on academic integrity for their reaction to similarities and got varied responses. One expert saw the problem as sloppiness, while University Professor Rebecca Moore Howard saw “a violation of academic ethics.”
Howard said Gorsuch used “patchwriting,” which means he used words and fact sequences from another publication, but sometimes changed phrasing and tenses. He also hid his sources, she said; Politico explains that rather than citing the publication whose writing he mimics, he instead relies on cases and other primary sources cited in the publication.
Politico sees the parallels between passages in Gorsuch’s book and Kuzma’s article (PDF) as the most striking example of closely duplicated sentences.
Politico offers these examples:
Kuzma wrote: “Esophageal atresia with tracheoesophageal fistula indicates that the esophageal passage from the mouth to the stomach ends in a pouch, with an abnormal connection between the trachea and the esophagus.”
Gorsuch wrote: “Esophageal atresia with tracheoesophageal fistula means that the esophageal passage from the mouth to the stomach ends in a pouch, with an abnormal connection between the trachea and the esophagus.”
Kuzma wrote: “Approximately twenty-six hours after Infant Doe was born, a hearing was held at Bloomington Hospital to determine whether the parents had the right to choose a course of treatment for their child that consisted of allowing the child to die. An attorney was present at the hearing to represent the child’s parents. No attorney was present to represent Infant Doe’s interests. Six physicians attended the hearing, three of whom had obstetric privileges and three of whom had pediatric privileges at Bloomington Hospital.”
Gorsuch wrote: “Shortly after Baby Doe was born, a hearing was held at Bloomington Hospital to determine whether the parents had the right to refuse the surgery on behalf of their child. An attorney was present at the hearing to represent the parents, though no one was present to represent Baby Doe’s potentially adverse interests. Six physicians attended, three of whom had obstetric privileges and three of whom had pediatric privileges at Bloomington Hospital,”
In her statement, Kuzma said the similar passages “are factual, not analytical in nature,” and, “it would have been awkward and difficult for Judge Gorsuch to have used different language.”
The White House offered statements from more than a half-dozen experts who said Gorsuch did not misappropriate ideas or arguments in his writing, though some language and facts may have been used without attribution. The experts said there is a different standard for citations in dissertations on legal philosophy than in other academic contexts.
White House spokesman Steven Cheung also saw no problems. “This false attack has been strongly refuted by highly-regarded academic experts, including those who reviewed, professionally examined, and edited Judge Gorsuch’s scholarly writings, and even the author of the main piece cited in the false attack,” Cheung told Politico. “There is only one explanation for this baseless, last-second smear of Judge Gorsuch: those desperate to justify the unprecedented filibuster of a well-qualified and mainstream nominee to the Supreme Court.”
Hat tip to How Appealing.
Updated at 11:08 a.m. to include link to Buzzfeed News.
