Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two things can be true at the same time:

1. Gay was targeted by right-wing media because she is a black woman
2. Gay is a plagiarist and needed to resign

She plagiarized over and over again, many times beyond just boilerplate language. This shows an intent to deceive, which then calls into question her data and all her scholarship.

This makes me very sad, especially for all the women of color in academia who Claudine Gay was supposed to represent.

Read the story of Priyanga Amarasekare, who remains suspended at UCLA and no one will say exactly why.

https://www.chronicle.com/article/when-a-professor-disappears-and-no-one-will-tell-you-why
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-00473-8

So she’s being pushed to the brink of sanity and her students’s opportunities destroyed because of protocol in the wake of complaining about discrimination - literally nothing to do with her scholarship, her publications, her research, her cites, her mentorship. Some piece of shit chancellor is mad at her and wants her destroyed. May that chancellor get it back twentyfold in this lifetime.

Except it does have to with her scholarship. I also originally thought it was no big deal, but she lifted almost entire paragraphs from other people's work, and then didn't acknowledge that work as a source - that shows a clear intent to deceive. And she plagiarized the acknowledgements in her doctoral thesis. I mean, come on.

Dr. Gay is accused of plagiarizing two sentences in the acknowledgments of her 1997 Harvard dissertation from the acknowledgments in the 1996 book “Facing Up to the American Dream: Race, Class, and the Soul of the Nation,” by the Harvard political scientist Jennifer L. Hochschild.

Dr. Hochschild: “Sandy Jencks showed me the importance of getting the data right and of following where they lead without fear or favor,” adding later that Mr. Jencks “drove me much harder than I sometimes wanted to be driven.”

Dr. Gay thanked her thesis adviser, Gary King, who “reminded me of the importance of getting the data right and following where they lead without fear or favor.” She also thanked her family, who “drove me harder than I sometimes wanted to be driven.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/21/us/claudine-gay-harvard-president-excerpts.html

For gods sake. I was discussing the UCLA prof story in the links, which is why I quoted it. I didn’t write Gay’s name even.

Sorry I misunderstood. My DC who's in a PhD program in a related field to the UCLA prof and knows some of her grad students alerted me to her story. DC has become very cynical about academia, and I spent a lot of time over winter break convincing her to not quit and throw away the last 3 1/2 years of her life.

To bring this back to politics - the constant attacks and discrediting of academia and experts is a key part of the far-rightwing, fascist agenda in this country, funded by American and foreign oligarchs. It is scary.

She's not the only one and it's not because of right-wing attacks or discrediting academia. It's because the system is broken (like so many other systems nowadays).

Because the right-wing is deliberately targeting our society's institutions by breaking them. And then they argue that we need a strongman to fix everything and save us.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I didn’t even know this about Gorsuch. Jesus.

That's because it was nothing more than an 11th hour hit job from left wing media.

Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch is not a plagiarist, according to the woman from whom he has been accused of lifting materials.

"I have reviewed both passages and do not see an issue here, even though the language is similar. These passages are factual, not analytical in nature," Abigail Lawlis Kuzma, who serves as chief counsel to the Consumer Protection Division of the Indiana Attorney General's office, said in a statement made available to the Washington Examiner.

"[The similar] passages are factual, not analytical in nature, framing both the technical legal and medical circumstances of the 'Baby/Infant Doe' case that occurred in 1982," Kuzma explained. "Given that these passages both describe the basic facts of the case, it would have been awkward and difficult for Judge Gorsuch to have used different language."

However, several additional professors who worked closely with Gorsuch during the period in which he produced much of the work in question said the hints and allegations against the judge are nonsense.

"[I]n my opinion, none of the allegations has any substance or justification," Oxford University's John Finnis said in a statement made available to the Examiner. "In all four cases, Neil Gorsuch's writing and citing was easily and well within the proper and accepted standards of scholarly research and writing in the field of study in which he was working."

Georgetown University's John Keown, who reviewed Gorsuch's dissertation, said elsewhere in a statement: "The allegation is entirely without foundation. The book is meticulous in its citation of primary sources. The allegation that the book is guilty of plagiarism because it does not cite secondary sources which draw on those same primary sources is, frankly, absurd. Indeed, the book's reliance on primary rather than secondary sources is one of its many strengths."

Further, actual attorneys disagree that Gorsuch plagiarized anything.

"People unfamiliar with legal writing, or even writing, may be unfamiliar with how citations work," attorney Thomas Crown explained Wednesday. "When I cite to a case or statute, if I am quoting verbatim, I give a direct quotation, with apostrophes and everything, and then the source. If I am summarizing, sometimes even using the same words, I follow with the direct citation. The Bluebook, which is the legal style Bible, is for law reviews and some appellate and trial courts, and has more specific rules.

"I mention this because this is standard across numerous fields, not just law, and only illiterates … are shocked," he added. "Different field with different standards and forms; but even most academics believe that a good synopsis with citation isn't plagiarism."

In conclusion, he wrote, "I don't want to ruin a perfectly good five-minute hate, but this isn't even close to plagiarism."

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/that-gorsuch-plagiarism-story-stinks

Great. Let's run his work through a plagiarism detector and double check that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I didn’t even know this about Gorsuch. Jesus.

That's because it was nothing more than an 11th hour hit job from left wing media.

Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch is not a plagiarist, according to the woman from whom he has been accused of lifting materials.

"I have reviewed both passages and do not see an issue here, even though the language is similar. These passages are factual, not analytical in nature," Abigail Lawlis Kuzma, who serves as chief counsel to the Consumer Protection Division of the Indiana Attorney General's office, said in a statement made available to the Washington Examiner.

"[The similar] passages are factual, not analytical in nature, framing both the technical legal and medical circumstances of the 'Baby/Infant Doe' case that occurred in 1982," Kuzma explained. "Given that these passages both describe the basic facts of the case, it would have been awkward and difficult for Judge Gorsuch to have used different language."

However, several additional professors who worked closely with Gorsuch during the period in which he produced much of the work in question said the hints and allegations against the judge are nonsense.

"[I]n my opinion, none of the allegations has any substance or justification," Oxford University's John Finnis said in a statement made available to the Examiner. "In all four cases, Neil Gorsuch's writing and citing was easily and well within the proper and accepted standards of scholarly research and writing in the field of study in which he was working."

Georgetown University's John Keown, who reviewed Gorsuch's dissertation, said elsewhere in a statement: "The allegation is entirely without foundation. The book is meticulous in its citation of primary sources. The allegation that the book is guilty of plagiarism because it does not cite secondary sources which draw on those same primary sources is, frankly, absurd. Indeed, the book's reliance on primary rather than secondary sources is one of its many strengths."

Further, actual attorneys disagree that Gorsuch plagiarized anything.

"People unfamiliar with legal writing, or even writing, may be unfamiliar with how citations work," attorney Thomas Crown explained Wednesday. "When I cite to a case or statute, if I am quoting verbatim, I give a direct quotation, with apostrophes and everything, and then the source. If I am summarizing, sometimes even using the same words, I follow with the direct citation. The Bluebook, which is the legal style Bible, is for law reviews and some appellate and trial courts, and has more specific rules.

"I mention this because this is standard across numerous fields, not just law, and only illiterates … are shocked," he added. "Different field with different standards and forms; but even most academics believe that a good synopsis with citation isn't plagiarism."

In conclusion, he wrote, "I don't want to ruin a perfectly good five-minute hate, but this isn't even close to plagiarism."

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/that-gorsuch-plagiarism-story-stinks

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two things can be true at the same time:

1. Gay was targeted by right-wing media because she is a black woman
2. Gay is a plagiarist and needed to resign

She plagiarized over and over again, many times beyond just boilerplate language. This shows an intent to deceive, which then calls into question her data and all her scholarship.

This makes me very sad, especially for all the women of color in academia who Claudine Gay was supposed to represent.

Read the story of Priyanga Amarasekare, who remains suspended at UCLA and no one will say exactly why.

https://www.chronicle.com/article/when-a-professor-disappears-and-no-one-will-tell-you-why
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-00473-8

So she’s being pushed to the brink of sanity and her students’s opportunities destroyed because of protocol in the wake of complaining about discrimination - literally nothing to do with her scholarship, her publications, her research, her cites, her mentorship. Some piece of shit chancellor is mad at her and wants her destroyed. May that chancellor get it back twentyfold in this lifetime.

Except it does have to with her scholarship. I also originally thought it was no big deal, but she lifted almost entire paragraphs from other people's work, and then didn't acknowledge that work as a source - that shows a clear intent to deceive. And she plagiarized the acknowledgements in her doctoral thesis. I mean, come on.

Dr. Gay is accused of plagiarizing two sentences in the acknowledgments of her 1997 Harvard dissertation from the acknowledgments in the 1996 book “Facing Up to the American Dream: Race, Class, and the Soul of the Nation,” by the Harvard political scientist Jennifer L. Hochschild.

Dr. Hochschild: “Sandy Jencks showed me the importance of getting the data right and of following where they lead without fear or favor,” adding later that Mr. Jencks “drove me much harder than I sometimes wanted to be driven.”

Dr. Gay thanked her thesis adviser, Gary King, who “reminded me of the importance of getting the data right and following where they lead without fear or favor.” She also thanked her family, who “drove me harder than I sometimes wanted to be driven.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/21/us/claudine-gay-harvard-president-excerpts.html

For gods sake. I was discussing the UCLA prof story in the links, which is why I quoted it. I didn’t write Gay’s name even.

Sorry I misunderstood. My DC who's in a PhD program in a related field to the UCLA prof and knows some of her grad students alerted me to her story. DC has become very cynical about academia, and I spent a lot of time over winter break convincing her to not quit and throw away the last 3 1/2 years of her life.

To bring this back to politics - the constant attacks and discrediting of academia and experts is a key part of the far-rightwing, fascist agenda in this country, funded by American and foreign oligarchs. It is scary.

She's not the only one and it's not because of right-wing attacks or discrediting academia. It's because the system is broken (like so many other systems nowadays).

Because the right-wing is deliberately targeting our society's institutions by breaking them. And then they argue that we need a strongman to fix everything and save us.

Anonymous wrote:Hard to believe she is paid $900,000 a year.
But, then considering they paid Elizabeth Warren $430,000 for teaching a couple of classes, it is not surprising.

To bring this back to politics - the constant attacks and discrediting of academia and experts is a key part of the far-rightwing, fascist agenda in this country, funded by American and foreign oligarchs. It is scary.

Anonymous wrote:I didn’t even know this about Gorsuch. Jesus.

Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch is not a plagiarist, according to the woman from whom he has been accused of lifting materials.

"I have reviewed both passages and do not see an issue here, even though the language is similar. These passages are factual, not analytical in nature," Abigail Lawlis Kuzma, who serves as chief counsel to the Consumer Protection Division of the Indiana Attorney General's office, said in a statement made available to the Washington Examiner.

"[The similar] passages are factual, not analytical in nature, framing both the technical legal and medical circumstances of the 'Baby/Infant Doe' case that occurred in 1982," Kuzma explained. "Given that these passages both describe the basic facts of the case, it would have been awkward and difficult for Judge Gorsuch to have used different language."

However, several additional professors who worked closely with Gorsuch during the period in which he produced much of the work in question said the hints and allegations against the judge are nonsense.

"[I]n my opinion, none of the allegations has any substance or justification," Oxford University's John Finnis said in a statement made available to the Examiner. "In all four cases, Neil Gorsuch's writing and citing was easily and well within the proper and accepted standards of scholarly research and writing in the field of study in which he was working."

Georgetown University's John Keown, who reviewed Gorsuch's dissertation, said elsewhere in a statement: "The allegation is entirely without foundation. The book is meticulous in its citation of primary sources. The allegation that the book is guilty of plagiarism because it does not cite secondary sources which draw on those same primary sources is, frankly, absurd. Indeed, the book's reliance on primary rather than secondary sources is one of its many strengths."

Further, actual attorneys disagree that Gorsuch plagiarized anything.

"People unfamiliar with legal writing, or even writing, may be unfamiliar with how citations work," attorney Thomas Crown explained Wednesday. "When I cite to a case or statute, if I am quoting verbatim, I give a direct quotation, with apostrophes and everything, and then the source. If I am summarizing, sometimes even using the same words, I follow with the direct citation. The Bluebook, which is the legal style Bible, is for law reviews and some appellate and trial courts, and has more specific rules.

"I mention this because this is standard across numerous fields, not just law, and only illiterates … are shocked," he added. "Different field with different standards and forms; but even most academics believe that a good synopsis with citation isn't plagiarism."

In conclusion, he wrote, "I don't want to ruin a perfectly good five-minute hate, but this isn't even close to plagiarism."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The values of honesty and integrity in one's academic work should be embraced by everyone.

PP here. As I said, EVERYONE. Have at it!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will also note that the right-wing spin on what would happen to Gay were she a student is likely a lie. I am close with an attorney who works for an Ivy as an investigator where there are student issues escalated to the deans for disciplinary action, and according to them the typical correction would be some kind of rebuke, a potential temp suspension, not expulsion. Another friend is a tenured professor at a different Ivy, and is also a WOC. She’s frustrated by the lack of discussion about how the burdens of mentorship and teaching are distributed to WOC, so that the “rockstars” who trend white and male are unimpeded with their own personal publications and research. There’s nuance in this, not that that could ever matter to the “2 down 1 to go” crowd.

Perhaps the academic world needs to review and change its policies that have become quite lenient over the years. It used to be that students expected expulsion for cheating and plagiarism.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The values of honesty and integrity in one's academic work should be embraced by everyone.

His academic work should immediately be run through the same anti-plagiarism software used for Dr. Gay. Not holding my breath...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The values of honesty and integrity in one's academic work should be embraced by everyone.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The values of honesty and integrity in one's academic work should be embraced by everyone.