Stefanik Ivy Presidentd

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who are those kids that are using slurs of ANY kind on college campuses?

We are led to believe that it is almost impossible to get into the Ivy League schools nowadays (according to the College forum you have to be at least “double-hooked”), the selection is so fierce and still some complete idiots are getting in? How?

Wait - a child used a slur?? ON CAMPUS?!?

We must hunt them down! Identify and shame that child, publicly!! Deprive them of a career! Banish them and their family forever!!

ZERO tolerance for freedom of expression on campus!

There are no children on a college campus.

Age 26 and below = child, at least under D.C.’s definition of “youthful offender.”

Ergo, a child is now anyone under the age of 26.

Research from the Ivies backs up the fact that children’s brains are not fully developed until age 26 or so.

baby ages 0-2
toddler 2-4
child 4-puberty
teenager puberty-18
young adult 21-26
adult 26-60
elderly over 60

These are the right word. Calling somebody 26 a child is an attempt to mislead.

[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:

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.

Want to reread the thread? It has been addressed.

Several of the academics in question don't even think it is plagiarism and the one who does has an agenda. And even if it does meet the threshold, is the nature of this offense such that expulsion is the appropriate course action? This is a marginal offense from a student paper from 30 years ago dredged up not because the offense itself is so grievous, but to opportunistically oust an ideological foe. It's reaching. If they could demonstrate a consistent pattern of more substantive violations throughout her corpus of work and especially in her more recent work (of which she does not have very much) it would be a more serious offense.

No one has demonstrated that a student would summarily be expelled for an offense of a similar nature, so how are you so sure there are double standards? People are acting like there is strict liability once you cross the minimum threshold for what can be deemed "plagiarism" and that once the standard is met, the University will mechanistically expel the guilty party. This is not the case and even with students there are a variety of ways to handle such instances. Some simply get a failing grade. Some will get a talking to from a charitable professor. And, yes, some cases might be referred to the honor council which can mete out a range of punishments, of which expulsion is on the extreme end.

The whole notion of double standard is nonsensical to begin with because they are not peers or similarly situation. You don't apply the same standard to some random student versus a University President. People might not like this fact, but it is the truth. This is not, of course, to say that University Presidents can act with impunity, as some are alleging. The comparison to procedures applicable to students is just inapposite, for a host of reasons.

None of this is to suggest that she has acted impeccably or that she should not otherwise be under siege for her actions in addressing anti-semitism on campus. The plagiarism stuff is just a big red herring though.

[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:

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.

Want to reread the thread? It has been addressed.

Several of the academics in question don't even think it is plagiarism and the one who does has an agenda. And even if it does meet the threshold, is the nature of this offense such that expulsion is the appropriate course action? This is a marginal offense from a student paper from 30 years ago dredged up not because the offense itself is so grievous, but to opportunistically oust an ideological foe. It's reaching. If they could demonstrate a consistent pattern of more substantive violations throughout her corpus of work and especially in her more recent work (of which she does not have very much) it would be a more serious offense.

No one has demonstrated that a student would summarily be expelled for an offense of a similar nature, so how are you so sure there are double standards? People are acting like there is strict liability once you cross the minimum threshold for what can be deemed "plagiarism" and that once the standard is met, the University will mechanistically expel the guilty party. This is not the case and even with students there are a variety of ways to handle such instances. Some simply get a failing grade. Some will get a talking to from a charitable professor. And, yes, some cases might be referred to the honor council which can mete out a range of punishments, of which expulsion is on the extreme end.

The whole notion of double standard is nonsensical to begin with because they are not peers or similarly situation. You don't apply the same standard to some random student versus a University President. People might not like this fact, but it is the truth. This is not, of course, to say that University Presidents can act with impunity, as some are alleging. The comparison to procedures applicable to students is just inapposite, for a host of reasons.

None of this is to suggest that she has acted impeccably or that she should not otherwise be under siege for her actions in addressing anti-semitism on campus. The plagiarism stuff is just a big red herring though.

If anything, administrators should be held to a higher standard than students.

[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:

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.

Want to reread the thread? It has been addressed.

Several of the academics in question don't even think it is plagiarism and the one who does has an agenda. And even if it does meet the threshold, is the nature of this offense such that expulsion is the appropriate course action? This is a marginal offense from a student paper from 30 years ago dredged up not because the offense itself is so grievous, but to opportunistically oust an ideological foe. It's reaching. If they could demonstrate a consistent pattern of more substantive violations throughout her corpus of work and especially in her more recent work (of which she does not have very much) it would be a more serious offense.

No one has demonstrated that a student would summarily be expelled for an offense of a similar nature, so how are you so sure there are double standards? People are acting like there is strict liability once you cross the minimum threshold for what can be deemed "plagiarism" and that once the standard is met, the University will mechanistically expel the guilty party. This is not the case and even with students there are a variety of ways to handle such instances. Some simply get a failing grade. Some will get a talking to from a charitable professor. And, yes, some cases might be referred to the honor council which can mete out a range of punishments, of which expulsion is on the extreme end.

The whole notion of double standard is nonsensical to begin with because they are not peers or similarly situation. You don't apply the same standard to some random student versus a University President. People might not like this fact, but it is the truth. This is not, of course, to say that University Presidents can act with impunity, as some are alleging. The comparison to procedures applicable to students is just inapposite, for a host of reasons.

None of this is to suggest that she has acted impeccably or that she should not otherwise be under siege for her actions in addressing anti-semitism on campus. The plagiarism stuff is just a big red herring though.

If anything, administrators should be held to a higher standard than students.

Same thing for POTUS too, right? Too bad we don't live in dream world and Universities worry about other things like institutional stability, optics, legal liability, institutional independence and reputational risk. You may draw the same conclusions weighing various factors, but let's not act like it's some mechanistic formula.

[Anonymous]

Harvard Prez needs to be fired.

[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:

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.

Want to reread the thread? It has been addressed.

Several of the academics in question don't even think it is plagiarism and the one who does has an agenda. And even if it does meet the threshold, is the nature of this offense such that expulsion is the appropriate course action? This is a marginal offense from a student paper from 30 years ago dredged up not because the offense itself is so grievous, but to opportunistically oust an ideological foe. It's reaching. If they could demonstrate a consistent pattern of more substantive violations throughout her corpus of work and especially in her more recent work (of which she does not have very much) it would be a more serious offense.

No one has demonstrated that a student would summarily be expelled for an offense of a similar nature, so how are you so sure there are double standards? People are acting like there is strict liability once you cross the minimum threshold for what can be deemed "plagiarism" and that once the standard is met, the University will mechanistically expel the guilty party. This is not the case and even with students there are a variety of ways to handle such instances. Some simply get a failing grade. Some will get a talking to from a charitable professor. And, yes, some cases might be referred to the honor council which can mete out a range of punishments, of which expulsion is on the extreme end.

The whole notion of double standard is nonsensical to begin with because they are not peers or similarly situation. You don't apply the same standard to some random student versus a University President. People might not like this fact, but it is the truth. This is not, of course, to say that University Presidents can act with impunity, as some are alleging. The comparison to procedures applicable to students is just inapposite, for a host of reasons.

None of this is to suggest that she has acted impeccably or that she should not otherwise be under siege for her actions in addressing anti-semitism on campus. The plagiarism stuff is just a big red herring though.

If anything, administrators should be held to a higher standard than students.

Same thing for POTUS too, right? Too bad we don't live in dream world and Universities worry about other things like institutional stability, optics, legal liability, institutional independence and reputational risk. You may draw the same conclusions weighing various factors, but let's not act like it's some mechanistic formula.

I think we all understand the optics of 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:

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.

Want to reread the thread? It has been addressed.

Several of the academics in question don't even think it is plagiarism and the one who does has an agenda. And even if it does meet the threshold, is the nature of this offense such that expulsion is the appropriate course action? This is a marginal offense from a student paper from 30 years ago dredged up not because the offense itself is so grievous, but to opportunistically oust an ideological foe. It's reaching. If they could demonstrate a consistent pattern of more substantive violations throughout her corpus of work and especially in her more recent work (of which she does not have very much) it would be a more serious offense.

No one has demonstrated that a student would summarily be expelled for an offense of a similar nature, so how are you so sure there are double standards? People are acting like there is strict liability once you cross the minimum threshold for what can be deemed "plagiarism" and that once the standard is met, the University will mechanistically expel the guilty party. This is not the case and even with students there are a variety of ways to handle such instances. Some simply get a failing grade. Some will get a talking to from a charitable professor. And, yes, some cases might be referred to the honor council which can mete out a range of punishments, of which expulsion is on the extreme end.

The whole notion of double standard is nonsensical to begin with because they are not peers or similarly situation. You don't apply the same standard to some random student versus a University President. People might not like this fact, but it is the truth. This is not, of course, to say that University Presidents can act with impunity, as some are alleging. The comparison to procedures applicable to students is just inapposite, for a host of reasons.

None of this is to suggest that she has acted impeccably or that she should not otherwise be under siege for her actions in addressing anti-semitism on campus. The plagiarism stuff is just a big red herring though.

If anything, administrators should be held to a higher standard than students.

Same thing for POTUS too, right? Too bad we don't live in dream world and Universities worry about other things like institutional stability, optics, legal liability, institutional independence and reputational risk. You may draw the same conclusions weighing various factors, but let's not act like it's some mechanistic formula.

I think we all understand the optics of this situation.

Of getting rid of the first black president of the University a few months after hiring her to great fanfare?

[Anonymous]

In the end, Harvard will be known for keeping a plagiarist as their president, like Stanford was known for keeping a data falsifier as theirs. They don’t care.

Personally what I suspect is going on here in part is that many academics have realized to their horror how easy AI is able to detect plagiarism now, and so they are frantically lining up behind the concept of “plagiarism — it’s not that bad really!”

[Anonymous]

Oh look, Stefanik caught plagiarizing. Let's hear the calls for her resignation from all the principled conservatives who are so so upset about the Harvard president.

https://news.yahoo.com/elise-stefanik-accused-plagiarizing-antisemitism-234009218.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In the end, Harvard will be known for keeping a plagiarist as their president, like Stanford was known for keeping a data falsifier as theirs. They don’t care.

Personally what I suspect is going on here in part is that many academics have realized to their horror how easy AI is able to detect plagiarism now, and so they are frantically lining up behind the concept of “plagiarism — it’s not that bad really!”

Did you miss the part where the guy at Stanford resigned?

You act like language detection software is some new creation . Never doubt the ability of posters to make everything about AI and ChatGPT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh look, Stefanik caught plagiarizing. Let's hear the calls for her resignation from all the principled conservatives who are so so upset about the Harvard president.

https://news.yahoo.com/elise-stefanik-accused-plagiarizing-antisemitism-234009218.html

Resign, immediately! Go join Santos!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh look, Stefanik caught plagiarizing. Let's hear the calls for her resignation from all the principled conservatives who are so so upset about the Harvard president.

https://news.yahoo.com/elise-stefanik-accused-plagiarizing-antisemitism-234009218.html

Oh come on. I think Stefanik is a RWNJ loon who got lucky with a sound bite but this is really, really stretching. Frankly this gives a lot of credence to the accusations of plagiarism against Gay and I think her defenders should really rethink this tactic. If this letter, which Stefanik apparently collaborated on, is plagiarism, what Gay did is far, far worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh look, Stefanik caught plagiarizing. Let's hear the calls for her resignation from all the principled conservatives who are so so upset about the Harvard president.

https://news.yahoo.com/elise-stefanik-accused-plagiarizing-antisemitism-234009218.html

Oh come on. I think Stefanik is a RWNJ loon who got lucky with a sound bite but this is really, really stretching. Frankly this gives a lot of credence to the accusations of plagiarism against Gay and I think her defenders should really rethink this tactic. If this letter, which Stefanik apparently collaborated on, is plagiarism, what Gay did is far, far worse.

No it doesn't. Come on, you are capable of assessing each independently.

This is just giving Stefanik a taste of her own stupid medicine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh look, Stefanik caught plagiarizing. Let's hear the calls for her resignation from all the principled conservatives who are so so upset about the Harvard president.

https://news.yahoo.com/elise-stefanik-accused-plagiarizing-antisemitism-234009218.html

Oh come on. I think Stefanik is a RWNJ loon who got lucky with a sound bite but this is really, really stretching. Frankly this gives a lot of credence to the accusations of plagiarism against Gay and I think her defenders should really rethink this tactic. If this letter, which Stefanik apparently collaborated on, is plagiarism, what Gay did is far, far worse.

Ah, I see, you don't actually care about plagiarism. You were just using it in bad faith as a political cudgel.

[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.

Literally what are you talking about? How is there an ongoing genocide against Jews being perpetrated at Penn?