Stefanik Ivy Presidentd

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

A “minor offense” that violates Harvard’s own plagiarism codes, and that students would be expelled over if they did the exact same thing.

But yes, she won’t lose her job. Nothing will happen to her. It’s only students that these institutions destroy. They certainly protect the cheating of their own professors and administrators fiercely even when it violates their own academic codes. So she will be fine.

[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.

Professors? Going after professors?

University professors in the northeast self-identify as progressive / democrats at a rate of 28 to 1 versus republicans.

University hiring in 2023 is de facto: “republicans need not apply.”

[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.

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?

NP

You’re being deliberately obtuse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

A “minor offense” that violates Harvard’s own plagiarism codes, and that students would be expelled over if they did the exact same thing.

But yes, she won’t lose her job. Nothing will happen to her. It’s only students that these institutions destroy. They certainly protect the cheating of their own professors and administrators fiercely even when it violates their own academic codes. So she will be fine.

Show proof? We'll wait.

Other academics have posted that if they uncovered something like this, they might address it directly with the student but it would not be something that rises to the level of or necessitates expulsion.

[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.

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?

NP

You’re being deliberately obtuse.

No. People need not put words in other people's mouths.

[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.

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.

Professors? Going after professors?

University professors in the northeast self-identify as progressive / democrats at a rate of 28 to 1 versus republicans.

University hiring in 2023 is de facto: “republicans need not apply.”

Oh look you have a list already! Now it’s is time to charge all the people on that list with antisemitism. Should not be too hard to prove. After all very few professors will support Israel’s genocide in Gaza or the shooting of the threePalestinians students. That is enough to make the antisemitic charges stick.

[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.

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.

Professors? Going after professors?

University professors in the northeast self-identify as progressive / democrats at a rate of 28 to 1 versus republicans.

University hiring in 2023 is de facto: “republicans need not apply.”

+1 They don't want Republicans even speaking on campus. Only certain progressive opinions allowed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

A “minor offense” that violates Harvard’s own plagiarism codes, and that students would be expelled over if they did the exact same thing.

But yes, she won’t lose her job. Nothing will happen to her. It’s only students that these institutions destroy. They certainly protect the cheating of their own professors and administrators fiercely even when it violates their own academic codes. So she will be fine.

Show proof? We'll wait.

Other academics have posted that if they uncovered something like this, they might address it directly with the student but it would not be something that rises to the level of or necessitates expulsion.

The entire point of the opaqueness of these student disciplinary hearings is that nothing can be proven. You know that if you know anything about student discipline. Facts only come out when one of the targeted students commits suicide and even then the school has to be sued.

As for what other professors say about Gay, as if I believe anything a self-serving academic who probably is worried about their own plagiarism being uncovered says about this situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

A “minor offense” that violates Harvard’s own plagiarism codes, and that students would be expelled over if they did the exact same thing.

But yes, she won’t lose her job. Nothing will happen to her. It’s only students that these institutions destroy. They certainly protect the cheating of their own professors and administrators fiercely even when it violates their own academic codes. So she will be fine.

Agree, the plagiarism was not a minor offense

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2023/12/12/allegations-plagiarism-gay-dissertation/

Gay used similar language to Swain’s 1993 book “Black Faces, Black Interests: The Representation of African Americans in Congress,” without including a citation, in describing the concepts of “descriptive representation” and “substantive representation.”
Gay’s description of the two phrases and their role in academic debates over minority representation in politics is followed by a list of 19 citations, though Swain’s book is not among them.
Swain said she believes Gay’s alleged misuse of sources, whether done intentionally or not, fits the description of plagiarism.

“That would be troubling in a Ph.D. dissertation if it was done intentionally, and if it was done accidentally, then it would still be problematic,” Swain said in an interview. “Maybe she didn’t know any better, but it would qualify as plagiarism under Harvard’s own rules.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

A “minor offense” that violates Harvard’s own plagiarism codes, and that students would be expelled over if they did the exact same thing.

But yes, she won’t lose her job. Nothing will happen to her. It’s only students that these institutions destroy. They certainly protect the cheating of their own professors and administrators fiercely even when it violates their own academic codes. So she will be fine.

Agree, the plagiarism was not a minor offense

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2023/12/12/allegations-plagiarism-gay-dissertation/

Gay used similar language to Swain’s 1993 book “Black Faces, Black Interests: The Representation of African Americans in Congress,” without including a citation, in describing the concepts of “descriptive representation” and “substantive representation.”
Gay’s description of the two phrases and their role in academic debates over minority representation in politics is followed by a list of 19 citations, though Swain’s book is not among them.
Swain said she believes Gay’s alleged misuse of sources, whether done intentionally or not, fits the description of plagiarism.

“That would be troubling in a Ph.D. dissertation if it was done intentionally, and if it was done accidentally, then it would still be problematic,” Swain said in an interview. “Maybe she didn’t know any better, but it would qualify as plagiarism under Harvard’s own rules.”

Why are you not quoting the other academics she is accused of plagiarizing who said they didn't think it qualifies?

Also, here is Carol Swain. No agenda at all...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Should Jewish students not have a safe campus environment and not be able to walk across campus without threats?

No one has really demonstrated that Jewish students on Penn's campus don't have a safe environment. (There was antisemitic vandalism at Hillel, but the police dealt with that.) I'm a Jewish Penn alum, but I don't consider the presence of pro-Palestinian demonstrations on campus to be evidence that it's not safe for Jews, even if they're shouting slogans I disagree with vehemently. It may be uncomfortable, but no one promised that kids at college would always be comfortable.

DP. Have you read the lawsuit filed against U Penn? There are claims of repeated harassment (being called “dirty Jew” on the way to class), professors requiring attendance at the literary festival to get class credit, a professor clapping along to shouts that of “go back to Brooklyn…or f*ing Berlin where you came from,” walkways to class blocked by demonstrations.

I haven't read the lawsuit, but honestly, while all of that sounds unpleasant, none of it sounds unsafe.

Re write your statement with any other group. I will wait.

Look, I’m Jewish, so if you’re trying to imply that I don’t care about antisemitism, it isn’t going to persuade me.

I don’t think any of this counts as “unsafe” for any group. I understand that part of the criticism here is that this sort of thing has been defined as unsafe for other groups, but I’m not a member of those other groups, so I’ll stick to what I think is or isn’t safe for my own.

Why do you think each group gets to define what is “unsafe” and how would you propose to manage that?

In other words, if you want to create an environment where “dirty Jew” is acceptable speech, why are you not willing to say that “dirty (other group)” is also fine? That seems extremely inconsistent. How do you propose policing that as a policy on campuses?

I don’t really think what is or isn’t acceptable for other groups has any bearing on what is dangerous (as opposed to offensive, which “dirty Jew” certainly is) for Jews, and I don’t care whether the broader policy is or isn’t consistent, because my concern is whether Jews are safe on campus, not whether university presidents are being hypocritical.

I was the one who originally responded to you, and your comment which I bolded was about the campus being uncomfortable. I don’t see how you can look at the allegations here and not describe them as more than just “uncomfortable.” In addition, federal civil rights law requires schools to “protect students from discrimination and respond to harassment that creates a hostile environment.” The standard isn’t that schools lay low until a student feels unsafe.

Lastly, and I think we all know this, the schools have been inconsistent in how they respond to situations where a student is exposed to words that make them feel unsafe.

I guess I don't really care about whether they're consistent.

And I'm not sure I'd agree that all of this creates a hostile environment — especially because I've seen in some of the Facebook groups for Penn alumni and parents that people are objecting to literally any advocacy on behalf of Palestinians as being anti-Jewish. Some of it clearly is, but some of it clearly isn't. I saw posts objecting to graffiti on Penn's campus that just said, "Free Palestine," for instance, and I can't get behind a definition of harassment that essentially says everyone has to oppose any kind of Palestinian state or else they're engaging in harassment of Jewish students.

In general, I think universities should allow as much speech as possible. I personally thought the university's handling of the literary festival was fine — they made clear they didn't agree with the speakers but that they felt it was important not to ban it, in the name of open expression. Seems like there should be plenty of room in existing codes of conduct to handle students yelling slurs at other students without needing to rewrite the whole thing. I do think it would have been easy for Magill to answer Stefanik's genocide question better: "I find calls for genocide appalling, and that has nothing to do with the code of conduct," or something like that would have made her seem a bit more human. But it's disappointing to see Jews being used as leverage in a conservative backlash against universities that clearly predated the Hamas attacks or the war.

If you don’t think experiencing slurs on campus while walking to class constitutes harassment that a college is legally required to combat, we have to agree to disagree.

If you dont think requiring students to attend the literary festival for class credit was out of line, even when that festival falls on Jewish holidays (!) we have to agree to disagree.

If you think this is solely a partisan issue and not one about antisemitism, then we have to agree to disagree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

A “minor offense” that violates Harvard’s own plagiarism codes, and that students would be expelled over if they did the exact same thing.

But yes, she won’t lose her job. Nothing will happen to her. It’s only students that these institutions destroy. They certainly protect the cheating of their own professors and administrators fiercely even when it violates their own academic codes. So she will be fine.

Show proof? We'll wait.

Other academics have posted that if they uncovered something like this, they might address it directly with the student but it would not be something that rises to the level of or necessitates expulsion.

The entire point of the opaqueness of these student disciplinary hearings is that nothing can be proven. You know that if you know anything about student discipline. Facts only come out when one of the targeted students commits suicide and even then the school has to be sued.

As for what other professors say about Gay, as if I believe anything a self-serving academic who probably is worried about their own plagiarism being uncovered says about this situation.

So just say you don't know and keep it moving. You're the one that was making definitive statements about what would get someone expelled from Harvard, not me. Do you want to admit that you were talking out of your arse?

Tell us the real source of your outrage instead of some manufactured plagiarism controversy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

A “minor offense” that violates Harvard’s own plagiarism codes, and that students would be expelled over if they did the exact same thing.

But yes, she won’t lose her job. Nothing will happen to her. It’s only students that these institutions destroy. They certainly protect the cheating of their own professors and administrators fiercely even when it violates their own academic codes. So she will be fine.

Agree, the plagiarism was not a minor offense

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2023/12/12/allegations-plagiarism-gay-dissertation/

Gay used similar language to Swain’s 1993 book “Black Faces, Black Interests: The Representation of African Americans in Congress,” without including a citation, in describing the concepts of “descriptive representation” and “substantive representation.”
Gay’s description of the two phrases and their role in academic debates over minority representation in politics is followed by a list of 19 citations, though Swain’s book is not among them.
Swain said she believes Gay’s alleged misuse of sources, whether done intentionally or not, fits the description of plagiarism.

“That would be troubling in a Ph.D. dissertation if it was done intentionally, and if it was done accidentally, then it would still be problematic,” Swain said in an interview. “Maybe she didn’t know any better, but it would qualify as plagiarism under Harvard’s own rules.”

Why are you not quoting the other academics she is accused of plagiarizing who said they didn't think it qualifies?

Also, here is Carol Swain. No agenda at all...

If Dr. Swain wants to make a buck off of this controversy, I'm all for it!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

A “minor offense” that violates Harvard’s own plagiarism codes, and that students would be expelled over if they did the exact same thing.

But yes, she won’t lose her job. Nothing will happen to her. It’s only students that these institutions destroy. They certainly protect the cheating of their own professors and administrators fiercely even when it violates their own academic codes. So she will be fine.

Show proof? We'll wait.

Other academics have posted that if they uncovered something like this, they might address it directly with the student but it would not be something that rises to the level of or necessitates expulsion.

The entire point of the opaqueness of these student disciplinary hearings is that nothing can be proven. You know that if you know anything about student discipline. Facts only come out when one of the targeted students commits suicide and even then the school has to be sued.

As for what other professors say about Gay, as if I believe anything a self-serving academic who probably is worried about their own plagiarism being uncovered says about this situation.

So just say you don't know and keep it moving. You're the one that was making definitive statements about what would get someone expelled from Harvard, not me. Do you want to admit that you were talking out of your arse?

Tell us the real source of your outrage instead of some manufactured plagiarism controversy.

You know we can all literally read the plagiarism? It’s not debatable?

I find the academics circling the wagon for Gay fascinating. I assume they all must have widely plagiarized and are terrified that it will come out.

[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.

This is flatly untrue, as she acknowledged in her apology. “What I should have had the presence of mind to do in that moment was return to my guiding truth, which is that calls for violence against our Jewish community — threats to our Jewish students — have no place at Harvard, and will never go unchallenged.”