Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
January 4, 2024
Upon the resignation of President Richard M. Nixon, his successor, President Gerald R. Ford said, “Our long, national nightmare is over,” during his August 9, 1974 inaugural address. Claudine Gay resigned the presidency of Harvard University on Tuesday, January 2 after a tumultuous just shy of a month since her disastrous December 5 appearance before the House Committee on Education and the Workforce and the discovery of myriad instances of plagiarism in her professional work.
While the nightmare only seemed long, Gay dragging out what should have been a decision made within days, not weeks, of her appearance on Capitol Hill, it is a national story. Harvard is considered the elite of the elites in college education - the producer of presidents - five (Yale is second with three), vice presidents - four (Princeton is second with three), Supreme Court justices - 18 (Yale is second with nine). Yet Harvard’s reputation has taken a beating during Gay’s six month tenure as president, the shortest in its nearly four century existence.
Gay appeared before the House Education Committee alongside M.I.T. president Sally Kornbluth and now former president of the University of Pennsylvania Liz Magill, regarding the horrific rising scourge of campus anti-Semitism. All three had equally repugnant performances before the committee, yet only Magill had sense enough to resign within days, on December 9. Not one could, or would, condemn the calls for genocide of their Jewish student populations, or anti-Semitism, hiding behind the First Amendment of the US Constitution, calling such incendiary language free speech and priding themselves as leading universities dedicated to the free and open exchange of ideas.
Such claims couldn’t be further from the truth. According to The FIRE (The Foundation for Individual Rights in Expression) Free Speech Rankings, Harvard bottomed out dead last at 248 out of 248 schools in terms of a free speech culture on campus. Penn has only Harvard beneath it, ranking 247th, and M.I.T., the “leader” of this group of least free in free speech at 136th. (https://rankings.thefire.org/rank)
“You get kicked out of places like Harvard for misgendering someone. You get kicked out of a school; you get expelled if you’re falsely accused of sexual assault with no due process. When you call for the genocide and somehow the president of the university acts as a human shield on your behalf - and I hope these wealthy donors of every stripe, every background, look at this and withhold their gifts - because this is what has been created in this disgusting laboratory,” said Kennedy on the December 6 Fox News noon program “Outnumbered.” The laboratory to which Kennedy referred is the Ivy League and quite frankly, numerous other campuses.
“Microaggressions are condemned with extreme moral outrage and yet violence against Jews, anti-Semitism, seems to have found a place of tolerance on the campus,” said Apollo Global Management CEO Marc Rowan. Rowan is also a former Penn board member, and contributed more than $50 million to Wharton, the business school at Penn.
While some might suggest Kennedy’s words are hyperbole, that simply is not true. Students, professors, and coaches alike get “canceled” for the slightest of so-called infractions or microaggressions. “Harvard’s women’s [ice] hockey coach said after a loss, ‘too many chiefs, not enough Indians,’ and her job is in jeopardy but calling for global intifada is free speech?” queried former Secretary of Education Bill Bennett. More than a year after coach Katey Stone made that comment, there were calls for her resignation. After 29 years as head coach, Stone retired the first week of June 2023.
Presidents Gay, Kornbluth, and Magill made Bennett’s point for him during their shameful testimonies on December 5. US Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY), as a member of the Education Committee, took each university president to task and took them apart for their inability to appropriately answer even the most simple question, with the most obvious answer.
Billionaire hedge fund CEO Bill Ackman posted the following on December 5, “The presidents of @Harvard, @MIT, and @Penn were all asked the following question under oath at today’s Congressional hearing on antisemitism: Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate [your university’s] code of conduct or rules regarding bullying or harassment? The answers they gave reflect the profound moral bankruptcy of presidents Gay, Magill, and Kornbluth… They must all resign in disgrace.”
A sampling of answers from each of these alleged leaders in higher education:
Stefanik: “Calling for the genocide of Jews does not constitute bullying or harassment?”
Kornbluth: “I have not heard calling for the genocide of Jews on campus.”
Stefanik: “But you’ve heard chants for intifada.”
Kornbluth: I’ve heard chants, which can be anti-Semitic, depending on the context when calling for the elimination of the Jewish people.”
Stefanik: “So those would not be according to the M.I.T. code of conduct or rules?”
Kornbluth: “That would be investigated as harassment if pervasive or severe.”
Intifada is the uprising against Israel and/or Jews. Could Kornbluth not put two and two together and understand what the pro-Hamas supporters called for at M.I.T.?
Magill: “Our approach to speech, as I have identified it, follows, and is guided by the United States Constitution which allows for robust perspectives.”
Stefanik: “You’re speaking out of both sides of your mouth. You’re defending it. You’ve allowed these professors to teach at your college. You create a safe haven for this kind of anti-Semitic behavior. Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Penn’s rules or code of conduct?”
Magill: “If the speech turns into conduct it can be harassment, yes.”
Stefanik: “Conduct meaning committing the act of homicide?”
Magill: “It is a context-dependent decision, Congresswoman.”
Stefanik: “It’s a context-dependent decision? That’s your testimony today, calling for the genocide of Jews is dependent on the context? That is not bullying or harassment. This is the easiest question to answer yes, Ms. Magill.”
Stefanik: “You’re president of Harvard, so I assume you’re familiar with the term intifada, correct?
Gay: “I’ve heard that term, yes.”
Stefanik: “And you understand that the use of the term intifada in the context of the Israeli-Arab conflict is indeed a call for violent armed resistance against the state of Israel including violence against civilians and the genocide of Jews. Are you aware of that?”
Gay: “That type of hateful speech is personally abhorrent to me.”
Stefanik: “And there have been multiple marches at Harvard, with students chanting, quote, ‘there is only one solution - intifada - revolution,’ and quote, ‘globalize the intifada.’ Is that correct?”
Gay: “I’ve heard that thoughtless, reckless, and hateful language on our campus, yes.”
Stefanik: “So do you believe that type of hateful speech is contrary to Harvard’s code of conduct, or is it allowed at Harvard?”
Gay: “We embrace a commitment to free expression, and give a wide berth to free expression even of views that are objectionable…”
Stefanik: “You and I both know that’s not the case. You are aware that Harvard ranks dead last when it came to free speech; are you not aware of that report?”
Gay: “As I observed earlier, I reject that characterization…”
Stefanik: “The data shows it’s true…. So the answer is yes, that calling for the genocide of Jews violates the Harvard code of conduct. Correct. (The spoken word “correct” sounded like an affirmation, or statement, not so much a question.)
Gay: “Again, it depends on the context…”
Stefanik: “It does not depend on the context. The answer is yes, and this is why you should resign. These are unacceptable answers across the board.”
Quite frankly, these three miserable excuses for university presidents were tossed softballs the size of basketballs and should have hit them out of the park with their eyes closed. Instead, they issued testimony that was stiff and unemotional. Stefanik seemed to be the only person to have any sense of urgency regarding the shocking degree of campus anti-Semitism, not just at Harvard, M.I.T., and Penn, but on campuses all across the nation - at least 70 at last count, according to several sources. (Sadly, "Saturday Night Live," mocked Stefanik in an over exaggerated skit, and shame on SNL, a program that hasn’t been relevant in decades.)
This was an opportunity to reach moral clarity, but this triumvirate of feckless so-called university leaders failed terribly and disgracefully. The calls for the resignations of all three university presidents came swiftly and with alacrity. As noted above, Magill resigned four days after her appearance before the Education Committee, yet retains her teaching position with Penn Carey Law. Kornbluth has neither resigned nor been dismissed from her position at M.I.T.
But Gay’s circumstances traversed an all new direction as the allegations of plagiarism came fast and furious. It was due to this issue and not the issue of anti-Semitism on Harvard’s campus, that Gay poorly addressed, that became the bane of her existence.
“This is a moral failure of Harvard’s leadership and higher education leadership at the highest levels. And the only change they have made to their code of conduct, where they failed to condemn calls for genocide of the Jewish people, the only update to the code of conduct is to allow a plagiarist as the president of Harvard,” said Stefanik, herself an alumnus of Harvard.
Stefanik is absolutely correct in that assessment. As seems to be typical, campus anti-Semitism, more the norm than at any time since the Holocaust, is considered an aberration or treated as free speech. Calls for Gay’s ousting didn’t reach fever pitch until the revelations of severe plagiarism surfaced. And even then, it was couched as “duplicative language,” in the headline of a December 20 New York Times article written by Jennifer Schuessler. (Note to former president Gay - use of quotation marks and appropriate attribution and citation - not much of a challenge.)
From “The Fellows of Harvard College,” on Gay: “an independent review by distinguished political scientists… conducted a review of her published work. On December 9 the Fellows received the results, which revealed a few instances of inadequate citation.” Gay received praise for proactively seeking to correct two of the articles under review, according to The Ingraham Angle on December 21.
Yet, Aaron Sibarium wrote for The Washington Free Beacon on December 19, that “Harvard University on Tuesday received a complaint outlining over 40 allegations of plagiarism against its embattled president Claudine Gay… which comprise almost half of her scholarly output.”
Forty-plus instances of plagiarism over a 30-year academic career, including her Ph.D. dissertation at the outset of her career, through “her final academic paper before becoming dean and then president,” said Chris Rufo, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. As would eventually be discovered, 50 instances of plagiarism plagued Gay’s work, including in the acknowledgement of her dissertation. The acknowledgement? Smacks of severe laziness. Incredibly, Gay’s dissertation won her the Toppan Prize for best dissertation or essay at Harvard. Who conducted source verification?
“Students, who for whatever reason, submit work either not their own or without clear attribution to its sources will be subject to disciplinary action, up to and including requirement to withdraw from the College.” This is a direct quote from the Harvard plagiarism policy. Rufo researched the policy from 1995 and 1998 when Gay wrote her Ph.D. dissertation and found Gay clearly violated Harvard’s plagiarism policy. (https://usingsources.fas.harvard.edu/harvard-plagiarism-policy)
Part of Harvard’s motto or credo includes the word veritas, truth in Latin. “Does Harvard value veritas, or truth, or does Harvard value DEI and having the right race or gender symbolism at the top of its university hierarchy? You can only pick one in this case,” said Rufo.
One of Gay’s plagiarism victims is esteemed academician Dr. Carol Swain, holder of five college degrees, including a B.A. from Roanoke College in criminal justice, an M.A. from Virginia Tech in political science, a Ph.D. from the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill in political science, and an MSL from Yale. After earning tenure at Princeton University, Swain served as a full professor at Vanderbilt University teaching political science and law. Currently, Swain is a senior fellow at the Institute for Faith and Culture.
“From my perspective, if there was harm to me, it was because I lost out on a lot of citations, and in academia… it’s all about the citations. If people are not citing their work, that harms you. She [Gay] has one cit[ation], in most of the articles, but the work is clearly derivative of my research. It’s not pathbreaking. She did not meet the standard I had to meet to get tenure at Princeton,” said Swain during her December 20 appearance on Newsmax’s “National Report.”
Examples of Gay’s “work” and that of Swain’s side by side depict almost identical passages, save for some punctuation. Swain called for Gay to resign or for Harvard to fire her in mid-December. At the time the Harvard board stood by Gay, in spite of her appalling appearance before the Education Committee and what the board called “instances of inadequate citation,” which, in reality, was overwhelming and damning evidence of plagiarism.
Asked if she had heard from Harvard, Swain said, “no, I have not heard from Harvard. The focus I want to direct people’s attention to is the fact that Claudine Gay, and I’m not going to call her ‘Dr. Gay,’ because it’s clear she plagiarized her dissertation, and in academia you have to write a dissertation and successfully defend it before a committee before you become a doctor [Ph.D.], and that dissertation is supposed to contain some original work. You have to do something that hasn’t been done before…. She presented a dissertation that had plagiarism in it, she became a professor with research that… [was] plagiarized. No, she does not belong as the president of Harvard or any college and university,” said Swain.
Newsmax, during the same “National Report,” showed additional so-called work by Gay side by side with the writing of Lawrence Bobo and Franklin Gilliam entitled “Race, Sociopolitical Participation, and Black Empowerment.” The passages were virtually identical with merely cosmetic changes to a word or two.
“And now we know that she even plagiarized the acknowledgement of her dissertation. That’s where you thank the people that helped you. She has two sentences that are verbatim, pretty much, other than switching the names of the people you thank, from someone else’s work,” said Swain. “This is sad. It’s sad for American education. It’s bigger than me. That the implication of Harvard’s lack of action against Claudine Gay will affect American higher education as well as K through 12 because Harvard University [is trying to] redefine plagiarism. They’re trying to cover for her,” Swain concluded.
And in the category of “splitting hairs,” is the defense of Gay by CNN’s “News Central” reporter Matt Egan. “Claudine Gay has had to issue corrections; multiple corrections. Now, we should note that Claudine Gay has not been accused of stealing anyone’s ideas in any of her writings. She’s been accused of - sort of - more like copying other people’s writings without attribution,” said Egan, with a straight face on Tuesday January 2. Gay has, in fact, been accused of stealing, by Swain above, at the very least. This is a clear case of the theft of intellectual property. And, did Egan sleep in on the day plagiarism was taught in journalism school?
But to what end? Clearly the scandal of Claudine Gay is damaging to the reputation of Harvard University because that institution created Gay. Bowing at the altar of DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) and ensuring Gay checked the correct boxes, she found herself president of Harvard University. How carefully was her dissertation examined? Or any of her other writings? There don’t seem to be that many of them. There were also a number of honor’s students seeking Gay’s removal knowing the impact such a scandal could have on their own futures.
Yet an unrepentant Gay has decided to martyr herself on the throne of victimhood. From her letter of resignation, Gay writes, “...it has been distressing to have doubts cast upon my commitments to confronting hate and to upholding scholarly rigor - two bedrock values that are fundamental to who I am - and frightening to be subjected to personal attacks and threats fueled by racial animus.”
Lacking from Gay’s letter includes words of apology for violating both “confronting hate and… upholding scholarly rigor.” Attacks against Gay should not have been personal, but instead, professional, for which her works are fair game. Any racial animus Gay may have suffered does not seem to have been made public, yet if any exists either publicly or privately are completely uncalled for.
If Gay is a victim of anything, it is the DEI system that promoted her to Harvard president in the first place. Diversity for diversity’s sake is not progress. It’s an admission that box checking is more important than merit and bona fide credentials - verified and vetted to avoid such scandals as this one. The DEI model itself, akin to affirmative action, does more harm than good - propping up someone with expectations perhaps unreachable. Racism did not cost Gay her job, but it may have gotten it for her. But in the long run, Gay is a victim of her own making, responsible for her own actions; for taking easily discernible shortcuts.
On “Outnumbered” on Wednesday January 3, Dagen McDowell said, “let me quote Coleman Hughes who is a CNN analyst, who’s a terrific author: ‘Claudine Gay has no one to blame but herself. She chose an easy path of plagiarism - 50 times - over the hard path of writing original prose. It’s a pattern of serious fraud, plain and simple. This moment is a useful litmus test - anyone who is blaming Gay’s resignation on other factors, right wingers or racism, is nuts and can safely be ignored for the rest of time.’” Hughes, who is Black, is also a Manhattan Institute podcast host.
Joy Reid on MSNBC said on Tuesday January 2, “There is this, sort of, open war on Black progress, Black history. Claudine Gay, the president of Harvard University, at least up until she resigned, is now the latest casualty of that.”
Hughes is absolutely correct. This is not about right wingers or racism. This is on Gay. She did not condemn Hamas, the anti-Semitism on campus, or the student groups blaming the October 7 invasion of Israel and the slaughter of more than 1,400 innocent civilians on Israel itself, not to mention the deplorable answers she provided regarding anti-Semitism and context. Gay did not stand up for, or defend, the Jewish students on her campus either.
Rewarding Gay continuing her work as a professor of government and African and African American Studies is an insult to the other professors and students at Harvard. Keeping her nearly $900,000 salary? What a golden parachute. But allowing her to proceed with her teaching and indoctrinating more students is just wrong to its core - whether at Harvard, Hawaii, High Point, Hobart, Hofstra, Howard, or Hunter.
Race hustler Marc Lamont Hill said the next president of Harvard “MUST be a Black woman.” Well, Mr. Hill, you may not like this choice, but she certainly checks your boxes - Dr. Carol Swain. But would she really want to leave Nashville for the mess in Cambridge, Massachusetts?
Sanford D. Horn is a writer and educator living in Westfield, IN.
No comments:
Post a Comment