There is definitely some information missing from this story. If the case for plagiarism was as clear-cut as the author makes it sound, the reaction of the univ

There is definitely some information missing from this story. If the case for plagiarism was as clear-cut as the author makes it sound, the reaction of the university officials was very unusual. There is an email trail for the student's version of the story, and the student had a lawyer, yet all of the university administrators sided with the professor to protect Dr. Mao? Other things: She was afraid that Dr. Mao would find out about her dissertation essay. But if Dr. Mao plagiarized it, why wouldn't they already know about it? Why would another professor beg a student to drop claims that Dr. Mao stole the work if there was an email trail? The university let her use work that they concluded was plagiarized? She even raises that issue, so they more likely concluded that there wasn't enough evidence that Dr. Mao plagiarized. "I learned that Dr. Mao had gotten over $300,000 in funding for an exhibition and publication based off of the same idea from the essay that I had originally suspected had been based off my work." But later: "I had found out about Dr. Mao’s exhibition a few months after I had sent them the original paper." So at most a few months had passed between seeing the paper for the first time and getting $300,000 for an exhibit. That seems fast to me. Things make a lot more sense if the two of them had been having conversations about the topic, the student sent Dr. Mao a copy of the paper when it was done, and then Dr. Mao submitted their own paper. The facts just don't add up given this one-sided presentation.