Defining free speech

4Q Basket Case

FB|BB Moderator
Staff member
Nov 8, 2004
9,675
13,233
237
Tuscaloosa
This woman's career has been ruined by misinformation and Stefanik's political grandstanding.

From a WaPo article:
And her own mis-steps.

Here’s an editorial published in the Harvard Crimson. It’s cited as having been written by a student member of the Honor Council, The bottom line is that students have failed to cite sources in equal or lesser ways, and paid a far greater price than the CEO of their University. I’m a bit uneasy that it’s been published anonymously, but it does speak to “rules for thee, not for me.”


I’m still more uneasy that a right wing rag like the Crimson agrees that the author needs protection from retaliation. IOW, the decidedly left of center Harvard Crimson agrees that anonymity is needed to protect free speech from campus-originated retaliation.

The Crimson doesn’t cite the nature of the feared retaliation. So I have to guess that it could be academic in nature, coming from faculty. It could also be physical from other students — many of whom don’t shrink from physical threats to people they don’t agree with. It could be both.

Regardless, fear of retaliation to the degree that the Harvard Crimson publishes a not quite-anonymous editorial, can’t be characterized as anything other than acknowleding a campus environment that stifles, by force if necessary, speech that doesn’t toe the accepted zeitgeist.

But I digress. Gay got herself in hot water when, given repeated chances to backtrack, she equally repeatedly said that whether calls for genocide constituted threats to Jews depended on the context.

Having survived that by the skin of her teeth, critics (Jewish or otherwise) started to look for other damning material. They found it in her doctoral thesis. She said the lack of citation(s) was inadvertent and immaterial, and asked for a chance to revise the citations after the fact. The Harvard Corporation bought her claims and gave the dreaded Vote of Confidence.

So the critics looked some more. It took almost no time to find that she had given them fodder in other publications less prominent than a doctoral thesis.

In front of Congress, Gay used up just about all of the benefit of the doubt. When her academic integrity was called into question with documentation, she used the last drop. Then other “oversights of attribution” surfaced. It was just too much.

In front of Congress, in front of her peers, and on the backs of the true authors of her material, she did this to herself.
 
Last edited:

NationalTitles18

TideFans Legend
May 25, 2003
30,107
35,733
362
Mountainous Northern California
I’m still more uneasy that a right wing rag like the Crimson agrees that the author needs protection from retaliation. IOW, the decidedly left of center Harvard Crimson agrees that anonymity is needed to protect free speech from campus-originated retaliation.
The irony is palpable.

But I digress. Gay got herself in hot water when, given repeated chances to backtrack, she equally repeatedly said that whether calls for genocide constituted threats to Jews depended on the context.
I challenge anyone to find a single instance of a call for genocide that was played on audio/video at the hearing. Just one. Not one that requires a leap, hop skip, and a jump to get to that conclusion


Having survived that by the skin of her teeth, critics (Jewish or otherwise) started to look for other damning material. They found it in her doctoral thesis. She said the lack of citation(s) was inadvertent and immaterial, and asked for a chance to revise the citations after the fact. The Harvard Corporation bought her claims and gave the dreaded Vote of Confidence.

So the critics looked some more. It took almost no time to find that she had given them fodder in other publications less prominent than a doctoral thesis.
I don't know the details here. Sometimes things like this are big (rise to the level of misconduct) , and sometimes they really aren't (don't rise to that level). In any case, proper attributions are important.

So I don't know if the academic issues were blown out of proportion and completely distorted away from reality like what was done with her testimony.

Either way, republicans got their distraction and the bee gets to say she was a Hamas leader. Yes, tongue-in-cheek propaganda; but does the job of painting academia as the enemy - which was, in part, the aim.
.
 
  • Thank You
Reactions: 92tide and Go Bama

NationalTitles18

TideFans Legend
May 25, 2003
30,107
35,733
362
Mountainous Northern California

The new claims involve Gay’s 1997 Harvard dissertation and one previously unaddressed academic article — “The Effect of Minority Districts and Minority Representation on Political Participation in California,” published in 2001 by the Public Policy Institute of California — in which Gay used a description of the Voting Rights Act which closely mirrored a description in a 1999 book by David T. Canon.

But Canon, a political scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, told the Free Beacon that he is “not at all concerned about the passages.”

“This isn’t even close to an example of academic plagiarism,” he said.
Two scholars from whom Gay was accused of lifting additional material on Monday, Franklin D. Gilliam Jr. and Gary King, both told The Crimson in December that they did not consider Gay’s use of their work plagiarism...


King — a Harvard professor who served as Gay’s dissertation adviser – previously defended the integrity of Gay’s work, saying that her dissertation “met the highest levels of academic integrity,” in a Dec. 11 statement to the Crimson.

“If you were going to commit plagiarism, would you plagiarize your professor’s work and expect to get away with it?” he wrote. King did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the latest allegations.
 
  • Thank You
Reactions: 92tide and Go Bama

Go Bama

Hall of Fame
Dec 6, 2009
13,905
14,364
187
16outa17essee
If all the turmoil over Gay's plagiarism was coming from her academic peers, I might be more receptive. However, the people stirring the pot are politicians and the right wing misinformation machine, both of whom have an agenda.

This whole thing is misdirection and political grandstanding.

I don't like being on the wrong side of a decision when it adversely affects an individuals life. If there is room for doubt, give the woman the benefit of the doubt.

The irony here is that these people are going after Gay because she is Black, and they assume this is the only reason she got the job as president of Harvard.
An additional irony, they don't see this as racism.
 
Last edited:

92tide

TideFans Legend
May 9, 2000
58,525
45,581
287
54
East Point, Ga, USA

Its On A Slab

All-SEC
Apr 18, 2018
1,297
1,737
182
Pyongyang, Democratic Republic of Korea

The irony here is that these people are going after Gay, because she is Black, and they assume this is the only reason she got the job as president of Harvard.
An additional irony, they don't see this as racism.
I am surprised this isn't played up more. From the same people who can't define "woke" yet throw up a lot of dog whistles in trying.
 

92tide

TideFans Legend
May 9, 2000
58,525
45,581
287
54
East Point, Ga, USA
If all the turmoil over Gay's plagiarism was coming from her academic peers, I might be more receptive. However, the people stirring the pot are politicians and the right wing misinformation machine, both of whom have an agenda.

This whole thing is misdirection and political grandstanding.

I don't like being on the wrong side of a decision when it adversely affects an individuals life. If there is room for doubt, give the woman the benefit of the doubt.

The irony here is that these people are going after Gay, because she is Black, and they assume this is the only reason she got the job as president of Harvard.
An additional irony, they don't see this as racism.
aka the puke funnel.


but everybody in media government academics is stupid
 

Tidewater

Hall of Fame
Mar 15, 2003
22,540
13,513
287
Hooterville, Vir.
This woman's career has been ruined by misinformation and Stefanik's political grandstanding.
Her career is hardly ruined. She is still on the faculty at Harvard. She is set to earn $900,000 this year.
Two things can be true at once: Gay committed academic misconduct and Stefanik's hysterics were mere demagoguery. (As an aside, demagoguery really stinks, doesn't it?) The hearing was choreographed to generate outrage.
For the record, I have no problem with a student saying Israel should be eliminated as a country. The speaker should be ready to suffer the consequences of saying something like that. Campuses should exercise the freest of speech. "Safe spaces" on a campus are repugnant to intellectual freedom.
"From the river to the sea, Palestine shall be free" is certainly ambiguous enough to not assume she endorses genocide, but it is also ambiguous enough that the defenders of that phrase should expect to be required to clarify. If it means "Jews and Arabs living peacefully in equality," it's a beautiful sentiment, maybe idealistic, but a beautiful sentiment. If it means "Wipe out the Jews," it is morally repugnant.
Any damage to her reputation is entirely self-inflicted. She plagiarized portions of her dissertation and then:
Seven of Gay’s 17 published works have already been impacted by the scandal, but the new charges, which have not been previously reported, extend into an eighth: In a 2001 article, Gay lifts nearly half a page of material verbatim from another scholar, David Canon, a political science professor at the University of Wisconsin.
I was always told, both as an undergrad and especially as a grad student that lifting someone's work and presenting it as my own was theft.
Of course, Cannon declines to condemn her sloppiness. He does not want to be shunned by his colleagues. The real question is, what happens to an insignificant undergraduate or graduate student who lifts half a page of someone else's work and presents it as her own? The student might not get off so easy. And should we treat a university president with more leniency than an undergrad who cannot harm us?

This is a tempest in a teacup. The much more significant issue to me is whether students and faculty should exercise the freest possible speech on a college campus, even controversial speech, challenging preconceptions and assmptions.
 

Go Bama

Hall of Fame
Dec 6, 2009
13,905
14,364
187
16outa17essee
Words from Gay herself, printed in today's NYT.

On Tuesday, I made the wrenching but necessary decision to resign as Harvard’s president. For weeks, both I and the institution to which I’ve devoted my professional life have been under attack. My character and intelligence have been impugned. My commitment to fighting antisemitism has been questioned. My inbox has been flooded with invective, including death threats. I’ve been called the N-word more times than I care to count.

My hope is that by stepping down I will deny demagogues the opportunity to further weaponize my presidency in their campaign to undermine the ideals animating Harvard since its founding: excellence, openness, independence, truth.
As I depart, I must offer a few words of warning. The campaign against me was about more than one university and one leader. This was merely a single skirmish in a broader war to unravel public faith in pillars of American society. Campaigns of this kind often start with attacks on education and expertise, because these are the tools that best equip communities to see through propaganda. But such campaigns don’t end there. Trusted institutions of all types — from public health agencies to news organizations — will continue to fall victim to coordinated attempts to undermine their legitimacy and ruin their leaders’ credibility. For the opportunists driving cynicism about our institutions, no single victory or toppled leader exhausts their zeal.

Yes, I made mistakes. In my initial response to the atrocities of Oct. 7, I should have stated more forcefully what all people of good conscience know: Hamas is a terrorist organization that seeks to eradicate the Jewish state. And at a congressional hearing last month, I fell into a well-laid trap. I neglected to clearly articulate that calls for the genocide of Jewish people are abhorrent and unacceptable and that I would use every tool at my disposal to protect students from that kind of hate.

Most recently, the attacks have focused on my scholarship. My critics found instances in my academic writings where some material duplicated other scholars’ language, without proper attribution. I believe all scholars deserve full and appropriate credit for their work. When I learned of these errors, I promptly requested corrections from the journals in which the flagged articles were published, consistent with how I have seen similar faculty cases handled at Harvard.

I have never misrepresented my research findings, nor have I ever claimed credit for the research of others. Moreover, the citation errors should not obscure a fundamental truth: I proudly stand by my work and its impact on the field.
Despite the obsessive scrutiny of my peer-reviewed writings, few have commented on the substance of my scholarship, which focuses on the significance of minority office holding in American politics. My research marshaled concrete evidence to show that when historically marginalized communities gain a meaningful voice in the halls of power, it signals an open door where before many saw only barriers. And that, in turn, strengthens our democracy.

Throughout this work, I asked questions that had not been asked, used then-cutting-edge quantitative research methods and established a new understanding of representation in American politics. This work was published in the nation’s top political science journals and spawned important research by other scholars.
Never did I imagine needing to defend decades-old and broadly respected research, but the past several weeks have laid waste to truth. Those who had relentlessly campaigned to oust me since the fall often trafficked in lies and ad hominem insults, not reasoned argument. They recycled tired racial stereotypes about Black talent and temperament. They pushed a false narrative of indifference and incompetence.

On Tuesday, I made the wrenching but necessary decision to resign as Harvard’s president. For weeks, both I and the institution to which I’ve devoted my professional life have been under attack. My character and intelligence have been impugned. My commitment to fighting antisemitism has been questioned. My inbox has been flooded with invective, including death threats. I’ve been called the N-word more times than I care to count.

My hope is that by stepping down I will deny demagogues the opportunity to further weaponize my presidency in their campaign to undermine the ideals animating Harvard since its founding: excellence, openness, independence, truth.
As I depart, I must offer a few words of warning. The campaign against me was about more than one university and one leader. This was merely a single skirmish in a broader war to unravel public faith in pillars of American society. Campaigns of this kind often start with attacks on education and expertise, because these are the tools that best equip communities to see through propaganda. But such campaigns don’t end there. Trusted institutions of all types — from public health agencies to news organizations — will continue to fall victim to coordinated attempts to undermine their legitimacy and ruin their leaders’ credibility. For the opportunists driving cynicism about our institutions, no single victory or toppled leader exhausts their zeal.

Yes, I made mistakes. In my initial response to the atrocities of Oct. 7, I should have stated more forcefully what all people of good conscience know: Hamas is a terrorist organization that seeks to eradicate the Jewish state. And at a congressional hearing last month, I fell into a well-laid trap. I neglected to clearly articulate that calls for the genocide of Jewish people are abhorrent and unacceptable and that I would use every tool at my disposal to protect students from that kind of hate.

Most recently, the attacks have focused on my scholarship. My critics found instances in my academic writings where some material duplicated other scholars’ language, without proper attribution. I believe all scholars deserve full and appropriate credit for their work. When I learned of these errors, I promptly requested corrections from the journals in which the flagged articles were published, consistent with how I have seen similar faculty cases handled at Harvard.

I have never misrepresented my research findings, nor have I ever claimed credit for the research of others. Moreover, the citation errors should not obscure a fundamental truth: I proudly stand by my work and its impact on the field.
Despite the obsessive scrutiny of my peer-reviewed writings, few have commented on the substance of my scholarship, which focuses on the significance of minority office holding in American politics. My research marshaled concrete evidence to show that when historically marginalized communities gain a meaningful voice in the halls of power, it signals an open door where before many saw only barriers. And that, in turn, strengthens our democracy.

Throughout this work, I asked questions that had not been asked, used then-cutting-edge quantitative research methods and established a new understanding of representation in American politics. This work was published in the nation’s top political science journals and spawned important research by other scholars.
Never did I imagine needing to defend decades-old and broadly respected research, but the past several weeks have laid waste to truth. Those who had relentlessly campaigned to oust me since the fall often trafficked in lies and ad hominem insults, not reasoned argument. They recycled tired racial stereotypes about Black talent and temperament. They pushed a false narrative of indifference and incompetence.

It is not lost on me that I make an ideal canvas for projecting every anxiety about the generational and demographic changes unfolding on American campuses: a Black woman selected to lead a storied institution. Someone who views diversity as a source of institutional strength and dynamism. Someone who has advocated a modern curriculum that spans from the frontier of quantum science to the long-neglected history of Asian Americans. Someone who believes that a daughter of Haitian immigrants has something to offer to the nation’s oldest university.
I still believe that. As I return to teaching and scholarship, I will continue to champion access and opportunity, and I will bring to my work the virtue I discussed in the speech I delivered at my presidential inauguration: courage. Because it is courage that has buoyed me throughout my career and it is courage that is needed to stand up to those who seek to undermine what makes universities unique in American life.

Having now seen how quickly the truth can become a casualty amid controversy, I’d urge a broader caution: At tense moments, every one of us must be more skeptical than ever of the loudest and most extreme voices in our culture, however well organized or well connected they might be. Too often they are pursuing self-serving agendas that should be met with more questions and less credulity.

College campuses in our country must remain places where students can learn, share and grow together, not spaces where proxy battles and political grandstanding take root. Universities must remain independent venues where courage and reason unite to advance truth, no matter what forces set against them.
 

Go Bama

Hall of Fame
Dec 6, 2009
13,905
14,364
187
16outa17essee
Her career is hardly ruined.
I implore you read the letter in my previous post Gay just posted in the NYT.

Perhaps ruined was the wrong word. After reading the letter, I don't think she will allow this incident to define her.

I agree plagiarism is stealing, however, before passing judgment, let's see what her actual sin was and what her response to it was.

It's hardly a tempest in a teacup to Gay. In the bigger scheme of things, yes.
 

Tidewater

Hall of Fame
Mar 15, 2003
22,540
13,513
287
Hooterville, Vir.
I had read her letter. It is almost "university president-speak" like coaches use "coach speak."
Another issue I suspect is not getting much attention is that the whole issue of tolerating controversial speech on campus has resulted in big money donors withholding (or threatening to withhold) donations. Goodness knows what that means in the future. "I do not like you talking about X. I'm withholding my annual donation until you muzzle the professor who said, X." What "X" stands for is almost irrelevant (almost). This could be an enormous abuse of power depending on who the donor is and what the controversial issue is.
I suspect that Gay's dismissal had more to do with donations being withheld (or threatened) than plagiarism.
 

Go Bama

Hall of Fame
Dec 6, 2009
13,905
14,364
187
16outa17essee
I had read her letter.
The letter I posted is not Gay's resignation letter, rather an OpEd she sent to the NYT. Is it possible you were thinking I posted the resignation letter? The oped was published about an hour before I posted it here. I would be surprised to learn you have a subscription the the Times. :)

Write it off as "president speak" if you like; I thought Gay's words were meaningful.

You implied earlier that Gay's career was not ruined. The OpEd addresses how she feels this has been an attack on her character. Her integrity has been impugned.

As for whether or not she was forced out by donors withholding donations, you may be right. However, the way I'm seeing things, none of that happened without the political grandstanding by Stephanik in Congress and the right wing misinformation machine. Christopher Rufo and Stefanik are claiming victory. Rufo tweeted, "Scalped." This isn't on the donors even if they were the muscle that removed Gay from her position.
 
  • Thank You
Reactions: 92tide

New Posts

Latest threads