In fairness, she lost only one of her jobs, the presidency, and continues to serve as a Harvard faculty member, a position many others without ethical lapses would long for and benefit from.
I would have preferred a simple payoff and cease ties to the school.
A single mistake, particularly in one’s youth, can be forgiven. A pattern of them through late middle age is different.
I think that fair and her statements were tone deaf. That said I thankfully am not walking in her shoes and will cut her some slack.
That’s my world view having been close to people who have fallen from lofty heights. I would rather err on the side of compassion in this sort of circumstance. Hopefully none of us ever suffer a similar fall.
Clearly Gay is gearing up for a lengthy fight with Ackman, who has ambitions to ensure both the Harvard Corporation board and the Board of Overseers have new members who are skeptical of DEI and more sympathetic to his views. But despite her insider connections (and staying at Harvard as a Dean), she will not be a good public face for the pro-DEI crowd in this battle. The question is whether the fight is played out primarily in public (where Gay is now a liability) or behind the scenes (where she may have more of an advantage).
Ackman will invoke her name at every opportunity, keeping her as the public face of DEI.
It’s not clear that Ackman will win this war, but even if he loses, his publicity will cost Harvard billions of dollars in lost contributions. The real losers in the meantime could be students facing reduced financial aid.
Interesting thought experiment, and had this actually been about plagiarism, I might agree that the outcome could have been as you suggest. But IMO, even the most humble mea culpa’s would have been met with more derision, just as her actual mea culpa’s were met with more derision. It would have been portrayed as an admission of wrongdoing and they would have doubled down on the demands for her ouster. Was anyone deterred from criticizing her when she demanded a further investigation from Harvard and then made corrections? Of course not. For that matter, were they deterred when she issued a mea culpa regarding her Congressional testimony? They went after her harder.
Maybe the mainstream media would have let it go, but I doubt it. Too many clicks. Too much blood in the water. Too easy to pile on.
I appreciate your perspective, but this is exactly why some of us have pointed out from the beginning that the plagiarism and antisemitism claims were only a proxy. Dancing on her grave is the point, and it has been the point from the very beginning. As @ProfandParent put it, well above . . .
Unfortunately, there will be no moving on. From the NYTimes yesterday . . .
Taking down Dr. Gay was a “a huge scalp” in the “fight for civilizational sanity,” Josh Hammer, a conservative talk show host and writer, wrote on the social media platform X.
“A crushing loss to D.E.I., wokeism, antisemitism & university elitism,” wrote the conservative commentator Liz Wheeler.
“This is the beginning of the end for D.E.I. in America’s institutions,” said the conservative activist Christopher Rufo, who had helped publicize the plagiarism allegations.
A fight for civilizational sanity. And here you thought it was about plagiarism.
I don’t think the outcome should have been different, nor do I think it would have been different.
The outcome should not be different because Harvard students are held to a higher standard, and can be severely punished for even a single instance, let alone many. You simply cannot have the president of the school held to lower standards. Being sorry doesn’t nullify that. She had to go.
The reason it wouldn’t have been different is because I agree there was a racial component in how people went after her once they smelled blood in the water. I believe her when she says she has heard the most hateful things imaginable.
I expected her to resign and stay quiet due to a settlement. But apparently that’s not what happened. And while we apparently won’t be talking about her explicitly on CC much longer, she will remain in the news and open herself to criticism, some valid, and some not.
And if the DEI opponents get their way, we’ll go back to a time when many of those students weren’t really welcome at places like Harvard anyway.
It seems your contention is “ a little dishonesty is ok”. At what point do we, as a society, embrace integrity and truth and expect that of our leadership… especially in the academic world?
An analogy I give my kids when discussing the gray areas of truth… we love brownies… would you still eat the brownies knowing only a crumb was contaminated with dog feces?
We don’t need to have DEI to have diversity. From Bill Ackman’s X Post (currently known as X)
"I have always believed that diversity is an important feature of a successful organization, but by diversity I mean diversity in its broadest form: diversity of viewpoints, politics, ethnicity, race, age, religion, experience, socioeconomic background, sexual identity, gender, one’s upbringing, and more.
What I learned, however, was that DEI was not about diversity in its purest form, but rather DEI was a political advocacy movement on behalf of certain groups that are deemed oppressed under DEI’s own methodology. "
that was a bad comment then and it’s even more so now as we see Gay comfortably fall back into a $900k/year position.
The validity and significance of the plagiarism and the pre existing biases of some are neither mutually exclusive nor does one negate the other.
Reality is the board should have known she would be closely scrutinized and should have done an exhaustive background check. If they did they hid what certainly would have come to light and if they didn’t they were negligent In either case they are equally culpable to Dr Gay.
The board has now paid her to “go away” with a well compensated role for an unspecified time frame covered under an NDA. They avoided a one time big payout that would have drawn attention to them and been answerable to what they knew and when leaving their reputations largely in tact and Dr Gay’s in ruins.
Was anyone deterred when her/the Corporation’s first response was to bring in an attack dog legal firm and threaten to sue the heck out of the NY Post? The Post was deterred until others published. And a lot of people wouldn’t go on the record (and still won’t) because of fear of reprisals.
I don’t think an any dishonesty is okay. If I believed that Dr. Gay was dishonest, my position would be different. Same if I believed she was intentionally trying to pass off the ideas of others as her own.
Under Harvard’s definition of plagiarism, one can be honest and still “plagiarize.”
Simply amazing. Harvard is becoming a laughing point. Words matter - plagiarism is plagiarism.
Would you post what Harvard’s definition of plagiarism?
I assumed the definition would be consistent everywhere?
In somewhat related news, the latest version of the doxxing truck next to the Harvard campus now says “It’s moving day, Claudine Gay”, and has a couple of U-Hauls next to it. Someone is spending a lot of money to torment her.
Here is the link to Harvard’s definition. It does appear to be straight-forward? Maybe there is a different definition used for academics and professors?
50 mistakes, to be exact.
Following the rules is a “conservative weapon”.
Thinking for oneself is a “conservative weapon”.
Doing one’s own writing is a “conservative weapon”.
Opposing antisemitism is is a “conservative weapon”.
And I’m surprised there is not discussion about the absolutely disgusting way Harvard went after the NYP, circling the wagons when they were wrong all along. Just incredible.
Ackman’s raised that as a point in order to go after the Gay and the board. I expect more coverage about that in the future.