[wat0n]

Then why are you ignoring how I addressed that?

I did not. Your argument is ridiculous and falsified by Harvard's own behavior.

Why are you ignoring the timeline here?

I am not, if anything, you are by ignoring relevant facts.

Why are you ignoring the money?

Because Harvard's behavior shows it's not as important to them as you claim it is. And there's good reason for it - they have access to other sources of funding.

@Drlee I don't know whatever you're talking about. Even centrists like Zakaria criticized universities like Harvard for adopting institutional political positions. They are also part of the "something isn't working in American campuses" camp.

Code: Select allhttps://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2023/12/10/fareeds-take-us-universities-education-gps-vpx.cnn

[Pants-of-dog]

I did not. Your argument is ridiculous and falsified by Harvard's own behavior.

How so?

Harvard showed an escalating pattern of penalizing Ms. Gay, as can be seen by Ms. Gay’s public apology, her rectification of her Congress testimony, and her eventual dismissal.

The statement of solidarity with Ms, Gay happened before all of this. So, it even fits the pattern.

I am not, if anything, you are by ignoring relevant facts.

The timeline not only shows how Harvard’s behaviour changed over time, it also shows how the donors’ behaviour changed over time.

This also escalated. One would imagine that the amount of donations lost also escalated.

Because Harvard's behavior shows it's not as important to them as you claim it is. And there's good reason for it - they have access to other sources of funding.

This may explain their early stance of supporting Ms. Gay, and is directly contradicted by Harvard’s later behaviour.

Again, it is a good idea to take the timeline into consideration.

[wat0n]

How so?

Harvard showed an escalating pattern of penalizing Ms. Gay, as can be seen by Ms. Gay’s public apology, her rectification of her Congress testimony, and her eventual dismissal.

The statement of solidarity with Ms, Gay happened before all of this. So, it even fits the pattern.

The timeline not only shows how Harvard’s behaviour changed over time, it also shows how the donors’ behaviour changed over time.

This also escalated. One would imagine that the amount of donations lost also escalated.

It is ridiculous because some disgruntled donors were already threatening Harvard before Harvard decided to stand by Gay.

You deliberately choose to ignore this detail, because it doesn't fit your narrative at all.

Also, another thing that escalated at the time was the number and seriousness of the plagiarism accusations against Gay.

This may explain their early stance of supporting Ms. Gay, and is directly contradicted by Harvard’s later behaviour.

Again, it is a good idea to take the timeline into consideration.

Sure, for instance, let's consider the timeline of the plagiarism accusations and how the most serious ones were made public after Harvard stood by Gay.

[QatzelOk]

mirror time for wat0n

...You deliberately choose to ignore this detail, because it doesn't fit your narrative at all...

This line has appeared in many posts by Pants of Dog. You didn't put quotes around it, and you are pretending that it is YOU who thought this out on your own.

I therefore consider this an important form of plagiarism.

And because we are on opposite sides of this debate - I will use this plagiarism accusation to get the moderators to delete all your posts in this thread.

YOU ARE A PLAGIARIST !

In order to acquire the power to accuse you, I will first invite all the mods to my house for an expensive sushi dinner, expensive wine, and free $100,000 cheques for everyone. This will create a "bond" between me and the Mods who I will pay to have you deleted forever.

(But you can stay on as a member, but only in the Gorkiy Park forum)

Do you get it yet?

[wat0n]

mirror time for wat0n


This line has appeared in many posts by Pants of Dog. You didn't put quotes around it, and you are pretending that it is YOU who thought this out on your own.

I therefore consider this an important form of plagiarism.

And because we are on opposite sides of this debate - I will use this plagiarism accusation to get the moderators to delete all your posts in this thread.

YOU ARE A PLAGIARIST !

In order to acquire the power to accuse you, I will first invite all the mods to my house for an expensive sushi dinner, expensive wine, and free $100,000 cheques for everyone. This will create a "bond" between me and the Mods who I will pay to have you deleted forever.

(But you can stay on as a member, but only in the Gorkiy Park forum)

Do you get it yet?

Is this another inane point because you can't deal with the fact Claudine Gay committed plagiarism?

[Pants-of-dog]

It is ridiculous because some disgruntled donors were already threatening Harvard before Harvard decided to stand by Gay.

You deliberately choose to ignore this detail, because it doesn't fit your narrative at all.

Again, I showed how the statement of solidarity happened early in the donors revolt when it was only small time donors withholding funds.

Since you have ignored this at least three times, I will assume you have no rebuttal.

Also, another thing that escalated at the time was the number and seriousness of the plagiarism accusations against Gay.

Sure, for instance, let's consider the timeline of the plagiarism accusations and how the most serious ones were made public after Harvard stood by Gay.

And then they were all dealt with through review, and where necessary, investigation.

[wat0n]

Again, I showed how the statement of solidarity happened early in the donors revolt when it was only small time donors withholding funds.

Since you have ignored this at least three times, I will assume you have no rebuttal.

No. Harvard issue the statement support Claudine Gay over a month after people like Ackman began to mobilize, and those angry donors began withholding donations.

Again, Ackman claimed Harvard stood to lose $1 billion in donations the same day its board chose to support Claudine Gay.

And then they were all dealt with through review, and where necessary, investigation.

No, the example we discussed in this thread was not and indeed the subcommittee did not convene a new or the same independent panel to review it.

Such panel became unnecessary since the allegations were public, when the New York Post reached out to Harvard thinking about publishing their own allegations, Harvard threatened to sue them if they went public with them (I wonder why).

See? You are ignoring key facts, verifiable facts and indeed sourced in the thread, because you can't cope with them.

[Pants-of-dog]

No. Harvard issue the statement support Claudine Gay over a month after people like Ackman began to mobilize, and those angry donors began withholding donations.

Again, Ackman claimed Harvard stood to lose $1 billion in donations the same day its board chose to support Claudine Gay.

You are (deliberately?) ignoring the timeline of events past this.

You are also assuming that Ackman was doing anything more than threatening.

If Ackman was just threatening on Twitter, this will not have the same impact as those who actually withheld funds.

No, the example we discussed in this thread was not and indeed the subcommittee did not convene a new or the same independent panel to review it.

Such panel became unnecessary since the allegations were public, when the New York Post reached out to Harvard thinking about publishing their own allegations, Harvard threatened to sue them if they went public with them (I wonder why).

See? You are ignoring key facts, verifiable facts and indeed sourced in the thread, because you can't cope with them.

If you are discussing her dissertation, it was reviewed. As far asI can tell from the article, all the accusations were looked at.

[wat0n]

You are (deliberately?) ignoring the timeline of events past this.

I am not, if anything, you are. You are ignoring the new plagiarism allegations that were made public and that they were not investigated by any independent panel.

You are also assuming that Ackman was doing anything more than threatening.

If Ackman was just threatening on Twitter, this will not have the same impact as those who actually withheld funds.

This presumes Ackman would not follow on his threats, and that Harvard believed so. I see no reason for Harvard to do so.

If you are discussing her dissertation, it was reviewed. As far asI can tell from the article, all the accusations were looked at.

No, these new accusations were not reviewed by the independent panel appointed by Harvard, they were only appointed by a subcommittee that is not independent.

Appointing such panel would have been moot, since the accusations were made public and outside academics and experts on plagiarism were saying on the record that the one I posted earlier is indeed plagiarism.

[Pants-of-dog]

I am not, if anything, you are. You are ignoring the new plagiarism allegations that were made public and that they were not investigated by any independent panel.

You keep ignoring my argument about this.

This presumes Ackman would not follow on his threats, and that Harvard believed so. I see no reason for Harvard to do so.

I see no reason for Harvard to think Ackman was just bluffing.

But yes, your argument depends entirely on Harvard taking ackman at his word immediately.

No, these new accusations were not reviewed by the independent panel appointed by Harvard, they were only appointed by a subcommittee that is not independent.

Appointing such panel would have been moot, since the accusations were made public and outside academics and experts on plagiarism were saying on the record that the one I posted earlier is indeed plagiarism.

So you agree that they were all reviewed.

You just have this contradictory belief that Harvard was doing its best to not fire Ms. Gay for plagiarism (including illegal and deceptive stuff), while also firing her for plagiarism.

So far, you have repeated three things that I have already addressed, and brought up only one new idea.

[wat0n]

You keep ignoring my argument about this.

I have addressed it multiple times. The subcommittee, which is not independent, arbitrarily decided to ignore those allegations.

How do we know it was an arbitrary choice? By looking at the most damning example, and the assessment by academics unaffiliated with Harvard.

I see no reason for Harvard to think Ackman was just bluffing.

But yes, your argument depends entirely on Harvard taking ackman at his word immediately.

You do realize, then, that if Harvard didn't believe Ackman then it also didn't believe all the reports of donors deciding to stop donating to it and more generally that any such thing would not have any large impact in the overall donations.

Do you?

So you agree that they were all reviewed.

Not by the independent panel. I thought you were saying that the fact that the precious allegations were reviewed by it meant they were false, so why not have this standard for the allegations that surfaced after Harvard's board meeting of December 10?

You just have this contradictory belief that Harvard was doing its best to not fire Ms. Gay for plagiarism (including illegal and deceptive stuff), while also firing her for plagiarism.

So far, you have repeated three things that I have already addressed, and brought up only one new idea.

Why didn't the subcommittee just summon the previous independent panel again and request its opinion on those new allegations?

[Rugoz]

No. Harvard issue the statement support Claudine Gay over a month after people like Ackman began to mobilize, and those angry donors began withholding donations.

Again, Ackman claimed Harvard stood to lose $1 billion in donations the same day its board chose to support Claudine Gay.

Obviously Gay wasn't fired for the plagiarism only. She was already a liability at this point.

[wat0n]

Obviously Gay wasn't fired for the plagiarism only. She was already a liability at this point.

This is more reasonable.

Yes, she was a liability already yet the plagiarism pushed her over the edge.

No university can afford to have a President who committed some sort of research misconduct, not just because of donors - the federal government expects universities to autonomously punish misconduct.

[Pants-of-dog]

I have addressed it multiple times. The subcommittee, which is not independent, arbitrarily decided to ignore those allegations.

How do we know it was an arbitrary choice? By looking at the most damning example, and the assessment by academics unaffiliated with Harvard.

Please provide evidence (in the form of a link, and a quote) showing exactly what this most damning example is. Then show (in the form of a link and a quote) that the review board did not look at it.

This is because I have already provided evidence (in the form of a link and a quote) that directly shows that Harvard did look at it all. You would need to find evidence that clearly contradicts the evidence already presented in this thread and that you are either misreading or ignoring.

If I am misreading it, then your links and quotes will show that.

You do realize, then, that if Harvard didn't believe Ackman then it also didn't believe all the reports of donors deciding to stop donating to it and more generally that any such thing would not have any large impact in the overall donations.

Do you?

No, that makes no sense.

Much like I do not judge the behaviour of other conservatives based on what you say you feel.

Ackman provides his own reasons for thinking he is a duplicitous anti-intellectual.

Not by the independent panel. I thought you were saying that the fact that the precious allegations were reviewed by it meant they were false, so why not have this standard for the allegations that surfaced after Harvard's board meeting of December 10?

I have no idea what this means. I think you are making several erroneous assumptions here.

Why didn't the subcommittee just summon the previous independent panel again and request its opinion on those new allegations?

I do not know.

Why do you believe Harvard fired her for plagiarism while also forcing the investigations to find no plagiarism? You are openly contradicting yourself.

[Drlee]

I have never seen a thread on POFO (and I have seen a ton of them) that danced around the real issue as much as this one has.

Gay's firing/resigning (take your pick) was a direct result of shoddy work by the committee that hired her. Further, it is clear that the Israel connection was of the upmost importance in this fiasco simply by the choice of and subsequent actions of the guy they named as her interim replacement.

Nattering on about who shot who at this point is sorta not the deal at all. It is more than clear that Harvard is diving for cover and will stay hidden until this blows over.

[late]

I have never seen a thread on POFO (and I have seen a ton of them) that danced around the real issue as much as this one has.

Gay's firing/resigning (take your pick) was a direct result of shoddy work by the committee that hired her. Further, it is clear that the Israel connection was of the upmost importance in this fiasco simply by the choice of and subsequent actions of the guy they named as her interim replacement.

Nattering on about who shot who at this point is sorta not the deal at all. It is more than clear that Harvard is diving for cover and will stay hidden until this blows over.

Rufo has already started a political attack on somebody else at Harvard...

[wat0n]

Please provide evidence (in the form of a link, and a quote) showing exactly what this most damning example is. Then show (in the form of a link and a quote) that the review board did not look at it.

So you want me to post all the evidence again?

This is because I have already provided evidence (in the form of a link and a quote) that directly shows that Harvard did look at it all. You would need to find evidence that clearly contradicts the evidence already presented in this thread and that you are either misreading or ignoring.

If I am misreading it, then your links and quotes will show that.

No, you didn't even read your own evidence.

The subcommittee is not the same as the panel.

No, that makes no sense.

Much like I do not judge the behaviour of other conservatives based on what you say you feel.

Ackman provides his own reasons for thinking he is a duplicitous anti-intellectual.

It makes perfect sense to think Harvard did not find Ackman's threats concerning, either because they didn't believe him or because they know those donors are replaceable.

I have no idea what this means. I think you are making several erroneous assumptions here.

Not at all. I'm holding you accountable, that's all.

The very same panel you say corresponds to expert opinion on the New York Post's allegations against Gay did not review further allegations made against her. The reason for that is that the New York Post did not go public with them, while the other accusers did.

I do not know.

Why do you believe Harvard fired her for plagiarism while also forcing the investigations to find no plagiarism? You are openly contradicting yourself.

There is no contradiction in saying "Harvard's subcommittee refused to address the new plagiarism accusations against Gay to their independent expert panel", and adding "Harvard didn't do so hoping to cover it up, yet the allegations were made publicly and labeled as such publicly by other experts".

I have never seen a thread on POFO (and I have seen a ton of them) that danced around the real issue as much as this one has.

Gay's firing/resigning (take your pick) was a direct result of shoddy work by the committee that hired her. Further, it is clear that the Israel connection was of the upmost importance in this fiasco simply by the choice of and subsequent actions of the guy they named as her interim replacement.

Nattering on about who shot who at this point is sorta not the deal at all. It is more than clear that Harvard is diving for cover and will stay hidden until this blows over.

There are also complaints about how Harvard's been dealing with the antisemitism issue after Gay's firing. I posted one such example earlier ITT.

[Pants-of-dog]

So you want me to post all the evidence again?

Or post a link to where you initially provided the evidence.

No, you didn't even read your own evidence.

The subcommittee is not the same as the panel.

No, you did not even read my claim properly.

I never said the subcommittee is the same as the panel.

It makes perfect sense to think Harvard did not find Ackman's threats concerning, either because they didn't believe him or because they know those donors are replaceable.

It does not matter what Harvard Corporation thought.

What matters is the actual dollar amount withheld that caused Harvard to react.

The very same panel you say corresponds to expert opinion on the New York Post's allegations against Gay did not review further allegations made against her. The reason for that is that the New York Post did not go public with them, while the other accusers did.

Wait.

Are you arguing that Harvard never addressed the accusations because the accusations were never made public?

There is no contradiction in saying "Harvard's subcommittee refused to address the new plagiarism accusations against Gay to their independent expert panel", and adding "Harvard didn't do so hoping to cover it up, yet the allegations were made publicly and labeled as such publicly by other experts".

So, why did they “refuse to address” the charges? To protect her and support her.

Why did they fire her over the unaddressed charges? To do the exact opposite of protecting her and supporting her.

There are also complaints about how Harvard's been dealing with the antisemitism issue after Gay's firing. I posted one such example earlier ITT.

The idea was never to get people fired. The idea is to control campus speech. Firing her was the method by which donors showed they can control campus speech.

[wat0n]

Or post a link to where you initially provided the evidence.

Fine. The example I posted and how to reproduce it:

viewtopic.php?p=15301397#p15301397

Evidence that the independent panel did not review this specific allegation, since it was made after it had issued its report:

viewtopic.php?p=15302406#p15302406
viewtopic.php?p=15302790#p15302790

No, you did not even read my claim properly.

I never said the subcommittee is the same as the panel.

Then you should not be satisfied that Harvard did not request independent expert opinion on these new allegations.

It does not matter what Harvard Corporation thought.

What matters is the actual dollar amount withheld that caused Harvard to react.

What Harvard Corporation thought is essential to this discussion.

At least it did not care about needing to replace donors to the tune of $1 billion.

Wait.

Are you arguing that Harvard never addressed the accusations because the accusations were never made public?

No.

So, why did they “refuse to address” the charges? To protect her and support her.

Why did they fire her over the unaddressed charges? To do the exact opposite of protecting her and supporting her.

Probably as a last minute effort to save her.

Yet once academics were on mainstream media like CNN saying that there were examples of plagiarism... You can guess what happened after.

The idea was never to get people fired. The idea is to control campus speech. Firing her was the method by which donors showed they can control campus speech.

And they failed even at that, didn't they?

But in any event, that's not what ultimately forced Gay out.

I don't understand why is it so hard for you and others to accept no elite university can afford to have a President accused of research misconduct.

[Pants-of-dog]

Fine. The example I posted and how to reproduce it:

viewtopic.php?p=15301397#p15301397

Evidence that the independent panel did not review this specific allegation, since it was made after it had issued its report:

viewtopic.php?p=15302406#p15302406
viewtopic.php?p=15302790#p15302790

Then you should not be satisfied that Harvard did not request independent expert opinion on these new allegations.

Probably as a last minute effort to save her.

Yet once academics were on mainstream media like CNN saying that there were examples of plagiarism... You can guess what happened after.

So the new accusations were looked at by the investigators and deemed to be without merit, according to the text that you posted.

So you seem to be arguing that:

1. The review was not as in depth as you would have liked.
2. The reviewers were not as independent as you would have liked.

What Harvard Corporation thought is essential to this discussion.

At least it did not care about needing to replace donors to the tune of $1 billion.

Again, this is an argument from ignorance, since you have no way of knowing the actual amount of money withheld.

No.

And they failed even at that, didn't they?

But in any event, that's not what ultimately forced Gay out.

I don't understand why is it so hard for you and others to accept no elite university can afford to have a President accused of research misconduct.

The fact that rich donors can dictate campus speech is neither surprising nor ethical.

We have already seen that there is a group who is well funded who is going on to campus to record and dox students.

We see that donors are using economic leverage to fire anyone who does not support their politics vocally enough.

What do you think the chances are that people are being fired for supporting Palestine?