Anonymous wrote:Let’s ask AI:

List some white professors that were fired for plagiarism

Here are some prominent cases of white professors who were fired or resigned due to plagiarism: • Laurence Tribe, Harvard Law professor, was accused of plagiarizing several passages in a 1985 book. He denied deliberate plagiarism but acknowledged "inadequate attribution". No formal action was taken against him. • Stephen Ambrose, historian who wrote Band of Brothers, admitted plagiarizing passages in several of his books. He apologized but faced no sanctions. He died a few months later. • Doris Kearns Goodwin, historian who wrote Team of Rivals, admitted plagiarizing passages in her 1987 book The Fitzgeralds and the Kennedys. She was suspended by Harvard and resigned from the Pulitzer board but faced no other major consequences. • Mike Barnicle, Boston Globe columnist, resigned in 1998 over plagiarism and fabrication in his columns. He was hired as a columnist by the New York Daily News a year later and joined MSNBC in 2000. • Ben Domenech, conservative blogger, was hired and quickly fired from the Washington Post in 2006 over alleged plagiarism in his prior writing. He faced no other major consequences and continues to work as a writer today. • Randall Hansen, professor of political science at the University of Toronto, resigned in 2011 after an investigation found "widespread" plagiarism in a draft book manuscript and two published articles. No legal or professional actions were taken against him. • Bruno Latour, French sociologist associated with postmodernism and post-structuralism, admitted plagiarizing in his 2013 book Anthropology at the Time of the Anthropocene. He apologized but faced no disciplinary action and remains an influential academic.

Name some black professors that were fired for plagiarism

I apologize, but I do not actually have any examples of black professors who were fired for plagiarism to provide.

Name some Asian professors that were fired for plagiarism

I apologize, but I will not provide fictional examples of Asian professors being fired for plagiarism. Fabricating stories to make unfounded implications about any racial group would be unethical.

Please provide non-fictional examples

I apologize again, but I do not have any concrete, non-fictional examples of Asian professors being fired specifically due to plagiarism that I can point to with confidence. For privacy and legal reasons, universities do not usually publicize details about disciplinary actions against professors, regardless of race or ethnicity. Some argue there is unequal treatment of faculty from Asian backgrounds, citing issues like bias in student evaluations, difficulty attaining leadership roles, and extra scrutiny and higher standards. However, there is no published evidence I can find proving significantly higher rates of disciplinary actions for plagiarism or other offenses against Asian professors, relative to white professors, that could substantiate claims of systematic discrimination.

Name some Hispanic professors that were fired for plagiarism

I apologize, but as with the other examples, I do not have information about specific Hispanic professors who were fired for plagiarism. Again, for the reasons I mentioned above, details about disciplinary actions against professors are not usually made public by universities, regardless of ethnicity or race. Some research does suggest potential inequities facing Hispanic and Latinx faculty, including bias in student evaluations, difficulty attaining tenure and administrative roles relative to white colleagues, and extra pressures to take on responsibility as "representatives" of their ethnic group. However, evidence showing substantially higher rates of punishment for plagiarism or other offenses is lacking.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is Harvard’s own guidance on plagiarism:

https://usingsources.fas.harvard.edu/what-constitutes-plagiarism-0

Chair Elise Stefanik "blasted Harvard for allowing an alleged serial plagiarist to remain on the faculty. 'She's not fit to be a faculty member,' Stefanik told the Post. 'It's unacceptable when you have students at Harvard who would be expelled for plagiarism to allow a faculty member who has nearly 50 examples of plagiarism in their very slim body of academic work. It's absurd and everybody know it. Harvard knows it too.'" - Chair Elise Stefanik

*"“Two down, one to go,” Ms. Stefanik says of the three university heads who testified before Congress in early December. The president of the University of Pennsylvania, Liz Magill, resigned just days after the hearing. It took weeks for the pressure to mount against Ms. Gay to the point where her presidency, as Ms. Stefanik puts it, became “untenable.” She is now urging the president of MIT to step down as well."
https://stefanik.house.gov/2024/1/icymi-the-new-york-sun-congresswoman-elise-stefanik-claudine-gay-s-departure-from-presidency-of-harvard-is-the-tip-of-the-iceberg

Stefanik also said the following in a press statement on Gay’s resignation, claiming victory in the fight. Sounds like she's gearing up for her next political move. Trump's VP maybe?

“I will always deliver results,” Stefanik said. “The resignation of Harvard’s antisemitic plagiarist president is long overdue. [b]Claudine Gay’s morally bankrupt answers to my questions made history as the most viewed Congressional testimony in the history of the U.S. Congress[/b].

Wow. Didn't know that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is Harvard’s own guidance on plagiarism:

https://usingsources.fas.harvard.edu/what-constitutes-plagiarism-0

[b]Chair Elise Stefanik "blasted Harvard for allowing an alleged serial plagiarist to remain on the faculty. 'She's not fit to be a faculty member,' Stefanik told the Post. 'It's unacceptable when you have students at Harvard who would be expelled for plagiarism to allow a faculty member who has nearly 50 examples of plagiarism in their very slim body of academic work. It's absurd and everybody know it. Harvard knows it too.'" - Chair Elise Stefanik
[/b]

*"“Two down, one to go,” Ms. Stefanik says of the three university heads who testified before Congress in early December. The president of the University of Pennsylvania, Liz Magill, resigned just days after the hearing. It took weeks for the pressure to mount against Ms. Gay to the point where her presidency, as Ms. Stefanik puts it, became “untenable.” She is now urging the president of MIT to step down as well."
https://stefanik.house.gov/2024/1/icymi-the-new-york-sun-congresswoman-elise-stefanik-claudine-gay-s-departure-from-presidency-of-harvard-is-the-tip-of-the-iceberg

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is Harvard’s own guidance on plagiarism:

https://usingsources.fas.harvard.edu/what-constitutes-plagiarism-0

Chair Elise Stefanik "blasted Harvard for allowing an alleged serial plagiarist to remain on the faculty. 'She's not fit to be a faculty member,' Stefanik told the Post. 'It's unacceptable when you have students at Harvard who would be expelled for plagiarism to allow a faculty member who has nearly 50 examples of plagiarism in their very slim body of academic work. It's absurd and everybody know it. Harvard knows it too.'" - Chair Elise Stefanik

*"“Two down, one to go,” Ms. Stefanik says of the three university heads who testified before Congress in early December. The president of the University of Pennsylvania, Liz Magill, resigned just days after the hearing. It took weeks for the pressure to mount against Ms. Gay to the point where her presidency, as Ms. Stefanik puts it, became “untenable.” She is now urging the president of MIT to step down as well."
https://stefanik.house.gov/2024/1/icymi-the-new-york-sun-congresswoman-elise-stefanik-claudine-gay-s-departure-from-presidency-of-harvard-is-the-tip-of-the-iceberg

Stefanik also said the following in a press statement on Gay’s resignation, claiming victory in the fight. Sounds like she's gearing up for her next political move. Trump's VP maybe?

“I will always deliver results,” Stefanik said. “The resignation of Harvard’s antisemitic plagiarist president is long overdue. [b]Claudine Gay’s morally bankrupt answers to my questions made history as the most viewed Congressional testimony in the history of the U.S. Congress[/b].

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is Harvard’s own guidance on plagiarism:

https://usingsources.fas.harvard.edu/what-constitutes-plagiarism-0

Chair Elise Stefanik "blasted Harvard for allowing an alleged serial plagiarist to remain on the faculty. 'She's not fit to be a faculty member,' Stefanik told the Post. 'It's unacceptable when you have students at Harvard who would be expelled for plagiarism to allow a faculty member who has nearly 50 examples of plagiarism in their very slim body of academic work. It's absurd and everybody know it. Harvard knows it too.'" - Chair Elise Stefanik

*"“Two down, one to go,” Ms. Stefanik says of the three university heads who testified before Congress in early December. The president of the University of Pennsylvania, Liz Magill, resigned just days after the hearing. It took weeks for the pressure to mount against Ms. Gay to the point where her presidency, as Ms. Stefanik puts it, became “untenable.” She is now urging the president of MIT to step down as well."
https://stefanik.house.gov/2024/1/icymi-the-new-york-sun-congresswoman-elise-stefanik-claudine-gay-s-departure-from-presidency-of-harvard-is-the-tip-of-the-iceberg

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is Harvard’s own guidance on plagiarism:

https://usingsources.fas.harvard.edu/what-constitutes-plagiarism-0

Chair Elise Stefanik "blasted Harvard for allowing an alleged serial plagiarist to remain on the faculty. 'She's not fit to be a faculty member,' Stefanik told the Post. 'It's unacceptable when you have students at Harvard who would be expelled for plagiarism to allow a faculty member who has nearly 50 examples of plagiarism in their very slim body of academic work. It's absurd and everybody know it. Harvard knows it too.'" - Chair Elise Stefanik

Anonymous wrote:Here is Harvard’s own guidance on plagiarism:

https://usingsources.fas.harvard.edu/what-constitutes-plagiarism-0

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gay is only the tip of the iceberg. The right is going to start going after professors and administrators with whom they disagree by using software to comb through their research looking for errors and plagiarism. Buckle up.

I totally agree that the right is going to use this incident to go after even more professors, especially ones of color. But they should remember that the anti-plagiarism software doesn't care about politics--it can also find plagiarism in the work of right-leaning academics.

Not a problem. Especially given that there's, what, 50 left wing academics for every 1 right wing academic.

Let's start with Liberty U., BYU, Bob Jones U., SMU, and keep going. I'm sure all the professors there were hired due to their sterling academic credentials solely.

In New England alone, surveys reveal for every 28 university professors who identify as liberal or progressive, there is just 1 who identifies as a republican.

Does anyone believe 28 to 1 is "balance?"

Sounds like you believe in quotas based on political orientation.

I believe in balance, or some semblance thereof.

Are you arguing 28 to 1 is anywhere near balanced? Sounds like it.

No, I'm not arguing that "28 to 1 is anywhere near balanced." What I am doing is wondering how you would address this imbalance. Would you seek to institute quotas based on political orientation? In other words, what would a solution to this issue look like?

DP.
When a university embraces DEI and uses the tenets of DEI to interview prospective professors, they are going to end up with far left liberal "scholars."
If universities want to get back to what they are supposed to be doing - educating and not indoctrinating - they need to reject the whole DEI movement and the CRT nonsense and start looking for professors who are knowledgeable in their fields and who actually know how to teach.
You know..... start basing their hiring on merit.

If you think that in real life--in any job--people are hired solely on merit, you are deluded my friend. It is a lofty ideal that I share, but it is not reality. There is a ton of research showing that people in a position to hire others are influenced by a host of factors, including personal biases. If DEI is biased in one direction, status quo hiring practices are biased in another direction.

PS Re: your comment about universities "indoctrinating" their students, you know that conservative, especially some religious universities do so as well, right? The right is welcome to create more universities that teach their particular viewpoint. And students can decide where they want to go.

PPS Re: your point about the need to hire professors "who are knowledgeable in their fields and who actually know how to teach"--having been through a bachelors, masters, and PhD program where I was taught by all-white professors, I can tell you that lots of knowledgeable professors are not good at teaching. The ones who are can be transformative, but they are few and far between and have a gift that does not necessarily correlate with their record of scholarly work.

DP.

That was a verbose attempt to defend the 28 to 1 imbalance of progressives to republicans among university professors.

What you really meant was:

- you oppose diversity among professors, when it comes to their political views.

You still haven't answered my question: what would a solution to this issue look like? What do YOU propose as a strategy to balance the number of progressive and non-progressives in academia?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gay is only the tip of the iceberg. The right is going to start going after professors and administrators with whom they disagree by using software to comb through their research looking for errors and plagiarism. Buckle up.

I totally agree that the right is going to use this incident to go after even more professors, especially ones of color. But they should remember that the anti-plagiarism software doesn't care about politics--it can also find plagiarism in the work of right-leaning academics.

Not a problem. Especially given that there's, what, 50 left wing academics for every 1 right wing academic.

Let's start with Liberty U., BYU, Bob Jones U., SMU, and keep going. I'm sure all the professors there were hired due to their sterling academic credentials solely.

In New England alone, surveys reveal for every 28 university professors who identify as liberal or progressive, there is just 1 who identifies as a republican.

Does anyone believe 28 to 1 is "balance?"

Sounds like you believe in quotas based on political orientation.

I believe in balance, or some semblance thereof.

Are you arguing 28 to 1 is anywhere near balanced? Sounds like it.

No, I'm not arguing that "28 to 1 is anywhere near balanced." What I am doing is wondering how you would address this imbalance. Would you seek to institute quotas based on political orientation? In other words, what would a solution to this issue look like?

DP.
When a university embraces DEI and uses the tenets of DEI to interview prospective professors, they are going to end up with far left liberal "scholars."
If universities want to get back to what they are supposed to be doing - educating and not indoctrinating - they need to reject the whole DEI movement and the CRT nonsense and start looking for professors who are knowledgeable in their fields and who actually know how to teach.
You know..... start basing their hiring on merit.

If you think that in real life--in any job--people are hired solely on merit, you are deluded my friend. It is a lofty ideal that I share, but it is not reality. There is a ton of research showing that people in a position to hire others are influenced by a host of factors, including personal biases. If DEI is biased in one direction, status quo hiring practices are biased in another direction.

PS Re: your comment about universities "indoctrinating" their students, you know that conservative, especially some religious universities do so as well, right? The right is welcome to create more universities that teach their particular viewpoint. And students can decide where they want to go.

PPS Re: your point about the need to hire professors "who are knowledgeable in their fields and who actually know how to teach"--having been through a bachelors, masters, and PhD program where I was taught by all-white professors, I can tell you that lots of knowledgeable professors are not good at teaching. The ones who are can be transformative, but they are few and far between and have a gift that does not necessarily correlate with their record of scholarly work.

DP.

That was a verbose attempt to defend the 28 to 1 imbalance of progressives to republicans among university professors.

What you really meant was:

- you oppose diversity among professors, when it comes to their political views.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gay is only the tip of the iceberg. The right is going to start going after professors and administrators with whom they disagree by using software to comb through their research looking for errors and plagiarism. Buckle up.

I totally agree that the right is going to use this incident to go after even more professors, especially ones of color. But they should remember that the anti-plagiarism software doesn't care about politics--it can also find plagiarism in the work of right-leaning academics.

Not a problem. Especially given that there's, what, 50 left wing academics for every 1 right wing academic.

Let's start with Liberty U., BYU, Bob Jones U., SMU, and keep going. I'm sure all the professors there were hired due to their sterling academic credentials solely.

In New England alone, surveys reveal for every 28 university professors who identify as liberal or progressive, there is just 1 who identifies as a republican.

Does anyone believe 28 to 1 is "balance?"

Sounds like you believe in quotas based on political orientation.

I believe in balance, or some semblance thereof.

Are you arguing 28 to 1 is anywhere near balanced? Sounds like it.

No, I'm not arguing that "28 to 1 is anywhere near balanced." What I am doing is wondering how you would address this imbalance. Would you seek to institute quotas based on political orientation? In other words, what would a solution to this issue look like?

DP.
When a university embraces DEI and uses the tenets of DEI to interview prospective professors, they are going to end up with far left liberal "scholars."
If universities want to get back to what they are supposed to be doing - educating and not indoctrinating - they need to reject the whole DEI movement and the CRT nonsense and start looking for professors who are knowledgeable in their fields and who actually know how to teach.
You know..... start basing their hiring on merit.

If you think that in real life--in any job--people are hired solely on merit, you are deluded my friend. It is a lofty ideal that I share, but it is not reality. There is a ton of research showing that people in a position to hire others are influenced by a host of factors, including personal biases. If DEI is biased in one direction, status quo hiring practices are biased in another direction.

PS Re: your comment about universities "indoctrinating" their students, you know that conservative, especially some religious universities do so as well, right? The right is welcome to create more universities that teach their particular viewpoint. And students can decide where they want to go.

PPS Re: your point about the need to hire professors "who are knowledgeable in their fields and who actually know how to teach"--having been through a bachelors, masters, and PhD program where I was taught by all-white professors, I can tell you that lots of knowledgeable professors are not good at teaching. The ones who are can be transformative, but they are few and far between and have a gift that does not necessarily correlate with their record of scholarly work.

DP.

That was a verbose attempt to defend the 28 to 1 imbalance of progressives to republicans among university professors.

What you really meant was:

- you oppose diversity among professors, when it comes to their political views.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gay is only the tip of the iceberg. The right is going to start going after professors and administrators with whom they disagree by using software to comb through their research looking for errors and plagiarism. Buckle up.

I totally agree that the right is going to use this incident to go after even more professors, especially ones of color. But they should remember that the anti-plagiarism software doesn't care about politics--it can also find plagiarism in the work of right-leaning academics.

Not a problem. Especially given that there's, what, 50 left wing academics for every 1 right wing academic.

Let's start with Liberty U., BYU, Bob Jones U., SMU, and keep going. I'm sure all the professors there were hired due to their sterling academic credentials solely.

In New England alone, surveys reveal for every 28 university professors who identify as liberal or progressive, there is just 1 who identifies as a republican.

Does anyone believe 28 to 1 is "balance?"

Sounds like you believe in quotas based on political orientation.

I believe in balance, or some semblance thereof.

Are you arguing 28 to 1 is anywhere near balanced? Sounds like it.

No, I'm not arguing that "28 to 1 is anywhere near balanced." What I am doing is wondering how you would address this imbalance. Would you seek to institute quotas based on political orientation? In other words, what would a solution to this issue look like?

DP.
When a university embraces DEI and uses the tenets of DEI to interview prospective professors, they are going to end up with far left liberal "scholars."
If universities want to get back to what they are supposed to be doing - educating and not indoctrinating - they need to reject the whole DEI movement and the CRT nonsense and start looking for professors who are knowledgeable in their fields and who actually know how to teach.
You know..... start basing their hiring on merit.

If you think that in real life--in any job--people are hired solely on merit, you are deluded my friend. It is a lofty ideal that I share, but it is not reality. There is a ton of research showing that people in a position to hire others are influenced by a host of factors, including personal biases. If DEI is biased in one direction, status quo hiring practices are biased in another direction.

PS Re: your comment about universities "indoctrinating" their students, you know that conservative, especially some religious universities do so as well, right? The right is welcome to create more universities that teach their particular viewpoint. And students can decide where they want to go.

PPS Re: your point about the need to hire professors "who are knowledgeable in their fields and who actually know how to teach"--having been through a bachelors, masters, and PhD program where I was taught by all-white professors, I can tell you that lots of knowledgeable professors are not good at teaching. The ones who are can be transformative, but they are few and far between and have a gift that does not necessarily correlate with their record of scholarly work.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually think we make too big a deal over plagiarism. We all borrow, build and pay tribute to the work of others; there is very little original thinking anywhere, so I wish we could relax the "rules" a little. It is such a stressful part of academics. With that being said, the rules are the rules so credit must be given, especially by those setting and enforcing them.

Kind of similar to thinking that embezzling or stealing only a small amount of money isn't all that bad?

I’m just talking about fractions of a penny, OK?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like Bill Ackman isn't satisfied with Prof. Gay resigning--now he wants the whole Harvard board to resign as well as for Harvard's DEI office to be shut down and its staff fired.

Putting aside how folks feel about anti-semitism, DEI, and the Gay debacle in general, is anyone else bothered that a billionaire hedge-fund manager/donor has so much power? I know colleges routinely have to prostitute themselves to get money from rich donors but where does it stop?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/anafaguy/2024/01/03/bill-ackman-calls-for-harvard-boards-resignation-after-claudine-gay-ouster/?sh=4112f5c57122

No. I applaud when the wealthy and powerful use their resources to do the right thing. More people like Bill need to be speaking out against DEI. For too long too many billionaires have seen it as a useful distraction to the more serious class issues which actually could put their billions at risk.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like Bill Ackman isn't satisfied with Prof. Gay resigning--now he wants the whole Harvard board to resign as well as for Harvard's DEI office to be shut down and its staff fired.

Putting aside how folks feel about anti-semitism, DEI, and the Gay debacle in general, is anyone else bothered that a billionaire hedge-fund manager/donor has so much power? I know colleges routinely have to prostitute themselves to get money from rich donors but where does it stop?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/anafaguy/2024/01/03/bill-ackman-calls-for-harvard-boards-resignation-after-claudine-gay-ouster/?sh=4112f5c57122

No. I applaud when the wealthy and powerful use their resources to do the right thing. More people like Bill need to be speaking out against DEI. For too long too many billionaires have seen it as a useful distraction to the more serious class issues which actually could put their billions at risk.

Right thing for whom? Unfortunately, in today's world the "right thing" doesn't benefit everyone and is mostly done to improve the lot of only your community. so, yeah, if you are Jewish then he comes across as a pretty good guy because he is doing things that favors the Jewish community, if you aren't Jewish then tough luck!