Harvard University President Accused of Plagiarizing PhD Thesis

Fair enough

 

This constitutes a clear violation of Harvard’s policy, which states: “When you paraphrase, your task is to distill the source’s ideas in your own words. 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.​

Shuffling words "...[is not enough]; if the language is too close to the original...EVEN IF you provide a citation..."

I mean, stand alone, nah, no one gives a shit. Take up for assholes who call for genocide of a segment of your own students, and you invite the wrath of grammar nazi, and the strictest of scrutiny...whatever to get her gone.

Heck, the UPen pres stepped down without any plagiarizing shadows being raised over her cred.

 

I don't recall posting in this thread, and a quick review of it confirms my recollection.

 

No, not this thread. My reply was in response to someone posting he found 6 threads in the first 3 pages of the forum where the OP'ster had not commented when making that thread's initial post.

 

I see.
BTW, when one starts a thread by posting an informative article, is one supposed to also comment on the article?

 

Yes.
Do you know to which thread I am referring?

 

I provided an example. It literally had four words in common out of 31 in the sentence. Those four words appear to be a concept/theory (I'm even allowing the word "the" before it as common
here). Are you really arguing that you can't mention the name of a theory in a lit review? Heck, the two sentences don't even mean the same thing.

By that standard, I can claim that everything you write here is plagiarism. Do you really think that is the standard?

This isn't a grammar issue. You want to argue that she should step down due to her testimony, make that argument (I have no strong opinions either way on it). But don't make fallacious claims about plagiarism.

 

I haven't followed the story closely so I can only speak to your question--using an editor is fairly common, especially for students where English is not the first language (my wife paid an editor for both her theses and her dissertation--but only for writing style/grammar etc.). The only editor I had for my thesis & dissertation was UF's editorial office, which is a requirement as the editorial office is the last entity to sign off on a dissertation or thesis.

As far as post-graduate publications, no editor. Though, I had a book chapter once where the book's editor (a colleague and friend) noticed multiple passages that I did not properly cite when I submitted the chapter for publication. These were oversights...but it brings me to what has been my experience--and maybe others in this game as well. While plagiarism is a cardinal sin in academia, it's comically easy to plagiarize where no there is no ill-intent. The pressure cooker and time bind of publish or perish provide fertile ground for many mistakes. This isn't to say people don't deliberately cheat--the do--but cheating isn't necessarily or def not always the reason that plagiarism occurs.

 

That absolutely has to be true. I think a lot of folks might be biased about their view of academic plagiarism by thinking of it as similar to plagiarism in fiction & journalism. So much of what we do is constantly defining concepts, building arguments from & reviewing extant research & describing methodologies (this has to be super ripe for "plagiarism"). The vast majority of what we write about is not novel. It's a plagiarism mindfield.

 

Now do the other side, please.

 

Exactly! Basically it's all plagiarism

 

Define common knowledge, and how that plays into all this, please.

 

"The other side" of what?

 

Why? That was not a phrase or concept mentioned by me.

 

Why did you use my name in another post without explaining to me what you're talking about..

By the way... Happy Hanukkah to you and Trucker... and have a happy new years to.

 

You provided an example; Rufo provided a couple. The language tracked pretty tightly, absent some minor shuffling. Technically, it is in fact, plagiarism, per Harvard's definition, which is the applicable standard.

As for my work here--if I valued your opinion more than my dog's, I might be mildly flattered that you'd deign to apply Harvard's standards to my dicking round on a message board, and compare it to Harvard's President's doctoral thesis (PhD dissertation). Alas, I do not...

As for 'grammar issue'--I actually didn't suggest it was--the grammar nazi thing was informally referring to the chickenship grammar nazi posts around here, where folks act like they've made a substantive point, by identifying a typo...on. a. message. board. (LOL!) But if you're the Harvard pres, and shit your britches as disatrously as the good Dr. Gay has...you deserve to get ousted for as piddly chickenshit as a grammar nazi objection...any flipp'n excuse ought to suffice to correct such an obvious screw up.

And I think I have made that arguement. I thought I made it clear--the plagiarism as a stand alone issue do not move the needle much. It's not that big a deal.

Her testimony before congress was a laughable shit show--but again, by itself, not really firable.

But what is beyond firable--is what that shitshow showed--which was her epic failure in discharging her duties vis a vis her Jewish students, and Harvard's name as a whole.

Her testimony before congress was her ridiculous, pathetic, shitty, and objectively disgraceful, attempt to justify her ridiculous, pathetic, shitty, and objectively disgraceful shitting her britches reaction in the face of misguided Palestinian sympathizers, calling for the genocide of the Jewish People--and somehow, inexplicably, trying to reconcile that, with Harvard's code of conduct (ie.-not arrising to 'harrassment').

Ergo...kick her ass out of that position for plagiarism, if that's what it takes.

Of course, she's always welcome to step down of her own volition.

I'm sure her resignation would be accepted gracefully.

 

Well Harvard doesn't think it meets their definition of plagiarism.

Harvard’s board: We unanimously stand in support of President Gay | CNN Business

"The Harvard Corporation Tuesday said it ordered an independent review of Gay’s writings, which revealed inadequate citations in a few instances but “no violation of Harvard’s standards for research misconduct.”

But keep your fingers crossed!

 

It is not, in fact.

Uh oh, I'm sure somebody has used the phrase "mildly flattered" before. Plagiarism! Of course, that is absurd. But that is the level of accusations here.

No, making up plagiarism does not support an argument for getting rid of her. This isn't plagiarism, even if you wish it was (which it appears that you do). But your wishes don't make it plagiarism.

An accusation of plagiarism in academia is a big deal. It is the type of thing that can actually result in the loss of tenure, if done consistently. This isn't that.

Presidents aren't all that involved in student discipline issues. They are basically fundraisers and politicians. This isn't an 80s movie, where students have to talk to the University President about their behavior.

Again, I have no opinion on whether she should stay. But just as you don't get to go to court and say somebody is a bad guy, so the standard of proof is lower, you also can't do that for academic integrity questions. Academic integrity questions are important. Making a mockery of the standards, which is what this is, does not advance the goal of academic integrity. Presidents can be fired for bad PR. If Harvard wants to do that, then do that. If they want to fire her for damage to her role as a fundraiser, do that. But don't claim academic integrity violations where none exists as some sort of loophole, which isn't even needed.