Harvard President resigns

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lol chickens coming home to roost 😂

Is this Cancel Culture?

And, her very professional and articulate response.

You know that you struck a chord when they go after your wife, in this case my love and partner in life,
@NeriOxman
.

I am one of the most fortunate people in the universe in large part because of Neri.

Please see her post below about today’s Business Insider piece about her dissertation. Part of what makes her human is that she makes mistakes, owns them, and apologizes when appropriate.

Neri, a former tenured professor at
@MIT
, is the author of 74 peer-reviewed papers, eight peer-reviewed book chapters, and numerous other journal papers and proceedings.

She has been awarded 15 patents for various innovations, and her work has been featured in 116 exhibitions around the world including two recent retrospectives at the Museum of Modern Art and SF MoMA.

If you would like to learn more about Neri, I encourage you to watch her podcast with Lex Fridman:

She might also be up to 50 instances of plagiarism once the perpetually-online brigades go through her academic writings. Stay tuned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:well of course it was the "right-wingers" who scrutinized her past academic work for plagiarism.
I mean, who else is going to it it, the left wingers,
And just because they're right wingers doesn't mean they are wrong. I mean you can see the passages side-by-side and see she plagiarized.
And how incredible it was in her resignation letter to argue she has upheld "academic rigor" at Harvard.

Left wingers did review her work during peer-review but they ignored the plagiarism and decided to lower standards so she could lead Harvard. Gay didn't even attempt to defend her scholarship against their mild charges of plagiarism, she knew she was going to move up regardless.

It's also that Gay has published only 11 "scholarly" articles (several of which were plagiarized). This is a glaringly small number for a tenured professor. The Harvard provost who is now serving as interim university president has published over 10 times that number.

I'd be surprised if recently departed Purdue president, Mitch Daniels had published even one scholarly article.

Harvard used to be in a class far beyond Purdue where any comparison would be ridiculous. Yes, people want to see a legitimately incredible person lead an organization like Harvard. Now Harvard seems like a place rich liberal people send their children for foolish indoctrination and is comparable to Liberty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think her comments at the hearing got everyone looking at her (and the other two presidents) -- but it was the evidence of pervasive plagiarism that actually did her in.

I agree.

The real scandal here is how come she was hired to begin with. Would have taken 5 minutes to properly vet her.

Nepotism, racism, or both?

It's not difficult to see Gay was (and still is) everything that was wrong about the DEI movement. Elevating highly unqualified and mediocre talent into senior roles and fast tracking people simply because of the need to fill an identity gap. Her academic history is weaker than a typical community college adjunct professor and yet she made tenure at elite universities, and she will retain her yearly salary of $900,000. And she is part of a pattern that includes Kamala Harris and some of Biden's vastly under-qualified appointees.

It is a pattern of corruption.

This form of corruption isn't unique to DEI. The same pattern happened in the Soviet Union as people with the right ideology were promoted over more capable talent. It happened in the aristocratic regimes where noblemen were appointed to high offices due to the title, not talent. Hopefully this means going forward people will be wiser as to the risks of failing people upward.

So because she plagaraized, she was a bad candidate. I agree. Will you say the same thing about Justice Alito, who also plagarized?

Link that Alito plagiarized?

You might be referring to Gorsuch, but what he did in the footnote (borrowing language from a secondary source about facts of a legal case, not legal analysis, and properly citing the primary source) is quite different from what Gay did (taking language to pass a theory off as her own without citation).

Also Gorsuch’s alleged “plagiarism” (it wasn’t) was consistent with accepted legal practice. It’s not at all like what Gay did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:well of course it was the "right-wingers" who scrutinized her past academic work for plagiarism.
I mean, who else is going to it it, the left wingers,
And just because they're right wingers doesn't mean they are wrong. I mean you can see the passages side-by-side and see she plagiarized.
And how incredible it was in her resignation letter to argue she has upheld "academic rigor" at Harvard.

Left wingers did review her work during peer-review but they ignored the plagiarism and decided to lower standards so she could lead Harvard. Gay didn't even attempt to defend her scholarship against their mild charges of plagiarism, she knew she was going to move up regardless.

It's also that Gay has published only 11 "scholarly" articles (several of which were plagiarized). This is a glaringly small number for a tenured professor. The Harvard provost who is now serving as interim university president has published over 10 times that number.

I'd be surprised if recently departed Purdue president, Mitch Daniels had published even one scholarly article.

I didnt think Purdue was on a par with Harvard.

[Anonymous]

She still gets her $900,000 a year

Sweet gig.

A little part time teaching.

Nice

Harvard is definitely the go-to place for the mediocre names cashing in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:well of course it was the "right-wingers" who scrutinized her past academic work for plagiarism.
I mean, who else is going to it it, the left wingers,
And just because they're right wingers doesn't mean they are wrong. I mean you can see the passages side-by-side and see she plagiarized.
And how incredible it was in her resignation letter to argue she has upheld "academic rigor" at Harvard.

Left wingers did review her work during peer-review but they ignored the plagiarism and decided to lower standards so she could lead Harvard. Gay didn't even attempt to defend her scholarship against their mild charges of plagiarism, she knew she was going to move up regardless.

It's also that Gay has published only 11 "scholarly" articles (several of which were plagiarized). This is a glaringly small number for a tenured professor. The Harvard provost who is now serving as interim university president has published over 10 times that number.

I'd be surprised if recently departed Purdue president, Mitch Daniels had published even one scholarly article.

I didnt think Purdue was on a par with Harvard.

Also, Daniels had a quite extensive record of accomplishments prior to going to Purdue.
Gay? Not so much.
And, he has published 4 books which is 4 more than Gay has published.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:well of course it was the "right-wingers" who scrutinized her past academic work for plagiarism.
I mean, who else is going to it it, the left wingers,
And just because they're right wingers doesn't mean they are wrong. I mean you can see the passages side-by-side and see she plagiarized.
And how incredible it was in her resignation letter to argue she has upheld "academic rigor" at Harvard.

Left wingers did review her work during peer-review but they ignored the plagiarism and decided to lower standards so she could lead Harvard. Gay didn't even attempt to defend her scholarship against their mild charges of plagiarism, she knew she was going to move up regardless.

It's also that Gay has published only 11 "scholarly" articles (several of which were plagiarized). This is a glaringly small number for a tenured professor. The Harvard provost who is now serving as interim university president has published over 10 times that number.

I'd be surprised if recently departed Purdue president, Mitch Daniels had published even one scholarly article.

I didnt think Purdue was on a par with Harvard.

In engineering and CS, it's well above.

Mitch Daniels is a politician. So it's different. High profile individual. Never pretended to be a scholar like Gay did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think her comments at the hearing got everyone looking at her (and the other two presidents) -- but it was the evidence of pervasive plagiarism that actually did her in.

I agree.

The real scandal here is how come she was hired to begin with. Would have taken 5 minutes to properly vet her.

Nepotism, racism, or both?

It's not difficult to see Gay was (and still is) everything that was wrong about the DEI movement. Elevating highly unqualified and mediocre talent into senior roles and fast tracking people simply because of the need to fill an identity gap. Her academic history is weaker than a typical community college adjunct professor and yet she made tenure at elite universities, and she will retain her yearly salary of $900,000. And she is part of a pattern that includes Kamala Harris and some of Biden's vastly under-qualified appointees.

It is a pattern of corruption.

This form of corruption isn't unique to DEI. The same pattern happened in the Soviet Union as people with the right ideology were promoted over more capable talent. It happened in the aristocratic regimes where noblemen were appointed to high offices due to the title, not talent. Hopefully this means going forward people will be wiser as to the risks of failing people upward.

Yes. Like the Florida surgeon general, who does not understand how DNA and RNA work (this is basic high school biology), but still got into Harvard medical school and then became a professor at UCLA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She still gets her $900,000 a year

Sweet gig.

A little part time teaching.

Nice

Harvard is definitely the go-to place for the mediocre names cashing in.

That's called hush money. As the President of Harvard she knows where all the bodies are buried - who bought their way in, how much they paid, which rockstar professors have been sexually harassing their students for eons, who received settlement agreements and how much was paid out to victims, etc. The Harvard Corporation would not want her running her mouth.

I'm sure her attorney negotiated an incredible employment contract and long term compensation package that can't be withdrawn by the Corporation or her successor.

So yes, that's why she's getting a very cush job and keeping her salary. She knows too much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Everyone is grifting. We live in a society dominated by grifters. Fake it til you make it folks.

AI, Google Scholar, etc. make it so easy to see who is plagiarizing. This is going to be the big thing in 2024 - using AI to root out the cheaters.

Everyone is not grifting, but AI is certainly making it much easier to find out who is. Expect even more individuals and groups to apply plagiarism checkers to the work of academics they don’t like.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone is grifting. We live in a society dominated by grifters. Fake it til you make it folks.

AI, Google Scholar, etc. make it so easy to see who is plagiarizing. This is going to be the big thing in 2024 - using AI to root out the cheaters.

Everyone is not grifting, but AI is certainly making it much easier to find out who is. Expect even more individuals and groups to apply plagiarism checkers to the work of academics they don’t like.

Just wait until AI starts testing the data replication for STEM, economics and social sciences academic papers. We are going to find A LOT of fake data and made-up conclusions that can't be replicated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She got fired because she plagiarized a fkton of her writing. Read the NYtimes article showing her work side by side with the original sources.

The entire country has gone nuts. Everything is a “social justice” battle. And course curriculums now focus on “oppressors” and “oppressed”. So we have an entire generation digesting this stuff and the next 20 years will be interesting.

TLDR; Everyone is an idiot.

As one writer put it, is Claudine Gay the hill that progressives really want to die on? She's not worth it.

I think you'd have to be terminally online to believe that Claudine Gay is anything like a household word among progressives.

Among rank and file progressive voters? No, I agree.

But look who jumped to her defense?

- Al Sharpton
- President Obama

Among progressive leaders, she was and is well-known and respected.

DP, btw.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone is grifting. We live in a society dominated by grifters. Fake it til you make it folks.

AI, Google Scholar, etc. make it so easy to see who is plagiarizing. This is going to be the big thing in 2024 - using AI to root out the cheaters.

Everyone is not grifting, but AI is certainly making it much easier to find out who is. Expect even more individuals and groups to apply plagiarism checkers to the work of academics they don’t like.

And this is exactly what we're saying. This is a political and racial witch-hunt. White, conservative men can plagiarize and be as mediocre as they want. They can grift their way into government and the Oval Office. But a black women? Arab? Any ideological dissenters (Pro-Palestine) will be hunted down and discredited. And this time, the pro-Zionist left is joining in the fray exposing their true colors. They're for equal rights and progressive values only when it doesn't challenge their worldview. Exactly what POC have been saying about liberals for a long, long time

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:well of course it was the "right-wingers" who scrutinized her past academic work for plagiarism.
I mean, who else is going to it it, the left wingers,
And just because they're right wingers doesn't mean they are wrong. I mean you can see the passages side-by-side and see she plagiarized.
And how incredible it was in her resignation letter to argue she has upheld "academic rigor" at Harvard.

Left wingers did review her work during peer-review but they ignored the plagiarism and decided to lower standards so she could lead Harvard. Gay didn't even attempt to defend her scholarship against their mild charges of plagiarism, she knew she was going to move up regardless.

It's also that Gay has published only 11 "scholarly" articles (several of which were plagiarized). This is a glaringly small number for a tenured professor. The Harvard provost who is now serving as interim university president has published over 10 times that number.

I'd be surprised if recently departed Purdue president, Mitch Daniels had published even one scholarly article.

Harvard used to be in a class far beyond Purdue where any comparison would be ridiculous. Yes, people want to see a legitimately incredible person lead an organization like Harvard. Now Harvard seems like a place rich liberal people send their children for foolish indoctrination and is comparable to Liberty.

Harvard = Liberty meets Purdue, per dcum "progressives"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She got fired because she plagiarized a fkton of her writing. Read the NYtimes article showing her work side by side with the original sources.

The entire country has gone nuts. Everything is a “social justice” battle. And course curriculums now focus on “oppressors” and “oppressed”. So we have an entire generation digesting this stuff and the next 20 years will be interesting.

TLDR; Everyone is an idiot.

As one writer put it, is Claudine Gay the hill that progressives really want to die on? She's not worth it.

I think you'd have to be terminally online to believe that Claudine Gay is anything like a household word among progressives.

Among rank and file progressive voters? No, I agree.

But look who jumped to her defense?

- Al Sharpton
- President Obama

Among progressive leaders, she was and is well-known and respected.

DP, btw.

Grifter likes grifter likes grifter.

Huge news.