Maybe they were caught off guard because Claudine Gay didn’t fully disclose everything (intentionally or unintentionally). She may have underestimated its significance.
It’s also possible that the important stakeholders are conflicted and not aligned. They only mention those who support her. There may be numerous people who are concerned about the university more than Claudine Gay, even if they don’t fully agree with the accusations and its conclusions.
I did not make that comparison. I DID point out that a PR disaster does not have to “sink the ship” if handled correctly. Whatever conclusions you draw are yours and yours alone!!!
I swear I read someplace that she is going to correct these omissions in her doctoral dissertation? Really? You can go back and do that?
Solid Crisis Management is a 365 day a year activity- not something you think about AFTER your president bungles a congressional appearance.
Harvard can face any number of PR challenges- a 20% drop in the endowment overnight due to poor risk controls and a black swan event. A title search on a piece of property Harvard owns and is currently using as faculty parking turns up that it’s a Native American burial ground-- which was recognized as such as recently as 1920 (so no claiming that the land records were destroyed). Art in the museum which was stolen by an SS officer and the family which owned the piece has tried to get it back (they have the paperwork, provenance, etc.) but Harvard has been stonewalling for 30 years and the current heirs have decided to sue in lieu of a quiet settlement.
Etc. I’m not suggesting that Harvard has ANY of these things. Just pointing out that savvy institutions understand that once 60 Minutes sets up cameras across the street it is WAY too late for spin.
Right but maybe Harvard only prepared her for the congressional appearance but were unprepared for the plagiarism charges that really started to gain more traction very quickly.
This all happened in a short period of time. They seemed to do a quick review and defended her actions. But now, more and more media outlets are asking questions.
They probably didn’t expect CNN, Boston Globe, and NY Times to question her work vs just the NY Post and Washington Times, etc.
Is that really an option, given Congress has power of the purse, and Harvard’s reliance upon it?
There was already a bipartisan resolution that the presidents of Harvard, Penn, and MIT should resign, so threatening to cut off funding for something like “colleges that don’t take academic misconduct seriously” is not out of the question.
If you don’t go, people assume you’re guilty as charged and have something to hide.
That’s not a winning strategy. People want sincerity and transparency.
To be capable of leading a large organization a certain degree of selflessness and self awareness is required.
Regardless of the validity of the claims against her President Gay remaining in her role is harming the institution she is tasked with running. This situation will not reverse itself and her ability to lead is permanently damaged.
She should step aside and if she doesn’t the board should force her out. Once again I am not opining on the fairness or legitimacy of the situation just expressing the practical reality that her continued presence is counterproductive and damaging the institution she committed to lead.
Adding…
The board’s role and responsibility is to place the institutional needs ahead of those of any one individual. They are there to protect Harvard and ensure its future. Failure to act given the current environment and fact pattern would be an abdication of their role.
Not sure, all I know is Columbia’s President declined her invitation (which was reported in the media). That decision looks brilliant in retrospect.
What is astounding was that the 3 universities viewed and prepared for this as a session about the intricacies of the First Amendment, and not the political PR show that it predictably turned out to be. Who’s working crisis management for these schools?
Knock off the bickering
This is a reasonable assessment of the current situation, but there is also a downside to the approach you suggest. Is it really in long term best interests of an institution like Harvard to succumb to the blood-in-the-water feeding frenzy created by politically motivated culture warriors for the purpose of ousting those they don’t like? What does it say about Harvard’s institutional integrity if it can be short circuited and bullied by partisan activists who know how to push the right buttons to rile up an already rabid crowd? Who will be the next person targeted, based on what artifice?
Because President Gay would never indulge in such things herself:
Harvard uses the phrase “duplicative language“. Is there a substantive difference between “duplicative language” and plagiarism? Or is it simply an attempt by Harvard to inoculate against the obvious?
@Twoin18 , if they didn’t have double standards they’d have no standards at all.
Fryer wasn’t fired, he was suspended (for two years) for engaging in unwanted sexual conduct toward several individuals. The allegations were raised and investigated not by some right wing think tank with a vendetta but by those he sexually harassed and Harvard. If anything is shocking about the Fryer situation, it is that he is still employed by Harvard and is still allowed to teach. But that is Harvard’s decision.
How you think that is the same thing as right wing culture warriors dredging up thirty year old citation errors is beyond me.
How you think all the plagiarism is from 30 years ago is beyond me. How you think that the original source of the plagiarism accusations matters at all at this point is beyond me.
Fryer made the mistake of committing free speech and, even worse, cracking a joke while employed by Harvard. Can’t be tolerated. Those words = violence. Whereas to merely use another’s words, if the words are the approved ones, well… nothing to see there, at least to those inside the bubble. It would have been much better, I agree, if Harvard itself had acted on those initial allegations. Instead it lawyered up and sent a letter threatening a defamation action against the newspaper that brought them to its unwelcome attention. Now it’s stuck between a rock and a hard place - standing by its highly damaged President or seeming to give in to its billionaire donors and the right-wing barracudas who remember this President’s role in the Fryer affair.