Harvard President resigns

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.[/quote

I agree that plagiarism should be disqualifying--for a university president or just plain old professor. There are multiple plagiarism detection programs now that can quickly find instances of plagiarism, and AI will no doubt make them even more accurate. They should be used routinely before hiring an academic. I suspect that there are other academics--at HU or elsewhere--whose work would not withstand such scrutiny and some of them will be white.

[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.

The allegations aren't new. They were around for a while. When Gay's rumored selection as the next president emerged, it was not without controversy and for good reasons. Her academic background was extremely weak and the some of the plagiarism claims were sent to the board. The Harvard board refused to entertain these allegations seriously and do a due diligence into the rest of her publications. The board is the entity that is mostly at fault even if Gay is no innocent victim either. There were powerful figures on the board, particularly a woman named Penny Pritzker, a former Obama official and donor, who had mentored Gay and who pushed her for the job instead of opening the search to other options.

University presidents have resigned due to plagiarism. Stanford's president resigned in 2023 over his lab falsifying data. In 2021, the president of the University of South Carolina resigned for plagiarizing a single speech. Both were white men.

But what the Gay incident has exposed is the cult of DEI in facilitating the elevation and promotion of some people into tenured roles and leadership without proper qualification or vetting their scholarship. Gay is not alone. There are others out there. People know this too clearly now and it is casting a shadow over all of academia, but particularly elite academia.

[Anonymous]

Speaking of Kendi…

[Anonymous]

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

Yes we can now get an ultra conservative Jew in there and he can go after anyone who is not pro Israel enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Claudine Gay is not the problem.

She is a symptom of a much larger disease plaguing this country.

94% of new corporate jobs went to people of color despite whites making up 60% of the country.

https://cbsaustin.com/amp/news/nation-world/major-us-companies-gave-94-of-new-jobs-to-people-of-color-in-2021-report-says-diversity-hiring-employees-apple-nike-microsoft-wells-fargo

Healthcare, the military, airline pilots.

Race-based hiring has infected every last institution and industry in this country.

Sooner or later, we will all be feeling the consequences of abandoning merit.

This data is total bs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The allegations aren't new. They were around for a while. When Gay's rumored selection as the next president emerged, it was not without controversy and for good reasons. Her academic background was extremely weak and the some of the plagiarism claims were sent to the board. The Harvard board refused to entertain these allegations seriously and do a due diligence into the rest of her publications. The board is the entity that is mostly at fault even if Gay is no innocent victim either. There were powerful figures on the board, particularly a woman named Penny Pritzker, a former Obama official and donor, who had mentored Gay and who pushed her for the job instead of opening the search to other options.

University presidents have resigned due to plagiarism. Stanford's president resigned in 2023 over his lab falsifying data. In 2021, the president of the University of South Carolina resigned for plagiarizing a single speech. Both were white men.

But what the Gay incident has exposed is the cult of DEI in facilitating the elevation and promotion of some people into tenured roles and leadership without proper qualification or vetting their scholarship. Gay is not alone. There are others out there. People know this too clearly now and it is casting a shadow over all of academia, but particularly elite academia.

So who facilitated the elevation and promotion of the two white men you refer to? If the "cult of DEI" is promoting unqualified individuals of color, who is promoting unqualified white men?

[Anonymous]

Unfortunately, the biggest winners in this cluster are POS dirtbags like Bill Ackman who have become accustomed to buying access and controlling government officials through PACs and corrupt lobbying efforts (that really amount to honest services fraud, if we're being honest here). The word "No" no longer has any meaning to these petulant children masquerading as adults.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Unfortunately, the biggest winners in this cluster are POS dirtbags like Bill Ackman who have become accustomed to buying access and controlling government officials through PACs and corrupt lobbying efforts (that really amount to honest services fraud, if we're being honest here). The word "No" no longer has any meaning to these petulant children masquerading as adults.

The word "No" is rarely used in any situation these days. People don't want to hear that word. They want to do as they please with few, if any, restrictions. .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The allegations aren't new. They were around for a while. When Gay's rumored selection as the next president emerged, it was not without controversy and for good reasons. Her academic background was extremely weak and the some of the plagiarism claims were sent to the board. The Harvard board refused to entertain these allegations seriously and do a due diligence into the rest of her publications. The board is the entity that is mostly at fault even if Gay is no innocent victim either. There were powerful figures on the board, particularly a woman named Penny Pritzker, a former Obama official and donor, who had mentored Gay and who pushed her for the job instead of opening the search to other options.

University presidents have resigned due to plagiarism. Stanford's president resigned in 2023 over his lab falsifying data. In 2021, the president of the University of South Carolina resigned for plagiarizing a single speech. Both were white men.

But what the Gay incident has exposed is the cult of DEI in facilitating the elevation and promotion of some people into tenured roles and leadership without proper qualification or vetting their scholarship. Gay is not alone. There are others out there. People know this too clearly now and it is casting a shadow over all of academia, but particularly elite academia.

So who facilitated the elevation and promotion of the two white men you refer to? If the "cult of DEI" is promoting unqualified individuals of color, who is promoting unqualified white men?

It is indisputable that DEI elevates less qualified people. That is the whole point of DEI. The Biden Administration is open and frank about it even if it uses slightly different terminology, but one only needs to look at Biden's appointees from Kamala Harris to KJB to figures like Lisa Cook (now that is another highly controversial person) to see it in action.

The other presidents were sacked shows you universities quickly moved when the faults became clear. They did not benefit from "white privilege" to retain their roles. Both men had impressive careers and histories but they were not forgiven.

[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.

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.

All it shows is that Harvard has a crappy board and they should all resign

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I thought her apology was very sincere after the questioning and her responses (unlike the other two presidents), but I can see why it's best that she resigned.

Gay's suggestion that criticism of her plagiarism was racially motivated undid any goodwill that her resignation statement may have created. Playing the victim and the race card -- not classy at all.

[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.

If U Chicago is "where fun goes to die", maybe Harvard is where the excesses of DEI finally die. The university should be embarrassed that it appointed a president with such a thin scholarly record. Unfortunately the sorry Gay saga hurts far more meritorious diverse peers. It's hard to see how Gay sticks around Cambridge in a tenured role. She would do Harvard and academia a favor by quietly leaving the faculty also.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

She was making outrageous monetary demands of UNC and was rightly rebuffed. Then she made it a racial thing. The truth is she never had the scholarly chops to be offered the role at UNC in the first place. The 1619 Project was shoddy academic work, but decent propaganda.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The allegations aren't new. They were around for a while. When Gay's rumored selection as the next president emerged, it was not without controversy and for good reasons. Her academic background was extremely weak and the some of the plagiarism claims were sent to the board. The Harvard board refused to entertain these allegations seriously and do a due diligence into the rest of her publications. The board is the entity that is mostly at fault even if Gay is no innocent victim either. There were powerful figures on the board, particularly a woman named Penny Pritzker, a former Obama official and donor, who had mentored Gay and who pushed her for the job instead of opening the search to other options.

University presidents have resigned due to plagiarism. Stanford's president resigned in 2023 over his lab falsifying data. In 2021, the president of the University of South Carolina resigned for plagiarizing a single speech. Both were white men.

But what the Gay incident has exposed is the cult of DEI in facilitating the elevation and promotion of some people into tenured roles and leadership without proper qualification or vetting their scholarship. Gay is not alone. There are others out there. People know this too clearly now and it is casting a shadow over all of academia, but particularly elite academia.

So who facilitated the elevation and promotion of the two white men you refer to? If the "cult of DEI" is promoting unqualified individuals of color, who is promoting unqualified white men?

NP here. I didn't follow the Stanford or South Carolina cases closely, although they were also hugely fraught and embarassing for those schools. But it's clear that Claudine Gay was far less qualified for her current role as compared to her predecessors, who came in as very well-respected academics and leaders - and as compared to the increasing nunber of incredibly impressive academic leaders who happen to be women and people of color like the new BU president that someone mentioned upthread.

Fwiw Gay's career is completely inexplicable to those of us who know academia. Tenure in political science at almost any school is generally understood to require at least one sole-authored book published by a serious academic press, along with a bunch of articles in obscure but highly respected academic journals. Full professor takes a lot more. Gay appears to have been fast-tracked for these promotions - which basically mean a job for life - and for various dean roles without a single book and on the basis of very little actual scholarship or output. At Stanford and Harvard, the most prestigious schools in the country!

I'm not surprised by the PP's statement about controversy when Gay was selected as president since her career is out-of-whack with what most academics experience - especially in a world where there are fewer and fewer tenured positions and more reliance on adjuncts or short-term contracts. Add to all of this the evidence that her small corpus of academic publishing was - at best - more sloppy than an undergraduate would be permitted to submit, and there was no way for her to succeed in her current role. It's a shame all around tbh.