Harvard University President Accused of Plagiarizing PhD Thesis

Seemed like she plagiarized her canned answers to cogress in trying to defend threats of genocide of Jews, as not. Quite. Arising. to the level of "harrassment", without conduct.

Hey, what's a little jesting about exterminating your ppl between friends, right?

Either she lacks the ability to think for herself...or she's an idiot.

Going with the former, which would line up with plagiarism in college.

 

The private schools having problems lately.

 

Obscure right-wing source quoting Rufo the Clown who is alleging she ripped off a right-wing crank. I took a look at Rufo's allegations, and per usual, they are baseless horse manure.

His first accusation of "plagiarism" is a paragraph where she literally cited the source at the beginning of it, but Rufo the Clown doesn't think she made enough changes in the paraphrasing she did. Swing and a miss.

His second accusation of "plagiarism" involves similar language used by Gay and Swain to define two concepts. Yet, Swain herself was citing to a different source in using that language, and Gay had a long string cite at the end of the proposition to a number of sources. So no, Gay did not "plagiarize" Swain. They both cited other scholars for what are likely commonly used definitions in their discipline.

His third accusation of "plagiarism" also involves similar language used by Gay and Swain. The hilarity of this accusation is that it was a sentence introducing the issue. In the very next sentence, she quoted a specific number and cited to . . . guess who? . . . Carol freaking Swain. What a joke.

Basically, his accusations of "plagiarism" are a nothing burger. It's typical Rufo the Clown bullshit. Plausible enough that ignorant rubes buy into it, but obviously wrong to people who have some knowledge of the issue and how citations in academic writing work.

 

Chris Rufo? Why should we believe anything that he has to say?

 

The sad part of this is, how easily the sheeple swallow this garbage hook, line and sinker. The Republi-ban Mullahs must be very proud of you.

 

He posted passages side by side . Swain, the person she allegedly plagiarized, all but confirmed it.

Are y'all--like Gay--no longer capable of thinking beyond your political team colors?

Clearly her skeletons are being aired for her abject failure to protect Jews on her campus from harrassment, and trying to dismisss grotesque intimidation as "free speech." Not going to deny why it's being aired.

....but who's the "sheeple" here?

I'd submit it's the team color water carrying foot soldiers who dutifully and blindly rise to defense of a [presumed] team mate, and attacking the messenger of an itchy message, because clearly....

The Jews on Harvard's campus ain't nothing but whiny bitches, for daring to raise a fuss over hundreds of warm, fuzzy, Palestinian sympathizing anti-semites parading, and calling for their peoples' genocide.

What? Not one Jew killed, and they dare invoke *harris-ment*??? Snowflakes!!!

Sidenote: someone pulled the curtain back, and gave us a glimpse at one of the many puppet strings Beijing pulls, to make our marionettes dance to chicom tunes...

PS--the Jews are on your team. They don't exactly vote in block for GOP candies. What prevents y'all from even seeing such an obvious point?

Tell me more about this "sheeple" business...

 

Violates Rule “Q”. Just a drive by post of junk sources with no commentary.

Rules 1/17/2023 | Swamp Gas Forums

 

I hope you aren’t operating heavy machinery in your current state.

 

par for the course with that poster. not sure why it is still up

 

Where are the side by side passages posted; I didn't see them in the article posted by the OP?

 

they are there….you gotta click on the “tweet”. It seems when evidence is laid out as it in the “tweet”, the source should become less of an issue unless the writings being compared are faked which I doubt is the case

 

Agreed on the source. But the claims are absurd. The first claim is clearly a lit review with proper citation. The second claim is clearly cited to one of Swain's later papers (which, I'd guess, probably contains a very similar passage). The third is a discussion of a method utilizing similar meanings but different wording (as one would expect when both discussed the same method).

 

Actually, the OP is SUPPOSED to make their own commentary about why they posted it in the first place.

 

Thank you for the question.

It depends on the context, as the term 'heavy' connotes a relative concept, such that were a cell phone measured against a paper clip, and I were operating a cell phone, one could say i was in fact operating 'heavy machinery.' Conversely, an automobile as measured against a crane or aircraft carrier, might be deemed to not be 'heavy machinery', while being of much greater weight--and therefore 'more heavy', as compared to the cell phone, though the cell phone in one context would be 'heavy machinery', while the 'automobile' in another context would not be.

Such nuancy analyses therefore, may, according to Harvardian analytics, thereby be invoked, to call into question such an apparently crystalline notion as whether a group of people calling for the genocide of another, while being objectively intimidating, crass, impolite, rude, despicable, vicious, disgusting, deplorable and generally unacceptable by any metric of civilized society, yet not arise to the level of "harassment", unless proper context co-exists at the time of such utterance and proclamation, as to render it so...

Clear enough for ya', City?

 

I’m not a mod

 

LOL, how is this off topic? That’s just the supposed rule.

 

I was not addressing the rule in my post

 

I was looking at your response to post #10. Regardless, it’s just more mining for right wing nonsense by the OP