Mainstream national political media is right wing

[Justafan]

12 hours ago, Bink said:

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. 

A couple of things here. 

 

1. You are right that many of us speak without direct experience. I've worked in an ROTC department at two universities. That hardly qualifies me as an expert. 

2. I think you make a good point about its politics. Fair enough.

3. I think the instances of accused plagiarism are more serious than you are alluding to here.

4. The accusations against Ackman's wife are obviously revenge-driven, but I would have to do more research to see how serious they are. 

[Justafan]

Just now, Starkiller said:

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. 

You've been trying to say it wasn't plagiarism or at least that it was no big deal and not sufficient grounds for people to lose faith in her ability to serve as the PRESIDENT OF HARVARD. There are six more in that article alone, and 40 or so more found throughout her work single PHD dissertation!

 

It's absurd to pretend like that is no big deal or that this is pretty "generic stuff". It's not. She plagiarized the footnotes word for word. This is NOT the equivalence of "jay walking" as you put it.  She copy and pasted and changed a few words. Anyone who's ever written an academic paper can tell you that you would have to know what you were doing and be doing it intentionally with something like this. 

[Starkiller]

9 minutes ago, Justafan said:

You've been trying to say it wasn't plagiarism or at least that it was no big deal and not sufficient grounds for people to lose faith in her ability to serve as the PRESIDENT OF HARVARD. There are six more in that article alone, and 40 or so more found throughout her work single PHD dissertation!

 

It's absurd to pretend like that is no big deal or that this is pretty "generic stuff". It's not. She plagiarized the footnotes word for word. This is NOT the equivalence of "jay walking" as you put it.  She copy and pasted and changed a few words. Anyone who's ever written an academic paper can tell you that you would have to know what you were doing and be doing it intentionally with something like this. 

I never said it wasn’t plagiarism, just that it’s common in academics at this level and is not remotely significant enough to warrant her dismissal. 
 

I read that Gorsuch was guilty of plagiarism. Should he be removed from the Supreme Court? Biden was called out for plagiarism. Should he be impeached? Steve Jobs stole plenty of other people’s ideas in designing Apple products over the years. Should Apple be forced to close up shop?

 

You are running with a right wing hit piece designed to go after Gay. They like to collect trophies and use the media to rile people up. Stop being a sucker for the party you claim not to support. 

Edited January 9, 2024 by Starkiller

[IrishTitansFan]

48 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. 

I am an English and History Graduate and have a Masters in a school of Mechanical Engineering, over here anyway there is ZERO chance you would be dismissed over that lol. In cases like that your academic supervisor will likely just remind you to cite your sources but even then it's not that egregious as parts are direct translations from the act itself

 

I haven't looked into it properly so there could be more but what you just posted there is 100% minor

[Justafan]

16 minutes ago, Starkiller said:

I never said it wasn’t plagiarism, just that it’s common in academics at this level and is not remotely significant enough to warrant her dismissal. 
 

I read that Gorsuch was guilty of plagiarism. Should he be removed from the Supreme Court? Biden was called out for plagiarism. Should he be impeached? Steve Jobs stole plenty of other people’s ideas in designing Apple products over the years. Should Apple be forced to close up shop?

 

You are running with a right wing hit piece designed to go after Gay. They like to collect trophies and use the media to rile people up. Stop being a sucker for the party you claim not to support. 

You said it was a minor case and no big deal. That's clearly not the case. You said this happens all the time in academics. You don't think that's a problem? I doubt very seriously that there are widespread cases of university presidents repeatedly and clearly copy and pasting academic work in an institution that regularly holds students to a higher standard.

 

If this were about a high school kid, then sure, I would buy this; it is no big deal. This was a PHD dissertation for someone who has spent their entire adult life in academia at an elite Ivory League school. 

 

As for your point about others - I'm not familiar with the Gorsuch case, but possibly, though judges using precedent and scholars plagiarizing are far different things, so I would need to see the specifics.  As far as Biden, no. He should be heavily criticized, though, unless it was like 50 years ago, but even then, it says something about the man's integrity. Steve Jobs was a businessman. What he did was unethical, but it's a different situation.  He absolutely deserves criticism for that, and if it's proven that Apple stole ideas from other people then they deserve compensation. If the company board decided they lost faith in Jobs because of it, they would be well within their rights to remove him. (Obviously speaking hypothetically about the past here) They couldn't do that because he was a majority stakeholder, but I'm trying to relate it to the highly unrelatable examples you provided. 

[Justafan]

2 minutes ago, IrishTitansFan said:

I am an English and History Graduate and have a Masters in a school of Mechanical Engineering, over here anyway there is ZERO chance you would be dismissed over that lol. In cases like that your academic supervisor will likely just remind you to cite your sources but even then it's not that egregious as parts are direct translations from the act itself

 

I haven't looked into it properly so there could be more but what you just posted there is 100% minor

I'm sorry but this is laughable. 

[IrishTitansFan]

2 minutes ago, Justafan said:

I'm sorry but this is laughable. 

Trust me. If all that you posted is what she did then it's minor IMO

 

Especially since she referenced the author in the bibliography. It's poor citation and wouldn't be totally ignored but in 99.99% of cases I promise you that's brought up briefly by the academic supervisor and corrected, there is a ZERO percent chance you would be dismissed over that in my University anyway

[Justafan]

Just now, IrishTitansFan said:

Trust me. If all that you posted is what she did then it's minor IMO

 

Especially since she referenced the author in the bibliography. It's poor citation and wouldn't be totally ignored but in 99.99% of cases I promise you that's brought up briefly by the academic supervisor and corrected, there is a ZERO percent chance you would be dismissed over that in my University anyway

She did it five more times in the same work and copied the bibliography word for word.  No chance that gets brushed off. It just wasn't caught. 

[Little Earl]

1 hour ago, Justafan said:

As for your point about others - I'm not familiar with the Gorsuch case, but possibly, though judges using precedent and scholars plagiarizing are far different things, so I would need to see the specifics.  As far as Biden, no. He should be heavily criticized, though, unless it was like 50 years ago, but even then, it says something about the man's integrity. 

 

Biden's Presidential run in 1988 was destroyed when he got busted for plagiarism, and Michael Dukakis attacked him for it.

 

Gorsuch had 1 minor case of two paragraphs found in a 320 page book, nothing else in all his other papers and articles he has written.    In this case he cited the original source, but not the secondary source.    

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Justafan said:

A couple of things here. 

 

1. You are right that many of us speak without direct experience. I've worked in an ROTC department at two universities. That hardly qualifies me as an expert. 

2. I think you make a good point about its politics. Fair enough.

3. I think the instances of accused plagiarism are more serious than you are alluding to here.

4. The accusations against Ackman's wife are obviously revenge-driven, but I would have to do more research to see how serious they are. 

 

It may not be as clear from my post, but I don't totally disagree with you by any means. I am deeply involved in higher ed personally, and worked for many years directly as a teacher of writing. 

 

The point about it being political--it's kind of the nature of this type of position and conversation. Plagiarism and conversations surrounding it have evolved dramatically since Gay was publishing the texts in question, and while I don't think it can be out right dismissed as a nothing burger, the pitchforks really should be put down. 

 

If there wasn't pressure from the board over her handling of this conflict, I guarantee you this would not be a national story or even a point of issue. 

 

The thing is when, you do get in the crosshairs whatever comes to light comes to light. My point is that, in this case, it is all probably enough. 

 

Irish and others are right in that this level of plagiarism is hardly handled with severe zero tolerance brutality--if it is, that is more so on a draconian and wrong professors who are more the problem than the student. 

 

I guarantee you the culture and understanding of the issue was different when she wrote the product too. 

 

Where I agree with you, Justafan, is that because of what she is doing (being a university president), there are different standards. She didn't defend her Jewish students in the eyes of the board, what she said or didn't say was flawled, and they dropped the hammer on her. This is not uncommon for university presidents, provosts, etc. No one is trying to send her to jail for plagiarizing. 

 

The point about the guys wife--you call it revenge--was an investigation into her motivated by that? Probably. 

 

But I think it more so reveals that this kind of plagiarism is  a lot more common that you think. It's also not a zero tolerance issue. 

 

It's also something that, conceptually speaking, is treated differently in other industries and cultures. It is complicated. 

 

You all are fumbling over a question of how much this matters--if it is a big deal or not--because in the tribal way of thinking that's all that makes sense. 

 

At the end of the day, objectively speaking it is not a big enough deal on its own to merit this much care or consideration. 

 

But this position is one of insane privilege, where the people making the decisions can do what they want. That's part of it. What you are and aren't entitled to is part of the discussion. 

[El Guapo]

Pretty commonplace occurrence in academics? Where did you get this tidbit from? No way in hell this is true.

[Justafan]

1 hour ago, Bink said:

 

It may not be as clear from my post, but I don't totally disagree with you by any means. I am deeply involved in higher ed personally, and worked for many years directly as a teacher of writing. 

 

The point about it being political--it's kind of the nature of this type of position and conversation. Plagiarism and conversations surrounding it have evolved dramatically since Gay was publishing the texts in question, and while I don't think it can be out right dismissed as a nothing burger, the pitchforks really should be put down. 

 

If there wasn't pressure from the board over her handling of this conflict, I guarantee you this would not be a national story or even a point of issue. 

 

The thing is when, you do get in the crosshairs whatever comes to light comes to light. My point is that, in this case, it is all probably enough. 

 

Irish and others are right in that this level of plagiarism is hardly handled with severe zero tolerance brutality--if it is, that is more so on a draconian and wrong professors who are more the problem than the student. 

 

I guarantee you the culture and understanding of the issue was different when she wrote the product too. 

 

Where I agree with you, Justafan, is that because of what she is doing (being a university president), there are different standards. She didn't defend her Jewish students in the eyes of the board, what she said or didn't say was flawled, and they dropped the hammer on her. This is not uncommon for university presidents, provosts, etc. No one is trying to send her to jail for plagiarizing. 

 

The point about the guys wife--you call it revenge--was an investigation into her motivated by that? Probably. 

 

But I think it more so reveals that this kind of plagiarism is  a lot more common that you think. It's also not a zero tolerance issue. 

 

It's also something that, conceptually speaking, is treated differently in other industries and cultures. It is complicated. 

 

You all are fumbling over a question of how much this matters--if it is a big deal or not--because in the tribal way of thinking that's all that makes sense. 

 

At the end of the day, objectively speaking it is not a big enough deal on its own to merit this much care or consideration. 

 

But this position is one of insane privilege, where the people making the decisions can do what they want. That's part of it. What you are and aren't entitled to is part of the discussion. 

All I know is I wasn't allowed to plagiarize that way, even in high school academics in the 90s. It wasn't tolerated when I was taking my bachelor's or when I was teaching at the university as an ROTC instructor.  I've seen students dismissed at USASMA over less obvious infractions where I am now (an accredited institution), and now, while I'm working on my master's, I was told point blank by my academic instructor on day one that we would be dismissed if caught plagiarizing or using chat GPT. 

 

Maybe it's widespread, which raises other important questions about integrity in higher learning. Still, I find it very difficult to believe that outright plagiarism is routinely tolerated at any level of academics, especially at the highest levels. I'm also 100% certain that plagiarism wasn't tolerated differently in 1997 when Gay wrote her dissertation. As I said, I had to cite direct quotes from my high school papers, so I find it ridiculous to suggest that it wouldn't be a big deal on a Ph.D. dissertation at an elite school. Reading the quotes, there is no way I can be convinced she didn't cheat or that it's not a big deal. If that's happening routinely at the highest levels, that tells me many people lack integrity in academics - no offense to anyone who works in that field. 

Edited January 9, 2024 by Justafan

[Guest]

44 minutes ago, Justafan said:

All I know is I wasn't allowed to plagiarize that way, even in high school academics in the 90s. It wasn't tolerated when I was taking my bachelor's or when I was teaching at the university as an ROTC instructor.  I've seen students dismissed at USASMA over less obvious infractions where I am now (an accredited institution), and now, while I'm working on my master's, I was told point blank by my academic instructor on day one that we would be dismissed if caught plagiarizing or using chat GPT. 

 

Maybe it's widespread, which raises other important questions about integrity in higher learning. Still, I find it very difficult to believe that outright plagiarism is routinely tolerated at any level of academics, especially at the highest levels. I'm also 100% certain that plagiarism wasn't tolerated differently in 1997 when Gay wrote her dissertation. As I said, I had to cite direct quotes from my high school papers, so I find it ridiculous to suggest that it wouldn't be a big deal on a Ph.D. dissertation at an elite school. Reading the quotes, there is no way I can be convinced she didn't cheat or that it's not a big deal. If that's happening routinely at the highest levels, that tells me many people lack integrity in academics - no offense to anyone who works in that field. 

 

I would have to really look at it more closely to be honest. Academic integrity and plagiarism is uniquely grounded in American culture. I am not saying it is not *not* an issue. I also think the environment you were in--for all these same reasons discussed, was a lot more "zero tolerance", a blending of military style response. 

 

Plagiarism certainly is not tolerated at any level in academia, that much is true. It does exist, however, and I think many and most institutions try to understand how it functions and treat cases with a little nuance when it comes to the consequences. 

 

Had this been caught in the official submission or review of this student's Dissertation, it probably would be a correction, or a smaller sanction, undoubtedly not immediate termination. 

 

Also, this specific kind of plagiarism is usually not cited as egregious. 

 

How is plagiarism analyzed? 

 

Well for starters, how much of the text (percentage). This is hardly an issue here. 

 

Is it an original idea, concept or novel idea? No. 

 

The claim against Gay, as far as I understand it, is that she plagiarized a description of the Voting Rights act, and did not properly give credit. 

 

This is an extremely common mistake in writing at all levels. How a bill works for scholars at this level is almost common knowledge. Patch writing, or having a hard time paraphrasing this, or even doing it unintentionally because of how many times you have read it, is extremely common here. 

 

Throwing a student out of university, even in the military, for this level of infraction would be draconian. I could look at the actual text itself and make the argument, but I doubt it's necessary. 

 

From everything I can see, this is wholly being blown out of proportion with folks just using the word plagiarism without analyzing the text or what actually happens. 

 

To me, this is the equivalent of going down the driveway to check the mail without buckling your seatbelt, and being tossed in jail. 

 

This has also been reviewed by the institution, etc. 

 

Again, this individual is and should be held to higher standards. I've already made some arguments here about why this individual is not necessarily being treated unfairly in getting fired. 

 

 

I guarantee you were never at an institution with a zero tolerance policy that would hammer a student this hard for this mistake, at least as the description I've read described. We can look into the policies if you really want to do so. And of course, your professors warned you about the consequences of plagiarism--big picture intentional and ugly cheating. 

 

This is not what is happening here--hard to make that argument--at least from what is being reported. I have worked directly with this type of issue for over a decade for what it's worth, so that's where this is coming from. 

[Guest]

FYI: Because of this whole thread, I went and read an article that details some of these examples, ranging from "meh" to not so great. 

 

I also found a thread detailing her suspect rise to this position with academic credentials from reddit--a lot more interesting. 

 

The examples of plagiarism would make for an interesting discussion with an English 101 class. The fact that it's all been gathered by combing through her work (a few examples from multiple articles and documents) is just really interesting--I think at some point it looks like someone believes she is plagiarizing the acknowledgments of something--this is kind of an lol to me. 

 

I personally believe there is a much larger conversation here, interesting things to say about it, but I really don't believe current discourse warrants that. 

 

I also think we get consumed by certain narratives that we can't move past them. It's okay to focus on the real reason she is being fired and discuss that on it's own merits. This level of noise, whether warranted or not, is enough to get someone fired from a job like this--"we don't like you--is enough". It's like the head coach of a football team or something. 

 

If someone really wanted me to go through all of these examples and explain it away, I guess I could (but I also shouldn't give out free labor). 

 

I also have a lot to say about this uniquely American problem--plagiarism is only such a big deal here because we are culturally psychopaths about property, belonging, and capital. 

 

I'm going to just pick at two examples here directly from the dissertation to critique, and you can have fun with the rest of it. 

[Justafan]

13 minutes ago, Bink said:

 

I would have to really look at it more closely to be honest. Academic integrity and plagiarism is uniquely grounded in American culture. I am not saying it is not *not* an issue. I also think the environment you were in--for all these same reasons discussed, was a lot more "zero tolerance", a blending of military style response. 

 

Plagiarism certainly is not tolerated at any level in academia, that much is true. It does exist, however, and I think many and most institutions try to understand how it functions and treat cases with a little nuance when it comes to the consequences. 

 

Had this been caught in the official submission or review of this student's Dissertation, it probably would be a correction, or a smaller sanction, undoubtedly not immediate termination. 

 

Also, this specific kind of plagiarism is usually not cited as egregious. 

 

How is plagiarism analyzed? 

 

Well for starters, how much of the text (percentage). This is hardly an issue here. 

 

Is it an original idea, concept or novel idea? No. 

 

The claim against Gay, as far as I understand it, is that she plagiarized a description of the Voting Rights act, and did not properly give credit. 

 

This is an extremely common mistake in writing at all levels. How a bill works for scholars at this level is almost common knowledge. Patch writing, or having a hard time paraphrasing this, or even doing it unintentionally because of how many times you have read it, is extremely common here. 

 

Throwing a student out of university, even in the military, for this level of infraction would be draconian. I could look at the actual text itself and make the argument, but I doubt it's necessary. 

 

From everything I can see, this is wholly being blown out of proportion with folks just using the word plagiarism without analyzing the text or what actually happens. 

 

To me, this is the equivalent of going down the driveway to check the mail without buckling your seatbelt, and being tossed in jail. 

 

This has also been reviewed by the institution, etc. 

 

Again, this individual is and should be held to higher standards. I've already made some arguments here about why this individual is not necessarily being treated unfairly in getting fired. 

 

 

I guarantee you were never at an institution with a zero tolerance policy that would hammer a student this hard for this mistake, at least as the description I've read described. We can look into the policies if you really want to do so. And of course, your professors warned you about the consequences of plagiarism--big picture intentional and ugly cheating. 

 

This is not what is happening here--hard to make that argument--at least from what is being reported. I have worked directly with this type of issue for over a decade for what it's worth, so that's where this is coming from. 

I would agree with you if the infraction was as you describe. I would suggest looking at the free beacon article. She copy pasted 4 complete sentences and she did so multiple times. I posted one of 6. There were over 40 infractions found. Some of them were minor as you describe but not all of them were. The one I pointed out for instance was egregious. It wasn't copying an entire work but it wasn't just describing a common phrase of the voting rights act either. What she did was not a whoopsie, that is intentional cheating.