[QatzelOk]

Harvard - Out Of The Frying Pan Into The Fire

Harvard may assume the forced resignation of its president, Claudine Gay, has finally ended its month-long scandal over her tenure.



Gay stepped down, remember, amid serious allegations of serial plagiarism—without refuting the charges. She proved either unable or unwilling to discipline those on her campus who were defiantly anti-Semitic in speech and action.

But Gay’s removal is not the end of Harvard’s dilemma. Rather, it is the beginning.

In the respective press releases from both Gay and the Harvard Corporation, racial animus was cited as a reason for her removal.

Gay did not even refer to her failure to stop anti-Semitism on her campus or her own record of blatant plagiarism.

Yet playing the race card reflects poorly on both and for a variety of reasons...

I do find the plot of this story interesting. The president of Harvard fails a skill-testing question put to her for political reasons... so then all her plagiarism surfaces in all media at the same time.

What I find amusing is how hard Claudine tried to look Jewish with that buzz-cut and Woody Allen glasses. And yet, with one bad answer to a question, she is the new Hitler plus a huge plagiarist.

Stay tuned for more identity politics follies....

[Rich]

Claudine Gay is in simple popular terms a Nazi. An open Nazi. According to the philosophy of a lot of leftists, we should be entitled to go up and punch her in the streets. I support free speech, so I totally support her freedom to express her beliefs. However Harvard is very far from a private institution, so she most definitely should have been sacked. What's more this should be a political acid test. I would want any politician who I support, to not only support her removal but to celebrate it.

Now to use more precise terms, Claudine Gay is a Cultural Marxist. Cultural Marxism is a hate ideology. Obviously anyone who called for the genocide of "Black" people would be expelled. Anyone who equivocated for a fraction of second on this question relating to Black people or Amerindians would be expelled.

[Pants-of-dog]

The media attack against her was orchestrated by the same guy who brought us the manufactured scandal of critical race theory and the manufactured scandal of gender identity in schools: Christopher Rufo.

It is difficult to read about the rise of the far right in the USA without coming across his name now and then.

[wat0n]

Yet Rufo was right, and she did indeed violate Harvard's policies. It is this what truly doomed here, how can Harvard enforce its own anti-plagiarism policies on students without doing the same with its President?

And this also shows something's not working in academia - Gay returned to her Professorship and is keeping her salary as Harvard's President ($900,000/year).

Something similar happened last year, when Stanford's President was forced to resign after it was shown his RAs (at least) faked data for his papers yet is still a Professor there.

[Pants-of-dog]

Prove Rufo was right.

[wat0n]

Prove Rufo was right.

Here's an example of what Rufo is talking about:

[Pants-of-dog]

How does that prove Rufo is right?

It does not claim that the original paper is not cited.

It merely states that the citation is not provided "anywhere in pages around this".

There is the possibility that Rufo and Kevin Bryan are unfamiliar with whatever citation style used by Ms. Gay.

[wat0n]

How does that prove Rufo is right?

It does not claim that the original paper is not cited.

It merely states that the citation is not provided "anywhere in pages around this".

There is the possibility that Rufo and Kevin Bryan are unfamiliar with whatever citation style used by Ms. Gay.

Can you look into her PhD thesis and provide the citation? Thus far, nobody else has been able to find it...

I don't know why you believe it is somehow impossible that there are plagiarism issues here. Some of those defending Gay are saying it's common in academia (!)

[Pants-of-dog]

Can you look into her PhD thesis and provide the citation? Thus far, nobody else has been able to find it...

No. This is your argument to support.

I don't know why you believe it is somehow impossible that there are plagiarism issues here. Some of those defending Gay are saying it's common in academia (!)

The. it should be easy to find evidence. Let me know!

[wat0n]

No. This is your argument to support.

Actually, you are the one claiming she cited this paper in her PhD thesis. Please provide proof.

The. it should be easy to find evidence. Let me know!

It should be easy to provide evidence of the citation indeed.

[Pants-of-dog]

Actually, you are the one claiming she cited this paper in her PhD thesis. Please provide proof.

Quote me.

Oh wait, you cannot, since I never claimed that.

It should be easy to provide evidence of the citation indeed.

So you are unable to support your claim that Rufo was right.

[wat0n]

Quote me.

Oh wait, you cannot, since I never claimed that.

You are the one claiming Gay did not plagiarize, even in the face of evidence. It is up to you to disprove this by showing she did cite Palmquist and Voss.

So you are unable to support your claim that Rufo was right.

I already did.

Why are you so keen on defending Claudine Gay? Nobody disagrees she committed plagiarism at this point, not even her defenders.

[Pants-of-dog]

You are the one claiming Gay did not plagiarize, even in the face of evidence. It is up to you to disprove this by showing she did cite Palmquist and Voss.

No, this thing where you forget what my argument is and make up some other thing is pointless.

I already did.

No, you just provided a Tweet where some guy said he could not find a citation.

Evidence would be like a finding from a third party investigator. The third party investigators found no examples of plagiarism, as far as I know.

[wat0n]

No, this thing where you forget what my argument is and make up some other thing is pointless.

I'm waiting for you to prove Gay cited Palmquist & Voss. As long as you don't, she remains a plagiarizer.

No, you just provided a Tweet where some guy said he could not find a citation.

Evidence would be like a finding from a third party investigator. The third party investigators found no examples of plagiarism, as far as I know.

Who would these third party investigators be?

[Pants-of-dog]

@wat0n

This thing you do where you shift the burden to me to disprove your claim when you fail to support your claim is bad debating.

If you are unaware of the third party investigation, then this might explain why you think there is evidence of plagiarism.

You do not disagree that Rufo orchestrated a political media attack on her, as a way of attacking diversity and equality in PSE.

[wat0n]

@wat0n

This thing you do where you shift the burden to me to disprove your claim when you fail to support your claim is bad debating.

If you are unaware of the third party investigation, then this might explain why you think there is evidence of plagiarism.

You do not disagree that Rufo orchestrated a political media attack on her, as a way of attacking diversity and equality in PSE.

Rufo was successful because it seems his claims were true.

It's up to you to:

1) Share this third party report.

2) Show Gay cited Palmquist & Voss, and others. That her dissertation has parts that seem copypasted from other works is not under question, the only question is whether they were cited.

I haven't seen any evidence to that effect, but I haven't been able to find her dissertation. Since you seem to be in the loop, please cite it and I will reassess.

[Pants-of-dog]

So you cannot find her thesis but you are sure she plagiarized in it.

Lol.

[wat0n]

So you cannot find her thesis but you are sure she plagiarized in it.

Lol.

I am just quoting the evidence here.

There is no dispute the text is from her thesis. Third parties (like the academic I cited) have independently found the same "similarities".

[Pants-of-dog]

No.

Admitting you have not looked at the evidence is not “quoting the evidence”.

And of course there will be similarities in research papers, since the paper is supposed to explain what the current research in the field is.

The argument is whether or not it was plagiarized. And if it is cited. then it is not plagiarized.

[wat0n]

No.

Admitting you have not looked at the evidence is not “quoting the evidence”.

And of course there will be similarities in research papers, since the paper is supposed to explain what the current research in the field is.

The argument is whether or not it was plagiarized. And if it is cited. then it is not plagiarized.

"Similarities", not "verbatim copies of text except for a few words". This kind of thing is misconduct for Harvard undergrads, that's why it's such a big deal.

And believe me, I'm being nice. In many schools, citing the source is not enough. If you copypaste text, you have to do it in quotation marks so it's clear it was copypasted, same for paraphrasing.