I think that if you appoint someone who is already employed by an organization, the level of background checking is very different compared to a new employee. The question is why the process broke down at a much earlier stage (presumably there was inadequate vetting when she returned to Harvard from Stanford in 2006).
It is common in certain political appointments to conduct a background check for skeletons in the closet; checking out the worst things said about a potential appointee to determine if the appointment could cause embarrassment, and to be prepared to respond to any allegations raised. I am surprised Harvard apparently did not do that, but I expect it will in the future.
She really needs to be gone before the next set of Congressional hearings.
4 Likes
If only Harvard had followed the advice of experts, who coincidentally were from Harvard in their search for a leader…
1 Like
Nixon goes to China.
It seems like the plan is for her to remain in office, going to Asia to fundraise.
1 Like
It shocks me that users who clearly know how to use the flag button choose not to use it when it’s convenient for them.
If a post violates the rules, flag it. If you choose not to flag, fine. But don’t exacerbate the problem by responding in a way that also violates the rules.
2 Likes
With this Harvard professor’s article, there are now a few Harvard faculty members publicly going against Claudine Gay. This paragraph from the article was particularly pointed:
In appointing Ms. Gay, the Harvard Corp., the university’s governing board, seems to have shifted the institution’s priorities. It revealed those goals in its Dec. 12 statement, noting that Ms. Gay is the right leader “to address the very serious societal issues we are facing.” Harvard’s mission is no longer simply advancing knowledge, but knowledge “that will help address deep societal issues and promote constructive discourse.” From such a perspective, academic honesty seems to matter less than having the right progressive values, and the refusal to disclose underlying data is permissible so long as conclusions support a preferred narrative.
10 Likes
Latest Harvard Crimson article reporting on student perceptions of Claudine Gay. The article matches what I am hearing as well; students are mixed on whether to support her or get rid of her.
2 Likes
I’m an alumnus and our son is currently a sophomore. At dinner on Friday evening, I asked him, “So, what do your friends and you think about this Gay plagiarism issue at Harvard?”
He looked a bit puzzled and replied, “Harvard gays are plagiarizing?”
My wife then interjected and said, “No, no, no…Claudine Gay, your president.”
After a brief moment of silence, my son says, “We haven’t talked about and I hadn’t heard anything about it. We’ve been all completely slammed with finals, as you now a couple of us are taking six classes this semester.”
So, as it turns out, his friends and he are much less online than his father or most of the people with strong opinions in this thread. 
Gay was never the most impressive academic, but then neither was Bacow. What both offered were records as effective administrators, and in Gay’s case, an unusual success gaining support from Harvard’s faculty on various important matters of governance and herding the cats. This is an important ability that most, or really, nearly all otherwise exceptional academics do not have. It also reflects larger trends in university administration as many have become quite complex, gigantic enterprises.
Of all the positions on the plagiarism accusations advanced by people in this thread, the ones that make most sense to me are those shared by @mtmind. Moreover, people who think what’s happened so far imperils things like the attractiveness of Harvard to admission candidates or the desire of donors to give money to Harvard are way off base. I live local to Harvard and speak to a lot of people who would know. There is no emergency on those fronts.
That being said, my opinion as an alum and a parent of a current student is that her short presidency has become marked by significant liabilities. If she truly loved Harvard, she should swallow the bitter pill and resign voluntarily. As for the Corporation, the group of people who compose it are very solid, but I think there should be some reflection on the role Bill Lee played in this whole affair.
3 Likes
Two Harvard Crimson editorials with opposing views. Both agree that Gay plagiarized but disagree on whether Gay should stay.
The first editorial argues that Gay’s plagiarism does not seem intentional and, thus, does not warrant her resignation, at least for now. Asking her to resign now would mean yielding to conservative activists, politicians, and donors.
The second editorial expresses a dissenting opinion, that Gay should resign because she has failed repeatedly as a leader and her plagiarism is serious. Best line is perhaps “Signing an affirmation that we will follow the Harvard College Honor Code before we take our final exams should not feel like a farce.”
4 Likes
As a slightly, and I hope useful, aside, Harvard is run and has always been run in a unique way. The president of Harvard does not run Harvard. Never has. The Corporation (more properly, The President and Fellows) runs Harvard. The president is simply the public-facing single member of the Corporation. When people refer to the “Board”, like the advisory board for a company or most universities, that function at Harvard is fulfilled by the much larger Board of Overseers, who are all alumni. This board is much less effectively powerful than boards of most colleges and universities because Harvard is already run by a group of people who operate by consensus. This form of operation is one of the reasons why Harvard became one of the most eminent universities in the world.
So, it is very important at Harvard not to have a very “strong” president. That leads to strife and organizational impasse. The school operates best with the president functions seamlessly as the (these days) eleventh member of a group administration where ten members are largely functioning in secret. Before things blew up, Gay was a very good fit to this eleventh person role. She is a nice person among many faculty who are not nice. She can convince peers to agree on things. She has deep institutional administrative knowledge. She could present a public face that was appealing…until recently.
I hope that’s helpful.
4 Likes
As a parent with a child currently there, I believe most students are quite aware, for reasons as varied as it being in the Crimson numerous times, seeing her face plastered on the doxxing truck, or her being discussed on the Harvard confessions page. Then again, most students don’t take six classes and therefore have more time for this.
The limited data so far disagree with you, with EA applications down 17% and over a billion so far in lost donations. Here is what Harvard’s CFO said a few weeks ago (prior to additional donors “pausing” their donations):
7 Likes
How could one serve effectively as college president when there appears to be student consensus that she cheated? Regardless of whether she is a nice person or has effective administrative skills, that itself is disqualifying.
8 Likes
As a practical matter, how does this Honor Council continue to hold students to the same standards as previously? An accused student can legitimately make the case, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
As an aside, it’s hard to argue that the brand, and to a lesser extent, the finances, of Harvard have not been adversely affected. But Harvard is Harvard and no doubt a few years from now, its cachet will be back.
5 Likes
She was in charge for less than a semester before her disaster in Congress and her plagiarism charges, so she doesn’t have much of a record prior to things blowing up.
In comparison, Larry Summers, who nobody would suggest was a “nice person”, managed 4+ years before putting his foot in his mouth. Then again, nobody so far has credibly accused Larry Summers of plagiarism, even though he has published well over 100+ articles.
I couldn’t disagree more. I think Bill Lee is being made into a scapegoat to cover for the disastrous decision by the board to elevate Claudine Gay to President without properly vetting her. IMO, the prime person responsible is Penny Pritzker, who was Gay’s champion in the selection process.
6 Likes
The poster asked the student about the plagiarism allegation. Once again other issues are being selectively used to try to support allegations that by themselves wouldn’t amount to much without the culture war drumbeat.
As you know, the timing here doesn’t add up.
Harvard students are well equipped to understand nuance and context.
1 Like
Harvard students are well equipped to recognize hypocrisy too.
4 Likes
If so, they’ll eventually see the plagiarism issue for what it really is.
1 Like
Once again you are trying to minimize things. It’s a valid observation to point out the multiple reasons that students may be aware of Gay’s shortcomings as a leader.
2 Likes
In this instance, I was referring to this version of the truck:
Let’s do a recap here. At this point, there is widespread agreement that she plagiarized. There are also multiple reports that students who have committed similar infractions would have been forced to sit out for a semester or two. From today’s Harvard Crimson article:
What is striking about the allegations of plagiarism against President Gay is that the improprieties are routine and pervasive.
…
In my experience, when a student is found responsible for multiple separate Honor Code violations, they are generally required to withdraw — i.e., suspended — from the College for two semesters.
I wrote above that the sanctions that Claudine Gay should face sanctions that mirror the most severe sanctions that students have faced for similar infractions. Given the reports of what students have faced, I think a two semester suspension for Claudine Gay would be appropriate.
3 Likes