Mainstream national political media is right wing

[luvyablue256]

 

 

 

 

[Justafan]

Now, the NY Times is conservative? LOL. 

 

Maybe instead of revenge articles against Ackman's wife, highlighting the massive plagiarism happening at the highest levels of academic scholarship is a bigger story. 

[Starkiller]

There has always been plagiarism in academics. 
 

Harvard forcing out Gay for a relatively minor case of plagiarism is really just about appeasing the big donors upset about the Israel-Palestine issue and Republicans on the attack against “the ivory tower”. I guarantee you she was given a big cash offer to voluntarily resign to try to make the issue go away.

Edited January 8, 2024 by Starkiller

[Justafan]

12 hours ago, Starkiller said:

There has always been plagiarism in academics. 
 

Harvard forcing out Gay for a relatively minor case of plagiarism is really just about appeasing the big donors upset about the Israel-Palestine issue and Republicans on the attack against “the ivory tower”. I guarantee you she was given a big cash offer to voluntarily resign to try to make the issue go away.

Minor case of plagiarism? Lol. 

 

Big donors - you mean the Pritzkers? Almost all of the big donors come from the left side and the board - headed by Penny Pritzker, appointed Gay and supported her to the end. 

[Starkiller]

6 hours ago, Justafan said:

Minor case of plagiarism? Lol. 

What makes you think it’s some huge deal worthy of forcing her out of her job?

 

 

6 hours ago, Justafan said:

Big donors - you mean the Pritzkers? Almost all of the big donors come from the left side and the board - headed by Penny Pritzker, appointed Gay and supported her to the end. 

There are big donors on both sides of the fence. And the pissed off ones are the ones threatening to withhold money, thus it’s about appeasing them.

[Justafan]

1 minute ago, Starkiller said:

What makes you think it’s some huge deal worthy of forcing her out of her job?

 

 

There are big donors on both sides of the fence. And the pissed off ones are the ones threatening to withhold money, thus it’s about appeasing them.

Let's start with the fact that the students she is responsible for are held to high academic standards and would be dismissed for plagiarism. After that, we can discuss the importance of credibility and integrity in her leadership role. This stuff isn't complicated. 

 

Sure, there are donors on both sides of the political fence. The guy who outed Gay for plagiarism was a donor. However, MOST of the donors are leftists, and the ones who are frustrated over the Palestine issue, as you call it, are mostly Jewish. They are frustrated because she was essentially protecting students who were participating in intimidating behavior and calling for the genocide of Jews on campus. Who would have thought that Jewish billionaires would take issue with protecting people calling for the genocide of Jews on campus!? That should show you however that this wasn't politically motivated to make it go away, it was lost faith in her ability to lead the institution. 

[Strunk'sDessert]

15 minutes ago, Justafan said:

 That should show you however that this wasn't politically motivated to make it go away, it was lost faith in her ability to lead the institution. 

 

Eh, they're not mutually exclusive. Both can be true. 

[Justafan]

15 minutes ago, Strunk'sDessert said:

 

Eh, they're not mutually exclusive. Both can be true. 

Ackman, one of the donors who cut off funding, also pushed out the story and is now going after MIT and Business Insider. If he was worried about 'making the story go away' he has a funny way of showing it. If they were politically motivated or were just really upset that a black woman was running Harvard, they could have stopped her from getting the position or they definitely could have forced her out earlier. 

[Starkiller]

1 hour ago, Justafan said:

Let's start with the fact that the students she is responsible for are held to high academic standards and would be dismissed for plagiarism. After that, we can discuss the importance of credibility and integrity in her leadership role. This stuff isn't complicated. 

 

Sure, there are donors on both sides of the political fence. The guy who outed Gay for plagiarism was a donor. However, MOST of the donors are leftists, and the ones who are frustrated over the Palestine issue, as you call it, are mostly Jewish. They are frustrated because she was essentially protecting students who were participating in intimidating behavior and calling for the genocide of Jews on campus. Who would have thought that Jewish billionaires would take issue with protecting people calling for the genocide of Jews on campus!? That should show you however that this wasn't politically motivated to make it go away, it was lost faith in her ability to lead the institution. 

Of course it was politically motivated. 
 

And her case of plagiarism is basically just uncredited bits that are largely trivial in an academic sense. It’s things her doctoral thesis supervisor should have helped her clean up. It’s not like she faked a bunch of data or stole someone else’s commentary.  It’s penny ante stuff.
 

This is the academic plagiarism version of jaywalking by most accounts. But it allows some wealthy pieces of shit to throw their wealth around and get their way.

 

And if you disagree that it was minor, simply post some specifics of what she plagiarized so you can explain how it was so terrible.

Edited January 8, 2024 by Starkiller

[El Guapo]

You are such a partisan hack. She has no academic gravitas whatsoever to be head of Harvard. This is not even debatable except by you.

[Starkiller]

1 hour ago, El Guapo said:

You are such a partisan hack. She has no academic gravitas whatsoever to be head of Harvard. This is not even debatable except by you.

 

3 hours ago, Starkiller said:

And if you disagree that it was minor, simply post some specifics of what she plagiarized so you can explain how it was so terrible.

 

[Guest]

Another pissing contest where there is some truth in what all are saying here and most commenting on this are not really that aware of the university, what comes on in higher education, etc. 

 

Some things to address--is or is it politically motivated? Of course it is. Either of your arguments make that true. Simply being in higher ed at all is extremely political and precarious, with keeping all stakeholders and constituents in sight is a kaleidoscopic task to say the least. 

 

In America, of course these institutions are often sources of liberal thought (one of the places where liberal individuals are drawn to work, education and intellectualism leads to this kind of space). Even in many primarily liberal institutions, however, there is a tremendous amount of work done to protect conservative students and the slightest complaint from a parent of any variety can cause an immediate and seismic reaction. They are reactionary places. And higher ed is diverse itself--there are a lot of different kinds of institutions. A lot goes on in higher ed, but most of what people say is so generalized and problematic it is laughable. 

 

Next up? The discussion about the plagiarism. People are so woefully informed about plagiarism, and discuss it in the same black and white nature (cheaters!) that they discuss everything else. 

 

Starkiller is right in that the plagiarism here is overblown, and I'd argue it is across the board in higher ed--again, this could be it's own discussion. She is being held to a different standard than students (more on this later), and that talking point is silly. What the reaction and response to this should be from an academic integrity standpoint? That's another story. 

 

In terms of how the university reflects "leftists" or--to reframe, this current conflict. 

 

Of course in higher ed you are going to find more sympathetic voices to Palestinians--I'd say at many institutions it is not the majority, but probably is at Harvard. There are also significant Jewish voices too. In the rest of our societal corners, this balance tips a lot more in the other direction. 

 

And navigating it is complicated--I think people underestimate just how legitimate it is for there to be people that are supportive and sympathetic to what is and has been happening in Palestine (NOT sympathetic towards Hamas, but you see even pockets of that). 

 

Universities are where people actually give a flying fuck about what happens in the Middle East and why and probably care in a way that many Americans truly don't, where it's easier to justify whatever happens as good and bad guys. 

 

On the other hand, there is also blatantly antisemitic things going on at universities that are absolutely heinous, discriminatory things--this is an area where I find this issue to be complicated for leadership to happen, you have people from all over the world, people with actual relatives who have died on both sides, or have suffered themselves. There's a lot of firsthand knowledge to learn from if you want to do it. 

 

Where does that leave us here? 

 

Ultimately, this woman was fired from one of the most prestigious organizations in this country. Whether it's drummed up or not, political or not--wealthy people throwing around wealth...what's your argument exactly? 

 

Welcome to higher ed, any industry, etc. I have seen presidents canned for less. They are unhappy with her performance, and the plagiarism thing is something additional they can point too---I haven't learned enough about it, but none of this actually surprises me. I am deeply critical of the way a lot of academia functions--and honestly a lot of you are talking about it with pure ignorance as to how the systems and people within function. 

 

I think the use of plagiarism here is suspect at best, but ultimately the powers that be at this institution don't exactly need a reason that would stand up in a court of law. Problematic press, an inability to support a vulnerable population--it's all probably enough to move on. 

 

With the rise of AI and the increasing discourse around plagiarism, we are at a crisis point in how higher ed handles this issue. For that reason alone, I think you can't have someone who is suspect running an institution like Harvard. 

 

For the record, I also have a lot more thoughts about how Harvard, an elitist institution in its own right is incredibly problematic. I am just trying to outline how it is functioning here. 

 

A final aside, I think the comments here and the thing about the board pushing her out and their motivations...all this speculation is pointless. Again, it is very hypocritical. Ackman's own wife is now being outed for a similar (if not worse? I haven't investigated enough) pattern of plagiarism and is one of those celebrity science style people that higher ed fawns over. There's a not too different world where some in higher ed are uniting these two and calling their critics anti-women. 

 

Long thesis to say this is a lot more complicated than it is being made out to be. I don't necessarily have a strong opinion either way, primarily because I don't trust this institution to "get it right." The role conservative politicians play in this, and a lot of conservative talking points and conservatives all of a sudden caring about plagiarism? OF course all of that is beyond stupid and embarrassing, and whenever I see conservatives getting involved in education (at any level) it's usually laughably dumb bullshit. 

 

That said, I personally found her testimony about  protecting students to be pretty damming. What they say about broken clocks? I don't know if I'd go that far. I would go far enough to say no one on the planet is entitled to be and remain a university president without scrutiny. I'd have to actually be involved in the Harvard ecosystem to give a better comment than this. 

[tgo]

 

[Justafan]

15 hours ago, Starkiller said:

Of course it was politically motivated. 
 

And her case of plagiarism is basically just uncredited bits that are largely trivial in an academic sense. It’s things her doctoral thesis supervisor should have helped her clean up. It’s not like she faked a bunch of data or stole someone else’s commentary.  It’s penny ante stuff.
 

This is the academic plagiarism version of jaywalking by most accounts. But it allows some wealthy pieces of shit to throw their wealth around and get their way.

 

And if you disagree that it was minor, simply post some specifics of what she plagiarized so you can explain how it was so terrible.

Laughable:

Quote

 

That article, "The Effect of Minority Districts and Minority Representation on Political Participation in California," includes some of the most extreme and clear-cut cases of plagiarism yet. At one point, Gay borrows four sentences from Canon’s 1999 book, Race, Redistricting, and Representation: The Unintended Consequences of Black Majority Districts, without quotation marks and with only minor semantic tweaks. She does not cite Canon anywhere in or near the passage, though he does appear in the bibliography.

Beyond that, Gay’s first two footnotes are copied verbatim from Canon’s endnotes.

 

 

If you or I did that and got caught in an academic class, we would be immediately dismissed. But it's okay for the PRESIDENT OF HARVARD?  Minor? WTF.  This is one case. There are six more in just the Free Beacon article alone that are just as bad. 

 

Keep running your CNN narrative, though. 

[Starkiller]

10 minutes ago, Justafan said:

Laughable:

 

If you or I did that and got caught in an academic class, we would be immediately dismissed. But it's okay for the PRESIDENT OF HARVARD?  Minor? WTF.  This is one case. There are six more in just the Free Beacon article alone that are just as bad. 

 

Keep running your CNN narrative, though. 

No one is saying there wasn’t plagiarism. I’m saying what was plagiarized was pretty generic stuff. And that it’s a pretty commonplace occurrence in academics. 
 

This is merely a description of the Voting Rights Act. She didn’t manufacture research data or copy someone’s entire thesis. 
 

And you are the one running with someone else’s narrative…

Edited January 9, 2024 by Starkiller