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.

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.

Rot in hell? For sloppy attributions?
Get real, you weirdo.

Lie is a deadly sin.

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.

I don’t think there is any indication at all that she knows that.

She will certainly find out it one day.

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?

He academic record is as think as a first year tenured professor. Not the plagiarism in totality, but more the lack of publishing. I will start with that.

DP. I have had the same thoughts as the PP you are responding to. I think different universities look for different things when choosing a president, and it isn't always about their academic prowess. Some are chosen because they are well-known/famous and may bring prestige with them and attract big donors. Others may be chosen because they are really good fundraisers or have financial skills needed to address large financial shortfalls. Bottom line is university boards/trustees choose candidates based on a range of factors that are not necessarily revealed to the university or general public.

In Gay's case, she was an insider in that she was a faculty member and a dean at Harvard so already a known quantity. She had already served as Dean of Social Sciences and then Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences when she was chosen as president. So she had some kind of admin/policy track record, and none of us can know if it was a good, bad, or mediocre one. She was only the second woman president of Harvard. If you believe in merit alone, can you explain why Harvard has only had two female presidents? Do you assume all female candidates are mediocre?

From Wiki:
"In 2015, Gay was named the Dean of Social Sciences at the Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS) and the Wilbur A. Cowett Professor of Government and of African and African-American Studies. In 2018, she was appointed Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences."

She also appears to have some financial abilities:
"In 2020, the university faced educational and financial disruptions from the COVID-19 pandemic. For fiscal year 2020, the Faculty of Arts and Sciences reported losses of $15.8 million. In 2021, Gay announced that the cost of the FAS's core academic commitments were greater than its revenues and began processes to reduce expenses. In 2021, the FAS reported a surplus of $51 million, an increase from the projected deficit of $112 million."

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?

He academic record is as think as a first year tenured professor. Not the plagiarism in totality, but more the lack of publishing. I will start with that.

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.

Rot in hell? For sloppy attributions?
Get real, you weirdo.

Almost no publications and those that she had were plagiarized. Definitely mediocre.

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.

Let me try again:

How do you know she isn't qualified or was a mediocre candidate? So we know about the latest info, but before that, what were people were saying? 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?

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?

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?

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.

This is an understatement.

Apparently, it wasn't until they went on break and went out to the "real world" (aka.... their vacation homes) where they talked with people who were appalled at their actions, or inaction.

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.

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.

I don’t think there is any indication at all that she knows that.

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.

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.