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.
Anyone who has earned a graduate degree understands how serious plagiarism is and how seriously it has been taken by professors and universities alike--until the DEI president of Harvard turns out to be a serial plagiarist. She was either never caught before or everyone who read her papers turned a blind eye because of her black privilege. I’m so glad I’m not teaching anymore. What would I say to my students? Hey, if you’re a white suppressor, you better be careful because you will get kicked out of school if you plagiarize. Everyone else gets a free pass.
Perhaps, and only perhaps, a DEI hire was the reason Harvard defended her. I wonder why someone did not review her papers before she was hired. I suspect that, even if they had, the plagiarism would have been hidden, hoping no one would find out. Shining the light in the darkness allows us to see so much more than we otherwise would have.
Two people who I normally only take w/ a grain of salt were on point w/ these issues. One was Chief Justice Roberts who said, "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." Absolutely right, but I could sure hear that playing out in the framing of the Ivy League leaders heads wanting that to be another area where context is king. Not to mention that Justice Roberts doesn't have enough melanin to be allowed to have a voice on the issue.
The second was Vivek Ramaswamy. I always knew he was a smart guy, but he's had some gems just taking questions and honestly answer them at events. I wish he was more consistent. I saw one where he took a question from a black pastor about response to historical discrimination. I went back to hunt for where I saw this, and it was in a Nick Arama posting on Redstate Sunday 12/31 (watch-vivek-has-fascinating-conversation-with-pastor-about-racism):
"The pastor first asked him a question about his belief that "reverse racism is racism." The pastor said that he had always believed that racism and discrimination were tied to unequal power in institutions and structures, so if you believe that reverse racism is racism, how would you go about reconciling those structures?"
The posting quotes Vivek as saying, "Today, the best way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race," Vivek declared. He thought we'd created more racism in the name of "anti-racism." "If we drive with our eyes in the rear-view mirror, we're just going to keep crashing the same car and recreating the thing we wanted to eradicate." A very fair point. He also made the observation that at what point could you say you had done the best you could and move on?" If you haven't listed to the exchange, I highly recommend it. Common sense is more of a surprise when you hear it out of a candidate's mouth in this day and age.
What won't surprise you is the journo-activist responses to both when you google them. I'm sure 95+% are from rich, leftist, white folks.
We no longer have journalist. We have people posing as journalist that are really commentators giving opinion laced with enough facts to make an article credible to some but in reality it's a hit piece. We had some sense of real journalism restored by those correspondence that covered WWII. They came home with a new sense of right and wrong seeing firsthand actual brutality. We are now several generation of journalist removed from that generation. Current journalist for the most part have turned their back on patriotism. They see the US as evil. They look down on the working men and women. They are now the smug elites that are driving everyone away from the belief in the media.
There is that as well but the old reporters, the ones with integrity kept their views or opinions to themselves. The late Tim Russert was the last one who I believe, while being left leaning, tried to keep his reports unbiased. He questioned his guest the same whether they were Republicans or Democrats, always digging for the facts.
I have met new degreed journalist. They come out of college with a useless degree. They lack the knowledge of the inner workings of the US government not knowing the difference between a state House seat and a seat in Congress, not knowing the three branches of government. They know Tik Tok and X. The can work multimedia but have know clue as to what they are actually talking about. They ask no hard hitting question because they do not know what to ask and do not care to learn.
They walk out with that piece of paper that is worthless. They lack the ability to think critically because that is the last thing that would be taught - the system wants nobody who can think, only automatons who can regurgitate the party line. When you see some of the on-the-street interviews of college students, you will want to cry. "What is 3x3x3?" "Uhhhh, uhhh, 47." "What country was the Vietnam War fought in?" "Ahhhh, Canada?" "What is 100-17?" "Ahhh, 35" What countries border the USA?" "Easy, Texas and Florida." These are college students! And they will vote !
Those of you who subscribe to National Review's online webpage should read Jim Geraghty's column this morning - he touches on many of the same points that Erick does. Especially telling was his quotation from a member of Harvard's College Honor Council:
" “By definition, Gay’s corrections were not proactive but reactive — she only made them after she was caught. And that the Corporation considers her corrections an adequate response is not fair to undergraduates, who cannot simply submit corrections to avoid penalties. There is one standard for me and my peers and another, much lower standard for our University’s president. The Corporation should resolve the double standard by demanding her resignation.”
This is JUST like what brought Andrew Cuomo down, not the thousands of people he killed in nursing homes but a sexual harassment accusation. Now plagiarism is what for Dr. Gay fired (if it could be called that), when her attitude towards the antisemitic treatment of her Jewish students is far worse but apparently approved of.
Erick, I wish some of your articles can find thier way to NY Times or Washington Post. Yea I know wishful thinking. The left bubble would not permit it.
"Either there is one standard or there is no standard." Like so many on the right, I've been saying this for over two decades now. It's maddening to witness the hypocrisy, yet my only recourse is to scream at my TV.
I consider being “mocked“ a badge of honor. When people respond to me by mocking me rather than responding with a logical opposing response, it’s an indication that they have no depth to their beliefs, but can only espouse the latest “talking points.”
While I certainly don't espouse buying it, I think every conservative should Google quotes from Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals." Mockery is cited as one of the most powerful weapons one can use against their opponent, so you're exactly on point with your assessment that liberals have no intelligent response to your argument.
I still remember vividly a history seminar I participated in when I was an undergraduate which over the course of the semester, we all presented our papers in European history (Mine was on the advance in military weaponry in Europe, 1815-1914, if you're interested!). One man presented his paper and the professor presented his critique and it was devastating - he said the student had copied from other works and had failed to cite them. He went on for some time. I remember we all sort of scrunched down in our seats and wished the class would get over. But it was a lesson in plagiarism that I still think of often to this day, over 50 years later.
Plagiarism is one of the most damning accusations you could make in intellectual circles. Or at least it was!
P.S. Professor Gay was hardly thrown out in the streets - she retained her faculty position at Harvard. She could have been honest about her failings or she could have found an excuse, like the "race card" - I guess it is obvious which one she chose.
The scorpion is again stinging the frog, as a scorpion is expected to do, and it is somehow news. Erick, I don't want you to stop highlighting the hypocrisy on the Left. We love that about you. But, more and more of America are realizing the scorpion is indeed a scorpion so I'm not sure how deal with the fact that it is everywhere and ubiquitous for the Left. It's like reporting, yet again, that we woke up and the sky is blue...again. Don't stop. Don't. I just don't know how we deal with the sky being blue, again.
Anyone who has earned a graduate degree understands how serious plagiarism is and how seriously it has been taken by professors and universities alike--until the DEI president of Harvard turns out to be a serial plagiarist. She was either never caught before or everyone who read her papers turned a blind eye because of her black privilege. I’m so glad I’m not teaching anymore. What would I say to my students? Hey, if you’re a white suppressor, you better be careful because you will get kicked out of school if you plagiarize. Everyone else gets a free pass.
"....she is now out of a job."
Nope, just back to her tenured, absolutely secure teaching job, where she can continue to indoctrinate with renewed hatred.
Perhaps, and only perhaps, a DEI hire was the reason Harvard defended her. I wonder why someone did not review her papers before she was hired. I suspect that, even if they had, the plagiarism would have been hidden, hoping no one would find out. Shining the light in the darkness allows us to see so much more than we otherwise would have.
I thought Gay is not actually out of a job, she will be teaching at Harvard? And will it be at her same salary as president?
Two people who I normally only take w/ a grain of salt were on point w/ these issues. One was Chief Justice Roberts who said, "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." Absolutely right, but I could sure hear that playing out in the framing of the Ivy League leaders heads wanting that to be another area where context is king. Not to mention that Justice Roberts doesn't have enough melanin to be allowed to have a voice on the issue.
The second was Vivek Ramaswamy. I always knew he was a smart guy, but he's had some gems just taking questions and honestly answer them at events. I wish he was more consistent. I saw one where he took a question from a black pastor about response to historical discrimination. I went back to hunt for where I saw this, and it was in a Nick Arama posting on Redstate Sunday 12/31 (watch-vivek-has-fascinating-conversation-with-pastor-about-racism):
"The pastor first asked him a question about his belief that "reverse racism is racism." The pastor said that he had always believed that racism and discrimination were tied to unequal power in institutions and structures, so if you believe that reverse racism is racism, how would you go about reconciling those structures?"
The posting quotes Vivek as saying, "Today, the best way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race," Vivek declared. He thought we'd created more racism in the name of "anti-racism." "If we drive with our eyes in the rear-view mirror, we're just going to keep crashing the same car and recreating the thing we wanted to eradicate." A very fair point. He also made the observation that at what point could you say you had done the best you could and move on?" If you haven't listed to the exchange, I highly recommend it. Common sense is more of a surprise when you hear it out of a candidate's mouth in this day and age.
What won't surprise you is the journo-activist responses to both when you google them. I'm sure 95+% are from rich, leftist, white folks.
We no longer have journalist. We have people posing as journalist that are really commentators giving opinion laced with enough facts to make an article credible to some but in reality it's a hit piece. We had some sense of real journalism restored by those correspondence that covered WWII. They came home with a new sense of right and wrong seeing firsthand actual brutality. We are now several generation of journalist removed from that generation. Current journalist for the most part have turned their back on patriotism. They see the US as evil. They look down on the working men and women. They are now the smug elites that are driving everyone away from the belief in the media.
Could it be that most journalists are Democrats?
There is that as well but the old reporters, the ones with integrity kept their views or opinions to themselves. The late Tim Russert was the last one who I believe, while being left leaning, tried to keep his reports unbiased. He questioned his guest the same whether they were Republicans or Democrats, always digging for the facts.
It seems to me that someone needs to look into how journalism courses are taught. I suspect an insidious bias.
I have met new degreed journalist. They come out of college with a useless degree. They lack the knowledge of the inner workings of the US government not knowing the difference between a state House seat and a seat in Congress, not knowing the three branches of government. They know Tik Tok and X. The can work multimedia but have know clue as to what they are actually talking about. They ask no hard hitting question because they do not know what to ask and do not care to learn.
They walk out with that piece of paper that is worthless. They lack the ability to think critically because that is the last thing that would be taught - the system wants nobody who can think, only automatons who can regurgitate the party line. When you see some of the on-the-street interviews of college students, you will want to cry. "What is 3x3x3?" "Uhhhh, uhhh, 47." "What country was the Vietnam War fought in?" "Ahhhh, Canada?" "What is 100-17?" "Ahhh, 35" What countries border the USA?" "Easy, Texas and Florida." These are college students! And they will vote !
Just what I suspected. If any of them are people of color, they are a shoo-in for a DEI hire.
We donor have a free press!
Does she now stay at Harvard in a tenured teaching position? If so, isn't that also a problem?
Those of you who subscribe to National Review's online webpage should read Jim Geraghty's column this morning - he touches on many of the same points that Erick does. Especially telling was his quotation from a member of Harvard's College Honor Council:
" “By definition, Gay’s corrections were not proactive but reactive — she only made them after she was caught. And that the Corporation considers her corrections an adequate response is not fair to undergraduates, who cannot simply submit corrections to avoid penalties. There is one standard for me and my peers and another, much lower standard for our University’s president. The Corporation should resolve the double standard by demanding her resignation.”
This is JUST like what brought Andrew Cuomo down, not the thousands of people he killed in nursing homes but a sexual harassment accusation. Now plagiarism is what for Dr. Gay fired (if it could be called that), when her attitude towards the antisemitic treatment of her Jewish students is far worse but apparently approved of.
Best piece you've written in a long time.
Erick, I wish some of your articles can find thier way to NY Times or Washington Post. Yea I know wishful thinking. The left bubble would not permit it.
"Either there is one standard or there is no standard." Like so many on the right, I've been saying this for over two decades now. It's maddening to witness the hypocrisy, yet my only recourse is to scream at my TV.
Excellent article.
I consider being “mocked“ a badge of honor. When people respond to me by mocking me rather than responding with a logical opposing response, it’s an indication that they have no depth to their beliefs, but can only espouse the latest “talking points.”
While I certainly don't espouse buying it, I think every conservative should Google quotes from Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals." Mockery is cited as one of the most powerful weapons one can use against their opponent, so you're exactly on point with your assessment that liberals have no intelligent response to your argument.
I still remember vividly a history seminar I participated in when I was an undergraduate which over the course of the semester, we all presented our papers in European history (Mine was on the advance in military weaponry in Europe, 1815-1914, if you're interested!). One man presented his paper and the professor presented his critique and it was devastating - he said the student had copied from other works and had failed to cite them. He went on for some time. I remember we all sort of scrunched down in our seats and wished the class would get over. But it was a lesson in plagiarism that I still think of often to this day, over 50 years later.
Plagiarism is one of the most damning accusations you could make in intellectual circles. Or at least it was!
P.S. Professor Gay was hardly thrown out in the streets - she retained her faculty position at Harvard. She could have been honest about her failings or she could have found an excuse, like the "race card" - I guess it is obvious which one she chose.
The scorpion is again stinging the frog, as a scorpion is expected to do, and it is somehow news. Erick, I don't want you to stop highlighting the hypocrisy on the Left. We love that about you. But, more and more of America are realizing the scorpion is indeed a scorpion so I'm not sure how deal with the fact that it is everywhere and ubiquitous for the Left. It's like reporting, yet again, that we woke up and the sky is blue...again. Don't stop. Don't. I just don't know how we deal with the sky being blue, again.