I’m surprised that the DEI folks at Harvard haven’t gotten Harvard to change the name of this governing body, on the grounds of racist connotations and microaggressions.
And since the official name of the Board of Overseers is “The Honorable and Reverend the Board of Overseers,” would this not potentially trigger fear and loathing among those who are not religious? (Just curious.)
Well, as I read it her husband published an article based on his research and interviews. They then coauthored an article in a different journal using the same data. The supposed “copying” was simply using some of the same interview responses (which, of course they are identical!) and descriptions of methods and data collection (again, of course!).
This is not at all uncommon or untoward. Indeed, a single research project centered around data collection can often generate multiple articles; the data cited will be identical, and the description of methods and data collection will be the same.
What this is evidence of is that these folks taking aim at DEI programs and universities in general are either ignorant of how research works, or are intentionally misleading those who are unfamiliar with how academic research and publication works.
These aren’t intellectually serious people.
Meanwhile, tactics like this are pretty despicable, used against staff who just want to do their jobs:
I don’t think Harvard is going to suffer from any of these scandals. IMO, it’s pretty much untouchable. All colleges have scandals, but Harvard is a popular whipping boy.
I mean is this really true?
It’s massively damaged Harvard’s reputation to the point where I associate anti-semitism and plagiarism with the university. It’s alienated an entire political party to the point where they’re looking at taxing the institution.
Two of my colleagues went to Harvard College (class of 2004 and 1995 respectively) and the joke is whenever they use an investment idea that someone else came up with, it’s said to be doing a ‘Claudine Gay’ in good natured fun and we do rib them for going to a university where the president was a plagiarist.
One of the PMs on our Fixed Income desk is a massive T supporter to the point where doing a ‘Claudine Gay’ has become a part of his vocabulary.
That’s going to take a long time to change.
I have no stake in Harvard. I’m just saying that Harvard is not really going to suffer in the long run and I am certain it will always have one of the highest yield rates. I personally disapprove of many of their recent actions.
I’m just saying that Harvard is not really going to suffer in the long run and I am certain it will always have one of the highest yield rates. I personally disapprove of many of their recent actions.
Probably true in the long-run in terms of reputation.
But as I said, the level of antisemitism at Harvard and other college campuses has clearly alienated a significant percentage of the American public, otherwise a major political party wouldn’t be trying to remove the tax-exempt status of universities on the back of it.
Harvard and other universities will still suffer financially if they are no longer tax-exempt or they no longer receive government grants (which has also been proposed by one of the two major political parties in the US).
So if they don’t sort this out, they’ll continue to alienate the general public on higher education in general which has the potential to still be very damaging in the long-run if the public don’t support higher-education.
It’s no secret that Harvard endowment returns have been incredibly poor + the university consumes money. If they didn’t receive government grants and had their tax-exempt status removed, this would mean there would have to be significant cuts so it’s a dangerous path if they continue to alienate a large swathe of America.
It is insulting to suggest that these women are being held to the same standard when they are obviously being targeted.
Hmm.like the Stanford president and the Harvard Business School professor, both of whom were white?
Seems a bit much to deny they are being targeted when those doing the targeting have readily admitted it.
And I have suggested a more sweeping review of the entire Harvard faculty, upthread. Maybe it is already underway. Someone caught Ackerman’s wife, presumably also targetted.
Suggest all you like. Doesn’t change the fact that these women were targeted, and therefor are not being held to the “same standard.”
Doesn’t change the fact that these women were targeted, and therefor are no being held to the “same standard.”
I agree with you. I do think they were targeted.
They were targeted because they are in positions of power where they are directly responsible for the implementation of an idea that some would consider to be against what America represents.
So they were targeted as they were the ones implementing the system in the first place.
The idea of diversity, equity, and inclusion. The horror!
Harvard has 1140 faculty members who are black. I haven’t heard of anyone targetting them.
Pretty sure the chief DEI officer at all the Ivies have been background checked quite thoroughly by now. Of couse, some are not academics, so there is not always a body of publications to review.
idea of diversity, equity, and inclusion
I mean let’s not pretend as if Harvard didn’t recently fight a court case where they were accused of discriminating in the name of diversity.
DEI is used to pit group against group and divide people instead of treating people like individuals. Even now, universities refuse to back down from this when they ask about someone’s background in college essays.
In theory, of course DEI sounds nice and pleasant. But it’s practiced in a way that intentionally divides groups against each other - we wouldn’t have thread after thread on AA if this wasn’t the case. In the end, you begin to think of other groups as opposing your own interests because life is a zero sum game which is dangerous.
That to me would go against an American value where everyone is an individual and has their own skills to offer (in theory, in practice I won’t argue that those values have always been upheld).
A Harvard Medical School scientist who studies deadly brain tumors is facing accusations that more than two dozen papers he co-authored contain scientific images that appear doctored or copied.
…
Elisabeth Bik, a microbiologist and science image expert, this week sent accusations about 28 studies Shah co-authored to research integrity officials at both institutions and the journals that published them.
…
Bik has been highlighting data irregularities in studies for more than a decade and has reported about 3,000 studies so far to journals or institutions.
Abomination? seems a little strong.
There are a LOT of abominations in higher ed. You can start with the U’s which routinely suggest/harangue/persuade victims of sexual assault not to press charges (these are Deans and authority figures who pretend to “be looking out for your best interests” and end up manipulating victims because they don’t want the publicity), you can start with the U’s which preach one thing (chastity, high ethical code, marriage is between a man and woman and everyone else can go to hell) while the president is out having sex with the pool boy (that’s not a euphemism… it was actually the guy who cleaned his pool). Start there.
Lots of abominations. Trying to sensitize people that their words and actions might be obnoxious, hurtful, terrifying to people who don’t look like them? Doesn’t seem like an abomination. Are there colleges that take it to an extreme? Of course. But you’re really reaching here.
…whose kids will still apply to Harvard.
Well, and anyone can propose anything they want…That doesn’t mean the proposal is sound or will ever be seriously considered, much less implemented. It means literally nothing that someone has proposed something.