Won’t matter one way or another. (if they knew and ignored, or chose not to do their due diligence up front, either way the Corp is responsible)
1 Like
Some pushback against the NYT’s characterization of the recent meeting here:
I think what many are missing is that the reason the Harvard board may not have examined President Gay’s academic record for plagiarism prior to naming her president is that they didn’t care about her academic record. She wasn’t hired for that. She was hired because of her success at implementing and enforcing DEI. Therefore, unless the plagiarism scandal increases the difficulty of her maintaining and even expanding the authority of DEI at Harvard and beyond, plenty of folks there will want to keep her on.
1 Like
While true, the postion does require an advanced degree, and in view of the controversy regarding her dissertation, that itself seems to be questionable. She would appear to be a very poor choice to lead any DEI initiative at this point.
Let her stay then! 
Recent posts make it increasingly clear that this has little to do with the alleged plagiarism.
1 Like
It’s a package deal.
2 Likes
For most of us the plagarism is the heart of the matter. You would know your own concerns best, @mtmind
4 Likes
The process for hiring would have included the establishment of a “search team” including board members who would have hired a top tier recruiting firm tasked with identifying multiple candidates. Typically at least 10+ candidates would need to be considered for the recruiting firm to have fulfilled their obligations. All of these candidates would have been interviewed and a preliminary vetting completed.
Finalists (normally 3) all would submit themselves to a more thorough (but not final) background check that includes interviewing professional and personal references.
Finalist profiles would be put before remuneration committee and full board. Prior to an offer being made the candidate would undergo an extensive background check by a security firm and the recruitment firm would go through work history and professional qualifications in detail. Any discrepancies would need to be explained and reverted prior to an offer being made.
I can’t guarantee Harvard followed this exact protocol but having been through a board appointed hiring several times, I can state this is fairly typical. It is a deliberately long and detailed process designed to avoid the situation Harvard’s board currently finds themselves in.
Someone ultimately was either aware of her current citation “issues” and decided to ignore them or the board and all of the aforementioned professionals tasked with vetting were negligent or the process was short circuited. Reputations will be ruined in either case if the details ever become public which will likely lead to a lucrative out of court settlement and non disclosure.
9 Likes
Recent posts make it increasingly clear that this has little to do with the alleged plagiarism.
From what I can tell, it seems to be a whole bunch of things:
-
They see Claudine Gay as a representative for what they see as ‘Diversity, Equity and Inclusion’ policies in society. Her field of study + comments she’s made on issues have made people view her in that light among other reasons.
-
They see her as being chosen for purely identity reasons.
-
They take issue with her plagiarism. However, from what I can tell, many also see it as an issue to do with her being chosen for identity reasons and view it as ammo for that.
-
Her response to anti-semitism on college campus wasn’t good and many obviously want her to go for this.
-
Her lack of publications. I’ve seen so, so many people complain about this.
-
I’ve seen several people complain about how smug she looked - this seems to be a particular gripe on a few internet posts I’ve seen.
3 Likes
Sorry, but this is hilarious. Name a Harvard president who wasn’t smug. Drew Gilpin Faust was allegedly lovely and empathetic in person (I’ve never met her but I know people who have) but her public appearances, utterances, etc.- as smug as her white male predecessors. Larry Summers? Brilliant guy, but low key and humble? I don’t think so.
If Gay is being railroaded for being smug, I’m going to join Mtmind’s club. You’d have to go back to WWI to find Harvard leaders (Deans, etc.) who weren’t smug.
2 Likes
Deleted.
It’s pretty obvious that the Harvard Corporation doesnt care President Gay plagiarized. If they did, they would have investigated the allegations more thoroughly.
They seem to have been caught off guard that the media and donors do care and are giving them flack that they should have cared.
They cant go back and pretend that they didn’t know because many sources discovered all this pretty easily. And they cant go back and “unsupport her” because it would make them look terrible.
They underestimated 2 things:
-
Additional donor pushback beyond the initial uproar over accusations of anti-semitism. More fuel to an already burning fire.
-
The media treating them harshly. Isn’t the NY Times, Washington Post, CNN, The Atlantic supposed to be on “our side”?
They probably thought this thing would just go away and it hasn’t. It continues to fester and they don’t want that. Now you have “conflicting reports” over what happened at a private dinner with the NY Times standing behind it’s reporting?
So who’s responsible for all this mess (other than Claudine Gay). Let the finger pointing begin.
It’s like a game of Clue. Colonel Mustard in the library with the candlestick.
4 Likes
Smugness is no doubt a general failing of the high and mighty, but this was smugness in a particular “context” wasn’t it? - When asked the question whether advocating genocide of Jews was permissible speech. She might have attempted to answer that question in a way that carried conviction and enunciated principle. She didn’t do that. She seemed smug, and it wasn’t a good time to display that trait.
4 Likes
I’ve watched the hearing a few times. I don’t think she was smug. I think she had been prepped by lawyers and it showed. The law firm that prepped her has gone quiet… they totally misread the situation and failed their client (Harvard is their client, not Gay).
But her tone, attitude, facial expression- i.e. the things one considers to be part of “smug” or not- nowhere near as damning as the actual words she used. Which were appalling. She could have delivered them with empathy and compassion to spare- I don’t think it would have changed the overall result.
2 Likes
But she is a Black woman and there is a long history of misogynoir criticism of the “uppity Black woman.”
1 Like
You must be reading different posts.
Or maybe it’s just that people don’t like “cheaters”.
7 Likes
I don’t believe we can be forbidden describing the expressions on a face, whatever the race, but I would agree that “smug” is not quite the word here, in my reading of that face. It was more “woodenness,” what comes of not truly believing what you’re saying because you’ve been coached to say it. In fairness, the problem was more that of Harvard than of Dr. Gay. The problem was that the school had no record of supporting free speech in much less egregious “contexts” than this one. It would have been very hard for her to speak sincerely on command.
3 Likes
I’m assuming @Rivet2000 and @mtmind will take it to PM (or desist) instead of going back and forth here.