Harvard President resigns

[Anonymous]

No longer President but still a professor. Hopefully no one signs up for any of her classes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So Stefanik et al’s hearing was never about anti-semitism. It was really about dismantling DEI. Let’s see who they go after next.

Tell you what - it wasn't until 10.7 I came to see that Jews are considered the enemy of DEI, instead of one of the groups that DEI should be considering and protecting. Your comment is really just chef's kiss for those of us who have had our eyes opened.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:why is this in the politics forum?

Because that's the reason such an unqualified person was hired to begin with.

What's the reason? Your use of the word "that" is ambiguous.

I recognize that you’re trying to embarrass the PP or force them to “be loud about their racism” or whatever but I’m a minority woman and I’ll do it. DEI politics (specifically the perceived need to choose a Black woman) was very obviously the reason this person was chosen to lead Harvard. And why she lasted as long as she did, with Harvard’s support, even after credible allegations of plagiarism were made. A white president would have either shared the same fate as Liz Magill (Penn) after the hearing or would have been forced to resign after the first plagiarism allegations.

I actually don’t have a problem with her handling of the Israel/Palestine issue and these allegations were pretty obviously dug up by well-funded pro-Israel donors as revenge, which is pretty crappy. And I was actually pro-Harvard keeping her in place to send a message to donors that they don’t run the university. But the PP’s original point stands.

Feel free to call me racist. I really don’t care.

Thanks for the response. I don't know you from Adam, so I wouldn't call you racist.

But, if PP was trying to say "[Being a black woman] is the reason such an unqualified person was hired to begin with," the argument falls apart pretty quickly - so maybe he meant something else. It falls apart quickly because this is just one position and there are millions of black women in the world. Surely some number of them are qualified. If Harvard was dead set on hiring black woman as President for the position, the University has enough pull that I'm sure it could induce one of the qualified women to take the job.

NP but you are correct. Harvard has the world at its finger tips, choice of any candidate they could want and yet they chose one that couldn't write an original thought if her life depended on it.
Which leads us back to the idea of merit and not DEI or affirmative action. No one should question of the president of Harvard (for gods sake) is qualified or just the person that checks the woke boxes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:why is this in the politics forum?

Because that's the reason such an unqualified person was hired to begin with.

Not to mention that this started with her testimony before Congress.
And, Harvard was well aware of the accusations of plagiarism long before her testimony, but tried to cover it up.
It is very much political.

For the people at Harvard, maybe. Why is this of national importance?

Does Harvard get tax dollars?

If it does, I can't imagine it amounts to much compared to the national budget.

$600+ million for a recent year. It adds up. A lot of kids enrolled in the public schools could benefit from that much money being used for tutoring and improving reading skills.

[Anonymous]

B.U., just across the river, recently hired its first woman president--she also happens to be black. Will her body of research work be scrutinized as well to dig up instances of improper citation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:B.U., just across the river, recently hired its first woman president--she also happens to be black. Will her body of research work be scrutinized as well to dig up instances of improper citation?

Everyone's body of research is supposed to withstand scrutiny. I have really mixed feelings about the entire Claudine Gay situation but your research is supposed to be reproducible and faultlessly documented. That's how you support your scholarly argument, not with mere Colbertian "truthiness".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:B.U., just across the river, recently hired its first woman president--she also happens to be black. Will her body of research work be scrutinized as well to dig up instances of improper citation?

Everyone's body of research is supposed to withstand scrutiny. I have really mixed feelings about the entire Claudine Gay situation but your research is supposed to be reproducible and faultlessly documented. That's how you support your scholarly argument, not with mere Colbertian "truthiness".

Well, then, going forward I would expect the complete body of work of each prospective Harvard president to be given the same scrutiny. The fact that Gay's plagiarism was brought to light in the context of efforts to oust her due to her congressional testimony re: campus anti-semitism makes it seem that more was at stake than just the comments she made--or didn't make--during her testimony.

[Anonymous]

It is called “due diligence.”

Harvard failed in this instance.

[Anonymous]

GOP goes after Black woman. It's what they do.

[Anonymous]

Will this affect the current year admission ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:B.U., just across the river, recently hired its first woman president--she also happens to be black. Will her body of research work be scrutinized as well to dig up instances of improper citation?

Everyone's body of research is supposed to withstand scrutiny. I have really mixed feelings about the entire Claudine Gay situation but your research is supposed to be reproducible and faultlessly documented. That's how you support your scholarly argument, not with mere Colbertian "truthiness".

Well, then, going forward I would expect the complete body of work of each prospective Harvard president to be given the same scrutiny. The fact that Gay's plagiarism was brought to light in the context of efforts to oust her due to her congressional testimony re: campus anti-semitism makes it seem that more was at stake than just the comments she made--or didn't make--during her testimony.

DP. I mean, this is just basic due diligence. It should be disqualifying for any president of any university to have plagiarized work, especially since these same universities take such hard lines on students who plagiarize work (as they should). It is actually astonishing to me that Harvard was so sloppy as to not vet Gay’s work for basic academic honesty, proper citations, etc., before appointing her president. I’m not familiar with her academic publications, but it doesn’t sound like there were so many of them such that this would be infeasible or anything.

I do agree that these instances of plagiarism were clearly dug up by someone with an axe to grind over the Congressional testimony, which sucks. But the allegations themselves are credible and they’re extremely embarrassing for Harvard. It’s not like they could keep her on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:GOP goes after Black woman. It's what they do.

Two of the three university presidents being questioned by Stefanik were white women. One of them resigned almost immediately.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:GOP goes after Black woman. It's what they do.

Is that you, Ibram X. Kendi?

[Anonymous]

Bye Claudine. Thanks for shining a bright light on the woke’s antisemitism and the absurdity of DEI.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:GOP goes after Black woman. It's what they do.

Do Democrats stand by her? A lot of democrats donors demanded her resignation.