I eagerly await any Harvard faculty member stepping forward to state that they see this sort of action often by undergrads and routinely give it a pass. Or even that they have done so on occasion. Or once. The silence is deafening.
2 Likes
To the contrary, most her colleagues stand by her on this issue.
I agree with @mtmind point that it’s likely that transgressions such as Gay’s would never have even made it a disciplinary board (because they could/would be caught by the advisor) and I also agree that not property quoting a source in this instance seems to be not a particularly major transgression (e.g., like fabricating data would be).
But I think that’s irrelevant.
Once it has been discovered, regardless of how, Harvard’s punishment for this kind of infringement is clearly document and routinely enforced. So too must it be in this case, otherwise, as previously pointed out, the council is powerless to enforce these standards moving forward.
3 Likes
“Most” is the operative word. You may not care if I rob you, but your colleague might object to being robbed himself. If anyone objects, there is a problem.
Maybe the Harvard faculty needs to just say it won’t pursue discipline for similar types of plagarism by students in the future, and apologize and compensate those who were persecuted for similar transactions in the past.
At least that addresses the double standard.
3 Likes
Please, no.
Claudine Gay has damaged the degree enough already, but at least Harvard still has the reputation of holding students to high standards. If Harvard reduces the standards down to Claudine Gay’s level, the value of the degree will be damaged much more.
Of course, the right way to restore the reputation is to jettison Claudine Gay and her champions on the board.
5 Likes
Right. If for no other reason, Gay needs to go simply because she is head of an organization that has suffered the biggest hit to its reputation since its founding. She is paid close to $1M because the buck stops with her.
If Harvard were a public corporation, its share price would have tanked 30% and its CEO would be gone. And if the board didn’t act, an activist investor (like, ahem, Ackman) would step in and make sure of it.
6 Likes
Comparing Dr. Gay’s minor, largely meaningless mistakes to a “robber” is more than a little hyperbolic.
The reason Gay’s colleagues largely stand by her because they know, from experience, what David Canon said is true, and it is not even a close call.
I doubt that President Gay’s supporters really believe in the abstract that her plagiarism is immaterial. What’s motivating their support are some rather less objective and rather less scholarly considerations:
- Forcing this President from office would be both a bad look and a humiliation for Harvard and for Harvard’s notion of DEI and the Progressive Faith that she embodies.
- Several of her plagiarized colleagues have been her mentors or otherwise have strong personal loyalties and a natural desire to protect her.
- The Harvard community, ninety-five percent of whom would call themselves liberal or leftist, do not like the source of the initial revelations - Christopher Rufo, a conservative activist.
- Harvard’s faculty don’t like Harvard’s big donors calling the tune.
- Much of the Harvard community doesn’t care much about scholarship; more impotant are the President’s commitment to DEI, Harvard’s anti-free-speech record and crackdown on conservative-friendly faculty.
- Finally, I daresay that in such an environment it is rather hard to raise your head above the parapet. It takes guts and tenure. Many who have the latter lack the former.
11 Likes
Exactly. If the Harvard faculty truly believed this plagarism was no big deal, they would have no problem announcing to the student body that such actions were just fine and would never be punished, and instructing the Honor Council accordingly.
They have done neither.
5 Likes
Exactly correct. Sad that some don’t see this clearly, including a few on here. The loss of standards, accountability, and the golden rule over the past 30 years is astonishing.
4 Likes
The Crimson op-ed admits as much:
“We also oppose President Gay’s resignation because we are not blind to what has driven this news cycle — a national outrage manufactured by conservative activists intent on discrediting higher education”
Their opposition is not based on the merits; it’s based on the source. You would think that the first thing Harvard students are taught are that Ad Hominem attacks are not exactly scholarship.
I stand by my prediction that she doesn’t see out 2024. I don’t see how it’s possible.
9 Likes
Agree.
You clearly haven’t met many current Harvard students.
Cue new ad hominem attacks.
1 Like
Not just Harvard; critical thinking skills are optional at nearly all colleges nowadays. (Admissions favors other types of students.)
They have seen how effectively their own profs have shut down debate and stigmatized opposing views by charges of racism, homophobia, Islamaphobia and many another reputation-ending smear of anyone outside the charmed circle of received wisdom.
5 Likes
The fact that this is a minority, dissenting opinion at The Crimson shows just how bad things have gotten at The Crimson.
4 Likes
14 Likes
I wonder how much Harvard had to pay her to leave.
3 Likes