Harvard’s President is a perfect fit

Harvard Corporation’s Controversial‌ Support for Plagiarist President

If the authors from⁣ whom you plagiarize say⁢ it’s OK, well, ⁣then,​ it’s‌ OK! That was the upshot​ of the Harvard Corporation’s message to “members of the‍ Harvard Community” on Tuesday announcing its “full support” for university president‌ and ​serial ‌plagiarist Claudine Gay.‌ Its ‌note⁤ obliquely referred to “a​ few instances of inadequate ⁣citation” ⁤and to Gay’s “proactive” request​ to have them corrected.

In other‍ words:​ Reporters have been‌ asking questions about ⁤Gay’s plagiarism for months, and she and her defenders on the ‍Harvard Corporation—which includes ‍the⁣ former president of Princeton University, Shirley Tilghman, and⁢ the former⁤ president of Amherst‌ College, Biddy Martin—helped her ⁣batten down the hatches. Late in the⁤ day, five former Harvard presidents joined the chorus, ⁤too.

The Harvard ⁣Crimson, which limply and ⁢unenthusiastically ​substantiated reports ‌of Gay’s decades-long record of plagiarism,⁣ talked to scholars like⁢ Lawrence Bobo—one of the many authors from whom Gay cribbed, er, inadequately⁤ cited—who told ⁣the paper he was ⁤”unconcerned”⁣ that Gay ‌quoted ⁤him ​and ⁣his colleague, Gary King,​ without‍ proper attribution.

Sure, Gay violated the standards to which Harvard holds its own students. Sure, she did the same and worse to dozens ​of other scholars. But Harvard’s 30th president isn’t a plagiarist.​ And besides, ‍isn’t imitation the highest form of flattery? Take⁤ notes, Harvard‌ students. And Princeton ‌students. And Amherst students.

What the Crimson ​didn’t mention is‌ that Bobo,⁢ the dean of social sciences at Harvard, was appointed to his ⁢role five years earlier by Gay, when she⁣ was dean of Harvard’s ‌Faculty of Arts and Sciences. She’s not just‌ his boss, she’s ‌his patron. Gay’s dissertation adviser, Gary ‍King, and her former ‍classmate, Stephen Voss, also⁢ defended the⁤ Ivy League apparatchik who absconded ⁢with their work.

What none of​ them, least of⁤ all the members⁢ of the Harvard Corporation, want to say out ‌loud is that Gay wasn’t tapped for‍ her scholarship,⁤ and they ⁢aren’t‌ about to hold her to ⁢the standards of a serious scholar. Obviously.

No, Gay was chosen for a different set⁢ of credentials—her race, gender, political⁣ views, and ⁢religious​ devotion‌ to DEI—and‌ she is delivering on her promise ⁤to rededicate the university⁢ to identity politics.

To that end,⁤ she engineered the defenestration of Roland Fryer, allegedly‍ on Title‍ IX ⁣charges, after ⁣the ⁤star black economist ruffled feathers by debunking myths of rampant police violence. She​ helped strip Ronald Sullivan, a black Harvard Law professor, of‌ an‍ administrative post because he served‌ on Harvey Weinstein’s defense team. She‌ even dismissed allegations of research fraud against Ryan Enos,⁤ a Harvard government professor, who just​ so happened to find that Republicans ⁣are racist—a recurring theme in Gay’s own ⁣(well, not really) work.

In her disgraceful testimony before Congress, in⁤ which Gay‌ was​ asked whether Israel‍ has the right to exist as a Jewish⁤ state and‍ responded, “I ​believe Israel⁢ has the​ right ‍to exist”—not necessarily‌ as a Jewish ​state—she was doing ⁢the job‍ for which she was⁣ hired, in the way she was‌ hired to⁣ do it. And⁢ the‌ Harvard Corporation, in reaping the ⁢media ⁢whirlwind and⁣ tossing standards aside (again) to save its⁣ gal, is getting exactly what it asked for.

Update 6:07 p.m.:

This piece has been updated for clarity since publication.

What⁢ message does the‍ Harvard Corporation’s endorsement of Gay’s actions send to students and the academic community regarding the ⁤acceptability of plagiarism?

Ention was the sense of betrayal felt by many in the Harvard community, particularly ⁤students and faculty members who value academic integrity. Plagiarism is a serious offense that undermines the principles of honesty and originality that academia upholds.

The Harvard Corporation’s decision to dismiss‌ Gay’s plagiarism as a mere oversight and to offer their unwavering support raises questions about the institution’s commitment to maintaining academic standards. By downplaying the significance of her⁢ actions and dismissing them⁢ as‌ “inadequate citation,” the Corporation⁤ sends a troubling message to students and the ⁢academic community at⁤ large.

It is troubling to see such a prestigious institution⁣ lend its support⁤ to a serial plagiarist. Plagiarism not only undermines the credibility of the individual who commits it but also‌ erodes ​the foundation of⁢ trust and intellectual rigor that universities like Harvard are built upon. Academic integrity is a fundamental value that should ‌be upheld by all members of the academic community, regardless of their position or title.

It is also disheartening to see ⁢the response from Gay’s colleagues and ⁣former Harvard presidents.​ Their endorsement of ‌her actions ⁤is a betrayal to the principles they were entrusted to uphold.⁤ By defending Gay’s plagiarism, they not only condone her behavior, but they also send a message that academic dishonesty is acceptable and that there are no consequences for such actions.

The repercussions of the Harvard Corporation’s decision are far-reaching. It undermines the credibility of the institution and raises⁤ doubts about the value of a Harvard education. Students who work hard to maintain academic integrity may feel discouraged and disillusioned ⁢by the institution’s lack​ of accountability.

In order to restore faith in the integrity of the institution, the Harvard Corporation must reconsider its position and take appropriate action against Gay. Transparency and accountability are essential in maintaining academic standards and upholding the reputation of the institution. A clear message must be sent‌ that plagiarism will not be tolerated, regardless of one’s position ⁤or status within the university.

It is imperative that institutions like Harvard lead by⁢ example and demonstrate a commitment to academic integrity. A university president should be a role model for students, embodying the ⁣values and principles that⁤ define scholarly ⁣pursuits. By continuing ‌to support a plagiarist, the Harvard Corporation undermines its own ‌reputation and compromises ‌the values ⁣it claims to uphold.

In conclusion,⁢ the Harvard Corporation’s controversial support for a plagiarist president raises serious concerns about the institution’s commitment to academic integrity. The decision sends a damaging message to students and the academic community, undermining the importance of honesty and originality in ⁢scholarly work. It is crucial that the institution addresses this issue promptly and takes appropriate action to restore faith in its ⁢commitment to academic excellence.