Harvard President resigns

[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: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.

Obviously, you think plagiarizing other people's work is acceptable.

Just following Ackman’s lead.

If you think plagiarism is wrong and dishonest, then you wouldn't follow anyone's lead -- whether it be Ackman, Trump, or anyone else.

Characterizing what Gay did as plagiarism is laughably absurd.

Now what Oxman did, and who she associated with?

Really? When I was in college, we had an honor code. Copying paragraphs was viewed as cheating/plagiarism and worthy of expulsion.

Except Gay didn't copy paragraphs, or copy anything. She neglected to insert quotation marks, making no effort to represent the words as her own. But carry on with the propaganda campaign because she did, after all, fail to bow down and cower before the sacred cow. And for that, maybe she should have been made to pay an even greater price, right? Right?

Sure. Just a few quotation marks, footnotes, and citations are missing -- that's all!

Code of the Road

She was the President of Harvard.

I'm less moved by that fact than I am by the fact that the wife of the clown who led the Gay witch hunt has been found to be an even more egregious plagiarizer.

Sometimes, the universe DOES provide.

There was a time when this forum would have exploded over someone blaming the wife of the man who did something. Wonder what is different in this case.

Doesn't matter. Both plagiarized others' work.

[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: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.

Obviously, you think plagiarizing other people's work is acceptable.

Just following Ackman’s lead.

If you think plagiarism is wrong and dishonest, then you wouldn't follow anyone's lead -- whether it be Ackman, Trump, or anyone else.

Characterizing what Gay did as plagiarism is laughably absurd.

Now what Oxman did, and who she associated with?

Really? When I was in college, we had an honor code. Copying paragraphs was viewed as cheating/plagiarism and worthy of expulsion.

Except Gay didn't copy paragraphs, or copy anything. She neglected to insert quotation marks, making no effort to represent the words as her own. But carry on with the propaganda campaign because she did, after all, fail to bow down and cower before the sacred cow. And for that, maybe she should have been made to pay an even greater price, right? Right?

Sure. Just a few quotation marks, footnotes, and citations are missing -- that's all!

Sure like it’s about that. She is the wrong gender, wrong religion and wrong color. It’s all for Israel. Those anti woke, anti DEI warriors are alway out there fighting antisemitism and promoting Jews. If push came to shove I bet they would let one or two in to their country club…not.

Are you saying of all those groups, she was the very best and the most qualified? That's pretty sad. .

[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: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.

Obviously, you think plagiarizing other people's work is acceptable.

Just following Ackman’s lead.

If you think plagiarism is wrong and dishonest, then you wouldn't follow anyone's lead -- whether it be Ackman, Trump, or anyone else.

Characterizing what Gay did as plagiarism is laughably absurd.

Now what Oxman did, and who she associated with?

Really? When I was in college, we had an honor code. Copying paragraphs was viewed as cheating/plagiarism and worthy of expulsion.

Except Gay didn't copy paragraphs, or copy anything. She neglected to insert quotation marks, making no effort to represent the words as her own. But carry on with the propaganda campaign because she did, after all, fail to bow down and cower before the sacred cow. And for that, maybe she should have been made to pay an even greater price, right? Right?

Sure. Just a few quotation marks, footnotes, and citations are missing -- that's all!

Sure like it’s about that. She is the wrong gender, wrong religion and wrong color. It’s all for Israel. Those anti woke, anti DEI warriors are alway out there fighting antisemitism and promoting Jews. If push came to shove I bet they would let one or two in to their country club…not.

Have you ever been in the room when major hiring decisions were made? Clearly not. What does qualified even mean? You don't know if she's great with the board, parents? A huge fundraiser? A research darling. It's impossible to determine merit in these hires. There is a list of all types of characteristics that boards look for. It's not up to you to decide.

Are you saying of all those groups, she was the very best and the most qualified? That's pretty sad. .

[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: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.

Obviously, you think plagiarizing other people's work is acceptable.

Just following Ackman’s lead.

If you think plagiarism is wrong and dishonest, then you wouldn't follow anyone's lead -- whether it be Ackman, Trump, or anyone else.

Characterizing what Gay did as plagiarism is laughably absurd.

Now what Oxman did, and who she associated with?

Really? When I was in college, we had an honor code. Copying paragraphs was viewed as cheating/plagiarism and worthy of expulsion.

Except Gay didn't copy paragraphs, or copy anything. She neglected to insert quotation marks, making no effort to represent the words as her own. But carry on with the propaganda campaign because she did, after all, fail to bow down and cower before the sacred cow. And for that, maybe she should have been made to pay an even greater price, right? Right?

Sure. Just a few quotation marks, footnotes, and citations are missing -- that's all!

Sure like it’s about that. She is the wrong gender, wrong religion and wrong color. It’s all for Israel. Those anti woke, anti DEI warriors are alway out there fighting antisemitism and promoting Jews. If push came to shove I bet they would let one or two in to their country club…not.

Typical.
Still blaming her failings on her race and gender.
Why do you have such low expectations? Why don't you have high standards for eveyrone - including women and people of color?

Why resort to race and gender when someone has proven to be not up to the job?

What does gender have to do with it? What about your amazing candidate at Stanford?

[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: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.

Obviously, you think plagiarizing other people's work is acceptable.

Just following Ackman’s lead.

If you think plagiarism is wrong and dishonest, then you wouldn't follow anyone's lead -- whether it be Ackman, Trump, or anyone else.

Characterizing what Gay did as plagiarism is laughably absurd.

Now what Oxman did, and who she associated with?

Really? When I was in college, we had an honor code. Copying paragraphs was viewed as cheating/plagiarism and worthy of expulsion.

Except Gay didn't copy paragraphs, or copy anything. She neglected to insert quotation marks, making no effort to represent the words as her own. But carry on with the propaganda campaign because she did, after all, fail to bow down and cower before the sacred cow. And for that, maybe she should have been made to pay an even greater price, right? Right?

Sure. Just a few quotation marks, footnotes, and citations are missing -- that's all!

Sure like it’s about that. She is the wrong gender, wrong religion and wrong color. It’s all for Israel. Those anti woke, anti DEI warriors are alway out there fighting antisemitism and promoting Jews. If push came to shove I bet they would let one or two in to their country club…not.

Typical.
Still blaming her failings on her race and gender.
Why do you have such low expectations? Why don't you have high standards for eveyrone - including women and people of color?

Why resort to race and gender when someone has proven to be not up to the job?

What does gender have to do with it? What about your amazing candidate at Stanford?

Way to miss the point.

[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: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.

Obviously, you think plagiarizing other people's work is acceptable.

Just following Ackman’s lead.

If you think plagiarism is wrong and dishonest, then you wouldn't follow anyone's lead -- whether it be Ackman, Trump, or anyone else.

Characterizing what Gay did as plagiarism is laughably absurd.

Now what Oxman did, and who she associated with?

Really? When I was in college, we had an honor code. Copying paragraphs was viewed as cheating/plagiarism and worthy of expulsion.

Except Gay didn't copy paragraphs, or copy anything. She neglected to insert quotation marks, making no effort to represent the words as her own. But carry on with the propaganda campaign because she did, after all, fail to bow down and cower before the sacred cow. And for that, maybe she should have been made to pay an even greater price, right? Right?

Sure. Just a few quotation marks, footnotes, and citations are missing -- that's all!

Sure like it’s about that. She is the wrong gender, wrong religion and wrong color. It’s all for Israel. Those anti woke, anti DEI warriors are alway out there fighting antisemitism and promoting Jews. If push came to shove I bet they would let one or two in to their country club…not.

Have you ever been in the room when major hiring decisions were made? Clearly not. What does qualified even mean? You don't know if she's great with the board, parents? A huge fundraiser? A research darling. It's impossible to determine merit in these hires. There is a list of all types of characteristics that boards look for. It's not up to you to decide.

Are you saying of all those groups, she was the very best and the most qualified? That's pretty sad. .

Then why are you crying tears that she was the wrong x, y, or z? Clearly has nothing to do with any of those qualities.

[Anonymous]

It is very interesting how quickly the fact that she may have plagiarized is attributed to "diversity." How about she plagiarized because she plagiarized. Why does it have to be connected to the fact that she is black?

Check yourselves. Bias creeps in before one knows it.

She is neither the first---nor the last---person who plagiarized or inaccurately attributed (e.g. Ron DeSantis attributing a quote to Churchill that came off of a beer can and that Churchill never made!).

I wrote an article for The Washington Post on how we live now in a world where so much is lifted off the internet and shared without attribution that kids and adults think this is the norm.

I am not excusing Gay's actions nor saying that she should not have faced consequences. But why does her failure have to be because of "diversity," code for black?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is very interesting how quickly the fact that she may have plagiarized is attributed to "diversity." How about she plagiarized because she plagiarized. Why does it have to be connected to the fact that she is black?

Check yourselves. Bias creeps in before one knows it.

She is neither the first---nor the last---person who plagiarized or inaccurately attributed (e.g. Ron DeSantis attributing a quote to Churchill that came off of a beer can and that Churchill never made!).

I wrote an article for The Washington Post on how we live now in a world where so much is lifted off the internet and shared without attribution that kids and adults think this is the norm.

I am not excusing Gay's actions nor saying that she should not have faced consequences. But why does her failure have to be because of "diversity," code for black?

It doesn’t, but she was clearly not sufficiently vetted before being hired. Very weak academic production should have been the first tip off something was amiss. If not for the October attack in Israel, and Gay’s inability to effective respond, the Harvard Board would have been successful in achieving DEI success.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is very interesting how quickly the fact that she may have plagiarized is attributed to "diversity." How about she plagiarized because she plagiarized. Why does it have to be connected to the fact that she is black?

Check yourselves. Bias creeps in before one knows it.

She is neither the first---nor the last---person who plagiarized or inaccurately attributed (e.g. Ron DeSantis attributing a quote to Churchill that came off of a beer can and that Churchill never made!).

I wrote an article for The Washington Post on how we live now in a world where so much is lifted off the internet and shared without attribution that kids and adults think this is the norm.

I am not excusing Gay's actions nor saying that she should not have faced consequences. But why does her failure have to be because of "diversity," code for black?

It doesn’t, but she was clearly not sufficiently vetted before being hired. Very weak academic production should have been the first tip off something was amiss. If not for the October attack in Israel, and Gay’s inability to effective respond, the Harvard Board would have been successful in achieving DEI success.

That didn't stop the board from hiring the Prez at Stanford for the same thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is very interesting how quickly the fact that she may have plagiarized is attributed to "diversity." How about she plagiarized because she plagiarized. Why does it have to be connected to the fact that she is black?

Check yourselves. Bias creeps in before one knows it.

She is neither the first---nor the last---person who plagiarized or inaccurately attributed (e.g. Ron DeSantis attributing a quote to Churchill that came off of a beer can and that Churchill never made!).

I wrote an article for The Washington Post on how we live now in a world where so much is lifted off the internet and shared without attribution that kids and adults think this is the norm.

I am not excusing Gay's actions nor saying that she should not have faced consequences. But why does her failure have to be because of "diversity," code for black?

It doesn’t, but she was clearly not sufficiently vetted before being hired. Very weak academic production should have been the first tip off something was amiss. If not for the October attack in Israel, and Gay’s inability to effective respond, the Harvard Board would have been successful in achieving DEI success.

Of course, it all comes back to Israel. Everybody, no matter how much Israel affects them in everyday life, must have a response to 10/7, and if it isn't sufficiently pro-Israel, then it's ineffective and you should be fired from your job amd cast out of society.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is very interesting how quickly the fact that she may have plagiarized is attributed to "diversity." How about she plagiarized because she plagiarized. Why does it have to be connected to the fact that she is black?

Check yourselves. Bias creeps in before one knows it.

She is neither the first---nor the last---person who plagiarized or inaccurately attributed (e.g. Ron DeSantis attributing a quote to Churchill that came off of a beer can and that Churchill never made!).

I wrote an article for The Washington Post on how we live now in a world where so much is lifted off the internet and shared without attribution that kids and adults think this is the norm.

I am not excusing Gay's actions nor saying that she should not have faced consequences. But why does her failure have to be because of "diversity," code for black?

It doesn’t, but she was clearly not sufficiently vetted before being hired. Very weak academic production should have been the first tip off something was amiss. If not for the October attack in Israel, and Gay’s inability to effective respond, the Harvard Board would have been successful in achieving DEI success.

Of course, it all comes back to Israel. Everybody, no matter how much Israel affects them in everyday life, must have a response to 10/7, and if it isn't sufficiently pro-Israel, then it's ineffective and you should be fired from your job amd cast out of society.

Uh, no. It was her pathetic testimony on the hill that opened her up to wider scrutiny. As soon as folks started to do real diligence on her credentials, the wheels came off. Sorry, but the proverbial emperor had no clothes.

[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: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.

Obviously, you think plagiarizing other people's work is acceptable.

Just following Ackman’s lead.

If you think plagiarism is wrong and dishonest, then you wouldn't follow anyone's lead -- whether it be Ackman, Trump, or anyone else.

Characterizing what Gay did as plagiarism is laughably absurd.

Now what Oxman did, and who she associated with?

Really? When I was in college, we had an honor code. Copying paragraphs was viewed as cheating/plagiarism and worthy of expulsion.

Except Gay didn't copy paragraphs, or copy anything. She neglected to insert quotation marks, making no effort to represent the words as her own. But carry on with the propaganda campaign because she did, after all, fail to bow down and cower before the sacred cow. And for that, maybe she should have been made to pay an even greater price, right? Right?

Sure. Just a few quotation marks, footnotes, and citations are missing -- that's all!

Code of the Road

She was the President of Harvard.

I'm less moved by that fact than I am by the fact that the wife of the clown who led the Gay witch hunt has been found to be an even more egregious plagiarizer.

Sometimes, the universe DOES provide.

There was a time when this forum would have exploded over someone blaming the wife of the man who did something. Wonder what is different in this case.

Double standards on full display.

[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: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.

Obviously, you think plagiarizing other people's work is acceptable.

Just following Ackman’s lead.

If you think plagiarism is wrong and dishonest, then you wouldn't follow anyone's lead -- whether it be Ackman, Trump, or anyone else.

Characterizing what Gay did as plagiarism is laughably absurd.

Now what Oxman did, and who she associated with?

Really? When I was in college, we had an honor code. Copying paragraphs was viewed as cheating/plagiarism and worthy of expulsion.

Except Gay didn't copy paragraphs, or copy anything. She neglected to insert quotation marks, making no effort to represent the words as her own. But carry on with the propaganda campaign because she did, after all, fail to bow down and cower before the sacred cow. And for that, maybe she should have been made to pay an even greater price, right? Right?

Sure. Just a few quotation marks, footnotes, and citations are missing -- that's all!

Code of the Road

She was the President of Harvard.

I'm less moved by that fact than I am by the fact that the wife of the clown who led the Gay witch hunt has been found to be an even more egregious plagiarizer.

Sometimes, the universe DOES provide.

There was a time when this forum would have exploded over someone blaming the wife of the man who did something. Wonder what is different in this case.

Double standards on full display.

Would that Republicans had standards at all.

[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: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.

Obviously, you think plagiarizing other people's work is acceptable.

Just following Ackman’s lead.

If you think plagiarism is wrong and dishonest, then you wouldn't follow anyone's lead -- whether it be Ackman, Trump, or anyone else.

Characterizing what Gay did as plagiarism is laughably absurd.

Now what Oxman did, and who she associated with?

Really? When I was in college, we had an honor code. Copying paragraphs was viewed as cheating/plagiarism and worthy of expulsion.

Except Gay didn't copy paragraphs, or copy anything. She neglected to insert quotation marks, making no effort to represent the words as her own. But carry on with the propaganda campaign because she did, after all, fail to bow down and cower before the sacred cow. And for that, maybe she should have been made to pay an even greater price, right? Right?

Sure. Just a few quotation marks, footnotes, and citations are missing -- that's all!

Code of the Road

She was the President of Harvard.

I'm less moved by that fact than I am by the fact that the wife of the clown who led the Gay witch hunt has been found to be an even more egregious plagiarizer.

Sometimes, the universe DOES provide.

There was a time when this forum would have exploded over someone blaming the wife of the man who did something. Wonder what is different in this case.

Because she plagiarized, that woman is a b!+ch ! - which renders all of her husband’s viewpoints invalid, of course.

See how that works? (or doesn’t).

[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: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.

Obviously, you think plagiarizing other people's work is acceptable.

Just following Ackman’s lead.

If you think plagiarism is wrong and dishonest, then you wouldn't follow anyone's lead -- whether it be Ackman, Trump, or anyone else.

Characterizing what Gay did as plagiarism is laughably absurd.

Now what Oxman did, and who she associated with?

Really? When I was in college, we had an honor code. Copying paragraphs was viewed as cheating/plagiarism and worthy of expulsion.

Except Gay didn't copy paragraphs, or copy anything. She neglected to insert quotation marks, making no effort to represent the words as her own. But carry on with the propaganda campaign because she did, after all, fail to bow down and cower before the sacred cow. And for that, maybe she should have been made to pay an even greater price, right? Right?

Sure. Just a few quotation marks, footnotes, and citations are missing -- that's all!

Code of the Road

She was the President of Harvard.

I'm less moved by that fact than I am by the fact that the wife of the clown who led the Gay witch hunt has been found to be an even more egregious plagiarizer.

Sometimes, the universe DOES provide.

There was a time when this forum would have exploded over someone blaming the wife of the man who did something. Wonder what is different in this case.

Because she plagiarized, that woman is a b!+ch ! - which renders all of her husband’s viewpoints invalid, of course.

See how that works? (or doesn’t).

I think there's a simpler explanation. When you are a public figure or become prominent/controversial enough, you (and, by proxy, your immediate family) open yourself to increased scrutiny. I don't think it's much deeper than that. It is interesting though, how many of these academics have plagiarized and only got caught because someone finally took the time to actually review their work. It makes me question how many prominent academics are guilty of the same but just haven't experienced this yet.