Connect with us

Political Dig

Report: Trump National Security Pick Monica Crowley Plagiarized Her Ph.D. Thesis

BOOYAH

Report: Trump National Security Pick Monica Crowley Plagiarized Her Ph.D. Thesis

President-elect Donald Trump’s pick for senior director of strategic communications for the National Security Council, Monica Crowley, has come under fire amid new allegations of plagiarism, several news outlets reported Thursday.

CNN’s KFile published an examination that turned up nearly 40 instances of suspected plagiarism in Crowley’s Ph.D. Dissertation, which she submitted to Columbia University in 2000.

According to the network, her thesis, “Clearer Than Truth: The Evolution of American Policy Toward the People’s Republic of China Under Truman and Nixon,” lifted from sources including scholarly works, the Associated Press, and former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.

crowly-thesis

Monica Crowly | Imgur

Building on that report, Politico Magazine also identified more than a dozen instances of suspected plagiarism in Crowley’s Ph.D. thesis.

Crowley, who is a Fox News commentator, has not responded to requests for comment about the newest investigations into her thesis. She came under fire on Saturday for plagiarizing more than 50 passages in her 2012 book What the (Bleep) Just Happened, copying directly from conservative columns, news articles, Wikipedia and in one case a podiatrist’s website.

This is what it says on page 168 of Crowley’s Ph.D. thesis, which can be accessed via the academic database ProQuest:

“Mueller found a ‘rally in support at the beginning of the war and high levels of public support into 1966. By mid-1966, however, support had declined in the wake of such events as infighting among the South Vietnamese and the emergence of vocal criticism of the war during the Fulbright hearings in early 1966. By this time, the public had also come to see that the war would not be over quickly but was instead likely to be a ‘long, bloody affair.'”

The material appears to be copied verbatim from Eric V. Larson’s “Casualties and Consensus: The Historical Role of Casualties in Domestic Support for U.S. Military Operations,” according to CNN:

“Mueller found a ‘rally’ in support at the beginning of the war and high levels of public support into 1966. By mid-1966, however, support had declined in the wake of such events as infighting among the South Vietnamese and the emergence of vocal criticism of the war during the Fulbright hearings in early 1966. By this time, the public had also come to see that the war would not be over quickly but was instead likely to be ‘a long, bloody affair.'”

In another example, Crowley seemed to have copied wording from “The Kissinger Transcripts: The Top Secret Talks With Beijing and Moscow,” published in 1998. Here’s what it says in Crowley’s dissertation:

“A crucial part of the U.S.-China-Vietnam equation was the understanding reached on Taiwan. In the Shanghai Communique, the United States made no specific public concessions on when or if it would terminate diplomatic relations with the Republic of China, but it did ‘acknowledge’ Beijing’s position that there is ‘but one China’ and that ‘Taiwan is part of China.'”

Here’s what it says in “The Kissinger Transcripts”:

“The United States made no specific public concessions on when or whether it would break diplomatic relations with the Republic of China, but it did ‘acknowledge’ Beijing’s position that there is ‘but one China’ and that ‘Taiwan is part of China.'”

Another passage in Crowley’s thesis appears to have been copied almost verbatim from Helen Milner’s 1992 book, “International Theories of Cooperation Among Nations: Strengths and Weaknesses”:

“First, if the goal is to achieve a balanced agreement (in which worrying about cheating is already a given), a larger number of players may actually be better, since it offers greater opportunities for exchanges and side payments. Grieco argues that ‘the state will prefer more partners, for larger numbers would enhance the likelihood that relative gains advantaging….better-positioned partners could be offset by more favorable sharings arising from interactions with weaker partners.”

Below is the original text from Milner’s book, in which Milner attributed the quoted text to its source:

“First, if one is concerned about more than just cheating, such as whether a balanced agreement can be struck, a larger number of players may be better, since it provides more opportunities for exchanges and side-payments. Grieco argues that ‘the state will prefer more partners, for larger numbers would enhance the likelihood that relative gains advantaging . . . better-positioned partners could be offset by more favorable sharings arising from interactions with weaker partners.’ (p. 228)”

On page 242 of her thesis, Crowley lifted almost three paragraphs directly from a 1999 Associated Press article. Here is what it says in Crowley’s work:

“Briefing Chou on the Soviets on November 10, 1973 in the Great Hall of the People, Kissinger repeated that it was in the interests of the United States to prevent a Soviet nuclear attack on China. ‘They want us to accept the desirability of destroying China’s nuclear capability,’ Kissinger said.

“Instead, he offered China secret military cooperation with the United States, including ‘ideas on how to lessen the vulnerability of your forces and how to increase the warning time’ before a Soviet attack.”

Here’s what the AP article says, according to CNN’s web archive:

“Briefing Chou on the Soviets on November 10, 1973, in the Great Hall of the People, Kissinger said it was in the interests of the United States to prevent a Soviet nuclear attack on China. ‘They want us to accept the desirability of destroying China’s nuclear capability,’ Kissinger said, according to a transcript of the conversation.

“Instead, he offered China secret military cooperation with the United States, including ‘ideas on how to lessen the vulnerability of your forces and how to increase the warning time’ before a Soviet attack.”

It seems members of the Trump cabinet have something in common with their leader: A shameless lack of honesty and decency.

Click to comment

More in BOOYAH

Advertisement

Trending

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
To Top