Ivy League presidents guilty of ‘selective free speech’ at congressional hearing | The Australian - "In short, over the course of a few short decades, the universities presided over by these presidents have undergone a transformation in moral culture. At one time, they recognised everyone’s equal human dignity and held the principle of free speech as sacrosanct. However, they have now shifted towards elevating victimhood as the highest virtue while encouraging hypersensitivity to perceived injustice. According to sociologists Bradley Campbell and Jason Manning, victimhood culture – colloquially known as “wokeness” – emerged from America’s Ivies first before spreading outwards into mainstream society. Like a poison apple, victimhood culture looks perfectly fine from the outside, encased in euphemisms such as “diversity”, “equity” and “inclusion”. But it has a toxic core. Its toxicity emerges when people are encouraged to see themselves as perpetual victims, and are rewarded for nurturing and prosecuting endless grievances. It was on these campuses that this ideology first spread (among some of the most privileged people in the world) and it was there that its maxims were first put into practice. Protected groups were given special status through affirmative action and other forms of positive discrimination, and students in the humanities were taught to weigh “lived experience” over objective truth. As these ideas took hold, they manifested in tangible ways within university settings. It has culminated in the past decade in the widespread use of trigger warnings, safe spaces and microaggressions. Young adults came to behave like divas at luxury resorts, rather than students expected to study and learn. This poisonous culture seeped out into the rest of the world. Into media, corporations and Silicon Valley, and spreading all the way to Australia’s shores... It’s worth engaging in a thought experiment here. If neo-Nazis marched through Harvard under banners with swastikas emblazoned chanting “Heil Hitler”, would the president of Harvard remind us that such chants need to be understood in “context”? Would she defend the free speech of neo-Nazis’? A genuine commitment to the First Amendment would require it. In reality, neo-Nazis would more likely be escorted off campus by security or police. The problem is that the culture that created the concept of “microaggression” is now blind to very real macroaggressions against students attending its institutions... it is only natural for beleaguered Jewish students to want to be treated fairly. Other student groups at colleges have successfully had statues removed, buildings renamed, academic events cancelled and speakers deplatformed, because of distant connections to slavery that they find offensive. Is it too much to ask people to stop chanting genocidal slogans in the days and weeks after a genocidal terrorist attack? Such demands for fairness raise important questions about the treatment of different groups on campuses. If universities had consistently upheld the principles of free speech over the past two decades, scholars who investigate controversial questions related to sex and race differences would not have faced marginalisation. Conservatives and pro-life advocates would have the freedom to host seminars for students, and feminists who argue that men cannot become women would not face deplatforming. Many other speakers whose views may be considered offensive to “woke” sensibilities would also be welcomed on campus. However, this hasn’t been the case, and universities are only now realising the importance of free speech when they find themselves in need of it. The Ivies’ current dilemma is a consequence of their own making. They want to reject victimhood culture in this particular instance where they have failed a minority group that has legitimate grievances. However, to do so, they are appealing to principles that they abandoned long ago. In 2023, Harvard received the worst-ever free speech ranking for an American college (as judged by FIRE, an American legal non-profit). The Ivies need to understand the principle of free speech is not one that can be applied selectively. It applies to everyone, or it does not apply at all."
Despite Support From Corporation, Harvard President Gay Under Fire Over Plagiarism Allegations - "Harvard President Claudine Gay is facing allegations of plagiarism after a report in the Washington Free Beacon on Monday and a Sunday post on Substack claimed she plagiarized portions of four academic works over 24 years, including her 1997 Ph.D. dissertation at Harvard. The allegations come at a uniquely perilous time for Gay, who has been called on to resign by alumni, donors, and members of Congress following her controversial remarks at a congressional hearing on antisemitism on college campuses last Tuesday. Though The Crimson reported early Tuesday morning that the Harvard Corporation, Harvard’s highest governing body, will express confidence in Gay’s leadership and not remove her, the allegations of plagiarism represent yet another scandal for an increasingly weary president just reaching the end of her first semester... The allegations of plagiarism range from omitting quotation marks but still citing her sources to apparently copying an entire paragraph of data description almost verbatim from another work without any citation... The Free Beacon article focused on four articles by Gay: a 1993 essay in Origins, a shared publication between the Ohio State University and Miami University; her 1997 Ph.D. dissertation from her time as a graduate student at Harvard; and two papers she wrote while a professor at Harvard, in 2012 and 2017. Rufo and Brunet’s Substack post only discussed her dissertation. The Crimson independently reviewed the published allegations. Though some are minor — consisting of passages that are similar or identical to Gay’s sources, lacking quotation marks but including citations — others are more substantial, including some paragraphs and sentences nearly identical to other work and lacking citations. Some appear to violate Harvard’s current policies around plagiarism and academic integrity. A Harvard web page titled “What Constitutes Plagiarism?” says that when copying language “word for word from another source,” scholars “must give credit to the author of the source material, either by placing the source material in quotation marks and providing a clear citation, or by paraphrasing the source material and providing a clear citation.” The Crimson could not confirm whether such policies or similar versions were in place in 1997, when her dissertation was published. Swain did not answer questions about the state of the policy at the time."
Plagiarism is alright in certain contexts
Gad Saad on X - "Dear Mr. @derrickNAACP , Let me offer some rebuttals to the points that you raised in the spirit of the free exchange of ideas, which by the way @harvard scored last on out of 248 universities surveyed by @TheFIREorg .
1) President Gay is not a distinguished scholar using objective bibliometrics. She has an h-index that is well below what is typically required for someone to be promoted to full professor.
2) President Gay is not a distinguished administrator as she has spent her entire career promulgating the DIE cult (diversity, inclusion, and equity), which violates every fabric of the meritocratic ethos that one would expect from @harvard
3) Some very serious repeat allegations about plagiarism have been levied against her, across many of her works including her dissertation. Unless you think that plagiarism is an inherent part of white supremacy then it is difficult to see your point. Plagiarism cannot be contextualized.
4) She was unwilling to deontologically condemn the open hatred of Jews on campus. Instead, she had to "contextualize" it. Do you think that the repudiation of Jew-hatred is a form of white supremacy?
You do everyone a disservice by invoking the boogeyman of white supremacy here. President Gay is being criticized for her behaviors and positions. The only ones who have ever cared about her skin color are those who repeatedly promoted her to positions that she was unfit to hold. Be careful to accuse me of white supremacy as I'm a Lebanese-Jewish war refugee of color so I outrank you and President Gay in Victimology Poker. Let me tag @BillAckman ; I'm sure he'll enjoy this exchange."
Looks like universities need to change their plagiarism policies, since zero tolerance of plagiarism is white supremacy
Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ on X - "EXCLUSIVE: @PhilWMagness has discovered that Harvard president Claudine Gay plagiarized material in another academic paper. This makes five total papers—nearly half of her entire scholarly output. In her 2001 APSR paper, "The Effect of Black Congressional Representation on Political Participation," Gay lifted verbatim language from scholars Lawrence Bobo and Franklin Gilliam, without using direct quotation marks, as required. This is a clear violation of Harvard's own plagiarism standard, which states: "If you copy language word for word from another source and use that language in your paper, you are plagiarizing verbatim ... It's not enough to change a few words here and there and leave the rest; instead, you must completely restate the ideas in the passage in your own words. If your own language is too close to the original, then you are plagiarizing, even if you do provide a citation.""
Wesley Yang on X - "This is sort of the inverse of the finding that a white man with a criminal record is more readily called back by employers than a black man without one Magill didn't plagiarize; Gay did. Gay survived disastrous performance before Congress, Magill didn't."
Coleman Hughes on X - "Right on cue, caring about plagiarism has been added to the “white supremacist agenda”. What’s the implication here, that black people can’t be expected to follow the norms of academic honesty? How can the president of a university, who ultimately oversees the punishment of students who plagiarize, herself be a lifelong plagiarist? Should we get O.J. to head the FBI next?"
Harvard's secret plagiarism probe into president Claudine Gay - "Harvard University covered up a high-level investigation into whether its controversial president was a plagiarist — and used an expensive law firm to threaten The Post over our own probe... Jonathan Bailey, who heads up Plagiarism Now, and has worked as an expert witness involving plagiarism cases, reviewed the papers in question and said he believes that some of Gay’s work did violate Harvard’s own academic policy on citations. “It is a violation of the policy and that alone should justify a thorough examination,” said Bailey in an email to The Post. Academics whose work appeared startlingly similar to Gay’s differed in whether they felt she had appropriated their work without attribution... Gay uses phrases which closely parallel ones in a 2011 paper by Anne Williamson, a professor of political science at the University of Miami in Ohio. Williamson told The Post she was “angry” when she read the excerpts. "It does look like plagiarism to me,” she said. “If they are going to do what they did, then I should be cited as a reference. My first reaction is shock. The second reaction is puzzlement. There was a way to draw from my paper. All she had to do is give me a credit.”"
Clearly the sheer volume of alleged plagiarism over such a long timeframe just proves that the US is a white supremacist country
Claudine Gay plagiarism allegations - "The Washington Free Beacon analyzed 29 potential instances of plagiarism in Gay's work that appeared to be lifted from almost a dozen scholars. In at least 10 instances, Gay used complete sentences and paragraphs from sources with minor changes to only a few words, the report states. The majority of the scholars told the Free Beacon that Gay not only went against her university's policy on plagiarism but also a basic principle of academic integrity. Former Boston University associate provost Peter Wood told the Free Beacon that if "this were a stand-alone instance, it would be reprehensible but perhaps excused as the blunder of someone working hastily." "But that excuse vanishes as the examples multiply," Wood, the director of the National Association of Scholars, continued. "This is definitely plagiarism," Rutgers University social psychologist Lee Jussim said. "The longer passages are the most egregious," Gay appeared to lift a full paragraph in her 1997 thesis from then-Harvard political science professor Bradley Palmquist and her Ph.D. classmate Stephen Voss, with minor alterations to the text."
Harvard alumni outraged after president accused of plagiarizing dissertation - "“I asked a senior member of the @Harvard faculty to examine the below allegations of plagiarism against President Gay,” Pershing Square CEO and Harvard alum Bill Ackman said. “The faculty member found them to be credible.” “The Harvard President plagiarized her dissertation,” Harvard alum and former U.S. Ambassador to Germany Richard Grenell wrote. “She must be fired. This is embarrassing for Harvard’s academic credibility.”"
Legal scholar livid over Harvard president allegedly plagiarizing her work: 'Morally bankrupt' - "Dr. Carol Swain is a political scientist and legal scholar whose academic background includes institutions such as Yale University and the University of North Carolina. In an interview with TND Wednesday, Swain said her work was taken by Gay to pad the university president's doctoral thesis, which eventually allowed her to assume her role at Harvard. “She plagiarized my work as well as several other people,” Swain said. “It's my understanding that 20 instances of plagiarism was found in her dissertation and publish words.”... “There’s no way you can't know it. My book won the highest prize in the profession and two other national prizes,” Swain continued. “It was cited by the US Supreme Court and numerous lower court decisions. There's no way that Claudine Gay, her committee members, her reviewers, and other people didn't know that she was drawing on my research.” These accusations, Swain says, have put campus leaders in a difficult position as they struggle to define their morals. “Harvard University is morally bankrupt and we see this at every turn,” Swain told TND. “Now they have themselves in a conundrum where they're trying to redefine what is plagiarism. I believe they're doing this because they don't want to fire their first ever Black president, someone who was clearly a DEI appointee.”... Swain contends similar accusations of plagiarism would normally mean the end of an academic's career. “Well, if Claudine Gay was a White male or female, or even a Black conservative, she would have been fired by now,” Swain said. “The penalty normally for plagiarism at that level is that you lose your position, but most people would resign. “ The “White progressives” backing Gay at Harvard have caused Swain irreparable damage, the political scientist told TND. “For me, as a person who became a Black conservative, not citing my work had long term consequences because your statue in political science and in any other fields pretty much depends on how much you have cited your citations,” Swain said. “If you have someone that’s as prominent as she became and they have research out there, and they are not acknowledging the similar work in the area, that damages you because you don't get the number of citations you would have gotten.” The scandal, Swain said, is indicative of a larger problem with diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives on college campuses. “It's not following the Constitution. It's very dangerous,” Swain said of DEI. “It's harming people and racial and ethnic minorities are the ones that are harmed most. I think that people need to realize that critical race theory, diversity, equity and inclusion programs are not necessary.”"
Harvard critic says school is redefining what is plagiarism as it looks to protect embattled president Claudine Gay - "Swain claims Gay failed to cite her seminal text, Black Faces, Black Interests and is getting a 'free pass' because she is a 'product of the DEI schemes'. 'They have decided that they would rather lower standards for everyone rather than to hold her, who attended the most, you know, elite schools in America, to the same standards that average Americans are held to,' Swain said."
Charlie Spiering: Harvard Chooses Academic Arrogance Over Truth In Genocide And Plagiarism Scandal - "“Veritas” — That’s the motto for Harvard University, the Latin word for “Truth” that is purported to be the guiding light for the faculty, staff, and students at America’s oldest institute of higher education. But after this week, Harvard’s motto seems to be “Veritas Mea” — (My Truth)... Now we know that refusing to institutionally condemn genocide and evidence of plagiarism “depends on the context” more than the Truth. Why did Harvard fail so spectacularly in a moment where Gay’s failed leadership and moral integrity were apparent? The truth is found in a letter signed by more than 700 Harvard faculty who on Monday signed a letter of support for Gay. “We, the undersigned faculty, urge you in the strongest possible terms to defend the independence of the university and to resist political pressures that are at odds with Harvard’s commitment to academic freedom, including calls for the removal of President Claudine Gay,” they wrote, adding that “the critical work of defending a culture of free inquiry in our diverse community cannot proceed if we let its shape be dictated by outside forces.” That letter makes it clear that the most important value for Harvard faculty was not “Truth” but preventing the gall of watching “outside forces” gloating if Gay was forced to resign. The guiding fellows of the academic institution were left with no other choice but to keep Gay as their leader, despite her embarrassing moral and academic failures. The governing body made it clear: Harvard will decide what is true, despite embarrassing truths uncovered by elected political representatives and journalists."
“A White Male Would Probably Already Be Gone” - "Swain: She became president of Harvard and got recognition as being its first black president. I don’t believe her record warranted tenure, and I believe that I had to meet a much higher standard than she did. Something changed in the mid-1990s, [when] we were having a big affirmative action debate... White progressives have always rewarded the blacks who supported their ideas. Someone more mainstream, like me, could never be rewarded in the same way... The board of trustees needs to deal with those issues. They need to apply the same standards to her as they would apply to a white person under the same circumstances."
Harvard critic says school is redefining what is plagiarism as it looks to protect embattled president Claudine Gay - "'My message to Harvard University is you don't get to redefine what is plagiarism [...] What they have done is very demeaning to every person not just racial and ethnic minorities, anyone who has worked hard in school, who has tried to follow the guidelines it is an insult to our intelligence,' Swain said... Swain joins a growing number of critics calling for Gay's resignation amid the fallout from her disastrous Congressional hearing, where she said calling for a Jewish genocide is permissible, depending on 'context.'... 'If Harvard thinks it would be bad optics to release or fire their first black president, the optics are much worse for them standing by her trying to redefine plagiarism. It's ridiculous, it's absurd and it's hurt their brand,' Swain told Fox."
'This is Definitely Plagiarism': Harvard University President Claudine Gay Copied Entire Paragraphs From Others’ Academic Work and Claimed Them as Her Own - "Some examples are more borderline than others, scholars who reviewed them said, but clearly violate Harvard’s guide on sourcing, which requires citations even when using "ideas that you did not think up yourself," regardless of how much the language has changed. Plagiarism, the guide adds, is "unacceptable in all academic situations, whether you do it intentionally or by accident." Even crediting a source in the wrong sentence, as Gay did repeatedly, is a serious offense under Harvard’s policies. The school’s sourcing guide includes multiple examples of "mosaic plagiarism," in which placing a citation too late or too early in a passage causes "confusion over where your source's ideas end and your own ideas begin." Gabriel Rossman, a sociologist at the University of California, Los Angeles, said that several portions of Gay’s work met the definition of "mosaic plagiarism" outlined in Harvard’s guide. So did Steve McGuire, a member of the American Council of Trustees and Alumni and a former professor of political theory at Villanova University, who said the examples "violate the expectations Harvard has for its own students." "As a professor, I would not have accepted this kind of work from a first semester freshman," McGuire told the Free Beacon. "It’s appalling to see it in the work of Harvard’s president." Rossman, who specializes in quantitative research, noted that some of the examples involve technical descriptions of statistical methods, which "can require very precise wording" and are often repeated between authors, a potentially mitigating factor. But an editor at one of the five most-cited academic journals in the world pushed back on that notion, arguing that even that sort of duplication in academic prose is difficult to defend. "The text duplication points to carelessness, sloppiness, and short-cut taking," said the editor, who has edited journals in both the natural and social sciences... Wood, the former Boston University associate provost, said the feelings of the plagiarized are irrelevant. The "willingness of the actual author to go along with the copying (whether before the fact or afterwards) doesn't change the deceptive nature of the act of plagiarism," he said. "The plagiarist is breaking the trust of the community of readers. In the case of scholarship, the whole university community is the victim." It is common for plagiarized authors to come to the defense of their plagiarizer, Wood said. When Princeton historian Kevin Kruse was accused of plagiarizing Ronald Bayor, a historian at Georgia Tech, for example, Bayor dismissed the accusations as "politically motivated."... "Most plagiarists turn out to be serial thieves," Wood said. "If the offense is discovered in one publication, typically it will be found in others.""
Is Claudine Gay a Plagiarist? - "As dean and then as president, Gay has been accused of bullying colleagues, suppressing free speech, overseeing a racist admissions program, and, following the Hamas terror campaign against Israel, failing to stand up to rampant anti-Semitism on campus... the president of the University of South Carolina, for example, resigned for plagiarizing remarks he made in a commencement speech; and the president of Hobart and William Smith Colleges resigned due to plagiarism that he committed in part of his dissertation"
Jeryl Bier on X - "Affirmative action is great and DEI in hiring is imperative to overcome the obstacles in place because of America's structural racism that has existed since before its founding! Also, anyone who says Claudine Gay was a diversity hire is perpetuating a false narrative and a myth."
"Claudine Gay, white outrage and the myth of the 'diversity hire'"
blighter on X - "it is remarkable how affirmative action is so vital it can never be ended but also no actual human has ever benefitted from it at all in any way. everyone who might seem to have benefitted actually was super qualified and had to fight so much harder than anyone else ever did."
Bill Ackman on X - "In light of the affiliated nature of these transactions, in order for @MIT to have made these investments in Gorenberg’s wife’s non-profit, the MIT board or a subcommittee designated by the board would have had to approve this investment each year it was made. But why would they have approved this investment for the last five years and I suspect this year as well? The mission of MIT is to advance knowledge and educate students in science, technology, and other areas of scholarship that will best serve the nation and the world in the 21st century. How is an investment in a non-profit that promotes DEI tools to corporations consistent with MIT’s stated mission? Why would MIT fund an increasing amount of money each year to a board member’s wife’s non-profit , let alone the Chairman’s wife’s company, when the organization does not appear to have gained any traction, let alone any other donors over the last five years? As someone who runs a foundation, I can tell you that it is a big red flag that this non-profit has not been able to raise any funds from other donors. The above raises a number of important questions: Did the board approve these investments for each of the last six years including 2023 for which the 990 has not yet been filed? Was the board provided proper disclosure about the affiliated nature of these transactions? Assuming the board followed a proper process and approved these annual grants, why did it do so? It seems incredibly poor judgment to have made these grants to a one-person company run by the wife of the chairman when the grants are not consistent with MIT’s mission. The size of the investments are de minimis relative to the MIT endowment. Why would the Chairman waste the board’s time and risk his and MIT’s reputation to make these investments in the first place? According to his bio published on MIT’s website, Chairman Gorenberg is a highly successful venture capitalist. Why did he need to ask MIT to fund his wife’s non-profit? Why didn’t he just write the check himself? One can reasonably assume that the fact that the non-profit had no outside investors other than MIT was due to the fact that it was unable to raise money from other foundations or philanthropists. Why is http://Parity.org a non-profit in the first place? It is ostensibly selling or trying to sell products or services to corporations. There are plenty of other DEI consultants that are for-profits that compete with http://Parity.org. It appears based on Parity’s lack of revenues for the last five years that it has been unable to sell its products or services. In other words, http://Parity.org is either making no sales or it is giving away its products and services for free. This of course calls into question the quality of the products and services it offers. In short, this does not look like a legitimate non-profit. Rather it looks like a sinecure for the wife of the Chairman of MIT. To survive, http://Parity.org relies on funds from MIT’s endowment that were in turn raised from MIT alumni and other donors who received a tax deduction for the contributions they made, which were in turn subsidized by other unaffiliated taxpayers. To make matters worse, the non-profit is a DEI organization, an ideology that has contributed to the outbreak of antisemitism on MIT’s campus. The @PershingSqFdn made a $750,000 grant to an MIT electrical engineer/neuroscientist this year. That’s about the same amount of money that went out the door last year to http://Parity.org. As a donor, this does not make me feel good. All of the above begs the following additional questions: How much did MIT give http://Parity.org in 2023? Does MIT make investments in any other non-profits affiliated with its directors or their families? If so, which ones and why? Why would MIT risk its reputation to be the only funder of a non-profit run by the wife of its Chairman? What is going on at MIT?"
Aaron Sibarium on X - "In another life, Bill Ackman would have made a great investigative reporter. Digging into 990s, exposing conflicts of interest, going after powerful universities and corrupt nonprofits—this is real shoe leather stuff."
Wesley Yang on X - "Ackman spent a decade bankrolling these institutions -- a large part of the reason that Harvard has a $53 billion endowment is the earnest faith that he and others like had in their probity and excellence. The loss of that faith, and the antecedent judgment he reached that these institutions can be frontally challenged without fear of consequence to himself may or may not prove to be correct. But the mere fact that he could reach it is a sea change."
Dead last in free speech rankings, Harvard gets reality check - "“More than two in five students (45 per cent) said that students blocking other students from attending a speech is acceptable to some degree, up from 37 per cent last year. And more than a quarter of students (27 per cent) said that using violence to stop a campus speech is acceptable to some degree, up from 20 per cent last year,” according to the report. Interestingly, Harvard University, where some students thought the aftermath of a brutal terrorist attack by Hamas on Israeli civilians was an appropriate moment to issue a letter saying they “hold the Israeli regime entirely responsible for all unfolding violence,” ranks dead last in respect for free speech. “Harvard University obtained the lowest score possible, 0.00, and is the only school with an ‘Abysmal’ speech climate rating,” notes the report. “Further, Harvard’s overall score of 0.00 is generous — its actual score is -10.69, more than six standard deviations below the average and more than two standard deviations below the second-to-last school in the rankings and its Ivy League counterpart, the University of Pennsylvania.” Given the abysmal status of speech protections at their school, how could Harvard students feel secure in issuing a statement holding the victims of terrorism responsible for their own plight and exonerating the actual terrorists? Didn’t they fear repercussions for what, at the very least, is a wildly insensitive letter? The answer is that they assumed their sentiments would be better protected than those of their opponents. “The key factors differentiating high-performing schools (the top five) from poorly performing ones (the bottom five) are scores on the components of ‘Tolerance Difference’ and ‘Disruptive Conduct,’ ” the speech rankings report observes. “Students from schools in the bottom five were more biased toward allowing controversial liberal speakers on campus over conservative ones and were more accepting of students using disruptive and violent forms of protest to stop a campus speech.” People on the political left tend to divide the world into “oppressors” and “oppressed” and embrace anything done in the name of the latter category, even if it results in violence committed against those in the former. “According to many progressives, what determines whether a movement should count as left-wing or right-wing is based on whether it claims to be fighting on behalf of those they believe to be marginalized,” Johns Hopkins University political scientist Yascha Mounk wrote after the Hamas attack. “Since Hamas is an organization of underprivileged ‘people of colour’ fighting against ‘privileged’ ‘white’ Jews, it must be seen as part of a global struggle against oppression.” Mounk, it should be emphasized, does not endorse that point of view. But college students marinating in an environment in which support for brutality perpetrated by members of an “oppressed” group is not only tolerated but expected, and criticism of the same is not, had every reason to believe their letter would go unchallenged. Unfortunately for them, the rest of the world doesn’t adhere to the same standards. “An elite law firm has rescinded job offers for three Ivy League students associated with letters that expressed support for Palestinians and blamed Israel for the Hamas attacks,” reports the BBC. “Billionaire hedge fund CEO Bill Ackman and several other business leaders are demanding Harvard University release the names of students whose organizations signed on to a letter blaming solely Israel for the deadly attacks by Hamas,” according to CNN. “The CEOs want the students blacklisted.” This is a downside of campuses that suppress some points of view. It’s not just the thinkers and speakers who feel unwelcome, though their situation is serious (“It is an incredibly difficult and isolating political landscape to navigate for someone who is not left wing,” one Harvard student told FIRE). It’s that students who could learn to think through positions and debate opponents in a low-stakes environment are left unchallenged until the wider world of tough consequences comes down on them like a hammer... There’s also an upside to students at schools that have developed a culture of suppressing dissent, like Harvard, getting a taste of their own medicine: rescinded job offers and public shaming may teach them hard lessons about the value of tolerating opposing viewpoints and respecting free speech."
An Antisemitic Occupation of Harvard’s Widener Library - WSJ - "When I walked upstairs to the famous Widener Reading Room, I couldn’t believe my eyes. Nearly every student in the packed room was wearing a kaffiyeh. Fliers attached to their individual laptops, as well as affixed to some of the lamps in the reading room, read: “No Normalcy During Genocide—Justice for Palestine.” A young woman handed the fliers to all who entered. A large banner spread across one end of the room stated in blazing blood-red letters, “Stop the Genocide in Gaza.”... One then asked whether I supported a cease-fire in Gaza. I said I didn’t, because I strongly believe Israel had the right both to defend itself and to destroy Hamas given the horrendous attacks it perpetrated against Israeli civilians on Oct. 7. Their tone immediately changed. “You’re a murderer,” one said. “You support genocide,” said the other. “Excuse me, what did you say?” I asked in disbelief. They repeated their outrageous charges. I tried to debate them, noting the Israel Defense Forces don’t target civilians, and that the only group attempting to carry out genocide is Hamas. But civil debate with these women was pointless. As I was leaving Widener Library, they pulled out their iPhones and continued taunting: “Do you support genocide? Do you support genocide?” The Harvard Palestine Solidarity Committee posted some of this exchange on Instagram. As a U.S. senator who has been through two election campaigns, I’ve had plenty of iPhones aggressively shoved in my face by members of radical groups. Nevertheless, I was shocked and, again, ashamed of my alma mater. All of this—the anti-Israel protests, the big banner, the fliers, the iPhones, the taunting questions—took place inside the Widener Library, a revered place of quiet study for tens of thousands of Harvard students and alumni. My thoughts then turned to Harvard undergrads. Imagine if you were an 18-year-old Jewish or Israeli student, or even a pro-Israel Catholic like me, and you wanted to study for your chemistry final in the Widener Reading Room on a Sunday morning. Imagine being confronted by this protest, obviously condoned by Harvard’s leadership and commandeered by the Palestine Solidarity Committee, the group behind the notorious statement that holds “the Israeli regime entirely responsible for all unfolding violence” in the immediate aftermath of the Oct. 7 attack. Would you feel welcome in Harvard’s most famous library? Would you feel rattled, intimidated and harassed by the anti-Israel banner screaming “Stop the Genocide in Gaza”? As Jason Riley has written, “If accusing Israel of genocide isn’t defamation of Jewish people, I don’t know what is.” If you were that 18-year-old student, would you believe the vacuous statement recently put out by the Harvard Corp., after it decided not to fire Ms. Gay, that “disruptions of the classroom experience will not be tolerated”? If students were handing out fliers and hanging large banners in the Widener Library Reading Room denouncing, say, affirmative action or NCAA rules allowing men to compete in women’s swim meets, Harvard leaders would shut them down in a minute. But an anti-Israel protest by an antisemitic group, commandeering the entire Widener Reading Room during finals? No problem. Is that what Ms. Gay meant when she testified that “it depends on the context”?... America’s so-called elite universities used to be a positive source of our nation’s power, strength and influence. No longer. I believe over the past several weeks a bipartisan consensus has emerged: It is time for Congress to save these important and once-respected institutions from themselves and their weak leaders who have lost their moral compasses. I intend to work with my colleagues in the Senate to do so."
New York Post on X - "Embattled Harvard president Claudine Gay attends menorah lighting after widespread antisemitism backlash"
Nicholas Fondacaro on X - "If I learned anything from the media, it’s that tiki torches are dog whistles."
Alan Dershowitz: Harvard president Claudine Gay should resign - "If she applies the standard she herself applied to another Harvard official, the answer is yes. Several years ago, Gay was the dean of the faculty of arts and sciences at Harvard. She was presented with a comparable issue that revolved around the co-dean of a Harvard residential dorm, Ronald Sullivan, who is a professor at Harvard Law School and a distinguished practicing lawyer. During a one-month period, he played a role in defending Harvey Weinstein, who was accused and eventually convicted of various sexual assault crimes. When Sullivan had previously represented a man accused of brutal murders, none of the students in residential dorm Winthrop House expressed concern. After all, he was the man’s lawyer. But when Sullivan participated in the representation of an accused rapist, several students expressed that they didn’t feel safe. Although it was irrational for any student to be afraid of a lawyer because of who he represented, their claims were taken seriously by Harvard administrators. In the end, Sullivan’s appointment as dean of the Winthrop House was not renewed. In effect he was fired. Although Gay denied that the Weinstein issue was the sole cause, it seems clear from the chronology and statements made to Sullivan that the primary basis for his ouster was the fear some students expressed. Gay said that Sullivan’s explanation of why he represented Weinstein was “insufficient” — as if a lawyer has to explain defending an accused person. She also said that a dean has a “pastoral role” — “a special responsibility to the well-being of the students.” One would expect that a president has an even greater responsibility to provide a sufficient explanation for a widely condemned statement, and to serve in a pastoral role in assuring that students feel safe. Now the shoe is on the other foot. Hundreds of Jewish students have expressed fear — they feel unsafe on campus, especially those who openly support the nation state of the Jewish people. Many believe Gay is responsible for tolerating this atmosphere. Unlike the questionable claims of fear made by those who opposed Sullivan’s representation of Weinstein, the Jewish claims of fear are based on actual incidents on the campus, including the harassment of Jewish students. A large group of faculty have called on her to remain, but many students, faculty, and alumni want her to be dismissed. The faculty letter in support of her deals only with pressure from alumni and politicians, which is “at odds with Harvard’s commitment to academic freedom.” The critical work of defending a culture of free inquiry in our diverse community cannot proceed if we let its shape be dictated by outside forces,” continues the letter, which was obtained by the Globe. It ignores the legitimate complaints of students and some faculty about pervasive anti-Jewish bigotry and her failure to make Jewish students feel safe. By the standard that Gay herself seemed to apply in the Sullivan case, she should resign from her role as president of Harvard. Had she not been involved in the Sullivan matter, and in promoting an anti-free speech atmosphere under the influence of the diversity, equity, and inclusion bureaucracy, which she championed, I might be ambivalent about whether she should remain on as president. But the question of which standard should apply must be answered by reference to Harvard’s long history of applying a double standard to Jews and their concerns... Would the Harvard DEI bureaucracy tolerate Ku Klux Klan protesters who called for the lynching of Black people? Would it tolerate a group of misogynists saying that women who were raped asked for it? Would it rescind admission to a homophobic applicant who demanded that gay people not be accepted to Harvard because they are immoral and abnormal? Would it argue that there are differences between anti-Black, anti-women, and anti-gay hate speech and hate speech directed against Jews or the nation-state of the Jewish people? Would they claim that the latter is political speech, whereas the former is not? It would be one thing if Harvard had accepted the University of Chicago rule that precludes the university or its officers from taking positions on any politically controversial issue. But as former Harvard president Lawrence Summers correctly argued: Harvard — along with many other universities — has “forfeited” any claim to neutrality with the strong views it has taken regarding racial and gender issues, such as the murder of George Floyd and the Supreme Court’s overruling of Roe v. Wade. It cannot apply a double standard to the issues of deep concern to the Jewish community. If Gay is eventually forced to resign, it will be as much because of what she did and said with regard to Ronald Sullivan as what she said during the congressional hearing. She created and applied the very standard that now supports her resignation. Gay is only the most recent manifestation of the systemic problem of discrimination against Jews at Harvard. The diversity, equity, and inclusion bureaucracy, which began before she became president but has been enhanced during her tenure, is a primary cause of the divisiveness based on identity politics that inevitably leads to some groups trying to marginalize other groups. Such a toxic atmosphere encourages tolerance for the kind of antisemitism we are now seeing on campuses."
Harvard early applications drop 17% amid campus antisemitism scandal - "The drop in applications comes as Harvard increased their financial support for students whose household income falls below $85,000."
