> The allegations against Dr. Gay do not entail promoting actual substantial ideas as her own, but rather lifting phrases for sections of dutiful literature review and explicating basic premises without using quotation marks, or changing the wording only slightly, and, at times, not even citing the relevant authors shortly before or after these sections. This qualifies less as stealing argumentation than as messy. Much has been made of the fact that even her acknowledgments section in her dissertation has phraseology transparently cribbed from those of others. Sloppy, again — but still, this is not about her actual ideas.
If a progressive think tank released evidence that a rival conservative intellectual had committed academic fraud or something, it wouldn't mean that the allegations cannot be true.
Evaluating the reliability and veracity or mendacity of a source is an important first step in assessing the importance of any accusation or claim. That's basic due diligence.
If a crazy person on the street tells me evolution is real that doesn't mean that evolution isn't real.
The accusation here isn't really a "he said/she said" situation or anything. You can just read the excerpts highlighted and the excerpts from the passages that came before it. As far as I'm concerned, deciding if they are actually substantially similar (and in a meaningful way that undermines the work) is the only thing worth examining.