Renowned vocalist and artist Evelyn Harris has voluntarily returned an honorary degree awarded to her by Smith College after revelations that her commencement address borrowed extensively from speeches by others without proper attribution.
The incident has sparked debate within academic and artistic circles about the boundaries between inspiration, plagiarism, and creative expression — particularly in the context of a college commencement ceremony.
Smith College President Sarah Willie-LeBreton addressed the situation in a message shared after the college’s recent commencement events. While expressing gratitude for the event’s success, she confirmed the breach of academic standards.
“I must share with you, however, that it has come to our attention that one of our honorary degree recipients — musician Evelyn M. Harris — borrowed much of her speech to graduates and their families from the commencement speeches of others without the attribution typical of and central to the ideals of academic integrity,” Willie-LeBreton wrote.
Harris, a former member of the Grammy-nominated a cappella group Sweet Honey in the Rock and currently affiliated with the musical group Young@Heart, delivered her address to Smith College’s graduating class during a weekend of celebrations. In response to the plagiarism claims, she chose to return the honorary degree.
“In conversations about this after the event, Ms. Harris was forthcoming about her choices while also acknowledging that she sought to infuse the words of others with her own emotional valence,” Willie-LeBreton wrote. “With appreciation for the requirement of academic integrity so central to the values of Smith, Ms. Harris has chosen to relinquish her honorary degree.”
The controversy arose after it was discovered that large portions of Harris’ speech closely resembled other commencement addresses, reportedly without clear attribution or citations. In a setting like higher education, where citation and academic integrity are essential, such oversights are taken seriously, even for honorary speakers.
However, Harris’ supporters argue that the college may have mishandled the situation. In a letter published in the Daily Hampshire Gazette, Young@Heart’s artistic director Bob Cilman and ensemble member Julia van Ijken defended Harris. They argued that the college had reviewed and edited her speech in advance, missing an opportunity to raise concerns discreetly.
“Evelyn has informed us that her speech was submitted to Smith College in early May, and was edited by them for length,” the two wrote. “Surely the question of plagiarism could have been brought to her attention at that point, avoiding the drama and spectacle that has unfolded now?”
They also suggested that in the world of performance art, borrowing and adapting others’ work is a common and often celebrated practice. “We sing lyrics and play music written by others without explicitly crediting them from the stage,” they wrote. “We imagine Evelyn may have been doing something similar in her speech and was honoring the words of others.”
The response raises questions about whether the expectations for artists giving honorary speeches should differ from those placed on academic speakers or faculty. At the heart of the debate is whether artistic interpretation excuses the absence of clear attribution in a formal academic setting.
Smith College, known for its rigorous standards, stood by the decision, underscoring its commitment to academic principles. Willie-LeBreton’s message also thanked community members who raised the issue, highlighting transparency and accountability as core values.
While Evelyn Harris has yet to make a formal public statement beyond her communication with the college, the incident highlights the delicate intersection of creativity, ethics, and institutional values. In an era where both plagiarism and intellectual property are heavily scrutinized, the case has prompted broader reflection about how artists navigate academic spaces — and what standards should apply.
The situation may have ended with Harris’ voluntary return of the degree, but the conversation around plagiarism, intent, and institutional responsibility is likely to continue in academic and artistic communities alike.