Harvard University president Claudine Gay resigns. It exposed more than just a sloppy student.
Matt Eagan on CNN wants everyone to know that Claudine’s work has some “sloppy attribution” issues, but wants everyone to know she wasn’t stealing anyone’s ideas.
For those who’ve written papers in college (for me, quite a long time ago), proper attribution is part of a University’s code of conduct that students must follow. Failing to do can result in various forms of discipline which includes expulsion.
The problem here is not sloppy attribution as an undergrad student; it was done in the pursuit of higher education, including her dissertation and articles published in academic journals. My question is how did this happen in the first place? She was a graduate student when some of the articles in question were published. Surely, there is a process in place to catch these things, so that the reputation of the student and the publication are intact? Maybe?
Oddly, in Harvard’s internal review of her work in the Origin’s publication, the committee gave her a pass because the journal itself “..because articles included in that journal generally do not include citations or quotations.” In other words, you can expect that other students have published work (and without me having to say it, it implies others of a diverse spectrum) without rigorous review. Other articles have more egregious issues that call into question university oversight and practices.
However, if the journal itself has no standards of integrity and anyone can publish an article using outright plagiarism, who would reference articles from it that risks citing work not of the highest quality? Doesn’t every student who wants to have an article published in a reputable journal? Unless the academics are lowering the standards for publication…
Since most of her work was done in the 1990’s, this coincides with the budding idea of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion in universities to address what they called “inequities” from years of systemic racism. That began the great experiment in lowering the standards for many students of color in various aspects of academic rigor so that more could succeed. Did Claudine Gay benefit from that? Was she not live up to the same standards as white students? Maybe. But the fact that the pattern continued for years suggest that it was certainly an influence in the process, one that Harvard and other Ivy League institutions that have adjusted to new DEI practices should investigate in depth.
As a Hispanic American, I insist that the work I do must not be viewed from a racial or ethnic lens, but its quality and merit. If I happen to one day write a paper of consequence, I would hope that my mentors, advisers, co-authors, and the university process would help me ensure that my work is of the highest quality and integrity. Proper attributions and citations means my work is credible to the work of the authors referenced, but also shows I have taken the proper care and diligence to assure the work has integrity.
One of the growing problems in academia in recent years has been the infusion of activism into the process to help push narratives that further the progressive agenda in shaping public policy. DEI is just one means in which individuals who want to push such narratives, such as the 1619 project. Instead of challenging the students on their theories and evidence to support them, academics indoctrinated in the “poor people of color” ideology let things go to make up for years of perceived institutional racism.. or that there was slavery in the US.. or something.
Except they are practicing racism from a different angle. If a white person were to not live up to the standards, you can bet they would be terminated on the spot if they refused to resign. For Gay, she was actually given a vote of confidence and a roaring endorsement by the Executive Committee of the Harvard Alumni Association. Many prosperous and influential alums were quick to criticize the response, especially given that a university president of such a prestigious institution should be well above reproach. Plagiarism – aka “sloppy attribution” – doesn’t meet that standard, and after a month of outcry and more revelations, she is now the second school president to resign. Shouldn’t have taken that long, but it’s clear that in the power circle of Harvard, they were quick to defend her without consideration of allegations. Why do you suppose that is?
If only she condemned the violence against her Jewish students in front of a public hearing in Congress, as was the proper and moral response. Nope, she had to stick to the progressive narrative, one that put her in a bad position and exposed how the system benefited her, and her desire to live under it.
Sonoran Conservative 