Trigger warnings, safe spaces, and fascism on college campuses

[old_gregg]

isn't every piece of written college student work product run through ai plagiarism detection software when it's submitted? if this is something for which a harvard undergrad would be disciplined or receive any level of scrutiny, she deserved it.

[USUC]

isn't every piece of written college student work product run through ai plagiarism detection software when it's submitted? if this is something for which a harvard undergrad would be disciplined or receive any level of scrutiny, she deserved it.

I imagine the amount of publications produced before 2010 that contain plagiarized passages is uncomfortably high. Especially in the social sciences and humanities. But not to the extent that Gay exhibited.

I spent a lot of late nights staring at my computer screen trying to rephrase a couple of sentences while writing my thesis. I get the appeal of just saying "screw it, no one is going to read this anyway." But I was petrified of mistakes and the impression of plagiarism. Not only because it's dishonest, but because I didn't want to give any fuel to the voice in my head that constantly said I wasn't smart enough to pull this off.

[Jeff Lebowski]

isn't every piece of written college student work product run through ai plagiarism detection software when it's submitted? if this is something for which a harvard undergrad would be disciplined or receive any level of scrutiny, she deserved it.

That was part of the issue. Harvard has booted or disciplined quite a few students for less egregious plagiarism.

[falafel]

To ignore her race in this episode is malpractice, of course it played a part. It’s all part of the DEI blast that Ruffo and DeSantis and everyone on Fox has been railing on about for years. But nobody with a brain doesn’t think it’s racist she was fired for plagiarism.

But probably not a material part. After all, Gay's white female colleague at Penn was fired for less (no plagiarism).

the Israeli stuff was bad but in its context isn’t horrible. If you watch the exchange her answer sounded like corporate lawyer speak protecting the 1a.

That's sort of exactly what the now-fired presidents were trying to say.

[Non Sequitur]

To ignore her race in this episode is malpractice, of course it played a part. It’s all part of the DEI blast that Ruffo and DeSantis and everyone on Fox has been railing on about for years. But nobody with a brain doesn’t think it’s racist she was fired for plagiarism.

It’s a weird culture war moment. She found sympathies with other academics when this was first exposed, I’m assuming because a lot more academics plagiarize or maybe it wasn’t as as egregious as portrayed, the Israeli stuff was bad but in its context isn’t horrible. If you watch the exchange her answer sounded like corporate lawyer speak protecting the 1a.

I wonder if the Washington Free Beacon spent as much time trying to rid the world of Claudine Gay as they did exposing Trump, Ron DeSantis and any of the other lackeys who support him, maybe the conservative movement could wrestle back some level of legitimacy. In the meantime, all the rest of the normal 98% of people who could never get in Harvard, will go about our lives not knowing who any president of Harvard is except the one from the Social Network.

I don't disagree that race is a part of it, but I don't think it's what got her fired (yeah, I know she resigned, but I'm sure she didn't have a choice). Race was probably a large factor in unleashing the hounds that chased down the plagiarism charges, and I'm certain there are a lot of conservatives who are gleeful that a powerful woman of color is being humiliated, but that doesn't mean she doesn't deserve to lose her job. The bad acts that led to the exposure of her plagiarism, do not excuse the plagiarism.

[fusnik]

To further my point this is a weird culture war issue:

https://www.newsweek.com/neil-gorsuch-plagiarism-allegations-1857822

It’s not on the front page of CNN, FOX, MSNBC, NYTs, etc. Now you might say, well this is a story that was covered in 2017! The liberal NYTs didn’t even write about:

https://findinggravity.substack.com/p/heres-how-the-new-york-times-covered

[Goatnapper'96]

I don't disagree that race is a part of it, but I don't think it's what got her fired (yeah, I know she resigned, but I'm sure she didn't have a choice). Race was probably a large factor in unleashing the hounds that chased down the plagiarism charges, and I'm certain there are a lot of conservatives who are gleeful that a powerful woman of color is being humiliated, but that doesn't mean she doesn't deserve to lose her job. The bad acts that led to the exposure of her plagiarism, do not excuse the plagiarism.

The hounds were unleashed because there are those who believe that the process to hire her prioritized her qualifications as a black woman as a higher priority than her qualifications as an academic. I am not a hound but I am one who believes that our civilization prioritizing DEI goals at the expense of meritocracy is not a good idea. All assurances were that she was duly qualified and it appears whatever committee was responsible for the due diligence on her qualifications are either really poor at their job or unwilling to come to conclusions that were unwanted. I know how important it is for the losing side to still find higher ground but it really might be that folks went after her because they don't like the trend to subordinate meritocracy to a Utopic dream of reengineering society. I am not a Harvard alum but the only real "villain" IMO was the folks who hired a University President because of what they wanted her to be rather than what she was/is. Everybody else is just doing their jobs-the hounds are trying to make a point that meritocracy matters and the DEI folks are more interested in being self-righteous in hopes they can keep as much of the issue on the bad acts of their opponents rather than the highlighting of a very serious issue-the promotion and elevation of unqualified people to satisfy a social goal.

Her response to Congress was an issue but most folks are aware that University Presidents need to come from the pool of wanker academics. A pool full of very interesting people but not one in which the personality types and basic abilities one wants in strong leaders is highly represented-so nobody is surprised when someone promoted beyond their capacity into an administration position that likely does not suit them waffles when put in situations they find themselves ill prepared.

[SeattleUte]

To ignore her race in this episode is malpractice, of course it played a part. It’s all part of the DEI blast that Ruffo and DeSantis and everyone on Fox has been railing on about for years. But nobody with a brain doesn’t think it’s racist she was fired for plagiarism.

It’s a weird culture war moment. She found sympathies with other academics when this was first exposed, I’m assuming because a lot more academics plagiarize or maybe it wasn’t as as egregious as portrayed, the Israeli stuff was bad but in its context isn’t horrible. If you watch the exchange her answer sounded like corporate lawyer speak protecting the 1a.

I wonder if the Washington Free Beacon spent as much time trying to rid the world of Claudine Gay as they did exposing Trump, Ron DeSantis and any of the other lackeys who support him, maybe the conservative movement could wrestle back some level of legitimacy. In the meantime, all the rest of the normal 98% of people who could never get in Harvard, will go about our lives not knowing who any president of Harvard is except the one from the Social Network.

She was fired notwithstanding her race, not because of it. I don't think that even Harvard would deny that her race and gender were decisive in the decision to hire her (or to resist calls for her firing). That is the whole point of DEI. For most of the people who set out to induce her firing, the plagiarism was not the point. The point was to undermine the DEI system. There were calls for her resignation before her plagiarism, which was probably a misdemeanor in the range of dishonest things academics get caught doing (see Stanford's firing its president last July for falsifying research data supporting an Alzheimer's drug), became a story. But the plagiarism and the hypocritical dissembling about whether calls for Jewish genocide would be acceptable at Harvard were telling object lessons.

Most institutions can't afford the risk of not hiring the most qualified available candidate for CEO. Maybe Harvard is reconsidering whether it can afford the luxury not to.

[fusnik]

She was fired notwithstanding her race, not because of it. I don't think that even Harvard would deny that her race and gender were decisive in the decision to hire her (or to resist calls for her firing). That is the whole point of DEI. For most of the people who set out to induce her firing, the plagiarism was not the point. The point was to undermine the DEI system. There were calls for her resignation before her plagiarism, which was probably a misdemeanor in the range of dishonest things academics get caught doing (see Stanford's firing its president last July for falsifying research data supporting an Alzheimer's drug), became a story. But the plagiarism and the hypocritical dissembling about whether calls for Jewish genocide would be acceptable at Harvard were telling object lessons.

Most institutions can't afford the risk of not hiring the most qualified available candidate for CEO. Maybe Harvard is reconsidering whether it can afford the luxury not to.

I’m not going to argue the merits of DEI with a bunch of highly successful white dudes primarily from the MW. It’s wholly uninteresting.

I don’t know what it means to be a qualified candidate to be a university president. 25% of presidents are retreads, 20% come from outside academia, and 85% are white males, who if scrutinized like Gay, we’d probably see 20-30% busted for plagiarism. Again we’re having this discussion because Christopher Ruffo has become a central part of the conservative movement obsessed about culture wars.

[SeattleUte]

I’m not going to argue the merits of DEI with a bunch of highly successful white dudes primarily from the MW. It’s wholly uninteresting.

I don’t know what it means to be a qualified candidate to be a university president. 25% of presidents are retreads, 20% come from outside academia, and 85% are white males, who if scrutinized like Gay, we’d probably see 20-30% busted for plagiarism. Again we’re having this discussion because Christopher Ruffo has become a central part of the conservative movement obsessed about culture wars.

My post didn't take sides about DEI. It just framed the issue. There's nothing to debate because every sentence I wrote is an indubitable and undisputed fact.

If you really believe your last sentence, you live under a rock.

[Jeff Lebowski]

She was fired notwithstanding her race, not because of it. I don't think that even Harvard would deny that her race and gender were decisive in the decision to hire her (or to resist calls for her firing). That is the whole point of DEI. For most of the people who set out to induce her firing, the plagiarism was not the point. The point was to undermine the DEI system. There were calls for her resignation before her plagiarism, which was probably a misdemeanor in the range of dishonest things academics get caught doing (see Stanford's firing its president last July for falsifying research data supporting an Alzheimer's drug), became a story. But the plagiarism and the hypocritical dissembling about whether calls for Jewish genocide would be acceptable at Harvard were telling object lessons.

Most institutions can't afford the risk of not hiring the most qualified available candidate for CEO. Maybe Harvard is reconsidering whether it can afford the luxury not to.

SEATTLE UTE! Man, I have missed you. We all forgive you for those mean things you said during conference realignment. Please post more often.

[USUC]

Again we’re having this discussion because Christopher Ruffo has become a central part of the conservative movement obsessed about culture wars.

Much like Trump, Ruffo is an opportunistic tool to be wielded against what a sizeable portion of the country sees as progressive overreach. Trump and Ruffo didn't create this fervor. They are much too dumb.

[fusnik]

My post didn't take sides about DEI. It just framed the issue. There's nothing to debate because every sentence I wrote is an indubitable and undisputed fact.

If you really believe your last sentence, you live under a rock.

The issue has been framed because Chris Ruffo has made it his mission to punch libs and lib institutions over DEI and Ron DeSantis co-signed the movement by lending him legitimacy.

This isn’t something that 95% of people cared about a year ago. The only people who ever knew what DEI meant were hyper successful white dudes and the super online GOP. Now it’s another culture war we are going to have to wage because a singular black lady didn’t meet your qualifications for university president.

Your station is secure, trust me.

[Jeff Lebowski]

The issue has been framed because Chris Ruffo has made it his mission to punch libs and lib institutions over DEI and Ron DeSantis co-signed the movement by lending him legitimacy.

This isn’t something that 95% of people cared about a year ago. The only people who ever knew what DEI meant were hyper successful white dudes and the super online GOP. Now it’s another culture war we are going to have to wage because a singular black lady didn’t meet your qualifications for university president.

Your station is secure, trust me.

Haha. Watching you try to gaslight everyone on this is something to behold.

Interesting NYT podcast today on how the SCOTUS ruling on affirmative action has completely upended the college admissions process. But yeah, let's pretend this is all made up.

[falafel]

Haha. Watching you try to gaslight everyone on this is something to behold.

Not to mention how he likes to swoop into the middle of an ongoing discussion, pronounce everyone idiots, get some pushback, and then announce that he's not going to debate with the group because its boring.