Harvard President resigns

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Play stupid games….win stupid prizes

Don’t use merit as the reason to hire someone, you lose every time. Sometimes the loss comes quickly; other times it takes a little time, but it eventually arrives.

Those of us who own/operate a business know this. Thank god I don’t have to deal w a Board full of all these “intellectuals”.

This is about antisemitism as defined by a billionaire. He is fine with his wife plagiarizing but wanted to remove the hardcore antisemitics at Harvard, Penn, etc. Next he will go after professors and students. Oh look he is moving on to phase two already. Lots of conservatives types will be out next.

This is about an under-qualified hire in a leadership role. Gay has been fast tracked to the detriment of Harvard and other, far more qualified people, including other minorities. A candidate that is vetted with any rigor for honesty, accomplishment and leadership would have allowed Harvard to avoid this whole mess. DEI masked her inabilities and Harvard is paying dearly.

Yes. Would be curious to know how the Board dealt with this.

It's not like there's a shortage of candidates who aren't white middle aged males.

But they went with a mediocre person with an unimpressive academic or leadership record who contextualizes genocide and doesn't even have the wherewithal to show even a little bit of respect to Congress. The sneering arrogance was so counter productive and unwise. And the dumb statements.

Academia is in a bubble these days.

How do you know she isn't qualified or was a mediocre candidate? So we know about the latest info, but before that people were saying that. How do you know she isn't an amazing leader. Maybe she was amazing with donors before this. Maybe she was amazing with staff and students. What makes you qualified to know more? What does the President of a university need? They are all very different. Some are impressive, some aren't, but how do you know?

At a minimum the President of a University (as well as professors) need to have ethics and a moral code.

Between the Stanford president and the Harvard president I think we are learning that presidents of universities do not, in fact, need either an ethical or moral code, and their boards certainly don’t seem interested in that as a hiring criteria.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Play stupid games….win stupid prizes

Don’t use merit as the reason to hire someone, you lose every time. Sometimes the loss comes quickly; other times it takes a little time, but it eventually arrives.

Those of us who own/operate a business know this. Thank god I don’t have to deal w a Board full of all these “intellectuals”.

This is about antisemitism as defined by a billionaire. He is fine with his wife plagiarizing but wanted to remove the hardcore antisemitics at Harvard, Penn, etc. Next he will go after professors and students. Oh look he is moving on to phase two already. Lots of conservatives types will be out next.

This is about an under-qualified hire in a leadership role. Gay has been fast tracked to the detriment of Harvard and other, far more qualified people, including other minorities. A candidate that is vetted with any rigor for honesty, accomplishment and leadership would have allowed Harvard to avoid this whole mess. DEI masked her inabilities and Harvard is paying dearly.

Yes. Would be curious to know how the Board dealt with this.

It's not like there's a shortage of candidates who aren't white middle aged males.

But they went with a mediocre person with an unimpressive academic or leadership record who contextualizes genocide and doesn't even have the wherewithal to show even a little bit of respect to Congress. The sneering arrogance was so counter productive and unwise. And the dumb statements.

Academia is in a bubble these days.

How do you know she isn't qualified or was a mediocre candidate? So we know about the latest info, but before that people were saying that. How do you know she isn't an amazing leader. Maybe she was amazing with donors before this. Maybe she was amazing with staff and students. What makes you qualified to know more? What does the President of a university need? They are all very different. Some are impressive, some aren't, but how do you know?

At a minimum the President of a University (as well as professors) need to have ethics and a moral code.

Her "ethics" are hers AND the Harvard boards', that choose to cater to "oppressed" peoples. Elite institutions are dumbing down their own curricula to cater to this mission rather than being an elite place of learning for all qualified students (and, admittedly, legacies).

There has to be a way to pull people up without having to dumb other people down. All we will end up with is a mediocre society.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Play stupid games….win stupid prizes

Don’t use merit as the reason to hire someone, you lose every time. Sometimes the loss comes quickly; other times it takes a little time, but it eventually arrives.

Those of us who own/operate a business know this. Thank god I don’t have to deal w a Board full of all these “intellectuals”.

This is about antisemitism as defined by a billionaire. He is fine with his wife plagiarizing but wanted to remove the hardcore antisemitics at Harvard, Penn, etc. Next he will go after professors and students. Oh look he is moving on to phase two already. Lots of conservatives types will be out next.

This is about an under-qualified hire in a leadership role. Gay has been fast tracked to the detriment of Harvard and other, far more qualified people, including other minorities. A candidate that is vetted with any rigor for honesty, accomplishment and leadership would have allowed Harvard to avoid this whole mess. DEI masked her inabilities and Harvard is paying dearly.

Yes. Would be curious to know how the Board dealt with this.

It's not like there's a shortage of candidates who aren't white middle aged males.

But they went with a mediocre person with an unimpressive academic or leadership record who contextualizes genocide and doesn't even have the wherewithal to show even a little bit of respect to Congress. The sneering arrogance was so counter productive and unwise. And the dumb statements.

Academia is in a bubble these days.

How do you know she isn't qualified or was a mediocre candidate? So we know about the latest info, but before that people were saying that. How do you know she isn't an amazing leader. Maybe she was amazing with donors before this. Maybe she was amazing with staff and students. What makes you qualified to know more? What does the President of a university need? They are all very different. Some are impressive, some aren't, but how do you know?

At a minimum the President of a University (as well as professors) need to have ethics and a moral code.

Her "ethics" are hers AND the Harvard boards', that choose to cater to "oppressed" peoples. Elite institutions are dumbing down their own curricula to cater to this mission rather than being an elite place of learning for all qualified students (and, admittedly, legacies).

There has to be a way to pull people up without having to dumb other people down. All we will end up with is a mediocre society.

Apparently, the "code of the road" dictates that some professors need not have ethics or follow a moral code. Hat tip to Ackman for that recently evolved distinction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our guy Bill Ackman is still at it.

He announced yesterday via Twitter/X plans to investigate every professor at MIT for plagiarism.

And Sally thought she dodged the bullet.

If they did not plagiarize public documents they published, they have nothing whatsoever to fear,

Right?

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our guy Bill Ackman is still at it.

He announced yesterday via Twitter/X plans to investigate every professor at MIT for plagiarism.

And Sally thought she dodged the bullet.

If they did not plagiarize public documents they published, they have nothing whatsoever to fear,

Right?

+1

No it was about not being pro Israel enough. You can never be pro Israel enough. Plagiarism is okay for Ackman’s wife but not for a non Jew in a position of power at an Ivy League. We can look at the example of Yale.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our guy Bill Ackman is still at it.

He announced yesterday via Twitter/X plans to investigate every professor at MIT for plagiarism.

And Sally thought she dodged the bullet.

If they did not plagiarize public documents they published, they have nothing whatsoever to fear,

Right?

+1

No it was about not being pro Israel enough. You can never be pro Israel enough. Plagiarism is okay for Ackman’s wife but not for a non Jew in a position of power at an Ivy League. We can look at the example of Yale.

So you think plagiarism is alright? No big deal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our guy Bill Ackman is still at it.

He announced yesterday via Twitter/X plans to investigate every professor at MIT for plagiarism.

And Sally thought she dodged the bullet.

If they did not plagiarize public documents they published, they have nothing whatsoever to fear,

Right?

+1

No it was about not being pro Israel enough. You can never be pro Israel enough. Plagiarism is okay for Ackman’s wife but not for a non Jew in a position of power at an Ivy League. We can look at the example of Yale.

So you think plagiarism is alright? No big deal?

Well, Ackman seems to thinks plagiarism is alright and no big deal - in certain circumstances, of course. Since he's holding the pitchfork and torch, can we just apply his own shaky methods and deem it OK for those we like, but not OK for those we don't care for?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our guy Bill Ackman is still at it.

He announced yesterday via Twitter/X plans to investigate every professor at MIT for plagiarism.

And Sally thought she dodged the bullet.

If they did not plagiarize public documents they published, they have nothing whatsoever to fear,

Right?

+1

No it was about not being pro Israel enough. You can never be pro Israel enough. Plagiarism is okay for Ackman’s wife but not for a non Jew in a position of power at an Ivy League. We can look at the example of Yale.

So you think plagiarism is alright? No big deal?

Well, Ackman seems to thinks plagiarism is alright and no big deal - in certain circumstances, of course. Since he's holding the pitchfork and torch, can we just apply his own shaky methods and deem it OK for those we like, but not OK for those we don't care for?

PP here. That's not what I asked. I asked if you think plagiarism is alright. Do you work at Harvard? Harvard should care if anyone attending/instructing there or leading their institution plagiarizes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our guy Bill Ackman is still at it.

He announced yesterday via Twitter/X plans to investigate every professor at MIT for plagiarism.

And Sally thought she dodged the bullet.

If they did not plagiarize public documents they published, they have nothing whatsoever to fear,

Right?

+1

No it was about not being pro Israel enough. You can never be pro Israel enough. Plagiarism is okay for Ackman’s wife but not for a non Jew in a position of power at an Ivy League. We can look at the example of Yale.

So you think plagiarism is alright? No big deal?

Well, Ackman seems to thinks plagiarism is alright and no big deal - in certain circumstances, of course. Since he's holding the pitchfork and torch, can we just apply his own shaky methods and deem it OK for those we like, but not OK for those we don't care for?

PP here. That's not what I asked. I asked if you think plagiarism is alright. Do you work at Harvard? Harvard should care if anyone attending/instructing there or leading their institution plagiarizes.

Of corse you want to deflect. This is not about plagiarism. This is about punishing and making an example of anyone who does not actively support a genocide.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our guy Bill Ackman is still at it.

He announced yesterday via Twitter/X plans to investigate every professor at MIT for plagiarism.

And Sally thought she dodged the bullet.

If they did not plagiarize public documents they published, they have nothing whatsoever to fear,

Right?

+1

No it was about not being pro Israel enough. You can never be pro Israel enough. Plagiarism is okay for Ackman’s wife but not for a non Jew in a position of power at an Ivy League. We can look at the example of Yale.

So you think plagiarism is alright? No big deal?

Well, Ackman seems to thinks plagiarism is alright and no big deal - in certain circumstances, of course. Since he's holding the pitchfork and torch, can we just apply his own shaky methods and deem it OK for those we like, but not OK for those we don't care for?

PP here. That's not what I asked. I asked if you think plagiarism is alright. Do you work at Harvard? Harvard should care if anyone attending/instructing there or leading their institution plagiarizes.

Of corse you want to deflect. This is not about plagiarism. This is about punishing and making an example of anyone who does not actively support a genocide.

Talking about the importance of honesty and integrity in a leader is deflection when discussing Harvard's President? I disagree, but you're welcome to think otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Play stupid games….win stupid prizes

Don’t use merit as the reason to hire someone, you lose every time. Sometimes the loss comes quickly; other times it takes a little time, but it eventually arrives.

Those of us who own/operate a business know this. Thank god I don’t have to deal w a Board full of all these “intellectuals”.

This is about antisemitism as defined by a billionaire. He is fine with his wife plagiarizing but wanted to remove the hardcore antisemitics at Harvard, Penn, etc. Next he will go after professors and students. Oh look he is moving on to phase two already. Lots of conservatives types will be out next.

This is about an under-qualified hire in a leadership role. Gay has been fast tracked to the detriment of Harvard and other, far more qualified people, including other minorities. A candidate that is vetted with any rigor for honesty, accomplishment and leadership would have allowed Harvard to avoid this whole mess. DEI masked her inabilities and Harvard is paying dearly.

Yes. Would be curious to know how the Board dealt with this.

It's not like there's a shortage of candidates who aren't white middle aged males.

But they went with a mediocre person with an unimpressive academic or leadership record who contextualizes genocide and doesn't even have the wherewithal to show even a little bit of respect to Congress. The sneering arrogance was so counter productive and unwise. And the dumb statements.

Academia is in a bubble these days.

How do you know she isn't qualified or was a mediocre candidate? So we know about the latest info, but before that people were saying that. How do you know she isn't an amazing leader. Maybe she was amazing with donors before this. Maybe she was amazing with staff and students. What makes you qualified to know more? What does the President of a university need? They are all very different. Some are impressive, some aren't, but how do you know?

At a minimum the President of a University (as well as professors) need to have ethics and a moral code.

Her "ethics" are hers AND the Harvard boards', that choose to cater to "oppressed" peoples. Elite institutions are dumbing down their own curricula to cater to this mission rather than being an elite place of learning for all qualified students (and, admittedly, legacies).

There has to be a way to pull people up without having to dumb other people down. All we will end up with is a mediocre society.

Oh give me a break. These institutions were never about educating based on merit. That's like saying that George W Bush was smart enough to actually get into Yale.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our guy Bill Ackman is still at it.

He announced yesterday via Twitter/X plans to investigate every professor at MIT for plagiarism.

And Sally thought she dodged the bullet.

If they did not plagiarize public documents they published, they have nothing whatsoever to fear,

Right?

+1

No it was about not being pro Israel enough. You can never be pro Israel enough. Plagiarism is okay for Ackman’s wife but not for a non Jew in a position of power at an Ivy League. We can look at the example of Yale.

So you think plagiarism is alright? No big deal?

Well, Ackman seems to thinks plagiarism is alright and no big deal - in certain circumstances, of course. Since he's holding the pitchfork and torch, can we just apply his own shaky methods and deem it OK for those we like, but not OK for those we don't care for?

PP here. That's not what I asked. I asked if you think plagiarism is alright. Do you work at Harvard? Harvard should care if anyone attending/instructing there or leading their institution plagiarizes.

Of corse you want to deflect. This is not about plagiarism. This is about punishing and making an example of anyone who does not actively support a genocide.

NP. This is about pulling universities back to the liberal middle-left from the anti-liberal, racist, and insane far left.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She’s a fraud. Pretty simple imo. Had to go. The Board needs to go too. Those dummies hired her, then defended her, at the detriment of the very institution they were charged w leading. Double whammy for 5he Board. Idiots.

And any other presidents who have this much trash in their research, they can go too.

Students were expelled from Harvard for plagiarism. She OTOH continues on there as a professor at 900K a year.

She will make $900K a year (plus presumably 3% annual raises?) until...she croaks? She's only 53. She collects a million bucks a year for the next 30 years if she wants? What a gig.

In her own conscience she knows she will rot in hell for eternity.

Not a good deal if you ask me.

Great, now she can be on par with mediocre white men who have been in charge since the beginning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our guy Bill Ackman is still at it.

He announced yesterday via Twitter/X plans to investigate every professor at MIT for plagiarism.

And Sally thought she dodged the bullet.

If they did not plagiarize public documents they published, they have nothing whatsoever to fear,

Right?

+1

No it was about not being pro Israel enough. You can never be pro Israel enough. Plagiarism is okay for Ackman’s wife but not for a non Jew in a position of power at an Ivy League. We can look at the example of Yale.

So you think plagiarism is alright? No big deal?

Well, Ackman seems to thinks plagiarism is alright and no big deal - in certain circumstances, of course. Since he's holding the pitchfork and torch, can we just apply his own shaky methods and deem it OK for those we like, but not OK for those we don't care for?

PP here. That's not what I asked. I asked if you think plagiarism is alright. Do you work at Harvard? Harvard should care if anyone attending/instructing there or leading their institution plagiarizes.

Obviously you want to find a convenient, tidy justification for the unhinged witch hunt that buffoon went on for absurdly transparent reasons that had nothing to do with academic integrity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She’s a fraud. Pretty simple imo. Had to go. The Board needs to go too. Those dummies hired her, then defended her, at the detriment of the very institution they were charged w leading. Double whammy for 5he Board. Idiots.

And any other presidents who have this much trash in their research, they can go too.

Students were expelled from Harvard for plagiarism. She OTOH continues on there as a professor at 900K a year.

She will make $900K a year (plus presumably 3% annual raises?) until...she croaks? She's only 53. She collects a million bucks a year for the next 30 years if she wants? What a gig.

In her own conscience she knows she will rot in hell for eternity.

Not a good deal if you ask me.

Great, now she can be on par with mediocre white men who have been in charge since the beginning.

We get it; you want discrimination as long as you get to choose what kind.