The Gay Story We Should Be Talking About

Many of those who dogmatically insist that one must call the events of January 6, 2021, an “insurrection” will just as dogmatically refuse to use the word “plagiarism” to describe Harvard President Claudine Gay’s…well…plagiarism.

In a hilarious bit of journalism, CNN reporter Matt Egan tried to explain the Gay situation to CNN’s audience and said this:

“We should note that Claudine Gay has not been accused of stealing anyone's ideas in any of her writings. She has been accused of sort of more like copying other peoples writings without attribution. So it's been more sloppy attribution than stealing anyone's ideas.”

Read that quote one more time. Go on, read it. Now, read this from Harvard:

“When you fail to cite your sources, or when you cite them inadequately, you are plagiarizing, which is taken extremely seriously at Harvard. Plagiarism is defined as the act of either intentionally OR unintentionally submitting work that was written by someone else. If you turn in a paper that was written by someone else, or if you turn in a paper in which you have included material from any source without citing that source, you have plagiarized.”

Claudine Gay did just that. After multiple embarrassing defenses of her by Harvard, she is now out of a job.

There’s an angle here that really must be explored because it highlight where we are headed.

Back in 2016, Katie Couric made waves with an anti-gun documentary. She made waves because she and the producers had doctored the documentary to make a group of second amendment advocates look bad.

At one point in the film, Couric visits with the Virginia Citizens Defense League, which advocates for the Second Amendment and is the official militia of the Free Beacon. She asks, "If there are no background checks for gun purchasers, how do you prevent felons or terrorists from purchasing a gun?"

Her question is met with silence. The activists stare blankly into oblivion. Drool collects in the corners of their mouths. The pause is meant to convey the idiocy, the brutishness, the misplaced priorities and hypocritical paranoia of gun owners. Ah hah, the viewer says. Katie Couric—2009 recipient of the Walter E. Cronkite Special Achievement for National Impact award—she sure showed them!…

Couric offered a clichéd argument, and her subjects responded with a rather sophisticated defense of due process and equal protection under the law. The sorts of things that liberals are known for caring about, at least when criminals and terrorist suspects are concerned. What followed is commonly described as an "exchange of views." It lasted for several minutes. But because the conversation played against the unwritten script—in which there can be no answer for Couric’s supposedly devastating observation—the film’s editors replaced the sequence with the awkward b-roll.

Couric quite literally edited the scene because she got an intelligent answer and it undermined her point. Stephen Gutowski, then of the Washington Free Beacon, caught it. The New York Times and other institutions behaved badly, with the Times headline reading “Audio of Katie Couric Interview Shows Editing Slant in Gun Documentary, Site Claims.”

Except it was not a claim. It was and is a proven fact for which the director issued a non-apology apology.

Now, the same New York Times is covering the Free Beacon’s reporting of Claudine Gay this way:

“Dr. Gay’s resignation came after the latest plagiarism accusations against her were circulated in an unsigned complaint published on Monday in The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative online journal that has led a campaign against Dr. Gay over the past few weeks.”

What the Free Beacon did is called journalism. In fact, it has been more straightforward journalism than the Pro Publica hit pieces against Clarence Thomas that the Times treated as straight forward journalism.

It goes beyond the Times and a CNN reporter dancing around the allegations of plagiarism. It goes to the tribal nature of the left. Because the accusations came from the right, they must be dismissed. That Claudine Gay has fallen is an attack premised in racism against her.

Just as the pastor doesn’t get ousted when he doesn’t have the affair, Claudine Gay doesn’t get ousted when she does not commit plagiarism. But the media would celebrate the former — good riddance to the hypocrite. And with this, they circle the wagons.

Many institutions of the American press have tried to defend or dance around the issue, including Gay’s shallow resumé. Because of who she is and what she represents, they had to try to defend her.

The race hustlers are the worst on this. That Kendi guy and others are screaming racism. But Gay’s words got her, not some Klansman. Had she conducted herself with integrity, this would not have happened.

But the accusers are always the problem when someone on the left gets into trouble. They had to protect Katie Couric’s reputation and now they are doing for Claudine Gay and there are plenty of others in between.

And that, my friends, is the problem.

The New York Times can hardly blame a Republican standing by Donald Trump and all his issues with the Times and progressives always circle the wagons on their side.

The progressive defenders of moral relativism want Republicans to play by one set of rules that they do not apply to themselves. They demand we speak boldly about Trump and cannot even use the world “plagiarism” when talking about Claudine Gay. They wanted George Santos ousted and continue to be noticeably quiet about Bob Menendez even though his departure would not alter the balance of the Senate. They protected Katie Couric and tried to drive from the internet a man who slowed down Nancy’s Pelosi’s speech to make her sound slurred.

Now, Politico is making Claudine Gay’s plagiarism about a coordinated right-wing attack machine. New York Magazine is making it about how nasty Christopher Rufo is trying to bring his targets down to his “level.” And the Associated Press frets that because conservatives succeeded, more academics are at risk.

It’s always that conservatives have pounced and never that the progressive committed a bad act. In reality, it didn’t matter how much conservatives pounced. It mattered that Gay plagiarized. But nothing really matters in moral relativism unless it advances one’s own side.

I believe in civic norms and I actually want a country where a President can be our President while also being the leader of a political party I disagree with. We should be able to unite around ideas and reach past partisanship at appropriate times regardless of leadership.

But those days die when the leaders of the

American press corps, who have picked a side, and the progressive half of the United States refuse to play by the same rules. You can’t expect Republicans and the right to hold to a moral standard that you yourselves will not hold. You cannot expect Republicans to run from anyone the moment they are exposed when you circle the wagons around your own.

Either there is one standard or there is no standard.

The people who demand we use the world “insurrection” who cannot use the word “plagiarism” when it is Claudine Gay under the spotlight are people who cannot expect others to listen to them or be guided by them. The people who scream “racism” to avoid having to deal with Claudine Gay are not serious people.

There should be a real right and a real wrong. But moral relativists cannot dictate the terms when they themselves put their own tribal loyalties above what is, objectively, right.

Don’t believe me. Believe Harvard. Again: “If you turn in a paper that was written by someone else, or if you turn in a paper in which you have included material from any source without citing that source, you have plagiarized.”

That rule does not sound racist. It sounds like exactly what Claudine Gay did — not was accused of, but what she actually did.