Harvard president plagiarized her PhD thesis

If you're black, is the south side of Chicago or west Baltimore safer for you than a small "redneck" town?

Praying for me? Praying to who? That made up all knowing mythical person somewhere in the universe.

The truth is that Stefanik is full of crap and this site is full of weak insecure folks who have issues with anyone that disagrees with there BS lies about anyone that agrees with black people.

The simple fact that this thread started as a lie to disparage the president of Harvard University. Not about some kids protesting the treatment of Palestinians...but to lie and assume that Dr. President Gay was unqualified to lead America's most prestigious institution of higher learning.

These are the facts. Good night.

She is in hot water for not providing all students with free speech rights, instead like many college campuses, free speech is selective based on leftist views.

Someone clearly has not been to Chicago or the southside. The southside of Chicago is bigger than 97% of the cities in America. SMH...whites, blacks and Hispanics live on the the southside.

SMH....

Actually, all that Dershowitz did was use some of the same quotations, including ellipses, and didn't appear to check them from the original source. We're not talking about fifty quotations or anything like that, from what Finkelstein said. That's laziness, not plagiarism.

"Now, back to the plagiarism issue: In Beyond Chutzpah, Finkelstein argues that in the first two chapters of The Case for Israel Dershowitz plagiarized Peters by lifting numerous quotations and citations directly from Peters’ book without acknowledging that he found them there. (Beyond Chutzpah, p. 230)
Dershowitz counters that although he was led to some primary sources by seeing them cited in Peters’ book, he always tried to check them before citing them. If he could not find the primary source himself, he cited Peters. If he was able to check the primary source, he cited it directly, without mentioning Peters. He claims that his failure to cite Peters in such circumstances is proper. (Case Study, p. 182)
Finkelstein’s principal response is that Dershowitz’s quotations and citations of primary sources contain obvious errors that Dershowitz could not have made if he had checked the primary sources himself, and that Dershowitz’s errors are identical to Peters’ errors concerning the same primary sources. (Beyond Chutzpah, pp. 230-231) Finkelstein infers that Dershowitz copied the quotations and citations from Peters rather than checking the primary sources himself.
Dershowitz has never, to my knowledge, responded to Finkelstein’s argument concerning the identical errors in The Case for Israel and From Time Immemorial. He wrote the List, for example, one year after publication of Beyond Chutzpah, but in it he expressly declined to address the plagiarism issue. Dershowitz has not argued that the alleged errors do not exist, or that his errors are not identical to Peters’, or that the identity of the errors is just a coincidence and the errors are easy to make even when one checks the primary sources.
Finkelstein’s argument concerning the identical errors strikes me as persuasive, and Dershowitz’s failure to respond to the argument strikes me as telling. But I expect that reasonable minds could differ."

Prove it. Show me instances of that selectiveness from actual cases at Harvard and show me how she was not accurately characterizing Harvard's speech policy.

Here's a section of the harassment policy:

"Discriminatory harassment may be considered to violate Harvard University Policy when it is so severe or pervasive and objectively offensive that it creates a work, educational, or living environment that a reasonable person would consider intimidating, hostile, or abusive and denies the individual an equal opportunity."

Now, in the so-called "FIRE" ratings of academic free speech, which may well be biased for all I know, they deeply fault Harvard (Penn as well) for its free speech dealings (getting the worst score ever) for precisely the opposite flaw from what they are being criticized for now. Conservatives are roasting them for failing to ban speech that they don't like. FIRE roasts them for banning too much free speech.

"Even in a hypothetical world in which every school FIRE surveyed earned a “green light” rating for its speech policies, Harvard would still come in dead last with a score of 4.31, and would trail the next school in the rankings by almost 22 points. This means Harvard cannot solve this problem by simply improving its speech code policies and paying lip service to supporting freedom of speech, academic freedom, and open inquiry on campus. It must consistently walk the walk by enforcing pro-speech policies as well as creating them, by refusing to cave to sanction attempts, and by changing the culture from one of self-censorship and fear to one of self-expression and courageous conversation."

thefire.org

Harvard gets worst score ever in FIRE’s College Free Speech Rankings

Harvard has never performed well in FIRE’s College Free Speech Rankings, finishing below 75% of the schools surveyed in each of the past four years.

Link:www.thefire.org/news/harvard-gets-wors...

Are you sure you are in the right place? I thought Stefanik asked Dr. President Gay a hypothetical question, while Dr. President Gay didn’t give the best answer. Why are you so angry at Stefanik? She didn’t accuse Dr. President Gay of plagiarism.

In the cases cited by Rufo, Claudine Gay gave credit to authors within the text of the dissertation and then directly cited (in her text) the nearly exact wording of the passage. This does qualify as a violation of Harvard's style guide that directs the author to summarize the passage in her own words and give credit to the cited authors in a footnote. I think, though, that Rufo goes too far, in that credit was given to the authors and no attempt was made to pass off the quoted material as original with Gay. Violation of a style guide is not "plagiarism". More likely it is simply ignorance of Harvard's guidelines that also should have been corrected before the dissertation was finally published.

Rufo should also note that Gay had been dealing with the issue of anti-Semitism on Harvard's campus a month before her appearance before the congressional committee. On November 10, she published a pronouncement on this subject that included the following declaration:

“Our community must understand that phrases such as ‘from the river to the sea’ bear specific historical meanings that to a great many people imply the eradication of Jews from Israel and engender both pain and existential fears within our Jewish community,” Gay wrote. “I condemn this phrase and any similarly hurtful phrases.”

Although she offends many outside of Harvard with her unapologetic woke sentiments, she has plenty of support inside Harvard.

The fact is the well-informed students lucky enough to anticipate having the word "Harvard" on their degree have knowingly done a deal with the devil of wokeness and anti-colonialism when they matriculated into that university. I'm not impressed when they now claim to be grievously offended.

Bill Ackman is leading the charge against Harvard, pandering to whining undergraduates, trying to use his billions to change Harvard. However, his history of outspoken anti-wokism (he has supported Kyle Rittenhouse and Elon Musk) would indicate he is way to the right of the mainstream of the Democratic Party, and unlikely to have any influence on Harvard's politics.

Don't kid yourselves that making a scapegoat of Claudine Gay will have any impact on the deeply entrenched politics of Harvard. We need a generation of Harvard applicants to reject those politics and go elsewhere. That's unlikely to happen.

Impressive mental gymnastics. Remind me which side of the aisle all the actual Nazis/neo-Nazis rush toward almost without fail? Remind me what happened in Charlottesville. Remind me about Dylann Roof and the Pittsburgh synagogue murderer and the endless parade of right-wing mass-murdering white dudes. Which side of the aisle are they always on? :)

Arguing back and forth about plagarism misses the real problem. Although Gay is intelligent, she is not qualified to run an Ivy League Universtity.

Similarly, New Mexico Associate Psychology Professor Geoffrey Miller also took to X on Dec. 6 to express concern over the relatively low total amount of 11 peer-reviewed journal papers that Gay had authored in spite of her being a president at an elite university.

”Well, that’s about the number you’d normally need to get hired as a first-year tenure-track assistant professor at a decent state university,” he wrote.

Merit is taking a back seat.

Why do you think peer-reviewed journal papers are a key metric for running a university? My company’s president doesn’t have any.

This. A POS hypocrite trying to call someone else out for the things they don't do or believe in. Yeah, let's just play along right.

It's all politically motivated attacks by the trumpers hanging to fictitious narratives. Harvard is far from perfect but I'm glad they are not folding to individual politicians and billionaires.

Yawn... this is just butthurtness from immature kids and voters who want to impose their emotionally driven points on view on others, on both sides of the argument. She previously said no student group represents all of Harvard staff and students, and denounced the attacks. People are trying to interpret something that isn't materially there. It's literally the right wingers trying to cancel stuff they don't like right now. Harvard is not perfect but they certainly aren't the bigger problem here.

Merit in business doesn't involve publications but in academics it is the crucial measure of merit.

Running the university is more like running a business than being a professor. Convince me otherwise.

Being a university president is 98% a fundraising job

No one should care about this unless MAYBE you're a Harvard student. Being worked up about this story is a good sign you should get away from the internet and cable news for a bit

But wait I thought black people got prestigious jobs because they actually earned them?

University of New Mexico Associate Psychology Professor Geoffrey Miller sounds like a whiny little b*tch that couldn't get a position at a respectable university. I assume this is due to the fact that he's a complete f*cking idiot. He got his PhD in 1993 and is still an associate professor? Sounds like he should have spent less time publishing psychobabble nonsense that nobody will ever read. Complaining that somebody's publication record reflects their ability to lead a university is like saying that the guy that bags groceries is qualified to be CEO of Whole Foods.