Plagiarism Standards at Harvard: The Claudine Gay Story

Key quotes from that op-ed:

“ A plurality of the Honor Council’s investigations concern plagiarism. In the 2021-22 school year, the last year for which data is publicly available, 43 percent of cases involved plagiarism or misuse of sources.

Omitting quotation marks, citing sources incompletely, or not citing sources at all constitutes plagiarism according to Harvard’s definitions.

In my experience, when students omit quotation marks and citations, as President Gay did, the sanction is usually one term of probation — a permanent mark on a student’s record….

…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…

…But strict sanctions are necessary to demonstrate that our community values academic integrity.”

5 Likes

This is a false comparison. From the editorial you posted . . .

According to the Honor Council’s procedures, the response to a violation depends on the “seriousness of the infraction” and “extenuating circumstances, including the extent to which a student has had similar trouble before.” In other words, while a single lifted paragraph could be blamed on a lapse in judgment, a pattern is more concerning.

Gay has not “had similar trouble before.” It’s quite the opposite. Her dissertation was award winning. Her work was not called into question then, and the mistakes repeated despite knowledge of the mistakes. That would suggest the mistakes were intentional, and a pattern would be indeed concerning. Requiring her to quit over a few previously undiscovered mistakes over a 30 year period is would be ridiculous. And no student could possibly be in a similar situation.

Harvard’s governing body recognizes this, whether you do or not.

1 Like

Since it appears no other Harvard student or faculty member has been permitted to submit “corrections” to address plagiarism years after initial publication, you are right.

I expect the Honor Council to cease imposing sanctions on undergrads. It is the only ethical thing for them to do as long as Gay stays.

3 Likes

Agreed. The council’s hands are tied until she is gone.

Just because the governing body “recognizes this” doesn’t mean that the governing body is right. A few months will pass and she will either resign or the board will fire her - with enough time elapsed from the public and Ackman clamor for her head - to claim it was not pressured.

She will not see out 2024. Of that, I am certain.

6 Likes

If “not having had trouble before” is to be seriously considered as a mitigating circumstance in a charge of plagiarism, it must surely mean “not having previously committed plagiarism” rather than “not having been previously caught committing plagiarism.”

10 Likes

There’s also this: “But President Gay’s pattern of mistakes is serious, and the Harvard Corporation should not minimize these allegations of plagiarism, as it has readily done.”

And: “By definition, Gay’s corrections were not proactive but reactive — she only made them after she was caught. And that the Corporation considers her corrections an adequate response is not fair to undergraduates, who cannot simply submit corrections to avoid penalties.”

4 Likes

I mean the words I associate with Harvard the most is now ‘antisemitism’ and ‘plagiarism’.

Of course I don’t think this is permanent (and realistically, peoples’ memories are short) brand damage but I do think it’s provided plenty of ammunition to those who are opposed to institutions like Harvard in the first place.

On any internet post involving Harvard, there are now people commenting about how a plagiarist became President and the antisemitism on campus at Harvard.

That’s going to continue until she resigns.

2 Likes

Of course they haven’t, because it would rarely if ever come up, except when as here culture warriors are digging through everything to try bring the long former student down. If every student who ever made a mistake was having their degree taken away 30 years later you’d have point, but that isn’t happening.

As for students being given a chance to make a correction, though, that does happen on a regular basis. If a student/graduate student turns in a draft of a to be published paper and the teacher/advisor/editor notices the mistakes but has no reason to suspect “academic dishonesty” then the student wouldn’t even be reported to a disciplinary dean. Instead, the most likely solution is that advisor would point out the problems and ask the student to correct mistakes. That would be the end of it.

Ever edited for a law review? If so, you’d know that even law school professors routinely submit papers with a host of citation errors that would constitute “plagiarism” by the definition used here. They don’t lose their careers. The mistakes are corrected and the papers get published.

https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/slideshows/high-profile-people-whose-degrees-were-revoked

2 Likes

Universities do revoke degrees for plagarism during school which was uncovered years after graduation.

1 Like

In the examples you cite, only a few involved plagiairsm and in all of those the plagiarism was much more extensive and important to the work in question. In other words, academic honesty was very much at issue. That isn’t the case here. In fact your examples help Dr. Gay’s case more than they hurt it, because what she is alleged to have done is nothing like your examples.

For example, here is the paper John Walsh plagiarized at the war college, annotated to show what he took from others:

Compare that to what Dr. Galy allegedly plagiarized in her from Dr. Gay’s dissertation. The supposed copying in bold:

I am deeply indebted to and wish to thank the many people who aided me in this dissertation project.

Special thanks is due to Sidney Verba, Gary King, and Katherine Tate whose critical and consistent support encouraged, inspired, and challenged me throughout this project. I owe a great deal, in particular, to Katherine who introduced me to the field of Black Politics, and continued to be both a mentor and a friend long after shehad moved on from Harvard. 1 am also grateful to Gary: as a methodologist, he reminded me of the importance of getting the data right and following where they lead without fear or favor; as an advisor, he gave me the attention and the opportunities I needed to do my best work. His invitation to join the ROAD project was critical to the development ofthis dissertation, providing me with both the data and the experience I needed to get this project offthe ground.

Mark Gersh and Jon Leahy of the National Committee for an Effective Congress deserve special thanks for generously allowing me access to their voting data.

I have also been lucky to count among my colleagues and friends an incredibly talented and intelligent group of graduate students. Whether in the Government Department lounge, in the American Research Workshop, or over lunch in the Square, conversations with several o f my fellow graduate students sparked useful insights that have been incorporated into this work. On a more personal level, their humor and unwavering support saw me through the occasional frustrations of grad school life.

The National Science Foundation, The Graduate School of Arts and Sciences at Harvard University, the Mellon Foundation, the Leadership Alliance, and the Brookings Institution, have all provided critical financial support throughout my graduate career. The Brookings Institution, in particular, not only funded my final year of dissertation writing, but also provided a wonderful place to work. My fellow Fellows, Jennifer Klein and Eric Lawrence, have my gratitude not only for encouraging my progress, but also for distracting me just enough to keep me sane. Seminar participants at Brookings and George Washington University helped me to refine wayward arguments, and to communicate my ideas better. Maurice Heilberg and the staffat Brookings were especially helpful with everything from faxes and FedEx packages, to troublesome printjobs.

I am grateful to Chris Afendulis, an essential colleague and dear friend. Without his intellectual energy, love, sanity, and humor this dissertation would never have been finished.

Finally, I want to thank my family, two wonderful parents and an older brother. From kindergarten through graduate school, they celebrated my every accomplishment, forced me to laugh when I’d lost my sense of humor, drove me harder than I sometimes wanted to be driven, and gave me the confidence that I could achieve. My mother returned to school just as I was preparing to enter the real world. I only hope that I can take some of her courage with me.

Actually, Dr. Gay’s behavior was worse as she continued the practice for decades. In any event, we just disagree on the seriousness of the case; the Harvard honor council member already weighed in on how the council judges an undergrad who committed this offense.

You may disagree with their policy but that was both well known, and indeed enforced against undergrads, who are often teens, not middle-aged academics.

3 Likes

The honor council member only heard cases where “academic dishonest” is suspected, so as to justify a report do a dean, who then must send it to the council. Given that this wasn’t the case with Dr. Gay, I don’t attach the same significance as you do.

But I do agree with this particular aspect of the policy. There are more appropriate measures to deal with the types of minor and unimportant mistakes at issue here.

And the Harvard Crimson article follows the Atlantic article which has a Harvard alum who also saw how undergrads who plagiarized were penalized. They both say the same thing, that students who committed infractions like Claudine Gay would likely have been suspended for a semester or two.

You are suggesting @mtmind that she be given clemency for having gotten away with it for so long. And most of the world completely rejects that.

4 Likes

Not at all what I am suggesting.

I’m suggesting that even if the supposed “plagiarism” had been noticed by her advisors, it wouldn’t even have triggered a report to a disciplinary dean because it was inconsequential and doesn’t raise a suspicion of “academic dishonesty.” Had they noticed at all, the advisors would likely have brought it to her attention, told her to fix it, and that would have been the end of it. Same thing happens all the time at all levels of academia. To have her fired now because her mistakes were so trivial to even be noticed would be outrageous, especially because it is extremely unlikely she would have faced severe consequences at the time for such minor errors, even if anyone noticed or cared.

That’s why, with a few exceptions, the experts in the field don’t think firing is justified.

1 Like

I guess that’s where the disconnect is, given that the two writers seem to agree that students who came before the board would be suspended for similar offenses.

1 Like

I think where the disconnect lies is that you (and they) assume that her actions would ever have gotten her before the disciplinary board. The board only deals with cases that triggered suspicion of academic dishonesty so as to justify a report to a dean, who then must take it to the board. In other words, the instances they see are much more clear cut regarding academic dishonesty.

Were you her advisor, can you honestly say that, despite an otherwise excellent dissertation, you would have become suspicious of academic dishonesty based on the acknowledgement above, and reported her to the dean for potential expulsion?

It seems unlikely that the same faculty which is referring undergrads to the Honor Council for these infractions somehow adopt a different view towards their professional colleagues who engage in the same conduct. We know the faculty regularly reports students for just this type of plagarism; the statistics and opinions offered by council members bear that out. We also know the council does indeed suspend in what, in the opinion of at least some council members, are similar circumstances to the case against Gay. So the disconnect seems to be a faculty holding kids to higher standards than academics.

We can await the Congressional hearings for more data, on either side.

No different standard necessary. Without of suspicion of academic dishonesty it doesn’t get referred for discipline in either case.

We don’t know this.

No one can possibly believe these hearings will be meaningfully geared toward attaining a greater understanding.

It’ll just be bullying an unpopular figure, part two. Why she would show up is beyond me.