The downfall of Harvard’s president has elevated the threat of unearthing plagiarism, a cardinal sin in academia, as a possible new weapon in conservative attacks on higher education.

Claudine Gay’s resignation Tuesday followed weeks of mounting accusations that she lifted language from other scholars in her doctoral dissertation and journal articles. The allegations surfaced amid backlash over her congressional testimony about antisemitism on campus.

The plagiarism allegations came not from her academic peers but her political foes, led by conservatives who sought to oust Gay and put her career under intense scrutiny in hopes of finding a fatal flaw. Her detractors charged that Gay — who has a Ph.D. in government, was a professor at Harvard and Stanford and headed Harvard’s largest division before being promoted — got the top job in large part because she is a Black woman.

Christopher Rufo, a conservative activist who helped orchestrate the effort, celebrated her departure as a win in his campaign against elite institutions of higher education. On X, formerly Twitter, he wrote “SCALPED,” as if Gay was a trophy of violence, invoking a gruesome practice taken up by white colonists who sought to eradicate Native Americans.

“Tomorrow, we get back to the fight,” he said on X, describing a “playbook” against institutions deemed too liberal by conservatives. His latest target: efforts to promote diversity, equity and inclusion in education and business.

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      74
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      10 months ago

      Yeah. I feel like this is a more logical reason:

      Her resignation came after calls for her ouster from prominent conservatives including Rep. Elise Stefanik, a Harvard alumna, and Bill Ackman, a billionaire hedge fund manager who has donated millions to Harvard.

      Colleges are all about the money, even when theyre like Harvard and literally don’t need it.

      I’m sure lots of other donors weren’t happy a Black woman was president. Enough of them saying they won’t donate, and the board offers the president a chance to resign before their forced out.

        • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          48
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          Harvard could stop collecting tuition, double everyone’s salary, and still “live” off their endowment interest.

          They literally have no need for money, but still bend over backwards for donors because at the top of the food chain they still want to see numbers go up just for the sake of numbers going up.

          Harvard has the definition of “fuck off money”.

          It’s just capitalist momentum means they’ll never have “enough” to be satisfied

        • bostonbananarama@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          29
          ·
          10 months ago

          I assume it’s a reference to Harvard being the richest university in the world, sitting on a roughly $51 billion dollar endowment.

    • Neato@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      Yeah. She quit because lying conservative pundits got their base riled up with the mere idea she committed plagarism that they made enough of a stink to pressure her or the school.

      This is the right-wingers favorite play: Cancel Culture. They harass, pressure, send death threats and swat anyone they don’t like for any perceived fault. More often than not, those targets just quit to get away from the harassment or magnifying glass their life comes under as a consequence. Everyone has shit in their past they aren’t proud of and with that much attention it’ll be brought out and made a much bigger deal of than often warranted.

      • DessertStorms@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        10 months ago

        It almost always boils down to projection with conservatives. I think it’s the levels of selfishness and inability to consider the experience of those who are not like them, so they must apply their own experience and by extension how they would deal with a given situation, to everyone else around them, to make the world make sense to their narrow minds.

        • A7thStone@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          The same reason they latched onto the term “virtue signaling”. They can’t comprehend doing something that doesn’t provide them with a benefit, therefore the people who are being altruistic must be doing it to get recognition and gain “points”.

          • Tarquinn2049@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            They call it that, because when they do it, that is why they are doing it. They just assume the other side is doing it even more, not realizing how exausting it would be to keep it up if it was fake. If it was possible to fake it as much as they think dems are, wouldn’t at least one conservative be doing it? They love “points”, if they could earn as many “points” as they see democrats earning, they would be all over that. But because it is an act to them, they can’t keep up.

            • A7thStone@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              10 months ago

              It’s exhausting when it’s real. The amount of effort required to tell people they are being shit heads everyday is staggering. So of course they don’t get it. They barely put in that much effort when it benefits them. They couldn’t comprehend doing it for no personal benefit.

    • cucumber_sandwich@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      This shit has been a thing in Germany for a while. Usually the controversy around the accusations of plagiarism cause enough trouble for the accused person, even if after investigation the claims turn out to be bogus.

      • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        Huh. So it’s like accusation of sexual stuff but specifically about academics.

    • cyd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      10 months ago

      It’s shocking that some of those Harvard profs said it doesn’t amount to plagiarism. Verbatim copying without attribution is plagiarism. University standards are all very clear about that, and undergrads are routinely disciplined for similar infractions. If the university president gets off the hook, it totally undermines all efforts to instill students with a sense of academic integrity.

      It’s too bad that this plays into the hands of right wingers, but at the end of the day the blame lies squarely at the feet of Claudine Gay. She should not have plagiarized.

      • Zoolander@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        It doesn’t. Everyone is missing the fact that plagiarism requires an intent to mislead. It’s not plagiarism if you cite the authors in the same paper or even paragraph and then don’t quote something they said in a technical summary.

        If I find a line in a book that I think is profound and use it as the basis for something I write with modification, it’s not plagiarism unless I’m attempting to pass that off as my own thoughts or attempt to mislead people into thinking that it’s my contribution to the body of knowledge related to the topic. That’s why the board didn’t agree with plagiarism and why none of the authors that were supposedly plagiarized (with one notable, political exception) felt it was plagiarism.

        There’s a reason it’s being determined as “negligence” and corrections are being allowed as opposed to plagiarism and malice.

        • cyd@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          The vast majority of undergrad plagiarism, which students are rightfully disciplined for, falls into this type.

          The student copies some text verbatim from a source, changes a few words so that it is not so obvious, then the source is buried somewhere in the references without any indication that text was copied verbatim from it.

          The way to avoid getting tripped up by this is to just avoid copying what other people wrote, and write things entirely in your own words. Undergrads are held to this standard, so a university administrator (let alone a president) cannot to held to a looser standard.

          It’s entirely on Gay that she did this, and on most of her papers too.

          • Zoolander@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            then the source is buried somewhere in the references without any indication that text was copied verbatim from it

            This is where you got it wrong. There were citations earlier in the technical summaries as she was referencing the summaries from those papers. That’s why she’s being allowed to correct her citations. She mentions the author and the source document/book/article but then did not use quote marks to denote that follow-up statements were also quotations. That’s why it “didn’t rise to the level of plagiarism” and was instead judged to be insufficient citation.

            • cyd@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              It doesn’t rise to the level of plagiarism if you look at it like a lawyer doing everything you can to defend a client.

              If you look at the statements in question in context, even if she had put the quotation marks there, it would have been really weird to have quotations there. For the stuff she was writing about, a scholar would have been expected to write in her own words instead of copying what someone else wrote (with or without quotations). University educators fight a constant battle to get undergrads to understand this principle, and students get disciplined over such practices all the time, and rightly so.

              • Zoolander@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                Or, apparently, as an independent board trying to determine if someone plagiarized…

                • cyd@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  Setting up an “independent board” that won’t rock the boat is the easiest thing in the world. And in this case, the report was tying itself in knots to avoid saying Gay copied. “Duplicative language” has the same vibes as “enhanced interrogation techniques”…

      • thedoctor692@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        10 months ago

        Agreed 100%. It’s not some evil conservative weapon, it’s simply don’t quote others without attribution. Don’t give them that weapon against you, it’s crazy someone would think this wouldn’t come back to bite them.

        Undergrads get held to this standard, so should all academics.

    • SCB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      She stepped down because she refused to denounce calls on her campus for genocide of Jews. No one at Harvard cared about her bad citations, and she was investigated by them and found that her dissertation did not rise to the level of punishable content.

      The entire reason she is stepping down is that there is violent rhetoric going around on her campus that she is not only doing nothing about, but rather went before Congress and wouldn’t condemn.

      It’s also worth noting that no one is forcing her resignation. She thinks it will be the best thing for the school to put these events in the rear view mirror.

      This article is incredibly misleading. Here’s a much more factual one

      https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/claudine-gay-resigns-harvard-university-president-letter/

      • big_slap@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        this is what I thought as well. this is the first time I see an article saying pressure for resignation came from plagiarism.