11 ms·

The plagiarism is really unacceptable, but the political pressure targeting academia makes me sad. IMO this really should have been handled internally at Harvar

The plagiarism is really unacceptable, but the political pressure targeting academia makes me sad. IMO this really should have been handled internally at Harvard - not on a national stage.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> this really should have been handled internally at Harvard - not on a national stage Isn’t that the Corporation’s fault? If they’d handled it internally there wouldn’t have been a public scandal.
- chewmieser 3y ago
  How Harvard handles it is up to them. They're a private university. If they choose to stand behind Gay then that's their and their student's choice. Nothing about this scandal was public until they were brought in front of congress to talk about antisemitism.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > How Harvard handles it is up to them. They're a private university. They’re tax advantaged and publicly funded in ways that invite public scrutiny. > Nothing about this scandal was public until they were brought in front of congress to talk about antisemitism Where Gay promptly screwed the pooch. Also, how is unethical behaviour permissible if hidden?
    - thebradbain 3y ago
      Go after the churches and religious organizations first, in that case, as they’re also tax advantaged and their leaders and congregations have a profound pull upon politics and politicians. The Mormon Church in Utah is essentially a government with real state power of its own, for example. And the Westboro Baptist Church is still allowed to organize and shout God Hates [Gays] at funerals of private citizens by an 8-1 Supreme Court Ruling.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > Go after the churches and religious organizations first, in that case, as they’re also tax advantaged and their leaders and congregations have a profound pull upon politics and politicians Plenty of people do. Gay is being terminated for plagiarism. Her ethics breaches simply came to light because she fucked up answering an incredibly simple question that points to a fundamental disconnect from how most people view the world.
        fzeroracer 3y ago
        Who exactly are these people going after churches and religious organizations, and when was the last time they were brought in front of congress for it?
      - infamia 3y ago
        > Go after the churches and religious organizations first This veers into whataboutism, and changing the subject. Both can be done at the same time as they are not mutually exclusive. It is not an either or question and it distracts from the original discussion.
        thebradbain 3y ago
        Well, they clearly can’t, because one is being bolstered by politicians and the other attacked by the same set of those politicians. I have not heard of a single Democrat politician advocate defunding religious organizations. I have often heard the GOP advocate for punishing college faculty/students/administrators and withholding accreditation/nonprofit-status. Regardless, I actually think it’s a bad idea to go after either: both of those institutions, ultimately, are checks on the State — and historically, when a state turns to fascism, universities and religious organizations (save the “favored/officially sanctioned religion”) are the first thing to go.
  - ru552 3y ago
    Harvard is private, but they do receive public funds. This exposes them to additional scrutiny.
  - prepend 3y ago
    Weren’t they brought in front of Congress because they chose not to handle the antisemitism on campus?
  - skissane 3y ago
    > How Harvard handles it is up to them. They're a private university. Harvard's true status is rather unusual. They were established by the Massachusetts colonial legislature, which formally retained the right to interfere in Harvard's governance, but very rarely used that right, largely leaving Harvard to run itself. The Massachusetts state constitution has a whole section on Harvard (Chapter V Section I), article III of which says "nothing herein shall be construed to prevent the legislature of this commonwealth from making such alterations in the government of the said university, as shall be conducive to its advantage and the interest of the republic of letters, in as full a manner as might have been done by the legislature of the late Province of the Massachusetts Bay", [0] meaning that the Massachusetts state legislature formally retains its right to intervene in the running of Harvard, even though it has never used it. This means Harvard is not a fully private university, rather one occupying a sort of grey zone between private and public - private in practice, but subject to state control in theory - and maybe one day in practice again, the recent controversies over Harvard have led to suggestions [1] that the Massachusetts state legislature take up its power to intervene in Harvard, e.g. by granting itself the right to appoint members to the Harvard Corporation. Politically, I think the odds are against that actually happening, but you never know. Legally/constitutionally, I don't think there would be any problem with it, since Harvard has never been a fully private institution, it has always been under theoretical state control, and the state does not lose its theoretical legal powers through failing to use them in practice [0] https://malegislature.gov/Laws/Constitution#chapterVSectionI https://malegislature.gov/Laws/Constitution#chapterVSectionI [1] see this WSJ article https://archive.md/t0jYc https://archive.md/t0jYc - "One faculty member, citing a carve-out in the Massachusetts Constitution that reserves authority over Harvard to the state legislature, has urged Massachusetts lawmakers to install a government official on the board to provide more transparency and public accountability. A spokeswoman for Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey said the governor is aware of the proposal and looks forward to reviewing it"
paulpauper 3y ago
It's not sad. we need to hold these administrators to the same standards they hold their students or public. nothing political about it. Students get expelled, auto-fail for plagiarism.
- chewmieser 3y ago
  It's sad that this is this even a national topic of discussion instead of an internal investigation and change at the university itself.
  - paulpauper 3y ago
    Harvard is a the most influential higher-ed institution and affects its president, which is its highest ranking member. there is no way it cannot be a national story. When Lawrence Summers resigned for comments he made in 2005 it was national news too.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      I think OP is saying it's sad it escalated due to incompetence from university leadership. As a result, we have a loud public precedent around donors and politicians calling shots at universities.
      - telotortium 3y ago
        As they should! Administration should definitely be subject to public scrutiny to the extent that it doesn't impinge on faculty and students' academic work or opinions. I would heavily oppose any consequences to a university resulting from a professors comments, including threats to withhold funding unless a professor is fired. But consequences to the administration should be on the table, including, in extreme cases, reducing funding to research at the university in a manner that doesn't target individual professors. Only then is there likely to be a moderating force that prevents university administrations from spiraling into political activism as they have done, especially over the past decade.
goodguy29495 3y ago
It's natural that universities will experience political accountability as they become more politically active. Education consumes a lot of resources, it's only natural that it's the subject of a lot of scrutiny.
- chewmieser 3y ago
  Why do you think universities are more politically active? They have always been a safe-haven for ideas that go against the fray. I would argue they have always been "politically active."
  - telotortium 3y ago
    When the administration of the University is making political statements and engaging in political activism, I would argue that they should lose the implicit protection that University faculty (I'd be willing to grant students that protection too) have for controversial ideas that they profess in the role of an academic. Even professors or students that take administrative roles should expect to lose such protection, since they have come to represent the university as an institution.† For an example from the other side of the aisle, I opposed Steve Hsu being fired as VP of Research at Michigan State University in 2020 for his opinions, particularly regarding the genetics of race and intelligence (https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/06/16/open-thread-156-25/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/06/16/open-thread-156-25/). Yet, ultimately, that was the risk of an administrative position such as his. He still is a full professor, and he has started several startups since then, so he's doing okay. The main objection I have to positions like yours is that you believe that university administration should not be subject to pressure from politicians who grant universities the great privilege of being untaxed nonprofits with immense endowments and great influence in all the pillars of society. On the other hand, you believe that administrators should be subject to influence and control by left-wing student and academic protestors (I'm sure you think right-wing protestors would be illegitimate). I'm arguing that pressure on administration from both sides is legitimate, and that the former should flex its muscle more. † I would also argue that academic fields that adopt activism as policy (so, all critical theory-influenced fields) should lose protection for their ideas, since they are clearly not pursued in a commitment to the truth, but that's a bit of an aside from my point here.
bsaul 3y ago
Plagiarism is really the least of my concerns in that case. The fact that a university president had to use convoluted statements to answer something as basic as "is calling for the murder of jews against the rules of university", is, IMHO, the most troubling event happening to the american university world in a while.
- chewmieser 3y ago
  Are you for free speech or against it? Where is the line drawn? These are hard questions to answer, especially in the manner they were "asked." And it's probably not exclusively up to Gay to decide & answer them.
  - The5thElephant 3y ago
    Yes but it was an obvious trap and self-inflicted wound. Is giving the technically correct answer alone actually better considering the resulting consequences? Would have been smarter to give both the desired answer (calling for genocide is bad) AND follow it with the technical answer to make it clear she understood both what the schools rules are as well as what was happening in that hearing and why.
  - throwaway-blaze 3y ago
    Only someone as credentialed as a Harvard president would think this is a hard question to answer. You can be for free speech and not deliver a word-salad answer that basically sounded like "maybe" to most of the people listening.
    - dpkonofa 3y ago
      It is a hard question to answer because the school has a policy of allowing and supporting free speech. The question isn’t black and white. If you support free speech, you have to support objectionable speech that you disagree with, unless it moves from being speech to being targeted or actionable. That was the whole crux of her answer and why it was a completely dishonest question. Harvard allows the Westboro Church to say “God hates f*s” and “death to queers” despite many not liking it because it’s free speech until someone takes action on that. It’s even more ludicrous considering that the people attempting to push the question dishonestly are the same ones who like to cry about free speech on Twitter, a private platform, while saying free speech should be curbed if it’s objectionable in this case at a university that takes public funding.
silisili 3y ago
The problem is that they did handle it internally, by doing nothing and ignoring everyone. I follow Ackman and he's been absolutely laser focused on getting her out. To an unhealthy degree, even. I guess he can sleep, finally. Anyways, he revealed a lot during this, and gave 'insider' info that basically Harvard didn't do anything because they didn't want to seem told to do so. That's basically the attitude my 12 year old has.
- AnimalMuppet 3y ago
  > That's basically the attitude my 12 year old has. True, but... for a public institution that leans left to give in to pressure from the right is going to mean the right thinks they can push that institution around with pressure. It's to open the door to a lot more pressure. Of course, the right way out of this dilemma is to, once it's brought to your attention, ignore the pressure but handle it like you should have handled it, and with public statements of status. "We are aware of the allegations. We have formed an independent committee to investigate. Until that investigation terminates, we have no further statement." And then a public statement when it has terminated. And so on. Then you're doing the right thing, but not responding to pressure.
  - itbeho 3y ago
    Bill Ackman is right leaning? Arguably the biggest proponent of Gay's ouster while being one of the biggest donors to Chuck Schumer and the DNC.
  - jaybaxter 3y ago
    It is very confusing to me how this got painted as pressure solely from the right. Ackman seemed like the driving force behind it, and he has mostly donated to democrats: "Since 1998, with few exceptions to select Republicans, Ackman has mainly donated to Democratic election candidates. Ackman has donated more than $600,000 to Democratic campaigns" https://www.influencewatch.org/person/bill-ackman/#:~:text=25-,Political%20Contributions,donated%20to%20Democratic%20election%20candidates.&text=Ackman%20has%20donated%20more%20than,mayor%20Pete%20Buttigieg%2C%20former%20Rep https://www.influencewatch.org/person/bill-ackman/#:~:text=2....
high_derivative 3y ago
You cannot have it both ways. Universities get billions in public funding and then turn around using that money to fund political activists masquerading as academics. Disciplines like sociology are now very open about the fact that academics need to be openly activist to advance. It's disingenuous to then complain about political pressure.
dekhn 3y ago
Even though I'm liberal and generally vote democratic, and have enjoyed the liberal nature of academia, I think political advocacy by people in power in academia has gone too far and political pressure is probably the most effective way to help guide our universities back to being shining beacons of thought. And questions like this should be addressed on a national stage because of the specific position that Harvard holds, both historically, now, and financially. It was clear the Board was more than happy to try to paper this over as privately as they could.
- porkbeer 3y ago
  Political Pressure is how we got here.
infamouscow 3y ago
According to Claudine Gay, in accordance with Harvard's policies these are perfectly acceptable on campus: - "Disgraced former Harvard President Claudine Gay is finally back picking cotton where she belongs" - "I think the black students should be picking cotton, not studying at Harvard" Those quotes are also protected under the 1st amendment. Regardless, they're also vile, and the merits of the expression are so utterly vacuous that it has no substance for mind-expanding endeavors that universities claim to be for. Similar to calling for a genocide. Claudine Gay is a mediocre person who should genuinely be embarrassment for setting back everything she claims to stand for by a decade, if not more.
cscurmudgeon 3y ago
At a much lower ranked university, I had friend who forgot quotes around a couple of quotations of prior art that made it seem like she copied with citations. She had to spend an extra semester to submit a new thesis. It is alarming how soft academia and Harvard have been on Claudine Gay.
cscurmudgeon 3y ago
Are you not more worried by Harvard threatening journalists? https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2023/12/25/harvard-threaten-sue-post/ https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2023/12/25/harvard-threat...
- infamouscow 3y ago
  Harvard first has to prove the statements are false in a court of law, which is (likely) impossible. It also drags this whole situation out for years, causing a whole lot more irreparable damage.

The plagiarism is really unacceptable, but the political pressure targeting academia makes me sad. IMO this really should have been handled internally at Harvard - not on a national stage.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> this really should have been handled internally at Harvard - not on a national stage Isn’t that the Corporation’s fault? If they’d handled it internally there wouldn’t have been a public scandal.

chewmieser 3y ago
How Harvard handles it is up to them. They're a private university. If they choose to stand behind Gay then that's their and their student's choice. Nothing about this scandal was public until they were brought in front of congress to talk about antisemitism.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > How Harvard handles it is up to them. They're a private university. They’re tax advantaged and publicly funded in ways that invite public scrutiny. > Nothing about this scandal was public until they were brought in front of congress to talk about antisemitism Where Gay promptly screwed the pooch. Also, how is unethical behaviour permissible if hidden?
  - thebradbain 3y ago
    Go after the churches and religious organizations first, in that case, as they’re also tax advantaged and their leaders and congregations have a profound pull upon politics and politicians. The Mormon Church in Utah is essentially a government with real state power of its own, for example. And the Westboro Baptist Church is still allowed to organize and shout God Hates [Gays] at funerals of private citizens by an 8-1 Supreme Court Ruling.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > Go after the churches and religious organizations first, in that case, as they’re also tax advantaged and their leaders and congregations have a profound pull upon politics and politicians Plenty of people do. Gay is being terminated for plagiarism. Her ethics breaches simply came to light because she fucked up answering an incredibly simple question that points to a fundamental disconnect from how most people view the world.
      - fzeroracer 3y ago
        Who exactly are these people going after churches and religious organizations, and when was the last time they were brought in front of congress for it?
    - infamia 3y ago
      > Go after the churches and religious organizations first This veers into whataboutism, and changing the subject. Both can be done at the same time as they are not mutually exclusive. It is not an either or question and it distracts from the original discussion.
      - thebradbain 3y ago
        Well, they clearly can’t, because one is being bolstered by politicians and the other attacked by the same set of those politicians. I have not heard of a single Democrat politician advocate defunding religious organizations. I have often heard the GOP advocate for punishing college faculty/students/administrators and withholding accreditation/nonprofit-status. Regardless, I actually think it’s a bad idea to go after either: both of those institutions, ultimately, are checks on the State — and historically, when a state turns to fascism, universities and religious organizations (save the “favored/officially sanctioned religion”) are the first thing to go.
- ru552 3y ago
  Harvard is private, but they do receive public funds. This exposes them to additional scrutiny.
- prepend 3y ago
  Weren’t they brought in front of Congress because they chose not to handle the antisemitism on campus?
- skissane 3y ago
  > How Harvard handles it is up to them. They're a private university. Harvard's true status is rather unusual. They were established by the Massachusetts colonial legislature, which formally retained the right to interfere in Harvard's governance, but very rarely used that right, largely leaving Harvard to run itself. The Massachusetts state constitution has a whole section on Harvard (Chapter V Section I), article III of which says "nothing herein shall be construed to prevent the legislature of this commonwealth from making such alterations in the government of the said university, as shall be conducive to its advantage and the interest of the republic of letters, in as full a manner as might have been done by the legislature of the late Province of the Massachusetts Bay", [0] meaning that the Massachusetts state legislature formally retains its right to intervene in the running of Harvard, even though it has never used it. This means Harvard is not a fully private university, rather one occupying a sort of grey zone between private and public - private in practice, but subject to state control in theory - and maybe one day in practice again, the recent controversies over Harvard have led to suggestions [1] that the Massachusetts state legislature take up its power to intervene in Harvard, e.g. by granting itself the right to appoint members to the Harvard Corporation. Politically, I think the odds are against that actually happening, but you never know. Legally/constitutionally, I don't think there would be any problem with it, since Harvard has never been a fully private institution, it has always been under theoretical state control, and the state does not lose its theoretical legal powers through failing to use them in practice [0] https://malegislature.gov/Laws/Constitution#chapterVSectionI https://malegislature.gov/Laws/Constitution#chapterVSectionI [1] see this WSJ article https://archive.md/t0jYc https://archive.md/t0jYc - "One faculty member, citing a carve-out in the Massachusetts Constitution that reserves authority over Harvard to the state legislature, has urged Massachusetts lawmakers to install a government official on the board to provide more transparency and public accountability. A spokeswoman for Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey said the governor is aware of the proposal and looks forward to reviewing it"

paulpauper 3y ago

It's not sad. we need to hold these administrators to the same standards they hold their students or public. nothing political about it. Students get expelled, auto-fail for plagiarism.

chewmieser 3y ago
It's sad that this is this even a national topic of discussion instead of an internal investigation and change at the university itself.
- paulpauper 3y ago
  Harvard is a the most influential higher-ed institution and affects its president, which is its highest ranking member. there is no way it cannot be a national story. When Lawrence Summers resigned for comments he made in 2005 it was national news too.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    I think OP is saying it's sad it escalated due to incompetence from university leadership. As a result, we have a loud public precedent around donors and politicians calling shots at universities.
    - telotortium 3y ago
      As they should! Administration should definitely be subject to public scrutiny to the extent that it doesn't impinge on faculty and students' academic work or opinions. I would heavily oppose any consequences to a university resulting from a professors comments, including threats to withhold funding unless a professor is fired. But consequences to the administration should be on the table, including, in extreme cases, reducing funding to research at the university in a manner that doesn't target individual professors. Only then is there likely to be a moderating force that prevents university administrations from spiraling into political activism as they have done, especially over the past decade.

goodguy29495 3y ago

It's natural that universities will experience political accountability as they become more politically active. Education consumes a lot of resources, it's only natural that it's the subject of a lot of scrutiny.

chewmieser 3y ago
Why do you think universities are more politically active? They have always been a safe-haven for ideas that go against the fray. I would argue they have always been "politically active."
- telotortium 3y ago
  When the administration of the University is making political statements and engaging in political activism, I would argue that they should lose the implicit protection that University faculty (I'd be willing to grant students that protection too) have for controversial ideas that they profess in the role of an academic. Even professors or students that take administrative roles should expect to lose such protection, since they have come to represent the university as an institution.† For an example from the other side of the aisle, I opposed Steve Hsu being fired as VP of Research at Michigan State University in 2020 for his opinions, particularly regarding the genetics of race and intelligence (https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/06/16/open-thread-156-25/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/06/16/open-thread-156-25/). Yet, ultimately, that was the risk of an administrative position such as his. He still is a full professor, and he has started several startups since then, so he's doing okay. The main objection I have to positions like yours is that you believe that university administration should not be subject to pressure from politicians who grant universities the great privilege of being untaxed nonprofits with immense endowments and great influence in all the pillars of society. On the other hand, you believe that administrators should be subject to influence and control by left-wing student and academic protestors (I'm sure you think right-wing protestors would be illegitimate). I'm arguing that pressure on administration from both sides is legitimate, and that the former should flex its muscle more. † I would also argue that academic fields that adopt activism as policy (so, all critical theory-influenced fields) should lose protection for their ideas, since they are clearly not pursued in a commitment to the truth, but that's a bit of an aside from my point here.

bsaul 3y ago

Plagiarism is really the least of my concerns in that case. The fact that a university president had to use convoluted statements to answer something as basic as "is calling for the murder of jews against the rules of university", is, IMHO, the most troubling event happening to the american university world in a while.

chewmieser 3y ago
Are you for free speech or against it? Where is the line drawn? These are hard questions to answer, especially in the manner they were "asked." And it's probably not exclusively up to Gay to decide & answer them.
- The5thElephant 3y ago
  Yes but it was an obvious trap and self-inflicted wound. Is giving the technically correct answer alone actually better considering the resulting consequences? Would have been smarter to give both the desired answer (calling for genocide is bad) AND follow it with the technical answer to make it clear she understood both what the schools rules are as well as what was happening in that hearing and why.
- throwaway-blaze 3y ago
  Only someone as credentialed as a Harvard president would think this is a hard question to answer. You can be for free speech and not deliver a word-salad answer that basically sounded like "maybe" to most of the people listening.
  - dpkonofa 3y ago
    It is a hard question to answer because the school has a policy of allowing and supporting free speech. The question isn’t black and white. If you support free speech, you have to support objectionable speech that you disagree with, unless it moves from being speech to being targeted or actionable. That was the whole crux of her answer and why it was a completely dishonest question. Harvard allows the Westboro Church to say “God hates f*s” and “death to queers” despite many not liking it because it’s free speech until someone takes action on that. It’s even more ludicrous considering that the people attempting to push the question dishonestly are the same ones who like to cry about free speech on Twitter, a private platform, while saying free speech should be curbed if it’s objectionable in this case at a university that takes public funding.

silisili 3y ago

The problem is that they did handle it internally, by doing nothing and ignoring everyone. I follow Ackman and he's been absolutely laser focused on getting her out. To an unhealthy degree, even. I guess he can sleep, finally. Anyways, he revealed a lot during this, and gave 'insider' info that basically Harvard didn't do anything because they didn't want to seem told to do so. That's basically the attitude my 12 year old has.

AnimalMuppet 3y ago
> That's basically the attitude my 12 year old has. True, but... for a public institution that leans left to give in to pressure from the right is going to mean the right thinks they can push that institution around with pressure. It's to open the door to a lot more pressure. Of course, the right way out of this dilemma is to, once it's brought to your attention, ignore the pressure but handle it like you should have handled it, and with public statements of status. "We are aware of the allegations. We have formed an independent committee to investigate. Until that investigation terminates, we have no further statement." And then a public statement when it has terminated. And so on. Then you're doing the right thing, but not responding to pressure.
- itbeho 3y ago
  Bill Ackman is right leaning? Arguably the biggest proponent of Gay's ouster while being one of the biggest donors to Chuck Schumer and the DNC.
- jaybaxter 3y ago
  It is very confusing to me how this got painted as pressure solely from the right. Ackman seemed like the driving force behind it, and he has mostly donated to democrats: "Since 1998, with few exceptions to select Republicans, Ackman has mainly donated to Democratic election candidates. Ackman has donated more than $600,000 to Democratic campaigns" https://www.influencewatch.org/person/bill-ackman/#:~:text=25-,Political%20Contributions,donated%20to%20Democratic%20election%20candidates.&text=Ackman%20has%20donated%20more%20than,mayor%20Pete%20Buttigieg%2C%20former%20Rep https://www.influencewatch.org/person/bill-ackman/#:~:text=2....

high_derivative 3y ago

You cannot have it both ways. Universities get billions in public funding and then turn around using that money to fund political activists masquerading as academics. Disciplines like sociology are now very open about the fact that academics need to be openly activist to advance. It's disingenuous to then complain about political pressure.

dekhn 3y ago

Even though I'm liberal and generally vote democratic, and have enjoyed the liberal nature of academia, I think political advocacy by people in power in academia has gone too far and political pressure is probably the most effective way to help guide our universities back to being shining beacons of thought. And questions like this should be addressed on a national stage because of the specific position that Harvard holds, both historically, now, and financially. It was clear the Board was more than happy to try to paper this over as privately as they could.

porkbeer 3y ago
Political Pressure is how we got here.

infamouscow 3y ago

According to Claudine Gay, in accordance with Harvard's policies these are perfectly acceptable on campus: - "Disgraced former Harvard President Claudine Gay is finally back picking cotton where she belongs" - "I think the black students should be picking cotton, not studying at Harvard" Those quotes are also protected under the 1st amendment. Regardless, they're also vile, and the merits of the expression are so utterly vacuous that it has no substance for mind-expanding endeavors that universities claim to be for. Similar to calling for a genocide. Claudine Gay is a mediocre person who should genuinely be embarrassment for setting back everything she claims to stand for by a decade, if not more.

cscurmudgeon 3y ago

At a much lower ranked university, I had friend who forgot quotes around a couple of quotations of prior art that made it seem like she copied with citations. She had to spend an extra semester to submit a new thesis. It is alarming how soft academia and Harvard have been on Claudine Gay.

cscurmudgeon 3y ago

Are you not more worried by Harvard threatening journalists? https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2023/12/25/harvard-threaten-sue-post/ https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2023/12/25/harvard-threat...

infamouscow 3y ago
Harvard first has to prove the statements are false in a court of law, which is (likely) impossible. It also drags this whole situation out for years, causing a whole lot more irreparable damage.