January 4, 2024 - 6:35pm
There is no question that Claudine Gay’s resignation was long overdue. Her offences included examples of both linguistic plagiarism (including footnotes lifted wholesale from other sources) and key ideas borrowed from other scholars without attribution. But how did her work even survive peer review by knowledgeable scholars in the fields of political science and African American studies? Why did it take a group of conservative journalists to discover her record of academic dishonesty?
An answer to these questions may be found in Gay’s petulant parting shot at her detractors, published as a “Guest Essay” in yesterday’s New York Times. In the essay, after conveniently downgrading her academic felony of plagiarism to the misdemeanours of “duplicating other scholars’ language” and “citation errors”, she makes a startling argument:
Gay’s claim here perfectly illustrates one way that activist professors have inverted the scholarly ideal in their capture of American academic institutions. Asking us to disregard the shoddiness of her work, the ex-president instead asks that we judge her by her conclusions. If those conclusions are good (such as pointing to the need for increased minority representation in politics), then the scholarship is good; no need for us to look any more closely into the process by which she reached those conclusions. And vice versa: if the conclusions (or, indeed, the research questions themselves) were regarded as bad, no level of assiduity over scholarly methods would be sufficient to justify them.
Up until now, the charity Gay asks of us is something activist scholars have taken as a matter of course. Evidence that it’s a good assumption abounds. One need only look across the Charles River from fair Harvard to find Boston University (BU). There, Ibram X. Kendi — author of only one book that can fairly be described as scholarly, and progenitor of a number of ahistorical but fashionable ideas — holds the Mellon Professorship in the Humanities. The only previous holder of this prestigious BU professorship was the Holocaust survivor and Nobel laureate Elie Wiesel.
On the opposite side of the ledger, consider the Stanford-based research group led by epidemiologist Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, who ran afoul of Dr. Anthony Fauci and the public health establishment when its April 2020 study of Covid-19 antibody prevalence found that the disease was more widespread and less deadly than widely believed. A preprint of the group’s research led to a relentless skewering of its research methods in both scientific and popular outlets. Despite the uproar and a months-long Stanford University investigation, the paper’s methods would be vindicated by its publication following peer review in the International Journal of Epidemiology, its conclusion substantially unchanged. This only occurred the following year, however, once the paper’s policy impact had been suitably blunted.
These are two instances in a list that could be miles long — of academics who say the “right” things and skate by unquestioned; or say the wrong thing and can’t achieve tenure, can’t get published, or (as happened to Gay’s Harvard colleague Roland Fryer) find their lab shuttered amid a shadowy Title IX investigation.
If Gay’s scholarship ever had to face any criticism under the old system, it was to come internally, quietly, and gently from other “right-minded” scholars. As if to prove this point, Harvard Law Professor Charles Fried, speaking to the New York Times in December, labelled the investigation into Gay’s plagiarism “part of this extreme right-wing attack on elite institutions”, adding that “if it came from some other quarter, I might be granting it some credence. But not from these people.”
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeMakes one sick to the stomach.
That was my reaction as well. The blatant and obvious hypocrisy is utterly nauseating.
Gay got a pass because she was hired for reasons other than professional competence. She and some others are petulant because they either put that system in place or it’s all they know. Maybe both. When being black or gay or whatever is a qualification, then no real work is necessary. And that last line about democracy, from an academic who is openly hostile to free speech and expression, is pure comedy gold.
I don’t understand why people don’t relentlessly demand that Progressives define the term “Democracy.” What exactly is it that they mean by Democracy?
“Democracy” means “government when my team is in power”; “fascism” means “government when the other team is in power”.
As best I can tell, it means their side wins.
It doesn’t involve whining relentlessly when you get utterly annihilated in an election and then trying to get your supporters to murder your own VP.
Does that help you guys out?
“whining relentlessly when you get utterly annihilated in an election ”
If you are so against whining against election results, what exactly are your views on the Democrat behaviour post 2016….and by annihilated you mean creative use of postal ballots, and covering up unfavorable news stories to barely squeak past against an opponent despite years of media vilification?
The funny thing is, for all the murder stories, the Trump supporters that day had no guns, killed nobody, and it was one of them who got murdered.
A bit different from the peaceful BLM “protests”.
“Democrat behaviour post 2016”
You mean the immediate and graceful concession by the Democrat candidate?
Biden beat Trump by 8 million votes in the popular vote in 2020, a record margin, and by 306 to 232 in the ludicrous electoral college, a margin previously described by Trump as a landslide. And that is while Trump had the advantage of incumbency.
Please tell me you have more than postal ballots and bogus laptop stories?
Here’s a question for you – what do you think would have happened if the mob at the capitol had gotten their hands on Pence or Pelosi?
As for the lunatic that got herself shot, she was killed by law enforcement in the commission of a violent attack. If I’d been in charge there would have been a lot more like her.
“immediate and graceful concession”
Really? That’s what happened was it, graceful concession and acceptance of the results?
“what do you think would have happened if the mob at the capitol had gotten their hands on Pence or Pelosi?”
No gunshot wounds for sure. Funny how that “mob”, in a country that has the most guns per capita, forgot to bring any while aiming to “get their hands on Pelosi”
“lunatic that got herself shot, she was killed by law enforcement in the commission of a violent attack.”
Right, climbing a window is a “violent attack” that justified a shot in the back.
,
“Biden beat Trump by 8 million votes in the popular vote”
I really hope Demrats don’t watch lawn tennis.
It would fry their brains to imagine that you can win two sets 6-0, lose three 7-6, and still lose the match.
You seem to have missed the part where I informed you that Trump lost the electoral college in a landslide! Now, I wonder why that would be?!?!? LOL!
306-232 just in case you missed it.
In your tennis analogy pretty much 6-0, 6-0, 6-1.
Did that fry your brain?
Not a landslide. About 30,000 votes in 3 key battleground states, where a lot of monkey business took place. Perhaps you should take your blinders off for once, and actually look at the facts as they are, and not how you wish them to be.
Your comment regarding the woman who was shot at point blank range illustrates just how much nonsense you spew. Had her skin been black and the police office white, that officer would currently be in jail. As it is the officer should have been immediately suspended as he basically committed an act of cold blooded murder.
These people were literally assaulting the state capitol. He gave her fair warning.
“where a lot of monkey business took place.”
Really?!?! That’s shocking! You should definitely be able to prove that. Maybe get your best man on the case – I hear Rudy Giuliani may be available and looking for work!
And maybe the woman who got shot wouldn’t have been shot of she had, you know, not been assaulting the capitol screaming bloody murder? Maybe she could have tried that?
As for your racial comments, I would just point you to the many, many, many white cops who have shot black people with way less justification than at the capitol, and faced literally zero consequences. Or are you pretending that never happened?
“Really? That’s what happened was it, graceful concession and acceptance of the results?”
Yes.
I mean Hillary didn’t have legal geniuses like Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell advising her or perhaps things might have been different!
No, she simply had Russia Gate that hobbled the incoming administration for 3 years. Do try to limit the nonsense you spew.
The incoming administration was hobbled by the fact that it was led by a dumb crook who didn’t have the faintest idea of what he was doing. Don’t blame Hillary for that.
I’m with you that “the incoming administration was hobbled by the fact that it was led by a dumb crook who didn’t have the faintest idea of what he was doing.” The rest of your points, however, not so much.
https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-democrats-object-more-states-2016-republicans-2020-1561407
Answer: Yes.
Have you considered Reddit or X? You might feel more at home with the trolls there.
Does it make you sad when someone points out that you are talking complete rubbish? Would you prefer the nasty man went away so you can feel smiley again?
Champagne pokes the bear. Bear responds. Yawn.
By “whining” about election losses I assume you include Hillary on her loss, which she swears to this day she won, or Stacy Abrams, or even Al Gore? They may have conceded, but they continue the aggravating whining non stop. And they’re not the only Democrats who continue to do so. It’s very childish isn’t it.
How did Trump try to get his supporters to murder his VP again?
“which she swears to this day she won”
Show us one place where Hillary Clinton “swears to this day that she won”.
She conceded, you moron!
Trump would have been delighted if the insurgents in the capitol would have found Pence and hanged him as they planned to do. He sent them there to fight and that is exactly what they did…
By saying that he had committed treason.
I’ve noticed in Australia that when the left lose an election they (which includes the media) complain endlessly about how the people got it wrong. When the right lose an election we shrug our shoulders and get on with life and just wait for the wheels to fall off, which generally happens within 18 months.
Before the recent Referendum in Australia on an Indigenous Voice to Parliament one of the vocal Yes side told us that if we voted No then we would not be able to ask anyone to perform a Welcome to Country. The No people don’t want a Welcome to their own country so we on the No side were delighted by this comment. 65% of the country voted No. The Yes side held a week of silence and then went about complaining about losing. And we still get a Welcome to Country.
To them, democracy means the governing system that is great when people agree with them – but appalling when used by those who dont share their views. In the latter scenario it a tool used by “populist right-wingers” to subvert the “better informed” will of elites.
This is all very true. However, there is another startling dimension to this story that deserves attention, and frankly its omission from this article is somewhat startling to me in itself.
Namely, to what extent was Gay’s ultimate takedown related to her testimony concerning her prevarications around censorship of calls for Jewish genocide on Harvard’s campus?
Or put it this way: If the group against which the calls for genocide were “cis-gendered white males” instead, might she still be President of Harvard?
How was Claudine Gay hostile to free speech and expression? If anything, she was condemned for allowing too much free speech or not censoring certain speech.
The issue here was not so much free speech or lack of it, but that the rules surrounding speech were not evenly applied.
To ask the question is to answer it.
I’m of a middle-of-the-road academic in a middle-of-the-road university. Whether I like it or not, I am pretty average at academic research. I have more than three times the number of peer-reviewed papers as Claudine Gay. I am happy to say that not one of them is plagiarized.
I hear there is a position coming open at Harvard that you seem very qualified for!
There might be a small problem regarding sex and colour but who knows Lennon O Naraigh might fit the bill for all I know. Does he/she have the right ideological commitment however – a fairly vital ingredient.
You could change your name to “Jeremia Binari” seeing as how the hiring process seems to involve simply searching for key words in the applicants’ names.
Lennon would have an even better chance of fitting the bill if he/she is actually a they.
Just before Christmas a student in a major uk university, faced with a plagiarism charge at an academic conduct hearing, stated that they had used “duplicative” sources. When this was questioned the student used the Gay situation as the evidence of no wrong doing. This is why plagiarising academics have to be dealt with. Higher education is already something of a free play environment, but we shouldn’t allow it to become a zoo.
Well, this never happened!
Well, with the pantomime season still with us perhaps we could get into a hearty round of Oh yes it did! / Oh no it didn’t!
What say you Sham Brain?
Well, I am obviously Prince Charming and you appear to be very much an Ugly Sister or Widow Twankey type.
And the panto plot is about as likely as the fantasy story told above by Ms. Grabston!
Or do you mean the Guardian never reported it?
The cognitive dissonance is strong in Poo Fash.
Then what happened?
Nothing. She made it up.
I have to agree it looks about as evidential as a BBC news article on climate change: “experts are predicting blah…”
In some ways this sort of thing has been going on for years. A few women would climb the corporate ladder by exerting their feminine wiles and a few men would climb the corporate ladder by learning to play golf with the right people.
The only difference is perhaps that the career climbers knew how to play the game and Claudine Gay didn’t think she needed to.
It does make me ask – why not go to the bother of doing things properly? It’s not like she was overwhelmed creating a lot of papers, she only has 11. Whether or not she’s an intellectual of any worth I am sure she could rise to the level of proper citations and not directly lifting quotes – even bright high school students are capable of better shit work than that.
” research … to show that when historically marginalized communities gain a meaningful voice”
By “meaningful voice”, she means preferential treatment in hiring, laws and rewards for educational or sporting achievement.
By “historically marginalized communities”, she means groups such as women and blacks, who are by definition designated as victims, and therefore entitled to special treatment while denouncing other groups (white and Asian males) as “privileged.
By “research”, she means any kind of made up, ridiculous stories or theories (combining words such as – systemic, oppression, structural…) that supports their victimhood status.
Ironically, a black professor who did some actual, proper research that went against the victimhood narrative…was thrown under the bus by this amazing lady.
Yes, Professor Roland Fryer of Harvard is 10x as impressive as the Claudine Gay intellectual Pygmy (with apologies to Pygmys for associating them with her).
I think we call them bushmen now. Or bushpeople.
No, not the same people. I think they are more often now called by their specific tribal names.
My take on this whole affair is that Guy’s claim here perfectly illustrates one way that activist professors have inverted the scholarly ideal in their capture of American academic institutions. In my opinion, asking us to disregard the shoddiness of her work, the ex-president instead asks that we judge her by her conclusions. If those conclusions are good (such as pointing to the need for increased minority representation in politics), then the scholarship is good; no need for us to look any more closely into the process by which she reached those conclusions. And vice versa: if the conclusions (or, indeed, the research questions themselves) were regarded as bad, no level of assiduity over scholarly methods would be sufficient to justify them.
(Hey, if it works for 900k a year Harvard staff,…..)
Well why not move Gay to Boston University to replace Ibram X Kendi and let X Kendi take over at Harvard .
Whatever the story is there are always writers who reflexively spin the story to attack the other side. This story affords ample opportunity for both sides to bash each other, which they have been doing for weeks now. It has become tiresome. No one knows how to beat a dead horse better than partisan pundits.
Claudia Gay did not get away with plagiarism this long because she was reaching conclusions her woke colleagues liked. Mr. Masko’s proof of his opinion is non-existent as he merely rehashes old stories that we have read and argued about many times before.
It is more likely that Ms. Gay got away with plagiarism for this long because no one was paying attention. She wasn’t much of a scholar, and I suspect not many people read her meager output. She ascended to the presidency of Harvard from her work as a DEI administrator not her work as a scholar, and because Harvard’s board wanted a black face after the George Floyd protests. Ms. Gay was incompetent and whoever vetted her was too.
The far Right and the far Left are constantly at each other’s throats and calmer, more moderate voices are always crowded out. We need to discuss the efficacy of DEI, but we just talk past each other and preach to the choir. The two sides never really listen to each other. And our cold civil war goes on and on and on.
Let’s be clear – she deserved to be removed for her failure to unequivocally condemn anti-semitic genocidal hate speech.
The plagiarism criticisms seem v valid too but without knowing how exceptional this sort of thing is it’s difficult to judge if she’s been subject to more investigation (possible witch-hunt) than the average Academic. That said the spotlight was going to get turned on the role so to be expected.
What surprises is how little any of this also references the Legacy Admission policy run by Harvard, advantaging those who had a parent attend the University thus ‘ratcheting in’ inequity and privilege. Was Gay dealing robustly with that or has it been stopped already? Anyone here know?
Gay got away with plagiarism because she was a black female DEI fascist. It’s as simple as that. And her plagiarism wasn’t minor. This didn’t entail the odd sentence but rather lifting all paragraphs lock, stock and barrel. The truth is she is a phony and she should have been run out of Harvard, rather than allowed to resume her duties as a so-called professor at a ridiculous salary of $900,000 per year. Not even the best and brightest scientists in the US are paid that much in academia even if they are elected members of the National Academy and Nobel Prize winners. Simply put Gay is a fraud, and unless the Harvard Corporation Board resigns en masse, Harvard too is a complete fraud. I wouldn’t send my kids there if you paid me to, and from here on out I won’t be hiring anybody who has been to Harvard (or for that matter MIT where they still haven’t got rid of their anti-semitic president).
Why did Claudine Gay get a free pass?
Because she’s black. Happy to help.
If she was just black and supported serious research she wouldn’t have got where she was. It was her support for the DEI ideology that swung it. See the contrast with the much more intellectually impressive Professor Roland Fryer of Harvard who has only just emerged from 2 years suspension for a few mildly flirtatious texts but who established through proper research that blacks were no more likely than whites to be killed by cops – something that the DEI industry and BLM can’t accept as it goes against their narrative.
Gay was a political commissar hired to indoctrinate young mines in the prevailing orthodoxcy WOKE. Political commissars are not required to exhibit competience. They are political tools of the ruler and may be
removed as political winds change. They are temporary political appointments
Gay’s very major at college African American Studies Was an application For a political commissar position. That is the only Job that it qualified one for! Young students Considering that major Should realize that there is a limited number of positions Available as commissars. The job is a temporary political appointment subject to change in the political winds. The number of candidates far exceeds the number of jobs. A republican administration means no jobs
Few are probably interested but the same disregarding of academic depth or theological understanding in most recent bishops in the Church of England is glaringly apparent. And once again the majority will suffer because DEI trumps merit.
Because she’s black. Next question.
“Not from these people,” says it all in regards the Left’s arrogant dismissal of anyone who dares oppose them.
Opposite of white, opposite of male: the first steps on the pathway to success.
White, working class males have no future other than organised crime.
Wow, this comment section reminds me of Tristam Shandy…it has digressed to an unfathomable degree. Champagne Socialist needs to ge
He’s best ignored. Bless him.
Let’s see them try!
The rest of you are so dull and just constantly repeat the same old right wing talking points.
My wit and originality are, frankly, the only reason to be here.
To get back on his medication soon!
This is absolutely brilliant!
Some clown who can’t manage a two sentence post without messing it up wants to have a go at ME?!?!?!
Keep it up, sunshine – this is great!
I want to know why this woman is still employed by Harvard at all. She obviously has no qualifications to teach, and yet she will still maintain her status and salary as a tenured professor.
She might have suffered some public embarrassment, but she still has a job, and it’s just as cushy as the one she resigned from.
Not only that. I read her salary is close to … wait for it Allison … $900,000 / year.
Unless she resigns I would guess there will be some lengthy process involved in having her removed.
The problem here does not seem to be “double standards” – rather, the problem is the wrong standards. Academia is not for the faint of heart. At its very core, academic work is about the process, not the result.
Rigorous academics in an atmosphere of academic and intellectual freedom allowed us to win the Cold War. We’ve now become the dogmatic, ideology-driven, intellectually dishonest society Marxist-Leninist Communism imposed, and like them, we’ll end up in dustbin of history.
Did Gay write the NYT article? Probably not.
“Why did Claudine Gay get a free pass?”
The answer is so obvious it does not require articulation.
Black, female. That’s all you need to know. The very poster child of intersectionality propaganda. This is nothing more than reparations masquerading as “fairness”. Perversity in academia knows no bounds.
‘Harvard Law Professor Charles Fried, speaking to the New York Times in December, labelled the investigation into Gay’s plagiarism “part of this extreme right-wing attack on elite institutions”, adding that “if it came from some other quarter, I might be granting it some credence. But not from these people.” ‘ I for one cannot listen to Rep. Stefanik without thinking of Sen. McCarthy. On the other hand, when someone points to the moon, the fool looks at the finger. Fried and others are just resorting to the genetic fallacy (look whose finger!). It’s a sad subject matter about which only the right wing seems inclined to look for the truth. The Harvard Student Guide, required reading before ever commencing study there, is quite clear about what plagiarism is, and why it strikes at the very core of the academy. Perhaps it should be made required reading before the next interview for Harvard President? (And for the law faculty?)
There’s an old joke that asks “why is university politics so vicious?” And the answer is “because the stakes are so low”. However, despite that, what happens in universities does matter especially since they have become woke seminaries and spearheaded the assault on free speech. But there is a much larger context to DEI. What happens when military leaders are selected by DEI criteria, when the same applies in the private sector, when white led startups are refused funding, when the AI models are trained to reject job applicants who are not “diverse?” How will you feel knowing that the primary reason your surgeon has the job was “diversity?”. The answer is clear: no civilization which rejects meritocracy and which converts to a sect preaching cultural and racial self loathing can survive for long. Either wokeism is defeated or the West is over.