Richard Delgado and Neil Shenvi Respond to Voddie Baucham Plagiarism Charges
Critical race theorist Richard Delgado has responded to how he is being presented by pastor and writer Voddie Baucham. Also, notable anti-CRT blogger Neil Shenvi has thrown his analysis of the Voddie Baucham plagiarism scandal into the arena. In a rather surprising turn, they are largely in agreement.
[To "catch up" to this discussion, see Joel McDurmon's original article, this Washington Post article, and my follow-up to the publisher's excuse.]
When followers ask for my take on CRT, I send them three different categories of resources:
I send them recommendations of actual academic-level critical theorists (Delgado, Crenshaw, etc.).
I send them sympathetic or affirming Christian analysis of CRT (usually from Bradly Mason).
I also send them critical or negative Christian analyses.
Neil is usually my go-to guy for that third category. I don't always agree with him or his analysis; regardless, Neil's negative-leaning analysis of CRT is not in the ranting and raving sensationalism category. It's reasonable, though I have my criticisms (for another time).
Shenvi’s Take
With that said, Neil Shenvi, with a few significant caveats, agrees with Dr. McDurmon's primary position that Voddie Baucham misquoted critical theorist Richard Delgado and plagiarized atheist mathematician hoaxer James A. Lindsay within Voddie Baucham's bestselling book, Fault Lines. Neil says, ". . . it is certainly legitimate to criticize Baucham for carelessness and especially for falsely attributing his own commentary to Delgado." Further, Neil writes that "Finally, McDurmon's accusation of plagiarism seems correct."
Shenvi, though a friend of Voddie Baucham and though an ardent opponent of CRT, is very clear that there are significant issues in Voddie's work and recommends that he ". . . acknowledge his mistakes, apologize for not being careful, and correct his errors in future editions." These issues, according to Shenvi, include misquotations and plagiarism.
Shenvi also makes the critical point that plagiarism does not need to be intentional. Shenvi explains that, ". . . it's very important to recognize that plagiarism does not have to be intentional." The University of Oxford further explains that:
Plagiarism is presenting someone else's work or ideas as your own, with or without their consent, by incorporating it into your work without full acknowledgement. All published and unpublished material, whether in manuscript, printed or electronic form, is covered under this definition. Plagiarism may be intentional or reckless, or unintentional. Under the regulations for examinations, intentional or reckless plagiarism is a disciplinary offence.
The University of Oxford continues:
Not all cases of plagiarism arise from a deliberate intention to cheat. Sometimes students may omit to take down citation details when taking notes, or they may be genuinely ignorant of referencing conventions. However, these excuses offer no sure protection against a charge of plagiarism. Even in cases where the plagiarism is found to have been neither intentional nor reckless, there may still be an academic penalty for poor practice.
Neil also points out that James A. Lindsay (the plagiarized) disagrees with the plagiarism charge, yet Neil properly maintains that the plagiarism charge is correct. According to the Oxford definition of plagiarism (and other credible definitions), plagiarism can occur even when given permission by the quoted individual. Failing to cite sources is an act of plagiarism regardless of the opinion of the plagiarized and is even still plagiarism if consent is given. In this case, permission is not given, nor is the source cited.
Neil also rightly points out that there is an ethical distinction between intentionally and unintentionally plagiarizing. He is correct that a deliberate decision to misquote or plagiarize is morally worse than misquoting or plagiarizing due to neglect or sloppiness. However, it is vital to understand that all forms of plagiarism, especially in defining ideas you oppose, are ethical failings. Yes, there is a distinction, but both forms of plagiarism point to an ethical failing in the author and publisher that demands confession, correction, and repentance. Further, according to at least some academic standards, the intent is not considered, and that "Cases of accidental plagiarism are taken as seriously as any other plagiarism and are subject to the same range of consequences as other types of plagiarism." The sections in question are not insignificant throw-away lines but the very definitions Voddie uses to argue against critical race theory. These sections are not only vital to the meaning and arguments of Fault Lines according to me, but they're also central pillars of the book according to Voddie. While on his publicity tour for Fault Lines, he repeats these quotes again, again, and again. He stresses that he is using his opponents' own words and not mischaracterizing his opponents. These faulty definitions are central bullet points in Voddie's regular criticisms of CRT.
Delgado’s Take
This brings me to one issue that Shenvi does not address in his essay. Is Voddie mischaracterizing Critical Race Theory? Though it is clear that Voddie plagiarized misquotes regarding CRT, is it also true that Voddie is unfair to the ideas of CRT and Delgado's views specifically? What does Delgado himself say about Voddie's definitions?
Richard Delgado recently responded via email to Faithfully Magazine's request for comment. As Faithfully Magazine reports, Delgado says that, "I think the writer whose work you are referring to was confusing me with someone else or just making things up, either of which is a bad idea when you are writing for an audience that values integrity and truth-telling!"
Regarding one line, in particular, Voddie attributed to the critical theorist, Delgado writes, "I very much doubt I've ever said anything remotely like it."
Faithfully Magazine continues its report:
As for Baucham's false assertion that CRT paints whites as being "incapable of righteous actions on race," Delgado pointed to several white individuals who disprove the peculiar claim, including his own wife, and the white legal scholar Alan Freeman, "one of the earliest, and best, of the race-crits."
He noted that "[m]any of the early abolitionists were white, as were many of the Freedom Riders, Mississippi Summer volunteers" and that "[h]istorian Peter Irons, author of Justice at War, was the one who uncovered the military's lies that led to Japanese WWII internment and an apology and reparations to the victims of it."
Though I do not personally agree with Professor Delgado on a number of significant points (especially regarding epistemology and sexuality), and I do not hold to or adopt CRT as a worldview, I do agree with his thoughts concerning how he and his ideas are being portrayed. His ideas are not being portrayed in a fair and charitable light. For Christians, this is not only an intellectual credibility issue but a moral issue. We are commanded not only not to tell lies but also to be truth-tellers (Ephesians 4:25). Are we going to define our opponents in the best possible way and then refute them, or will we take the all-too-easy path of addressing and refuting the worst possible definitions?
Needless to say, when Neil Shenvi and Richard Delgado agree, we should probably pay attention.
What about McDurmon?
But is my friend and co-editor Joel McDurmon being charitable to Voddie? The most significant reservation Shenvi has regarding McDurmon’s charge is the perception that McDurmon is judging Voddie’s motivations. I want to address a few things regarding this important question.
When McDurmon speaks of Voddie's intent he is speaking about Voddie being intentional in his attribution of false quotes to Delgado. Voddie does intend for his audience to believe that he is directly quoting from Delgado. This is shown, without reasonable doubt, here. McDurmon is not talking about Voddie's internal motives, but rather that Voddie intended for the misquote to be attributed to Delgado regardless if he knew it was a misquote. For example, Joel says, "I found material from Voddie that confirms that he definitely (emphatically and repeatedly) intended to attribute the false sections of the 'quotation' to Delgado." Joel is correct.
However, I cannot know whether or not Voddie knew that the false quotes were false. I also cannot know if Voddie intentionally plagiarized or unintentionally. This is where I rhetorically depart with McDurmon though we agree in substance. He uses language (such as "lie") that is stronger than I would use. With that said, I would ask that we are as charitable to McDurmon as we should be charitable to Baucham. I was not sure what Joel meant, exactly, when he said "lies," so I just asked him. I asked Joel what he meant by "lie" when he said "undeniable evidence of lies," and the other times he uses the word. The following is Joel McDurmon's response to that question (I am quoting with permission).
By "lies" I mean false witness. False witness can be intentional or unintentional. I am not sure exactly why Voddie appropriates Lindsay's words as his own, and I am not sure why Voddie persistently attributes both his and Lindsay's words to Delgado. Voddie could be doing this willfully, or negligently, through extreme carelessness. Either way, it is false witness. Personally, I'd like to believe he is not so corrupt as to be a willful liar. I would rather believe he was terribly sloppy in his compilation of notes and summaries. But the moment you move to attribute anything to someone else, or not, you have a very high standard of care to meet. it is a duty and obligation for any author, especially one with academic credentials, especially one who fills pulpits. Not meeting that standard is a failure of professional duty, and is universally regarded in the relevant professions as a failure of integrity and honesty. As a Christian, I consider it also a breach of the positive duty required by the ninth commandment.
I agree with Joel's assessment, and I am thankful that he did not intend to judge Voddie's hidden motivations. Brothers and sisters, we should read critical theorists with charity, we should read Voddie with charity, and we should also read Voddie's critics with charity. Though I understand the misunderstanding due to the strong language McDurmon uses, I hope this clears up the misconception that he was condemning Voddie's motivations. He is not and was not.
Conclusion
I, unlike Neil Shenvi, do not believe Voddie's Fault Lines to be helpful. The misrepresentations mentioned above, as well as plenty of sensationalism, renders this work to be unhelpful at best. Though dangerous ideas demand to be addressed, digressing into fear-mongering, hyperbole, and misrepresentations is not helpful or needed. In fact, I would say that controversialist works like Fault Lines are damaging to orthodox Christain views. It damages the credibility of the Reformed faith specifically and the Bride of Christ generally. With that said, I appreciate Shenvi's approach even when I disagree with him. While many on either side are on a myopic crusade condemning any nuance or any "third way," we need more men willing to address issues with grace and level-headedness (this goes for me as much as anyone else).
As I said in my last article, I am thankful that some on Voddie's "side" of the debate see the problems in his work. I pray that these errors are corrected soon and that Voddie works to remedy his damage to the truth. Falsehoods tend to exponentially multiply and morph into even worse falsehoods, and this damage will only continue until Voddie puts time and effort into correcting his errors. The repentance should be louder than the sin, and in this case, the sin is a key passage in a bestselling book. May we continue in grace and truth.