Harvard President resigns

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Being under a microscope isn’t easy for anyone.

Having every word scrutinized through the lens of the Israel/Hamas/Palestinian crisis is nearly impossible for anyone to navigate without controversy.

Bottom line: she didn’t handle her crisis well. She should have acknowledged something/anything remotely sympathetic to Israel rather than bizarrely digging in.

Harvard is running a business. She’s an at will employee. Nobody is entitled to their job…even if you are a minority. She became a liability following her testimony and the multiple incidents of plagiarism were too much to overcome. Why on earth would any employer keep her at the helm?

I’m breaking this down because I’m troubled by social media chatter trying to make this out as an unfair witch hunt against black women. I know I activist who says we need a new racial reckoning specific to black women since this conservative Lynch mob will continue to go after all black women in any position of power. It’s poppycock.

Well, it's pretty clear that SOME went after Gay in order to attack DEI and perceived affirmative action. Not exactly the same as a "witch hunt against black women", but certainly related to both her Blackness and her politics.

OTOH, others went after her solely because of the perceived tolerance for antisemitism and/or the bungled Congressional hearing (which was truly awful).

Others for plagiarism.

Others to go after "woke".

Good list. I would just add:

Others are going after "elite" universities as part of a wider GOP effort to dismantle what they perceive to be the pillars of progressive society (oh the irony since so many of the GOP rising stars like Stefanik are actual Ivy League grads)

“A reckoning is coming to higher education,” said Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.), whose questioning during a congressional hearing led to the resignations of the president of the University of Pennsylvania and then, on Tuesday, Gay. [b]“This is just the beginning of exposing the rot in our most ‘prestigious’ higher education institutions.”)

I'm a bit amused because the last decade showed plenty of left wing witch hunts against people who defied their ideological narratives. Gay herself was part of this movement because she used her powers to nearly destroy the career of Roland Fryer at Harvard whose real crime was producing research that contradicted the left wing racial narrative surrounding the police.

That aside, for all of you decrying witch hunts, it also remains that Gay is a mediocre, third rate academic whose astonishing rise through the ladders of academia was despite extremely weak publication and research history and one that was already dubious back in the day with multiple red flags. Why are you defending such a person? It's hard not to see she weaponized her race and her ideology to deflect criticism and advanced despite mediocrity. Is she really the person you want to defend?

If people went after Gay because she was a symbol, they did have a point. She was the face of an ideological movement that hurt people and introduced its own forms of inquisitions and ideological intolerance. It was under Gay that Harvard was ranked as the school with the least amount of free speech. There is a revolt, both public and private, against the zealotry of DEI and it's natural that Gay, as a prominent figurehead for DEI, should come under extra scrutiny. And lo and behold, it turns out her background confirmed all the criticism levied against her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My prediction: no university official will testify in front of Congress for the next decade. Why subject yourself or your institution to that political circus?

They will testify either to keep their federal fund siphons from being plugged or to keep their university's reputation, if anyone actually cares about that anymore.

[Anonymous]

I suggest Dr. Gay is being held to a “standard” of scholarship that disregards her lived experience and historical trauma. These heteronormative outdated standards based on Judie-Christian dogma, reinforce whiteness, serve to promote capitalism, and strengthen the patriarchy.
What is needed is a inclusive set of standards that better reflect where we should be as a global community.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I suggest Dr. Gay is being held to a “standard” of scholarship that disregards her lived experience and historical trauma. These heteronormative outdated standards based on Judie-Christian dogma, reinforce whiteness, serve to promote capitalism, and strengthen the patriarchy.
What is needed is a inclusive set of standards that better reflect where we should be as a global community.

Are you being facetious? Sometimes you can't tell on the internet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suggest Dr. Gay is being held to a “standard” of scholarship that disregards her lived experience and historical trauma. These heteronormative outdated standards based on Judie-Christian dogma, reinforce whiteness, serve to promote capitalism, and strengthen the patriarchy.
What is needed is a inclusive set of standards that better reflect where we should be as a global community.

Are you being facetious? Sometimes you can't tell on the internet.

More likely they are trolling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Being under a microscope isn’t easy for anyone.

Having every word scrutinized through the lens of the Israel/Hamas/Palestinian crisis is nearly impossible for anyone to navigate without controversy.

Bottom line: she didn’t handle her crisis well. She should have acknowledged something/anything remotely sympathetic to Israel rather than bizarrely digging in.

Harvard is running a business. She’s an at will employee. Nobody is entitled to their job…even if you are a minority. She became a liability following her testimony and the multiple incidents of plagiarism were too much to overcome. Why on earth would any employer keep her at the helm?

I’m breaking this down because I’m troubled by social media chatter trying to make this out as an unfair witch hunt against black women. I know I activist who says we need a new racial reckoning specific to black women since this conservative Lynch mob will continue to go after all black women in any position of power. It’s poppycock.

Well, it's pretty clear that SOME went after Gay in order to attack DEI and perceived affirmative action. Not exactly the same as a "witch hunt against black women", but certainly related to both her Blackness and her politics.

OTOH, others went after her solely because of the perceived tolerance for antisemitism and/or the bungled Congressional hearing (which was truly awful).

Others for plagiarism.

Others to go after "woke".

Good list. I would just add:

Others are going after "elite" universities as part of a wider GOP effort to dismantle what they perceive to be the pillars of progressive society (oh the irony since so many of the GOP rising stars like Stefanik are actual Ivy League grads)

“A reckoning is coming to higher education,” said Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.), whose questioning during a congressional hearing led to the resignations of the president of the University of Pennsylvania and then, on Tuesday, Gay. [b]“This is just the beginning of exposing the rot in our most ‘prestigious’ higher education institutions.”)

I'm a bit amused because the last decade showed plenty of left wing witch hunts against people who defied their ideological narratives. Gay herself was part of this movement because she used her powers to nearly destroy the career of Roland Fryer at Harvard whose real crime was producing research that contradicted the left wing racial narrative surrounding the police.

That aside, for all of you decrying witch hunts, it also remains that Gay is a mediocre, third rate academic whose astonishing rise through the ladders of academia was despite extremely weak publication and research history and one that was already dubious back in the day with multiple red flags. Why are you defending such a person? It's hard not to see she weaponized her race and her ideology to deflect criticism and advanced despite mediocrity. Is she really the person you want to defend?

If people went after Gay because she was a symbol, they did have a point. She was the face of an ideological movement that hurt people and introduced its own forms of inquisitions and ideological intolerance. It was under Gay that Harvard was ranked as the school with the least amount of free speech. There is a revolt, both public and private, against the zealotry of DEI and it's natural that Gay, as a prominent figurehead for DEI, should come under extra scrutiny. And lo and behold, it turns out her background confirmed all the criticism levied against her.

It is kind of funny to watch the leftists howl when their own techniques are turned against them. Gay was hoisted by her own petard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suggest Dr. Gay is being held to a “standard” of scholarship that disregards her lived experience and historical trauma. These heteronormative outdated standards based on Judie-Christian dogma, reinforce whiteness, serve to promote capitalism, and strengthen the patriarchy.
What is needed is a inclusive set of standards that better reflect where we should be as a global community.

Are you being facetious? Sometimes you can't tell on the internet.

More likely they are trolling.

That is some well-executed trolling, then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My prediction: no university official will testify in front of Congress for the next decade. Why subject yourself or your institution to that political circus?

They will testify either to keep their federal fund siphons from being plugged or to keep their university's reputation, if anyone actually cares about that anymore.

Uh what? No they don't need to testify. There is not statutory requirement for them to testify. There is no criminal case being investigated.

The federal government will keep spending research dollars and providing student loans to the Ivy League and other elite universities.

Reputation? As we saw in this previous hearing, the universities put their reputations at risk by going in front of these wildly political showcases where members of Congress are trying to express their rhetorical sentiments for the online social media mobs who eat it all up. There is more risk showing up than choosing to decline and remain out of the Congressional spotlight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My prediction: no university official will testify in front of Congress for the next decade. Why subject yourself or your institution to that political circus?

They will testify either to keep their federal fund siphons from being plugged or to keep their university's reputation, if anyone actually cares about that anymore.

Uh what? No they don't need to testify. There is not statutory requirement for them to testify. There is no criminal case being investigated.

The federal government will keep spending research dollars and providing student loans to the Ivy League and other elite universities.

Reputation? As we saw in this previous hearing, the universities put their reputations at risk by going in front of these wildly political showcases where members of Congress are trying to express their rhetorical sentiments for the online social media mobs who eat it all up. There is more risk showing up than choosing to decline and remain out of the Congressional spotlight.

forgive me, I'm not a lawyer but doesn't someone have to appear if they get a congressional subpoena? And I heard the first thing Gay and the other presidents did was "lawyer up" before appearing, so I guess the lawyers didn't give them your advice that there's no requirement to testify.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My prediction: no university official will testify in front of Congress for the next decade. Why subject yourself or your institution to that political circus?

They will testify either to keep their federal fund siphons from being plugged or to keep their university's reputation, if anyone actually cares about that anymore.

Uh what? No they don't need to testify. There is not statutory requirement for them to testify. There is no criminal case being investigated.

The federal government will keep spending research dollars and providing student loans to the Ivy League and other elite universities.

Reputation? As we saw in this previous hearing, the universities put their reputations at risk by going in front of these wildly political showcases where members of Congress are trying to express their rhetorical sentiments for the online social media mobs who eat it all up. There is more risk showing up than choosing to decline and remain out of the Congressional spotlight.

forgive me, I'm not a lawyer but doesn't someone have to appear if they get a congressional subpoena? And I heard the first thing Gay and the other presidents did was "lawyer up" before appearing, so I guess the lawyers didn't give them your advice that there's no requirement to testify.

There was no subpoena. It was an "invitation." The head of Columbia University declined to attend the hearing and she probably saved her job.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/12/us/politics/congress-testimony-harvard-penn.html

The reasoned they "lawyered up" is because they had to to testify under oath and they don't want to commit perjury (either intentionally or accidentally). So they wanted to run their answers through attorneys, who would then fact-check the proposed responses. From a legal perspective, their answers should have lots of wiggle room.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I suggest Dr. Gay is being held to a “standard” of scholarship that disregards her lived experience and historical trauma. These heteronormative outdated standards based on Judeo-Christian dogma, reinforce whiteness, serve to promote capitalism, and strengthen the patriarchy.
What is needed is a inclusive set of standards that better reflect where we should be as a global community.

Forgotten was “Something, something Israel. Something, something Jews.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I suggest Dr. Gay is being held to a “standard” of scholarship that disregards her lived experience and historical trauma. These heteronormative outdated standards based on Judie-Christian dogma, reinforce whiteness, serve to promote capitalism, and strengthen the patriarchy.
What is needed is a inclusive set of standards that better reflect where we should be as a global community.

Well done, pp!!!
You have captured nearly all the current liberal jargon.
Might I suggest you try to incorporate these terms as well: imperialism, white supremacy, capitalism, ableism, and cissexist heteropatriarchy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suggest Dr. Gay is being held to a “standard” of scholarship that disregards her lived experience and historical trauma. These heteronormative outdated standards based on Judie-Christian dogma, reinforce whiteness, serve to promote capitalism, and strengthen the patriarchy.
What is needed is a inclusive set of standards that better reflect where we should be as a global community.

Well done, pp!!!
You have captured nearly all the current liberal jargon.
Might I suggest you try to incorporate these terms as well: imperialism, white supremacy, capitalism, ableism, and cissexist heteropatriarchy.

Also “anticolonialist” and “oppressor.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suggest Dr. Gay is being held to a “standard” of scholarship that disregards her lived experience and historical trauma. These heteronormative outdated standards based on Judie-Christian dogma, reinforce whiteness, serve to promote capitalism, and strengthen the patriarchy.
What is needed is a inclusive set of standards that better reflect where we should be as a global community.

Well done, pp!!!
You have captured nearly all the current liberal jargon.
Might I suggest you try to incorporate these terms as well: imperialism, white supremacy, capitalism, ableism, and cissexist heteropatriarchy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I suggest Dr. Gay is being held to a “standard” of scholarship that disregards her lived experience and historical trauma. These heteronormative outdated standards based on Judie-Christian dogma, reinforce whiteness, serve to promote capitalism, and strengthen the patriarchy.
What is needed is a inclusive set of standards that better reflect where we should be as a global community.

I agree, and moreover, even if the plagiarism allegations are true, it makes Gay even more of a heroine because she refused to submit to an inherently racist system. The mere idea that plagiarism can even exist strongly suggests that the "marketplace of ideas" is corrupted by capitalism, since all property ownership is theft. Why should this not extend to *intellectual property* as well? Gay was merely redistributing ideas in an equitable fashion to promote a more racially just society.