A quick Google search into Drew’s visiting professor Doris Kearns Goodwin reveals something frightening: several accusations of plagiarism. Why is Drew placing someone with scandals involving a lack of honesty and academic integrity on a pedestal? It reflects poorly on the university; but seeing that it has already been done, I am interested in how Drew can move forward and learn about the socio-political landscape of academia from this situation.
According to an article from Drew Communications, the “Thomas H. Kean Visiting Professorship brings an individual of exceptional national or international distinction in their field to serve as a member of Drew’s academic community and lead public programs for Drew’s local and worldwide constituencies.”
As someone well established in the world of popular presidential history, Goodwin certainly brings distinction. She increases public interest in history and offers the public engaging narratives and anecdotes. Her status appeals to the wider public, specifically an older generation. Many of these people are unaware she has had to step down from the position of Harvard University Overseer and took recommended leave from PBS Newshour following plagiarism accusations in the early 2000s. So the question remains: can Goodwin serve Drew’s academic community? There is a learning opportunity here, one that extends beyond presidential history.
I propose that a conversation of the socio-political connotations of Goodwin’s previous allegations is the best thing Goodwin’s presence can offer Drew. Understanding how allegations of plagiarism affect academics of various identities in different ways is an important part of the puzzle. Examining Goodwin’s legacy and reputation can give us a tangible example to learn from. As educational environments experience dramatic shifts in demographics, asking questions of race, gender, class and age allow us to dive into an examination of the power structures of academia.
As stories about plagiarism—particularly in regards to women of color in academia—continue to find their way into headlines, there is discourse to be had about the factors that allow for Goodwin’s continued success. These same factors of her intersectional identity have allowed her to move forward and repair her career substantially enough to be invited into esteemed positions by universities. Not everyone has this privilege.
As a woman with aspirations to enter the same field of study, I am far more interested in the way she has found her continued success than I am in the promotion of her new book. Wider conversations about gatekeeping in academia would be useful and engaging. This conversation would be better had with someone who has been successful while upholding academic integrity, but Goodwin can provide another side of the story.
I understand why Drew’s administration may be apprehensive; these are not easy conversations to have, especially publicly. But Drew has the capacity to host said dialogues: Drew has several professors who engage with scholarship relating to pedagogy and plagiarism that can provide scholastic expertise and unique perspectives. Such topics are already the focus of the DSEM writing program and remain at the forefront of our community as AI tools change what academic integrity and honesty look like in the classroom.
As a history student, I understand that the context in which Goodwin received her education and training is vastly different from our collective learning environment today. Still, I argue that if institutions are going to use her presence to inspire their students, then she should be held to today’s standards of academic integrity. It is unclear if the discussions about Goodwin’s allegations were had by the administration when making the choice to invite her to campus. However, the decision has been made. If Goodwin’s story offers us anything, it’s how to approach complicated situations of academic integrity on a large scale.
Jocelyn Freeman is a junior majoring in history and English and minoring in Chinese.
