Harvard University President Accused of Plagiarizing PhD Thesis

What about creating a hostile environment on campus where Jewish students were afraid to leave their dorm rooms? Or taking over every seat in the Widener Library on campus during exams and hanging pro-Palestinian banners decrying Israel as a genocidal nation from the walls INSIDE the library intended to intimidate Jewish students from studying there? Think a bunch of white supremecist students displaying a flag with a noose inside the same Harvard library would have been granted the similar “free speech” rights despite its odiousness? I think not.

 

It's becoming abundantly clear that g_l don't much care about the content of one's character...

 

What does "creating a hostile environment on campus" even mean in this context? If students made targeted threats, that's punishable. If certain Jewish students felt afraid because people were voicing political views hostile to Israel, I empathize with them, but we don't abandon free speech principles because some people are uncomfortable with it.

I expect those seats are available on a first come, first serve basis. As for banners, if Harvard had a rule prohibiting them in the library, it would be well within its rights to remove them. As for their "intent," what is your evidence that they intended to intimidate Jewish students?

As far as I can tell, it was a temporary "silent" protest, and some Jewish students took part in it. It's odd to me that you ascribe the worst possible motives to students advocating for a cause they believe in.
Harvard Students Hold Silent ‘Study-In’ at Widener Library, Rally at Mass. Hall to Call for End of War in Gaza | News | The Harvard Crimson

I think Harvard shouldn't selectively enforce rules based on viewpoint. If they're allowing one, allow the other. Let social consequences take care of the problem. If they're punishing one, punish both.

I prefer private universities that adopt broad free speech protections. In an ideal world, they'd offer the same protections to their students that students at public universities have under the First Amendment. So I will continue to encourage that. Don't much care whether you like it or not.

 

Same school that dismissed a faculty dean for simply accepting an appointment to Harvey Weinstein’s defense team.

Their sin is in their selective application of standards and principles

As to the rest we’ll simply have to agree to disagree.

Harvard Was Wrong to Dismiss Its Dean for Representing Harvey Weinstein | ACLU

 

That was wrong. It also happened years before she became president.

As for the rest, I'll simply ask one question: Do you think private universities should provide free speech protections equal to the protections provided by the First Amendment to students at public universities?

 

Yes. But not selectively, and certainly not independently of their other standards of conduct. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of such speech.

When speakers come to these private school campuses to express opinions that these students don’t like, they have been disruptive and resulted in speakers being cancelled.

When George Floyd was killed, our elite universities cancelled exams, created safe spaces, etc for something that happened 1500 miles away which didn’t directly threaten a single person on campus.

But when Hamas attacks Israel and students march on campus chanting “from the river to the sea”, (and we all know what that means) and overtake libraries during exam week to proclaim that Jews are genocidal murderers while creating an environment that makes Jewish students feel unsafe and directly threatened on the campus itself, then all of a sudden our elite private universities are free speech absolutists? How convenient. Most if not all of our constitutional protections have exceptions. Should free speech on private campuses not have the same limitations?

Maybe to test this notion you should go to Cambridge with a couple hundred friends, don white hoods, stand on a public street corner adjacent to Harvard or MIT and advocate removing all black students from the (Charles) River to the (Atlantic) Ocean and let’s see how free that speech is viewed by those schools when black students feel unsafe to leave their dorms ( and rightfully so). Therein lies the issue. And where Claudine Gay tripped the wire on herself.

 

If it was about academic misconduct, she would no longer be on the faculty at Harvard. She is still on the faculty at Harvard. It is all about fundraising. She has become a stumbling block to fundraising, so she has to step aside and let someone else take that position.

 

Right away she faced backlash from the likes of Ackman calling for her to be fired. The Board came out weeks later with a vote of confidence for Gay. What changed since then? Well, plagiarism accusations kept coming from pretty much everything she's written(which isn't much). Of course the left will paint this as a fundraising issue. The Board would like pretty stupid to now fire her after their own internal "investigation" found no wrongdoing LOL. This is about the Board trying to save face, nothing more. They don't want a lawsuit from Gay if they fired her so they let her stay on faculty as a compromise. I'm sure we will get the "this is all racism" angle soon as well...

 

She already blamed racism in her resignation letter. Guess UPenn is racist too. Oh, wait……

 

Didn't see that coming...

 

Here’s the thing about all of this that no one really wants to talk about.

Muslims make up more than 24% of the world population. Jews? 0.2%.

The Arab League controls more than 5,000,000 square miles of the worlds most oil-rich territory in Asia and Africa. Israel? 8500 square miles of territory in a desert shared with Christians and Muslims.

The heart of the issue here is that our elite universities and large swaths of media (both domestic and international) treat Israel as a conquering, white, occupying nation, which on its face is one of the most farcical misapplications of facts in history.

I’m no Bebe fan, he needs to go, and as a Jew my Zionism has rarely been 100%!pro-Israel, they’ve made plenty of mistakes.

But on this specific set of facts-October 6th and its aftermath-the virulent hatred and intimidation that many of our campuses have allowed Jews to endure under the guise of free speech is despicable. Every other minority in America would have gotten better treatment than the Jews have gotten the past 3 months, every f*cking one.

So instead of arguing about free speech we should really be asking ourselves why that’s the case. Because there’s not a person on here-right or left-who would have found it acceptable of any other minority, protected class or otherwise. Just ask Chris Wray, who has said repeatedly that anti-semitism in the US has reached historic levels.

I’m considered communist by some on here-always makes me laugh-but this isn’t about right vs left to me. It’s about right vs wrong.

 

Steven Pinker echoes some of your sentiments here.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/12...ow-to-save-universities-harvard-claudine-gay/

 

The problem with your stance is that it's contradictory. We are in agreement that the answer is yes, but you have to understand that if that is indeed the answer, freedom of speech often means freedom from consequences of such speech, at least as far as the university goes. Other students can impose social consequences, but the university itself, if it actually abides by that standard, cannot aggressively police speech. I think that's the right call, but it takes commitment. Because it protects people who say and/or believe abhorrent things.

No, we actually don't know what that means. There's quite a lot of debate over what it means; it has different meanings to different people. The problem is that free speech doesn't have the exact exceptions or limitations you're suggesting. And let's not conflate accusations of Israel committing genocide with accusations of all Jews being genocidal murders. These are very different things.

Look, if you want to claim that these private universities aren't actually dedicated to free speech and are hiding behind it while being selective in what speech they protect and what speech they don't, have at it. My point is that I actually want them to adopt and stand by free speech principles. So I'm not going to criticize them when they do it. I'm going to criticize them when they don't.

Arguing that students should be punished for a silent sit-in in the library (excepting the students who brought in the large banner) or for chanting something you feel is offensive isn't consistent with the free speech principles we both agree they should have.

One, I'll pass. I'm not a white supremacist or interested in dressing up like one. Two, if I'm on a public sidewalk and abiding by all time, place, and manner regulations, that's constitutionally protected speech.

 

You continually say parts of the speech that you don’t like are not or shouldn’t be protected (hanging the banner, firing the dean, maybe allowing speakers to be drowned out) and seemingly make them disappear
from your analysis, or condition the speech with the unknown compliance of lawful speech constraints (like time, place and manner restrictions), then call me contradictory. Seems a bit selective to me but that’s your choice.

Honestly, you’re digging the same hole for yourself as Gay did.

Here’s the only context I need. Jewish students were afraid to leave their rooms at a time when their country was under attack by terrorists and at a time when the US was replete with protests by Palestinians, other Arabs and traditional white supremacists calling for the extinction of the Jewish state, otherwise at a time when anti-Semitic threats were at an all time high in the US. Apparently you don’t find that particular speech an incitement to violence. I do. That’s the difference between us. The rest is dicta.

 

That's actually you misunderstanding the point. Harvard can have a content-neutral restriction on hanging large banners in the library. And I would assume they do. That's what would make it punishable. It isn't punishable merely because the university dislikes the message on the banner.

As for the person being removed from the job as dean for representing Weinstein, a public university may indeed get in trouble for that. But Harvard isn't a public university, and that happened prior to Gay becoming president. I already said I disagree with their decision to do that. It was wrong and not consistent with free speech principles (and arguably academic freedom).

It may seem that way if you aren't well acquainted with the niceties of First Amendment law. Frankly, that last sentence kind of says it all. We agreed that Harvard should adopt free speech protections that are the equivalent to what the First Amendment provides. Yet, you're accusing me of digging the "same hole . . . as Gay" for explaining what the First Amendment does and doesn't allow.

Respectfully, none of that speaks to whether speech is protected or unprotected. You're allowed in this country to advocate for violence. The Brandenburg test only excepts incitement from the First Amendment when it is inciting imminent lawless action. A Klansman has the right to advocate for genocide against Black people. A Klansman does not have the right to direct the crowd to which he's speaking to immediately attack and kill the Black man walking past his rally (if his speech is likely to cause them to do it).

Basically, it's not enough to say they're inciting violence against Israel or even Jewish people generally. But we can always apply social consequences. If you have a private business and don't want to hire somebody who advocated for the extinction of the Jewish state, that is well within your rights. If you and your friends want to shun any person involved in those protests, you can do that.

 

I keep seeing the argument that it's largely about hypocrisy because White Nationalists wouldn't be allowed to spew hate on university campuses. I will just assume that's a fair comparison with the anti-Israel/pro-Palestine groups, but there are obviously distinctions if groups are disrupting exams or something. I had to look it up to confirm but recalled Richard Spencer giving a speech at UF and was protected by police. Frankly, I have been conflicted about how to handle people or groups with hateful messages when they're not inciting imminent violence or breaking the law.

Protesters heckle Richard Spencer at Univ. of Florida talk | CNN

Protesters greeted white supremacist leader Richard Spencer with loud boos and chants of “Go home Spencer” during his speech Thursday afternoon at the University of Florida in Gainesville.

The talk was Spencer’s first planned speech on a college campus since he and others participated in the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, in August.

With an intensive police presence, protesters chanted, “We don’t want your Nazi hate” and “Nazi scum off our streets.” The anti-Spencer protesters, who vastly outnumbered the supporters, carried signs against fascism, neo-Nazis and white supremacy.

Spencer took the stage at the Phillips Center at just after 2:45 p.m. Those in the venue, many of whom stood with their fists raised, loudly booed and chanted lines like “Go home Spencer” and “Nazis are not welcome here.”

 

My knowledge of the First Amendment was likely taught to me by the same Constitutional Law professor as yours was.

The difference is in our applications.

My opinion is that these campus protests and building takeovers were not only meant to intimidate Jewish students but represented true threats of violence (whether or not violence was actually intended by the speakers themselves-perhaps you should reread Virginia vs Black). And given what’s happening around the world-a terrorist invasion in Israel, numerous attacks on US synagogues, anti-semitisn in the US at an all time high- I’m not going to diminish the real threat felt by Jewish students at having the proliferation of these protests on campus around them, and that they perceived it as more than lawful heated rhetoric while the schools literally did nothing to make them feel safer. .

Beyond that we’ll just have to agree to disagree. Trying to convince an absolutist that he should be living in the exceptions is certainly not the best use of my time. So I’m out.

 

???

 

My friend, First Amendment law is one of my practice areas, and I specialize in free speech in the educational context.

It's not a true threat either. Virginia v. Black simply acknowledged that a cross burning directed at a specific person or group of people (meaning a group of people who are actually there) might constitute a true threat. That's quite different from political protests and advocacy, even something as extreme as calls for genocide.

For example, in NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware, Charles Evers (the brother of Medgar) "told the assembled black people that any 'uncle toms' who broke the boycott would 'have their necks broken' by their own people." The Supreme Court in considering this speech explained that the "emotionally charged rhetoric of Charles Evers' speeches did not transcend the bounds of protected speech set forth in Brandenburg. . . . An advocate must be free to stimulate his audience with spontaneous and emotional appeals for unity and action in a common cause. When such appeals do not incite lawless action, they must be regarded as protected speech. To rule otherwise would ignore the 'profound national commitment' that 'debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.'" Nor did the Court consider them "true threats."

In Watts v. United States, SCOTUS ruled Watts's remark at a public gathering that if he got drafted and forced to carry a rifle, the first man in his sights would be LBJ was not a true threat to kill the President. It were merely "political hyperbole."

This is why I mentioned earlier that there is a difference between targeted threats and general statements of advocacy. They are treated very differently under the Constitution.

If we have to agree to disagree, c'est la vie. Hope you have a nice day.