Trigger warnings, safe spaces, and fascism on college campuses

[Non Sequitur]

What does libertarianism have to do with political pressure? This isn’t government creating laws that get in the way of things.

Libertarians are allowed to have opinions. Sure they will celebrate free speech, but that doesn’t mean they won’t be critical.

You really think that's what libertarianism is about. Libertarians are just conservatives too ashamed to admit that they're conservative republicans.

[USUC]

And by illiberal you mean not anxious to submit to your litmus test on Israeli loyalty?

You really think that's what libertarianism is about. Libertarians are just conservatives too ashamed to admit that they're conservative republicans.

Not today, Satan!

[Non Sequitur]

Not today, Satan!

I may be Satan, but you know there's a germ of truth in what I say. Maybe not for you, but for those you associate with.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I think you heard it from a stupid person. This is what I don't get. You pose as a libertarian, but you have a problem with a university because it doesn't bow to political pressure. You should be applauding Harvard.

I have been a big fan of Harvard's new president, but her responses at the hearing were inexcusable. As she now acknowledges.

The bigger problem for Harvard right now is that the commitment to free speech comes after years of creating safe spaces, fighting microagressions, and disciplining students for dumb things like misgendering. The solution to this mess is not to restrict speech, but to institute rigid political neutrality, enshrine free speech for everyone on campus, ensure that classes and speeches are not disrupted, etc.

Spoiler alert: Harvard will remain an elite university.

[Jeff Lebowski]

BTW, it is coming out that Harvard's president seems to have engaged in plagiarism in multiple journal articles. That might actually lead to her dismissal.

Embedded Tweet

[Omaha 680]

I may be Satan, but you know there's a germ of truth in what I say. Maybe not for you, but for those you associate with.

You are not understanding or being intentionally obtuse. Of course free speech advocates like myself oppose the ridiculous speech codes and safe spaces that most campuses have embraced. But the worst part about them is not that they exist, it's that they are wielded by convenience by and toward only certain groups. This is obviously not sustainable and the massive hypocrisy and underlying cultural rot of these institutions has only been exposed by the clownery of the university presidents in that hearing. They have two choices: pull back from the critical theory nonsense that has informed all these selectively applied speech codes and truly embrace free speech and acedemic freedom, or apply the codes consistently which would obviously include expelling or firing people who call for genocide of Jews. I would prefer the former but I suppose they could survive doing the later. Looks like (thankfully) walking the non-existant tightrope between the two will get you fired.

[Omaha 680]

BTW, it is coming out that Harvard's president seems to have engaged in plagiarism in multiple journal articles. That might actually lead to her dismissal.

Embedded Tweet

I am skeptical they go that far. Hudreds of Harvard faculty have come out in her support after the plagiarism claims surfaced.

[Non Sequitur]

I have been a big fan of Harvard's new president, but her responses at the hearing were inexcusable. As she now acknowledges.

The bigger problem for Harvard right now is that the commitment to free speech comes after years of creating safe spaces, fighting microagressions, and disciplining students for dumb things like misgendering. The solution to this mess is not to restrict speech, but to institute rigid political neutrality, enshrine free speech for everyone on campus, ensure that classes and speeches are not disrupted, etc.

Spoiler alert: Harvard will remain an elite university.

Universities are slaves to traditions and donors. Some dumb safe spaces prohibit misgendering and other safe spaces prohibit coffee. She didn't do well at the hearing. She allowed herself to get backed into a trap, and she didn't have the political skills to slip off the hook. I don't know enough about her to not give her the benefit of the doubt.

[Bo Diddley]

BTW, it is coming out that Harvard's president seems to have engaged in plagiarism in multiple journal articles. That might actually lead to her dismissal.

How egregious is the plagiarism? Was it a matter of failing to cite sources? As a layman, I'm not sure how these things are treated. At my last military course, we had to do a lot of writing, but before we could submit something, we had to run it through the computer to check that we hadn't stolen someone else's work.

[Jeff Lebowski]

How egregious is the plagiarism? Was it a matter of failing to cite sources? As a layman, I'm not sure how these things are treated. At my last military course, we had to do a lot of writing, but before we could submit something, we had to run it through the computer to check that we hadn't stolen someone else's work.

It looks really bad on the surface. She only has 11 publications - which is ridiculously low for a Harvard president so it hurts when so many of them have plagiarism.

Apparently Harvard has hired a law firm to sue the outlet that published the news of plagiarism. So who knows how all this ends up.

[Pelado]

It looks really bad on the surface. She only has 11 publications - which is ridiculously low for a Harvard president so it hurts when so many of them have plagiarism.

Apparently Harvard has hired a law firm to sue the outlet that published the news of plagiarism. So who knows how all this ends up.

What are the grounds of the suit? Publicizing something they wanted to keep on the down low?

[Jeff Lebowski]

What are the grounds of the suit? Publicizing something they wanted to keep on the down low?

I don't know. Seeing a lot of chatter like this.

Not sure what to believe here. If it is indeed plagiarism (and it sure looks like it is), then what good would it do to go after the reporters? Something is fishy.

Embedded Tweet

[Goatnapper'96]

I don't know. Seeing a lot of chatter like this.

Not sure what to believe here. If it is indeed plagiarism (and it sure looks like it is), then what good would it do to go after the reporters? Something is fishy.

Embedded Tweet

Maybe they can hire some consultants who graduated from Yale to guide them through this minefield.

[Bo Diddley]

Anyone can run her papers through the computer right? Or maybe the software you need changes depending on the field.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Here is a more detailed summary.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/12/u...lagiarism.html

The battle over the fate of Harvard’s president, Claudine Gay, took an unexpected turn this week, as accusations of plagiarism in her scholarly work surfaced, along with questions about how the university had handled them.

On Tuesday, the Harvard Corporation, the university’s governing body, announced that Dr. Gay would keep her job, despite the uproar over her statements on campus antisemitism at a congressional hearing. But the Corporation also revealed that it had conducted a review of her published work after receiving accusations in October about three of her articles.

The Corporation said that while the review found that she had not violated the university’s standards for “research misconduct,” it did discover “a few instances of inadequate citation.” Dr. Gay would request “four corrections in two articles to insert citations and quotation marks that were omitted from the original publications,” the statement said.

Omitting quotation marks is the very definition of plagiarism!! This is wild.

Also:

The Harvard Corporation’s statement on Dr. Gay does not use the word “plagiarism.” But some members of Harvard’s faculty said they were disturbed by the passages highlighted in news coverage, saying students who committed similar infractions were often disciplined, sometimes harshly.

“It’s troubling to see the standards we apply to undergrads seem to differ from the standards we apply to faculty,” said Theda Skocpol, a professor of government.

A Harvard guide for students defines “plagiarism” broadly. “When you fail to cite your sources, or when you cite them inadequately, you are plagiarizing, which is taken extremely seriously at Harvard,” it says. “Plagiarism is defined as the act of intentionally OR unintentionally submitting work that was written by somebody else.”

I would not be surprised if this doesn't go away.