Why is "Black Electoral Success" an "inane" topic of historical research? Have there not been Black people who have experienced electoral success? Is there not a history of this? Why would researching this in and of itself be inane?
The only thing that is inane is your b.s. The reason Gay is being targeted is obvious. I guess you enjoy being the puppet of Israel, having your gov't commandeered by a foreign power. F__ you.
The whole thing is coming down and it is only just the start. The targeting of this woman is indicative of what is going on.
Cognition of one's own inferiority and fragility---reflected and projected as violating action, behaviour and a mindset---to existential and ego threats. All in order to survive---inferior and fragile.
The colonial and imperial systems can be no longer. It is nonsensical for a tiny tiny minority to be in power on this planet. It causes too many problems. We live on a planet of different people, diversity, difference and variety. If you do not live in this Universe something is wrong with your mind.
Do you think if Harvard had members of the KKK as students who were calling for the genocide of whites she might be singing a different tune and act on shutting them down?
During the hearing, Stefanik asked Gay directly whether “calling for the genocide of Jews” is against the code of conduct at Harvard.
She pointedly refused to answer affirmatively, saying, “When speech crosses into conduct, we take action.”
The Actual Truth wrote:
Why is "Black Electoral Success" an "inane" topic of historical research? Have there not been Black people who have experienced electoral success? Is there not a history of this? Why would researching this in and of itself be inane?
The only thing that is inane is your b.s. The reason Gay is being targeted is obvious. I guess you enjoy being the puppet of Israel, having your gov't commandeered by a foreign power. F__ you.
She's being targeted because she's a fraud and a disgrace to 100+ years of superb black academic achievement.
You own yourself, (fake) bother man, brother man (sorry for the "duplicative language") by caping for such an ethics-lesd cretin but oooh, she made whitey feel so good when she was appointed.
Here's a twist. The racist-in-chief intervened to save her.
Rut-Roh.
The Actual Truth wrote:
Why is "Black Electoral Success" an "inane" topic of historical research? Have there not been Black people who have experienced electoral success? Is there not a history of this? Why would researching this in and of itself be inane?
The only thing that is inane is your b.s. The reason Gay is being targeted is obvious. I guess you enjoy being the puppet of Israel, having your gov't commandeered by a foreign power. F__ you.
Yes, it’s very funny
Who is the current prime minister of Kenya?
Did Kenya ever have a white prime minister?
“Duplicative language” is the new plagiarism. Lol
She's definitely done some shoddy citation but definitely not tried to pass off the work of others as her own. She's not taking their work and not crediting it. She's crediting it and the plagiarism examples are paragraphs in which she is literally discussing their findings and their methodology but using more of their own exact language, which means that her note-taking or even understanding of what constitutes plagiarism is flawed. She writes down a verbatim passage of them explaining their findings and copies that into a paragraph about their findings without changing more than a few words. That's just carelessness. Students plagiarize on another level, not just reporting verbatim language attributed to the right people in a few places, but rather taking whole parts of essays without attributing them to anyone else. So, she is by no means blameless but by no means passing off the ideas or writing of others as her own.
zcxvzcxv wrote:
She's definitely done some shoddy citation but definitely not tried to pass off the work of others as her own. She's not taking their work and not crediting it. She's crediting it and the plagiarism examples are paragraphs in which she is literally discussing their findings and their methodology but using more of their own exact language, which means that her note-taking or even understanding of what constitutes plagiarism is flawed. She writes down a verbatim passage of them explaining their findings and copies that into a paragraph about their findings without changing more than a few words. That's just carelessness. Students plagiarize on another level, not just reporting verbatim language attributed to the right people in a few places, but rather taking whole parts of essays without attributing them to anyone else. So, she is by no means blameless but by no means passing off the ideas or writing of others as her own.
Yes, it’s poor form, a technical violation, but not intentional misrepresentation. It still violates Harvard’s definition of plagiarism applicable to students, so they are stuck in a publicity soup.
I’d be more forgiving of the plagiarized parts in her thesis. Most scientists are pretty forgiving of graduate students, even postdocs, for such “inadequate citation”, which is indeed an appropriate way to describe her error here, much as the right wingers might have a field day making fun it as a euphemism for plagiarism. If she weren’t the hot button president of Harvard, nobody would care about the lifted sentences in her thesis, so there’s definitely a double standard both ways: on the one hand, she’s not being punished at all quite unlike how undergrads would be punished for a similar offense, but on the other hand, she is being punished with all the pillorying just because of her position for something most academics would brush off as not a big deal.
Harvard Yard wrote:
“Duplicative language” is the new plagiarism. Lol
Awesome to see the war between DEI and integrity. Which side is going to win America?
Kobbs Hessler wrote:
Here's a twist. The racist-in-chief intervened to save her.
The irony.....
You said racist and then provide a link to the daily caller.
Your ignorance knows no boundaries.
You could live a thousand lifetimes and your dumb ass would never ever come close to being the president of the most prestigious university in America.
Dismissed.
Fact check: True
How witty - a gay joke.
When people can't Control you, they try to control how people View you.
This is racist white America today.
Well, if you don't like your Harvard president with only 11 articles, albeit 2,000 citations of her work, and with inadequate citation practices in her work itself, what about Ron DeSantis's vision of a college president, a guy making $1M per year at a 700 student institution, New College of Florida? Richard Corcoran's academic credentials are lousy, to say the least, and his only publications are paid political books by Marco Rubio ($113k to write it) and Ron DeSantis (about Ron DeSantis, naturally). He likely paid tens of thousands of dollars in donations to DeSantis, because that is the going rate, to go from Florida House speaker to Education Secretary to New College president. He has been involved in multiple scandals, including bid-rigging scandals and others involving too much spending of campaign funds on things like an $8,000 at the infamous French Laundry in California.
Sonnys wrote:
It's difficult to take Harvard seriously these days. It appears to be intent on becoming the Bud Light of American Universities.
Most phony black intellectuals affect a oddball 'look' to enhance their bullcrap credentials. Hers is the bald haircut and bottomless collection of oversized, colored eyeglasses. Cornell West has the teeth and Don King hairdo. Ibram X Kendi has the long dreadlocks and purple-colored attire. Nikole Hannah-Jones with the hair. All part of the costume.
Talk about DEI - her name is LITERALLY Gay. DR. GAY!
There is at least some sanity on the Harvard Crimson editorial board
Barbie Burbank wrote:
Do you think if Harvard had members of the KKK as students who were calling for the genocide of whites she might be singing a different tune and act on shutting them down?
During the hearing, Stefanik asked Gay directly whether “calling for the genocide of Jews” is against the code of conduct at Harvard.
She pointedly refused to answer affirmatively, saying, “When speech crosses into conduct, we take action.”
Why were these presidents dragged before Congress to condemn statements that were never made? The power of AIPAC and the rest of "The Lobby" on full display
This post was removed.
