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:

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!

I actually agree lol. Get your money!

I'm actually familiar with her work and like some of it, but she is a Black Conservative and an ideological adversary to the progressive academic intelligentsia that predominates in university settings.

I doubt should we be making such definitive statements regarding disciplinary procedures at an institution with which she is not affiliated regarding an ideological fellow traveller.

[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:

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.

What you think you read is not the question at hand. The question is whether what has been shown in Gay's paper rises to the level of a breach that warrants expulsion in accordance with Harvard's policies, as that poster was claiming.

Do you have anything to say about that?

[Anonymous]

It’s great she resigned, but she needs to be prosecuted for her actions facilitating the ongoing genocide being perpetrated against Jews.

[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:

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.

What you think you read is not the question at hand. The question is whether what has been shown in Gay's paper rises to the level of a breach that warrants expulsion in accordance with Harvard's policies, as that poster was claiming.

Do you have anything to say about that?

I believe the level of plagiarism shown reaches the level laid out in Harvard’s own policies. This is not a case of a single copied comma.

That having been said, nothing will happen to her. So it doesn’t matter what any of us think.

[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.

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.”

I thought Dr. Gay's apology was much more sincere and heartfelt than Ms. Magill's.

[Anonymous]

Eh, from now on, every Harvard students caught plagiarizing could use the excuse they were trying to follow in the footsteps of their president. What a joke!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Eh, from now on, every Harvard students caught plagiarizing could use the excuse they were trying to follow in the footsteps of their president. What a joke!

It won’t work. Students will continue to be held to a much higher standard than professors and administrators are.

[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:

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.

What you think you read is not the question at hand. The question is whether what has been shown in Gay's paper rises to the level of a breach that warrants expulsion in accordance with Harvard's policies, as that poster was claiming.

Do you have anything to say about that?

I believe the level of plagiarism shown reaches the level laid out in Harvard’s own policies. This is not a case of a single copied comma.

That having been said, nothing will happen to her. So it doesn’t matter what any of us think.

I said expulsion. Can you identify any other example of a University President being expelled from their position from breaches of similar nature to Gay's?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Eh, from now on, every Harvard students caught plagiarizing could use the excuse they were trying to follow in the footsteps of their president. What a joke!

Were you the same person complaining about the witch-hunt against Kavanaugh for alleged 30-year-old offenses? Just checking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s great she resigned, but she needs to be prosecuted for her actions facilitating the ongoing genocide being perpetrated against Jews.

"on going genocide"? Good one!

[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:

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.

What you think you read is not the question at hand. The question is whether what has been shown in Gay's paper rises to the level of a breach that warrants expulsion in accordance with Harvard's policies, as that poster was claiming.

Do you have anything to say about that?

I believe the level of plagiarism shown reaches the level laid out in Harvard’s own policies. This is not a case of a single copied comma.

That having been said, nothing will happen to her. So it doesn’t matter what any of us think.

I said expulsion. Can you identify any other example of a University President being expelled from their position from breaches of similar nature to Gay's?

Of course not. Administrators who cheat are protected. That’s why nothing will happen to Gay. She can plagiarize with impunity. She’s the president of Harvard. Nothing will happen to her. The fact that the university will protect her doesn’t change the fact that she plagiarized and violated Harvard’s own policies, but Harvard will never hold its own administrators and professors up to its own codes of academic integrity.

[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:

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.

What you think you read is not the question at hand. The question is whether what has been shown in Gay's paper rises to the level of a breach that warrants expulsion in accordance with Harvard's policies, as that poster was claiming.

Do you have anything to say about that?

I believe the level of plagiarism shown reaches the level laid out in Harvard’s own policies. This is not a case of a single copied comma.

That having been said, nothing will happen to her. So it doesn’t matter what any of us think.

I said expulsion. Can you identify any other example of a University President being expelled from their position from breaches of similar nature to Gay's?

Of course not. Administrators who cheat are protected. That’s why nothing will happen to Gay. She can plagiarize with impunity. She’s the president of Harvard. Nothing will happen to her. The fact that the university will protect her doesn’t change the fact that she plagiarized and violated Harvard’s own policies, but Harvard will never hold its own administrators and professors up to its own codes of academic integrity.

You are making stuff up and twisting yourself into a pretzel to confirm your own biases and fuel a witch hunt.

If you are mad about her testimony, just say so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Eh, from now on, every Harvard students caught plagiarizing could use the excuse they were trying to follow in the footsteps of their president. What a joke!

Or they could just claim antisemitism and have their accusers removed from their job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s great she resigned, but she needs to be prosecuted for her actions facilitating the ongoing genocide being perpetrated against Jews.

I also agree that is it great that she resigned, however prosecuted? For what? Name the crime? I believe in free speech. She has every right to say what she did. Donors have every right to pull donations because of it, and the board has every right to demand she resign. She could or should be fired as well. However, criminal prosecution would violate her rights under the first amendment. Why is this difficult?

[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:

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.

What you think you read is not the question at hand. The question is whether what has been shown in Gay's paper rises to the level of a breach that warrants expulsion in accordance with Harvard's policies, as that poster was claiming.

Do you have anything to say about that?

I believe the level of plagiarism shown reaches the level laid out in Harvard’s own policies. This is not a case of a single copied comma.

That having been said, nothing will happen to her. So it doesn’t matter what any of us think.

I said expulsion. Can you identify any other example of a University President being expelled from their position from breaches of similar nature to Gay's?

Of course not. Administrators who cheat are protected. That’s why nothing will happen to Gay. She can plagiarize with impunity. She’s the president of Harvard. Nothing will happen to her. The fact that the university will protect her doesn’t change the fact that she plagiarized and violated Harvard’s own policies, but Harvard will never hold its own administrators and professors up to its own codes of academic integrity.

You are making stuff up and twisting yourself into a pretzel to confirm your own biases and fuel a witch hunt.

If you are mad about her testimony, just say so.

NP. You are failing to address her apparent plagiarism, and Harvard’s apparent double-standard applied to students, vs the president.

If there is nothing here, then address it.