7 ms·

Her proven plagiarism is quite egregious. Can’t understand how other academics can keep defending her.

by camillomiller 3y ago

ejb999 3y ago
[flagged]
- ambrozk 3y ago
  She didn't say it's okay. She said that whether it's against Harvard's CoC is dependent on the context, which is obviously true.
  - gruez 3y ago
    That's be fine if they didn't have a history of shutting down dissenting speech on campus.
  - ejb999 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - jjulius 3y ago
      This feels like you're putting words in that user's mouth.
    - noitpmeder 3y ago
      Are you intentionally being obtuse? The GP made no statement as to his personal beliefs, just as to whether or not the statements violated a university's CoC, which none of us have more insight into than the current (now prior) president of said university.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - recursive 3y ago
      Stop it. It's about whether it's a violation of a code of conduct. Not being "OK".
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - woodruffw 3y ago
      I'm Jewish. It's clear to me that her actual statement has been significantly distorted; in context, it's clearly a very minor flub (and factually correct, with respect to Harvard's policies). (Evidence of her plagiarism is also overwhelming, and she should not be Harvard's president with that record. It remains to be seen what percent of academics would stand up to that level of scrutiny.)
  - thorum 3y ago
    The fact that it’s technically true doesn’t really help her. Getting hung up on the technical details of Harvard’s code of conduct just comes across as uncaring about the big picture issue, that is, the thing people outside Harvard actually care about. Part of the job involves clear and sensitive public communication about politically charged topics, and that’s where she failed.
  - pgeorgi 3y ago
    To quote the exchange (taken from https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2023/12/8/gay-apology-congressional-remarks/ https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2023/12/8/gay-apology-con...): “At Harvard, does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Harvard’s rules of bullying and harassment?” Stefanik asked. “It can be, depending on the context,” Gay responded. But Stefanik pressed Gay to give a yes or no answer to the question about whether calls for the genocide of Jews constitute a violation of Harvard’s policies. “Antisemitic speech when it crosses into conduct that amounts to bullying, harassment, intimidation — that is actionable conduct and we do take action,” Gay said. Stefanik tried again. “So the answer is yes, that calling for the genocide of Jews violates Harvard code of conduct, correct?” Stefanik asked. “Again, it depends on the context,” Gay said. --- The middle part with its "that is actionable conduct and we do take action" could mean that she understood the question as "does the university take action?", and that truly depends on the context: There are situations that aren't the university's business but law enforcement's. (even though I'm not saying that she took it that way, I don't know what she thought at that moment, but it seems like it wasn't a lot.) Even with such a 'most charitable' interpretation her communication sucks though, which makes her unsuitable for a role that's to a larger part that of a figure head. And with any other interpretation, she's even less suitable for basic decency reasons.
8f2ab37a-ed6c 3y ago
Optics, social desirability bias, omertà, etc
ReptileMan 3y ago
They know they are vulnerable there too.
lainga 3y ago
I'm not playing the fool here, I just am one (i.e. ignorant)... wouldn't the plagiarism stuff have come up when she was appointed President? Like would she have had a hearing or something first?
- gruez 3y ago
  > Like would she have had a hearing or something first? A hearing doesn't imply that they thoroughly checked.
- noitpmeder 3y ago
  I believe they were only uncovered (re-uncovered?, but definitely largely publicized) after those who were dissatisfied with her congressional testimony looked deeper into her past for more ammunition to use in their push to remove her as president.
  - submeta 3y ago
    This! It was all about her testimony. See my comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38848351 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38848351
  - kcplate 3y ago
    Doesn’t matter if some political enemies discovered it, she still owns the mess she put herself in over all of this. And let’s face it, it’s not like the political enemies she made were all on one side. There was bi-partisan outrage over the hair splitting of genocide answer she gave to congress. Also bear in mind that Harvard tried to stick by her and even excused her congressional testimony and after investigating the initial plagerism instances. At a certain point the plagiarism instances just became way to numerous (50?) to reasonably explain them away by carelessness.
  - camillomiller 3y ago
    I honestly lean more towards her general beliefs politically (except on the Israel-Palestine issue) but I don't care what was the reason behind it. She still committed plagiarism, and someone who did it in such a provenly egregious way is not fit to run a place like Harvard, period.
userbinator 3y ago
[flagged]
cm2187 3y ago
I find it sad that she has to resign for that and not for covering for the blattant antisemitism of the campus.
- mplewis 3y ago
  Please elaborate on what you found antisemitic.
  - cm2187 3y ago
    it's a campus you get fired/rescinded/expelled for micro-aggressions and the slightlest transgression to political correctness. So the "it depends" could only be interpreted that way. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/16/us/jews-harvard-antisemitism-israel-war.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/16/us/jews-harvard-antisemit...
  - infamouscow 3y ago
    According to Harvard's campus policies these are perfectly acceptable: - "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 so unbelievable vile, and the merits of the expression are so vacuous that it has virtually no value for mind-expanding endeavors that universities claim to be for. Similar to calling for a genocide.
- unethical_ban 3y ago
  Elise Stefanik is not a good human, and those hearings were designed to get the soundbites they got. The interactions that people got mad at were part of a longer exchange of wordplay set up by the congressperson. The hearing was not in good faith.
  - megaman821 3y ago
    How hard is it to say calling for genocide of a group would probably make individuals of that group less safe, and therefore a violation of university policy? University Presidents at some of the most prestigious universities didn't get outmaneuvered by a slick operator, they just let it slip how they felt about a certain group.
BryantD 3y ago
Same reason evangelical Christians are willing to endorse Trump. I don’t mean this as a gotcha. When group X criticizes a member of group Y based on standards that group X doesn’t really care about, in order to gain an advantage for group X, group Y will tend to discount those criticisms to a varying degree.
- InTheArena 3y ago
  This. Absolutely this. This is group identity and culture war ideology 101. It doesn't matter what you stand for, as long as the other side is "worse".
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    I think the both-sides-equal analysis is not only simplistic (and very unlikely), but just serves the far more corrupt side. Yes, we can make endless arguments based on relativism, but I don't think the level of corruption is comparable. For one thing, brazenly corrupt reactionary right figures remain very popular and stay in power - they embrace and flaunt corruption.
    - InTheArena 3y ago
      Your post is my point. Or rather, your post proves my point.
6R1M0R4CL3 3y ago
because their own work is based on the same copy-paste. those people co-elect and co-opt one another. they're like rotten cops : everyone protects everyone else, because everyone's getting cash in their pockets... most universities are nowadays of very poor quality : they can't stand anyone with an opinion they dont like (if you're a republican you have to hide it or get in serious trouble). they are very low of intelligence because the filter is not set on selecting the best but selecting people with the good politics (left and democrat) and color (the darker, the better).

Her proven plagiarism is quite egregious. Can’t understand how other academics can keep defending her.

ejb999 3y ago

[flagged]

ambrozk 3y ago
She didn't say it's okay. She said that whether it's against Harvard's CoC is dependent on the context, which is obviously true.
- gruez 3y ago
  That's be fine if they didn't have a history of shutting down dissenting speech on campus.
- ejb999 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - jjulius 3y ago
    This feels like you're putting words in that user's mouth.
  - noitpmeder 3y ago
    Are you intentionally being obtuse? The GP made no statement as to his personal beliefs, just as to whether or not the statements violated a university's CoC, which none of us have more insight into than the current (now prior) president of said university.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - recursive 3y ago
    Stop it. It's about whether it's a violation of a code of conduct. Not being "OK".
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - woodruffw 3y ago
    I'm Jewish. It's clear to me that her actual statement has been significantly distorted; in context, it's clearly a very minor flub (and factually correct, with respect to Harvard's policies). (Evidence of her plagiarism is also overwhelming, and she should not be Harvard's president with that record. It remains to be seen what percent of academics would stand up to that level of scrutiny.)
- thorum 3y ago
  The fact that it’s technically true doesn’t really help her. Getting hung up on the technical details of Harvard’s code of conduct just comes across as uncaring about the big picture issue, that is, the thing people outside Harvard actually care about. Part of the job involves clear and sensitive public communication about politically charged topics, and that’s where she failed.
- pgeorgi 3y ago
  To quote the exchange (taken from https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2023/12/8/gay-apology-congressional-remarks/ https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2023/12/8/gay-apology-con...): “At Harvard, does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Harvard’s rules of bullying and harassment?” Stefanik asked. “It can be, depending on the context,” Gay responded. But Stefanik pressed Gay to give a yes or no answer to the question about whether calls for the genocide of Jews constitute a violation of Harvard’s policies. “Antisemitic speech when it crosses into conduct that amounts to bullying, harassment, intimidation — that is actionable conduct and we do take action,” Gay said. Stefanik tried again. “So the answer is yes, that calling for the genocide of Jews violates Harvard code of conduct, correct?” Stefanik asked. “Again, it depends on the context,” Gay said. --- The middle part with its "that is actionable conduct and we do take action" could mean that she understood the question as "does the university take action?", and that truly depends on the context: There are situations that aren't the university's business but law enforcement's. (even though I'm not saying that she took it that way, I don't know what she thought at that moment, but it seems like it wasn't a lot.) Even with such a 'most charitable' interpretation her communication sucks though, which makes her unsuitable for a role that's to a larger part that of a figure head. And with any other interpretation, she's even less suitable for basic decency reasons.

8f2ab37a-ed6c 3y ago

Optics, social desirability bias, omertà, etc

ReptileMan 3y ago

They know they are vulnerable there too.

lainga 3y ago

I'm not playing the fool here, I just am one (i.e. ignorant)... wouldn't the plagiarism stuff have come up when she was appointed President? Like would she have had a hearing or something first?

gruez 3y ago
> Like would she have had a hearing or something first? A hearing doesn't imply that they thoroughly checked.
noitpmeder 3y ago
I believe they were only uncovered (re-uncovered?, but definitely largely publicized) after those who were dissatisfied with her congressional testimony looked deeper into her past for more ammunition to use in their push to remove her as president.
- submeta 3y ago
  This! It was all about her testimony. See my comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38848351 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38848351
- kcplate 3y ago
  Doesn’t matter if some political enemies discovered it, she still owns the mess she put herself in over all of this. And let’s face it, it’s not like the political enemies she made were all on one side. There was bi-partisan outrage over the hair splitting of genocide answer she gave to congress. Also bear in mind that Harvard tried to stick by her and even excused her congressional testimony and after investigating the initial plagerism instances. At a certain point the plagiarism instances just became way to numerous (50?) to reasonably explain them away by carelessness.
- camillomiller 3y ago
  I honestly lean more towards her general beliefs politically (except on the Israel-Palestine issue) but I don't care what was the reason behind it. She still committed plagiarism, and someone who did it in such a provenly egregious way is not fit to run a place like Harvard, period.

userbinator 3y ago

[flagged]

cm2187 3y ago

I find it sad that she has to resign for that and not for covering for the blattant antisemitism of the campus.

mplewis 3y ago
Please elaborate on what you found antisemitic.
- cm2187 3y ago
  it's a campus you get fired/rescinded/expelled for micro-aggressions and the slightlest transgression to political correctness. So the "it depends" could only be interpreted that way. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/16/us/jews-harvard-antisemitism-israel-war.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/16/us/jews-harvard-antisemit...
- infamouscow 3y ago
  According to Harvard's campus policies these are perfectly acceptable: - "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 so unbelievable vile, and the merits of the expression are so vacuous that it has virtually no value for mind-expanding endeavors that universities claim to be for. Similar to calling for a genocide.
unethical_ban 3y ago
Elise Stefanik is not a good human, and those hearings were designed to get the soundbites they got. The interactions that people got mad at were part of a longer exchange of wordplay set up by the congressperson. The hearing was not in good faith.
- megaman821 3y ago
  How hard is it to say calling for genocide of a group would probably make individuals of that group less safe, and therefore a violation of university policy? University Presidents at some of the most prestigious universities didn't get outmaneuvered by a slick operator, they just let it slip how they felt about a certain group.

BryantD 3y ago

Same reason evangelical Christians are willing to endorse Trump. I don’t mean this as a gotcha. When group X criticizes a member of group Y based on standards that group X doesn’t really care about, in order to gain an advantage for group X, group Y will tend to discount those criticisms to a varying degree.

InTheArena 3y ago
This. Absolutely this. This is group identity and culture war ideology 101. It doesn't matter what you stand for, as long as the other side is "worse".
- wolverine876 3y ago
  I think the both-sides-equal analysis is not only simplistic (and very unlikely), but just serves the far more corrupt side. Yes, we can make endless arguments based on relativism, but I don't think the level of corruption is comparable. For one thing, brazenly corrupt reactionary right figures remain very popular and stay in power - they embrace and flaunt corruption.
  - InTheArena 3y ago
    Your post is my point. Or rather, your post proves my point.

6R1M0R4CL3 3y ago

because their own work is based on the same copy-paste. those people co-elect and co-opt one another. they're like rotten cops : everyone protects everyone else, because everyone's getting cash in their pockets... most universities are nowadays of very poor quality : they can't stand anyone with an opinion they dont like (if you're a republican you have to hide it or get in serious trouble). they are very low of intelligence because the filter is not set on selecting the best but selecting people with the good politics (left and democrat) and color (the darker, the better).