Stefanik Ivy Presidentd

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Black women do not owe you their citations.

Are you referring to President Gay?

If so, it appears she plagiarized her dissertation:

https://christopherrufo.com/p/is-claudine-gay-a-plagiarist?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

Equally disturbing as the plagiarism is the fact that every single thing she writes seems to be about race. According to the article she is a mean nasty bully who got where she is by playing identity politics, along with cheating. I’m sure she would come down like a ton of bricks on a “privileged” student who did just once what she has done her whole career. Way to go Harvard, you have transitioned into a national joke.

Rufo is piling on and reaching.

I don’t know who Rufo is, but he/she seems to speak truth. Are you defending President Gay? Go ahead then and explain why she is a good person to be President of Harvard.

Well, you should look into him. He is a notorious, disingenuous anti-CRT crusader. He intentionally impoverishes the discourse through obfuscation. His co-author is a hack who couldn't cut it as an economist and has resorted to publishing hit pieces on minority and female academics out of some misplaced sense of injustice. They both saw this as an opportune time to pile on and oust a "woke" President. They don't care about plagiarism and these "offenses" aren't even serious. Her own dissertation advisor is someone that she's is alleged to have plagiarized and he is standing in defense of her.

I know three Harvard professors and they both say she is a good administrator, even if her publishing record is sparse. She switched to administration early on in her career and became a worker of the system rather than a prolific academic. Maybe not the most charismatic, but not what she is being painted out to be either. I'm sure her race didn't hurt either, given Harvard's recent bad press. She has overwhelming support from the faculty though, admittedly, they are but one constituency of stakeholders at the University.

Hey - she plagiarized another black woman, so that's ok, I guess.

Do you have a point you are trying to make?

Sure. I will spell it out for you.

Students who are found plagiarizing get thrown out of Harvard. Professors/presidents who are found plagiarizing get a pass. Especially when the plagiarizing is from another POC.
Seems fair - right?

So a student who did the same thing in a paper as Gay would be thrown out of Harvard?

Also, you mean to tell me that people don't act as haphazardly when the stakes are higher and the repercussions greater?

What a revelation!

Please give me more you fount of wisdom and insight!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Black women do not owe you their citations.

Are you referring to President Gay?

If so, it appears she plagiarized her dissertation:

https://christopherrufo.com/p/is-claudine-gay-a-plagiarist?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

Equally disturbing as the plagiarism is the fact that every single thing she writes seems to be about race. According to the article she is a mean nasty bully who got where she is by playing identity politics, along with cheating. I’m sure she would come down like a ton of bricks on a “privileged” student who did just once what she has done her whole career. Way to go Harvard, you have transitioned into a national joke.

Rufo is piling on and reaching.

I don’t know who Rufo is, but he/she seems to speak truth. Are you defending President Gay? Go ahead then and explain why she is a good person to be President of Harvard.

Well, you should look into him. He is a notorious, disingenuous anti-CRT crusader. He intentionally impoverishes the discourse through obfuscation. His co-author is a hack who couldn't cut it as an economist and has resorted to publishing hit pieces on minority and female academics out of some misplaced sense of injustice. They both saw this as an opportune time to pile on and oust a "woke" President. They don't care about plagiarism and these "offenses" aren't even serious. Her own dissertation advisor is someone that she's is alleged to have plagiarized and he is standing in defense of her.

I know three Harvard professors and they both say she is a good administrator, even if her publishing record is sparse. She switched to administration early on in her career and became a worker of the system rather than a prolific academic. Maybe not the most charismatic, but not what she is being painted out to be either. I'm sure her race didn't hurt either, given Harvard's recent bad press. She has overwhelming support from the faculty though, admittedly, they are but one constituency of stakeholders at the University.

So good - but couldn't condemn calls for genocide against Jews. Maybe not SO good.

Look - I am as liberal as they come. But this morning I saw someone on social media making the case that people going after Gay for what she said at this gdforsaken hearing is basically an attack on critical race theory. First of all - it's a reaction to what seemed like a smug and smirky refusal to denounce anti-semitism, while we ALL know that had it been any other group it would have been a different response.

And second - if you think that CRT leads to being unable to denounce anti-semitism, maybe the problem is CRT. I like getting my conclusions from where the logic and principles take me. But when my principles take me to it being ok to call for genocide against Jews, then perhaps it's time to rethink those principles.

This is basically a "worst person in the world is right about this one thing" situation, as far as Rufo goes.

First there was no antisemitism. There was just the question of being sufficiently pro Israel, increasing the number of Jews students and allowing Palestinians access to higher education. Next up going after professors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Black women do not owe you their citations.

Are you referring to President Gay?

If so, it appears she plagiarized her dissertation:

https://christopherrufo.com/p/is-claudine-gay-a-plagiarist?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

Equally disturbing as the plagiarism is the fact that every single thing she writes seems to be about race. According to the article she is a mean nasty bully who got where she is by playing identity politics, along with cheating. I’m sure she would come down like a ton of bricks on a “privileged” student who did just once what she has done her whole career. Way to go Harvard, you have transitioned into a national joke.

Rufo is piling on and reaching.

I don’t know who Rufo is, but he/she seems to speak truth. Are you defending President Gay? Go ahead then and explain why she is a good person to be President of Harvard.

Well, you should look into him. He is a notorious, disingenuous anti-CRT crusader. He intentionally impoverishes the discourse through obfuscation. His co-author is a hack who couldn't cut it as an economist and has resorted to publishing hit pieces on minority and female academics out of some misplaced sense of injustice. They both saw this as an opportune time to pile on and oust a "woke" President. They don't care about plagiarism and these "offenses" aren't even serious. Her own dissertation advisor is someone that she's is alleged to have plagiarized and he is standing in defense of her.

I know three Harvard professors and they both say she is a good administrator, even if her publishing record is sparse. She switched to administration early on in her career and became a worker of the system rather than a prolific academic. Maybe not the most charismatic, but not what she is being painted out to be either. I'm sure her race didn't hurt either, given Harvard's recent bad press. She has overwhelming support from the faculty though, admittedly, they are but one constituency of stakeholders at the University.

All of that could be true but the plagiarism should be obvious on its face if it’s true. The origin of the plagiarism accusation doesn’t really matter if the accusation is substantiated.

Then again, Stanford continued to employ Marc Tessier-Lavigne as President long after there was substantial evidence he falsified data in his published studies, while in the same time period driving its own star goalie to suicide through their student disciplinary process. So I suppose these institutions have a long history of protecting cheating professors while destroying students who do far less wrong. Harvard can keep a cheater as president; Stanford did for years. It’s the students they kick out for minor infractions, not administrators that cheat.

Of course she has the support of the faculty. Tessier-Lavigne did too. The faculty want their own cheating to be inconsequential as well. I suspect a plagiarism study of many of them would yield problematic results.

Yeah, that's the point. There are levels to "plagiarism" and this stuff is relatively minor and could more charitably be classed as sloppiness than outright mendacity. It's still not great, but it also wouldn't be worth much furor in isolation. Tessier-Lavigne's case was much worse. If these guys cared so much they would apply the same critical lens across the board. This reminds me of those studies that demonstrate the resumes or legal writing attached to minority-sounding names get a higher level of scrutiny. Reaching.

She only kinda cheated and she is a minority, and it doesn’t matter that she couldn’t handle a softball question in Congress so it’s all good, in other words?

Man.

Do you also clench your cheeks and call for expulsion and removal of tenure every other time you find a misplaced comma in an academic's papers?

Get real and look at what is actually going on here.

The evidence of plagiarism seems quite strong. I don’t know why you are denying it.

She isn’t going to lose her job, in any event. Universities only severely punish students accused of plagiarism through their disciplinary processes, not administrators and professors who do the same thing.

The Harvard Crimson writers are upset because they know they’d face disciplinary action from Harvard if they’d done the exact same thing that Gay did. But that’s just idealistic on their part. Gay is untouchable and has no risk to her job regardless of her plagiarism. It’s only students who do the exact same thing who will be kicked out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Black women do not owe you their citations.

Are you referring to President Gay?

If so, it appears she plagiarized her dissertation:

https://christopherrufo.com/p/is-claudine-gay-a-plagiarist?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

Equally disturbing as the plagiarism is the fact that every single thing she writes seems to be about race. According to the article she is a mean nasty bully who got where she is by playing identity politics, along with cheating. I’m sure she would come down like a ton of bricks on a “privileged” student who did just once what she has done her whole career. Way to go Harvard, you have transitioned into a national joke.

Rufo is piling on and reaching.

I don’t know who Rufo is, but he/she seems to speak truth. Are you defending President Gay? Go ahead then and explain why she is a good person to be President of Harvard.

Well, you should look into him. He is a notorious, disingenuous anti-CRT crusader. He intentionally impoverishes the discourse through obfuscation. His co-author is a hack who couldn't cut it as an economist and has resorted to publishing hit pieces on minority and female academics out of some misplaced sense of injustice. They both saw this as an opportune time to pile on and oust a "woke" President. They don't care about plagiarism and these "offenses" aren't even serious. Her own dissertation advisor is someone that she's is alleged to have plagiarized and he is standing in defense of her.

I know three Harvard professors and they both say she is a good administrator, even if her publishing record is sparse. She switched to administration early on in her career and became a worker of the system rather than a prolific academic. Maybe not the most charismatic, but not what she is being painted out to be either. I'm sure her race didn't hurt either, given Harvard's recent bad press. She has overwhelming support from the faculty though, admittedly, they are but one constituency of stakeholders at the University.

Hey - she plagiarized another black woman, so that's ok, I guess.

Do you have a point you are trying to make?

Sure. I will spell it out for you.

Students who are found plagiarizing get thrown out of Harvard. Professors/presidents who are found plagiarizing get a pass. Especially when the plagiarizing is from another POC.
Seems fair - right?

Chris Rufo is a lying sack of crap who is very open about his agenda. Not believing him any more than I’d take Project Veritas seriously.

Let's see where the evidence takes us. Just because you find the accusations inconvenient to your truth doesn't mean they're not true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Black women do not owe you their citations.

Are you referring to President Gay?

If so, it appears she plagiarized her dissertation:

https://christopherrufo.com/p/is-claudine-gay-a-plagiarist?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

Equally disturbing as the plagiarism is the fact that every single thing she writes seems to be about race. According to the article she is a mean nasty bully who got where she is by playing identity politics, along with cheating. I’m sure she would come down like a ton of bricks on a “privileged” student who did just once what she has done her whole career. Way to go Harvard, you have transitioned into a national joke.

Rufo is piling on and reaching.

I don’t know who Rufo is, but he/she seems to speak truth. Are you defending President Gay? Go ahead then and explain why she is a good person to be President of Harvard.

Well, you should look into him. He is a notorious, disingenuous anti-CRT crusader. He intentionally impoverishes the discourse through obfuscation. His co-author is a hack who couldn't cut it as an economist and has resorted to publishing hit pieces on minority and female academics out of some misplaced sense of injustice. They both saw this as an opportune time to pile on and oust a "woke" President. They don't care about plagiarism and these "offenses" aren't even serious. Her own dissertation advisor is someone that she's is alleged to have plagiarized and he is standing in defense of her.

I know three Harvard professors and they both say she is a good administrator, even if her publishing record is sparse. She switched to administration early on in her career and became a worker of the system rather than a prolific academic. Maybe not the most charismatic, but not what she is being painted out to be either. I'm sure her race didn't hurt either, given Harvard's recent bad press. She has overwhelming support from the faculty though, admittedly, they are but one constituency of stakeholders at the University.

Hey - she plagiarized another black woman, so that's ok, I guess.

Do you have a point you are trying to make?

Sure. I will spell it out for you.

Students who are found plagiarizing get thrown out of Harvard. Professors/presidents who are found plagiarizing get a pass. Especially when the plagiarizing is from another POC.
Seems fair - right?

Chris Rufo is a lying sack of crap who is very open about his agenda. Not believing him any more than I’d take Project Veritas seriously.

Do you believe the Harvard Crimson newspaper? They substantiated what Rufo wrote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Black women do not owe you their citations.

Are you referring to President Gay?

If so, it appears she plagiarized her dissertation:

https://christopherrufo.com/p/is-claudine-gay-a-plagiarist?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

Equally disturbing as the plagiarism is the fact that every single thing she writes seems to be about race. According to the article she is a mean nasty bully who got where she is by playing identity politics, along with cheating. I’m sure she would come down like a ton of bricks on a “privileged” student who did just once what she has done her whole career. Way to go Harvard, you have transitioned into a national joke.

Rufo is piling on and reaching.

I don’t know who Rufo is, but he/she seems to speak truth. Are you defending President Gay? Go ahead then and explain why she is a good person to be President of Harvard.

Well, you should look into him. He is a notorious, disingenuous anti-CRT crusader. He intentionally impoverishes the discourse through obfuscation. His co-author is a hack who couldn't cut it as an economist and has resorted to publishing hit pieces on minority and female academics out of some misplaced sense of injustice. They both saw this as an opportune time to pile on and oust a "woke" President. They don't care about plagiarism and these "offenses" aren't even serious. Her own dissertation advisor is someone that she's is alleged to have plagiarized and he is standing in defense of her.

I know three Harvard professors and they both say she is a good administrator, even if her publishing record is sparse. She switched to administration early on in her career and became a worker of the system rather than a prolific academic. Maybe not the most charismatic, but not what she is being painted out to be either. I'm sure her race didn't hurt either, given Harvard's recent bad press. She has overwhelming support from the faculty though, admittedly, they are but one constituency of stakeholders at the University.

All of that could be true but the plagiarism should be obvious on its face if it’s true. The origin of the plagiarism accusation doesn’t really matter if the accusation is substantiated.

Then again, Stanford continued to employ Marc Tessier-Lavigne as President long after there was substantial evidence he falsified data in his published studies, while in the same time period driving its own star goalie to suicide through their student disciplinary process. So I suppose these institutions have a long history of protecting cheating professors while destroying students who do far less wrong. Harvard can keep a cheater as president; Stanford did for years. It’s the students they kick out for minor infractions, not administrators that cheat.

Of course she has the support of the faculty. Tessier-Lavigne did too. The faculty want their own cheating to be inconsequential as well. I suspect a plagiarism study of many of them would yield problematic results.

Yeah, that's the point. There are levels to "plagiarism" and this stuff is relatively minor and could more charitably be classed as sloppiness than outright mendacity. It's still not great, but it also wouldn't be worth much furor in isolation. Tessier-Lavigne's case was much worse. If these guys cared so much they would apply the same critical lens across the board. This reminds me of those studies that demonstrate the resumes or legal writing attached to minority-sounding names get a higher level of scrutiny. Reaching.

She only kinda cheated and she is a minority, and it doesn’t matter that she couldn’t handle a softball question in Congress so it’s all good, in other words?

Man.

Do you also clench your cheeks and call for expulsion and removal of tenure every other time you find a misplaced comma in an academic's papers?

Get real and look at what is actually going on here.

The evidence of plagiarism seems quite strong. I don’t know why you are denying it.

She isn’t going to lose her job, in any event. Universities only severely punish students accused of plagiarism through their disciplinary processes, not administrators and professors who do the same thing.

The Harvard Crimson writers are upset because they know they’d face disciplinary action from Harvard if they’d done the exact same thing that Gay did. But that’s just idealistic on their part. Gay is untouchable and has no risk to her job regardless of her plagiarism. It’s only students who do the exact same thing who will be kicked out.

It's a minor offense, not a huge deal and no one would care, but for the noise surrounding her at the moment which is why Rufo released it now. He's probably been sitting on this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Black women do not owe you their citations.

Huh? Now we’re stretching affirmative action to mean that minorities can plagiarize and be judged by different standards than other students?

According to critical social justice, because of slavery, black people are oppressed and can do no wrong. If they do some thing that would normally be considered wrong, it's called justice. This is insane and illiberal but it's what most progressives believe.

I’ve said this on threads before and I’ll say it again. The pendulum is due to swing back from this madness. Yes, people actually believe this. And the belief caught some traction. But it’s not going to last. It can’t. Sanity will prevail.

The pendulum will not swing back with an external force acting on it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Black women do not owe you their citations.

Are you referring to President Gay?

If so, it appears she plagiarized her dissertation:

https://christopherrufo.com/p/is-claudine-gay-a-plagiarist?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

Equally disturbing as the plagiarism is the fact that every single thing she writes seems to be about race. According to the article she is a mean nasty bully who got where she is by playing identity politics, along with cheating. I’m sure she would come down like a ton of bricks on a “privileged” student who did just once what she has done her whole career. Way to go Harvard, you have transitioned into a national joke.

Rufo is piling on and reaching.

I don’t know who Rufo is, but he/she seems to speak truth. Are you defending President Gay? Go ahead then and explain why she is a good person to be President of Harvard.

Well, you should look into him. He is a notorious, disingenuous anti-CRT crusader. He intentionally impoverishes the discourse through obfuscation. His co-author is a hack who couldn't cut it as an economist and has resorted to publishing hit pieces on minority and female academics out of some misplaced sense of injustice. They both saw this as an opportune time to pile on and oust a "woke" President. They don't care about plagiarism and these "offenses" aren't even serious. Her own dissertation advisor is someone that she's is alleged to have plagiarized and he is standing in defense of her.

I know three Harvard professors and they both say she is a good administrator, even if her publishing record is sparse. She switched to administration early on in her career and became a worker of the system rather than a prolific academic. Maybe not the most charismatic, but not what she is being painted out to be either. I'm sure her race didn't hurt either, given Harvard's recent bad press. She has overwhelming support from the faculty though, admittedly, they are but one constituency of stakeholders at the University.

Hey - she plagiarized another black woman, so that's ok, I guess.

Do you have a point you are trying to make?

Sure. I will spell it out for you.

Students who are found plagiarizing get thrown out of Harvard. Professors/presidents who are found plagiarizing get a pass. Especially when the plagiarizing is from another POC.
Seems fair - right?

Chris Rufo is a lying sack of crap who is very open about his agenda. Not believing him any more than I’d take Project Veritas seriously.

Do you believe the Harvard Crimson newspaper? They substantiated what Rufo wrote.

You mean this Harvard Crimson?

But both Schwartz and Owens, in emails to The Crimson, said they did not consider Gay’s use of their work to be plagiarism.

“In my opinion this excerpt in no way constitutes any resemblance to plagiarism,” Schwartz wrote. “The text merely presents well founded facts about the Low Income Housing Tax Credit.”

Owens wrote that Gay’s adoption of “such short phrases” did not amount to “taking credit for another’s writing or ideas.”

“This is particularly the case when the phrases in question are a brief description of how someone aggregates a variable and a summary observation about a specific technical point,” Owens wrote.

“Something that gives me pause, and that I have encountered a handful of times, are entire paragraphs or multi-sentence footnotes that are presented as an author’s independent conclusion or analysis,” she added. “This does not strike me as the situation with my paper with professor Matthew Freedman.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Black women do not owe you their citations.

Are you referring to President Gay?

If so, it appears she plagiarized her dissertation:

https://christopherrufo.com/p/is-claudine-gay-a-plagiarist?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

Equally disturbing as the plagiarism is the fact that every single thing she writes seems to be about race. According to the article she is a mean nasty bully who got where she is by playing identity politics, along with cheating. I’m sure she would come down like a ton of bricks on a “privileged” student who did just once what she has done her whole career. Way to go Harvard, you have transitioned into a national joke.

Rufo is piling on and reaching.

I don’t know who Rufo is, but he/she seems to speak truth. Are you defending President Gay? Go ahead then and explain why she is a good person to be President of Harvard.

Well, you should look into him. He is a notorious, disingenuous anti-CRT crusader. He intentionally impoverishes the discourse through obfuscation. His co-author is a hack who couldn't cut it as an economist and has resorted to publishing hit pieces on minority and female academics out of some misplaced sense of injustice. They both saw this as an opportune time to pile on and oust a "woke" President. They don't care about plagiarism and these "offenses" aren't even serious. Her own dissertation advisor is someone that she's is alleged to have plagiarized and he is standing in defense of her.

I know three Harvard professors and they both say she is a good administrator, even if her publishing record is sparse. She switched to administration early on in her career and became a worker of the system rather than a prolific academic. Maybe not the most charismatic, but not what she is being painted out to be either. I'm sure her race didn't hurt either, given Harvard's recent bad press. She has overwhelming support from the faculty though, admittedly, they are but one constituency of stakeholders at the University.

That is not my truth. It might be your truth, but you do not speak for me, or for the rest of us, PP.

I carefully read Rufo’s article, and it is both well-reasoned and well-supported. Plus, he is hardly the only person concluding President Gay plagiarized her dissertation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Black women do not owe you their citations.

Are you referring to President Gay?

If so, it appears she plagiarized her dissertation:

https://christopherrufo.com/p/is-claudine-gay-a-plagiarist?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

Equally disturbing as the plagiarism is the fact that every single thing she writes seems to be about race. According to the article she is a mean nasty bully who got where she is by playing identity politics, along with cheating. I’m sure she would come down like a ton of bricks on a “privileged” student who did just once what she has done her whole career. Way to go Harvard, you have transitioned into a national joke.

Rufo is piling on and reaching.

I don’t know who Rufo is, but he/she seems to speak truth. Are you defending President Gay? Go ahead then and explain why she is a good person to be President of Harvard.

Well, you should look into him. He is a notorious, disingenuous anti-CRT crusader. He intentionally impoverishes the discourse through obfuscation. His co-author is a hack who couldn't cut it as an economist and has resorted to publishing hit pieces on minority and female academics out of some misplaced sense of injustice. They both saw this as an opportune time to pile on and oust a "woke" President. They don't care about plagiarism and these "offenses" aren't even serious. Her own dissertation advisor is someone that she's is alleged to have plagiarized and he is standing in defense of her.

I know three Harvard professors and they both say she is a good administrator, even if her publishing record is sparse. She switched to administration early on in her career and became a worker of the system rather than a prolific academic. Maybe not the most charismatic, but not what she is being painted out to be either. I'm sure her race didn't hurt either, given Harvard's recent bad press. She has overwhelming support from the faculty though, admittedly, they are but one constituency of stakeholders at the University.

That is not my truth. It might be your truth, but you do not speak for me, or for the rest of us, PP.

I carefully read Rufo’s article, and it is both well-reasoned and well-supported. Plus, he is hardly the only person concluding President Gay plagiarized her dissertation.

Huh?!? When did I ever purport to be speaking for you or anyone else? Is everything ok?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Black women do not owe you their citations.

Are you referring to President Gay?

If so, it appears she plagiarized her dissertation:

https://christopherrufo.com/p/is-claudine-gay-a-plagiarist?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

Equally disturbing as the plagiarism is the fact that every single thing she writes seems to be about race. According to the article she is a mean nasty bully who got where she is by playing identity politics, along with cheating. I’m sure she would come down like a ton of bricks on a “privileged” student who did just once what she has done her whole career. Way to go Harvard, you have transitioned into a national joke.

Rufo is piling on and reaching.

I don’t know who Rufo is, but he/she seems to speak truth. Are you defending President Gay? Go ahead then and explain why she is a good person to be President of Harvard.

Well, you should look into him. He is a notorious, disingenuous anti-CRT crusader. He intentionally impoverishes the discourse through obfuscation. His co-author is a hack who couldn't cut it as an economist and has resorted to publishing hit pieces on minority and female academics out of some misplaced sense of injustice. They both saw this as an opportune time to pile on and oust a "woke" President. They don't care about plagiarism and these "offenses" aren't even serious. Her own dissertation advisor is someone that she's is alleged to have plagiarized and he is standing in defense of her.

I know three Harvard professors and they both say she is a good administrator, even if her publishing record is sparse. She switched to administration early on in her career and became a worker of the system rather than a prolific academic. Maybe not the most charismatic, but not what she is being painted out to be either. I'm sure her race didn't hurt either, given Harvard's recent bad press. She has overwhelming support from the faculty though, admittedly, they are but one constituency of stakeholders at the University.

Hey - she plagiarized another black woman, so that's ok, I guess.

Do you have a point you are trying to make?

Sure. I will spell it out for you.

Students who are found plagiarizing get thrown out of Harvard. Professors/presidents who are found plagiarizing get a pass. Especially when the plagiarizing is from another POC.
Seems fair - right?

So a student who did the same thing in a paper as Gay would be thrown out of Harvard?

Also, you mean to tell me that people don't act as haphazardly when the stakes are higher and the repercussions greater?

What a revelation!

Please give me more you fount of wisdom and insight!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Black women do not owe you their citations.

Are you referring to President Gay?

If so, it appears she plagiarized her dissertation:

https://christopherrufo.com/p/is-claudine-gay-a-plagiarist?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

Equally disturbing as the plagiarism is the fact that every single thing she writes seems to be about race. According to the article she is a mean nasty bully who got where she is by playing identity politics, along with cheating. I’m sure she would come down like a ton of bricks on a “privileged” student who did just once what she has done her whole career. Way to go Harvard, you have transitioned into a national joke.

Rufo is piling on and reaching.

I don’t know who Rufo is, but he/she seems to speak truth. Are you defending President Gay? Go ahead then and explain why she is a good person to be President of Harvard.

Well, you should look into him. He is a notorious, disingenuous anti-CRT crusader. He intentionally impoverishes the discourse through obfuscation. His co-author is a hack who couldn't cut it as an economist and has resorted to publishing hit pieces on minority and female academics out of some misplaced sense of injustice. They both saw this as an opportune time to pile on and oust a "woke" President. They don't care about plagiarism and these "offenses" aren't even serious. Her own dissertation advisor is someone that she's is alleged to have plagiarized and he is standing in defense of her.

I know three Harvard professors and they both say she is a good administrator, even if her publishing record is sparse. She switched to administration early on in her career and became a worker of the system rather than a prolific academic. Maybe not the most charismatic, but not what she is being painted out to be either. I'm sure her race didn't hurt either, given Harvard's recent bad press. She has overwhelming support from the faculty though, admittedly, they are but one constituency of stakeholders at the University.

So good - but couldn't condemn calls for genocide against Jews. Maybe not SO good.

Look - I am as liberal as they come. But this morning I saw someone on social media making the case that people going after Gay for what she said at this gdforsaken hearing is basically an attack on critical race theory. First of all - it's a reaction to what seemed like a smug and smirky refusal to denounce anti-semitism, while we ALL know that had it been any other group it would have been a different response.

And second - if you think that CRT leads to being unable to denounce anti-semitism, maybe the problem is CRT. I like getting my conclusions from where the logic and principles take me. But when my principles take me to it being ok to call for genocide against Jews, then perhaps it's time to rethink those principles.

This is basically a "worst person in the world is right about this one thing" situation, as far as Rufo goes.

Wow, the woke person getting a wake up call. Good for you sir!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Black women do not owe you their citations.

Are you referring to President Gay?

If so, it appears she plagiarized her dissertation:

https://christopherrufo.com/p/is-claudine-gay-a-plagiarist?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

Equally disturbing as the plagiarism is the fact that every single thing she writes seems to be about race. According to the article she is a mean nasty bully who got where she is by playing identity politics, along with cheating. I’m sure she would come down like a ton of bricks on a “privileged” student who did just once what she has done her whole career. Way to go Harvard, you have transitioned into a national joke.

Rufo is piling on and reaching.

I don’t know who Rufo is, but he/she seems to speak truth. Are you defending President Gay? Go ahead then and explain why she is a good person to be President of Harvard.

Well, you should look into him. He is a notorious, disingenuous anti-CRT crusader. He intentionally impoverishes the discourse through obfuscation. His co-author is a hack who couldn't cut it as an economist and has resorted to publishing hit pieces on minority and female academics out of some misplaced sense of injustice. They both saw this as an opportune time to pile on and oust a "woke" President. They don't care about plagiarism and these "offenses" aren't even serious. Her own dissertation advisor is someone that she's is alleged to have plagiarized and he is standing in defense of her.

I know three Harvard professors and they both say she is a good administrator, even if her publishing record is sparse. She switched to administration early on in her career and became a worker of the system rather than a prolific academic. Maybe not the most charismatic, but not what she is being painted out to be either. I'm sure her race didn't hurt either, given Harvard's recent bad press. She has overwhelming support from the faculty though, admittedly, they are but one constituency of stakeholders at the University.

So good - but couldn't condemn calls for genocide against Jews. Maybe not SO good.

Look - I am as liberal as they come. But this morning I saw someone on social media making the case that people going after Gay for what she said at this gdforsaken hearing is basically an attack on critical race theory. First of all - it's a reaction to what seemed like a smug and smirky refusal to denounce anti-semitism, while we ALL know that had it been any other group it would have been a different response.

And second - if you think that CRT leads to being unable to denounce anti-semitism, maybe the problem is CRT. I like getting my conclusions from where the logic and principles take me. But when my principles take me to it being ok to call for genocide against Jews, then perhaps it's time to rethink those principles.

This is basically a "worst person in the world is right about this one thing" situation, as far as Rufo goes.

She didn't say calls for genocide were OK, she described the code of conduct (accurately) as not banning those calls. Those codes of conduct also don't ban calls for genocide against other groups -- as Gay started to say when Stefanik asked her about genocide against black people, but then Stefanik cut her off.

It was a needlessly legalistic answer, but Magill didn't get up there and say, "Yes, open season on Jews," the way people are suggesting she did.

It was a disgusting answer, and the smirk that went along with it was a real chef's kiss. Anyone with a brain and a heart, and a life outside the bubble of academia, would have known this is not how to answer that question. It spoke to a real poison in academia, I think - and, again, I hate thinking that, because awful people are the ones who have been talking about it for years. But come on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Black women do not owe you their citations.

Are you referring to President Gay?

If so, it appears she plagiarized her dissertation:

https://christopherrufo.com/p/is-claudine-gay-a-plagiarist?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

Equally disturbing as the plagiarism is the fact that every single thing she writes seems to be about race. According to the article she is a mean nasty bully who got where she is by playing identity politics, along with cheating. I’m sure she would come down like a ton of bricks on a “privileged” student who did just once what she has done her whole career. Way to go Harvard, you have transitioned into a national joke.

Rufo is piling on and reaching.

I don’t know who Rufo is, but he/she seems to speak truth. Are you defending President Gay? Go ahead then and explain why she is a good person to be President of Harvard.

Well, you should look into him. He is a notorious, disingenuous anti-CRT crusader. He intentionally impoverishes the discourse through obfuscation. His co-author is a hack who couldn't cut it as an economist and has resorted to publishing hit pieces on minority and female academics out of some misplaced sense of injustice. They both saw this as an opportune time to pile on and oust a "woke" President. They don't care about plagiarism and these "offenses" aren't even serious. Her own dissertation advisor is someone that she's is alleged to have plagiarized and he is standing in defense of her.

I know three Harvard professors and they both say she is a good administrator, even if her publishing record is sparse. She switched to administration early on in her career and became a worker of the system rather than a prolific academic. Maybe not the most charismatic, but not what she is being painted out to be either. I'm sure her race didn't hurt either, given Harvard's recent bad press. She has overwhelming support from the faculty though, admittedly, they are but one constituency of stakeholders at the University.

So good - but couldn't condemn calls for genocide against Jews. Maybe not SO good.

Look - I am as liberal as they come. But this morning I saw someone on social media making the case that people going after Gay for what she said at this gdforsaken hearing is basically an attack on critical race theory. First of all - it's a reaction to what seemed like a smug and smirky refusal to denounce anti-semitism, while we ALL know that had it been any other group it would have been a different response.

And second - if you think that CRT leads to being unable to denounce anti-semitism, maybe the problem is CRT. I like getting my conclusions from where the logic and principles take me. But when my principles take me to it being ok to call for genocide against Jews, then perhaps it's time to rethink those principles.

This is basically a "worst person in the world is right about this one thing" situation, as far as Rufo goes.

First there was no antisemitism. There was just the question of being sufficiently pro Israel, increasing the number of Jews students and allowing Palestinians access to higher education. Next up going after professors.

Well, we're going to have to agree to see this differently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Black women do not owe you their citations.

Are you referring to President Gay?

If so, it appears she plagiarized her dissertation:

https://christopherrufo.com/p/is-claudine-gay-a-plagiarist?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

Equally disturbing as the plagiarism is the fact that every single thing she writes seems to be about race. According to the article she is a mean nasty bully who got where she is by playing identity politics, along with cheating. I’m sure she would come down like a ton of bricks on a “privileged” student who did just once what she has done her whole career. Way to go Harvard, you have transitioned into a national joke.

Rufo is piling on and reaching.

I don’t know who Rufo is, but he/she seems to speak truth. Are you defending President Gay? Go ahead then and explain why she is a good person to be President of Harvard.

Well, you should look into him. He is a notorious, disingenuous anti-CRT crusader. He intentionally impoverishes the discourse through obfuscation. His co-author is a hack who couldn't cut it as an economist and has resorted to publishing hit pieces on minority and female academics out of some misplaced sense of injustice. They both saw this as an opportune time to pile on and oust a "woke" President. They don't care about plagiarism and these "offenses" aren't even serious. Her own dissertation advisor is someone that she's is alleged to have plagiarized and he is standing in defense of her.

I know three Harvard professors and they both say she is a good administrator, even if her publishing record is sparse. She switched to administration early on in her career and became a worker of the system rather than a prolific academic. Maybe not the most charismatic, but not what she is being painted out to be either. I'm sure her race didn't hurt either, given Harvard's recent bad press. She has overwhelming support from the faculty though, admittedly, they are but one constituency of stakeholders at the University.

Hey - she plagiarized another black woman, so that's ok, I guess.

Do you have a point you are trying to make?

Sure. I will spell it out for you.

Students who are found plagiarizing get thrown out of Harvard. Professors/presidents who are found plagiarizing get a pass. Especially when the plagiarizing is from another POC.
Seems fair - right?

So a student who did the same thing in a paper as Gay would be thrown out of Harvard?

Also, you mean to tell me that people don't act as haphazardly when the stakes are higher and the repercussions greater?

What a revelation!

Please give me more you fount of wisdom and insight!

Slow down and stop falling for this cheap twitter culture war BS.

So now all honor code violations are plagiarism? All 27 of those withdrawals were for plagiarism and not the myriad other forms of academic cheating?

And what part of "the same thing" do you not understand? Can you please provide some color as to the nature of the students' offenses and whether they are of similar nature as those in Gay's paper?

Also, you are ignoring the rest of the post. Higher stakes, different institutional calculus.