Harvard University President Accused of Plagiarizing PhD Thesis

I think they think its more than that honestly, like some kind of pervasive ideology that makes people libs instead of window dressing at a highly selective private school with a massive endowment that should be bulldozed to the ground in any equitable and healthy society.

 

We should all care when the President of America's most prestigious university tacitly approves of terrorising minority students (in this case, Jews/antisemitism), and refuses to call it *harris-ment*... among other points that ushered her into our living rooms.

Again, I ask--what the hell's happened here?

Don't yall lefty bullies love you some cancel culture???

(I mean, again--I remind: the Jews pretty much vote Dem. She hung them out to dry, and y'all want to give her a pass??? No comprende...).

But TBL, that's why we 'care' about who's Pres of Harvard.

Plagiarism was merely the tax evasion thing to Al Capone.

 

Since when did you go in on safe-spaces and hurt feelings = "terrorism?" Conservatives are no different than the caricature of the libs they have built up. Giant babies.

 

Hamas sympathisers, like Nazis, the KKK, Iranians, Saudi Arabians--pretty much greater global Islam--overtly desire the extermination of the Jews--by which I mean, all Jews, everywhere.

e.g. If the KKK marched on Harvard, would it be 'seeking a safey spacy' if blacks and Jews characterised it as harassment?

I suspect that if any president of any university, let alone Harvard, were to take up for the KKK and argue that "...well, it depends on the context ya' know? Maybe if the KKK was just marching for the extermination of some Jews, why then that might make it okee dokey artichoke..."--and it came to the nation's attention--you'd get the same national outcry for their ouster.

Look, no one ever suggested the good Dr. Gay ought to be thrown in the slammer; but it's perfectly natural and fair game, to object to her continuing to hold a prestigious position, and to use what ever levers may be available, to reinforce that objection.

So sayeth the free market.

C'est la vie.

 

I guess they must have forgotten about the evil "CRT"?

 

When UF let a white supremacist speak on campus, and I'm pretty sure conservatives didnt make this argument. Thats because there are no actual principles they care about, just sharks who see blood in the water. The guy leading the charge is pretty explicit about his motivations, its not even a secret.

 

A dude with a mic is not a national, let alone world wide organization with a proven track record of attaching conduct to their words, and stated values.

Secondly, 'white supremacy' does not necessarily call for the extermination of other races. Just the proliferation of theirs (not defending them, just pointing out a pretty significant distinction).

You'll note the KKK actually hung and persecuted hundreds if not thousands of blacks, Jews, and Catholics during its existence.

(KKK may be white supremacist, but not all white supremes are KKK).

btw, as a brief reminder, here's a couple of links to a couple of short list of famous folk who've been toppled from their pedestals for racist (sometimes antisemitic) comments/conduct:

https://lamag.com/featured/canceled-racism

Racism: Celebrities fired for their racist comments


...begging the question-how on earth could you LOWER the standard for accepted conduct for Harvard's president, than run of the mill celbs?

 

Carole Hooven On Harvard's Existential Crisis

This really isn’t about the Harvard president, but it is about Harvard. It is an interview with Carole Hoover, an evolutionary biologist (I think) who taught at Harvard. She was an award winning and very popular professor. She wrote a book, and among many publicity events she was interviewed on Fox News and had the audacity to say there are two sexes. After that a person on the Harvard DEI committee (a grad student) tweeted out Hoovers comments were transphobic. Hoover tweeted back basically “what exactly did I say that was transphobic”.

After that the DEI grad student got some blowback on Twitter and then accused Hoover of a racist attack, and condemning Hoover for punching down, for merely asking what did she say that was transphobic.

Ultimately Hoover was alientated at Harvard and chose to negotiate a retirement.

The discussion of how all of these departments have DEI committees, mainly composed of grad students, and these DEI committees heavily influence who is hired, what is communicated etc reminded me of how the communist party operates in China.

In discussing Gay, Hoover did indicate that in the course of teaching classes there were students who plagerized, much less than Gay did, and they were subject to disciplinary action.

Here is a site that describes the whole affair

The cancellation of Carole Hooven

 

Hooven quit because she was facing social consequences for taking a stance people didn't like. If you think that's like "how the communist party operates in China," you have a really questionable understanding of the subject. Harvard didn't fire Hooven. It didn't tell her she couldn't teach or broadcast her views. Rather, she discovered that people didn't liker her stance/behavior and chose not to associate with or support her because of it. That's freedom, not tyranny. Hooven's own words:

"I want to be clear that @Harvard did not fire me. They did not 'remove me' from my position. Another person in the same situation might have stayed on, but I could not. The fact is that I did not feel that I could do my job any longer, and I did feel pushed out; but that is not the same as actually being forced out.

First, my mental health was deteriorating rapidly; and second, it seemed apparent that I would not be supported in pursuing my teaching, research and writing, given the lack of public support from my department and Harvard administrators in response to public attacks on my character. (And I could not even teach my lecture course, since for the first time in 20 years, no grad students would agree to serve as my teaching assistants.)"
--------------------------------------------
Personally, I found her first answer unobjectionable (on acknowledging biological sex while respecting people's gender identity). However, I felt her response to the second question was misguided, and I can understand why folks didn't appreciate it.

 

Also, on the topic of the grad student, I reviewed the tweets. I don't see anything the grad student did that was wrong, agree or disagree with her take. Here's the original tweet thread:


After Hooven asked her for an explanation, she offered one and said she was happy to discuss the matter further in person:



I see nothing in the article Hooven wrote about the student accusing her of a racist attack or punching down (she says her department saw it as punching down).
Academic Freedom Is Social Justice

 

First the DEI person was appalled by hooven saying there are 2 sexes. Not two genders. Two sexes. There are two sexes and that is scientific fact. If that fact appalls a graduate student or hurts anybody’s feelings, they ought not be in college. If the environment is so oppressive that if you say there are two sexes and that causes social ostracism then that isn’t a place I’d want to go nor send my kids.

Also I never said she was fired. So you are telling me something I already knew and posted.

What your exchange didn’t address was the blowback from the above Twitter exchange. Once it made the rounds the DEI person started to get criticism and then blamed it on Hooven and racism.

But of course you see nothing wrong with all of this. Kudos for your consistency on such matters. For the student to declare someone who states that saying there are two sexes is transphobic - and you see nothing wrong with that is the problem here. You are all for this societal name calling and beating people down with ideology and that ideological correctness and conformance trumps pursuit of actual truth. You are no different that Jan 6th and vaccine deniers in this respect.

 

That's not correct. Read the tweet. She explains the remark that she took issue with.

What evidence of that is there? Even Hooven's article doesn't make that claim. It seems you've decided that there needs to be a villain in this story and have decided to blame the student.

1. When you can't even be honest about the student's objection, I'm not sure how we're supposed to have a conversation on this. Let's at least argue based on the same factual universe.
2. What's the problem here? I'd be 100% on board with you that there's a problem, and a big one, if Harvard had punished her for her comments. But Harvard didn't punish her. Harvard didn't pressure her to resign. She quit because she was unhappy.

Why was she unhappy? Because her decisions and words led to her colleagues and the students in the department to disassociate from her. Freedom of association is at the core of any free society. So am I supposed to be outraged that these people made their own choices and exercised that freedom?

Would I have done the same things? No. I think it would have been more productive to sit down and talk with her about why I think she was misguided in her answer on the second question. It didn't feel to me that she was coming at it from a place of malice. But we all have different worldviews and lines we draw.

Social consequences are fair game. It is our best societal defense to harmful ideologies (because the First Amendment correctly keeps the government out of it). And let's be honest, you don't disagree with that principle. If you found out that a person you knew was secretly a current member of the Ku Klux Klan or a Neo-Nazi, I expect you'd choose to stop associating with them. Right?

So your issue here is that you don't think Hooven SHOULD have suffered social consequences, not that social consequences are inherently a bad thing. You're entitled to that opinion. But the beauty of freedom is that all those people at Harvard have the right to disagree and do what they think is best.

Criticize them for it. Tell them they're wrong. Have at it. But they made their decisions. And I'm not going to pretend there's some sort of principle at play here that makes what they did objectively wrong. It's all a matter of perspective and opinion.

End of the day, Hooven chose to go on Fox News and say what she said. Her colleagues and students didn't like it. They imposed social consequences. Hooven could have chosen to say, "To hell with you, I'm right" and kept right on doing her job. But she didn't. She walked away. That was certainly her right. Actions have consequences. Make sure the juice is worth the squeeze.

As for me being no different than the Jan 6thers or vax deniers, that's as absurd as your original comment comparing the situation to China's authoritarian regime.

 

Whatever the case, the DEI person decided to lead with “tranphobic” and “appalled”. If she had a substantive disagreement that could have been addressed without immediately making the discussion toxic. As soon as you are labeled transphobe (or racist, etc) by a DEI person, and noticed she called attention to her DEI status she made it an uphill battle for Hooven. If she wanted a civil discussion you don’t start the conversation that way.

It was discussed at length in the podcast I linked.

now I am a liar. Always the personal attacks and character assassination with you.

you’ve taken this line of discussion before. All is ok because it was peer pressure of sorts. Mob bullying to exact social conformance is ok with you, except when it isn’t. When the religious right silence those who disagree with them, is that ok with you? What about minorities who live in an area but choose to stay quiet to avoid social or professional onsequences? MAGA conspiracy types who shout down Sandy Hook parents to silence them. Fair game, right?

The point is in colleges like this diversity of thought is not permitted. A fairly non controversial statement is made and then a DEI person decides to call the statements transphobic and bring attention to her DEI credentials. Your take is everybody else at Harvard agrees with the DEI person. A different take is nobody else wants to speak out against this, for fear of being ostracized. It’s the same in China if a member of the communist party criticizes you, others probably won’t come running to your defense.

 

To follow up if you go to about 28 minutes in the podcast Hooven recalls after the Twitter exchange the graduate student union published in the Harvard Crimson that Hooven brought “racist abuse and death threats” upon Lewis due to the Twitter exchange, which ultimately was started by Lewis - and that is likely what pretty much ended her ability to effectively do her job.

 

She called her remarks transphobic.

Yet, she made no mention of it in the article she wrote six months ago.

You can get defensive if you want. I posted the tweet where she explained her objections. You quoted the post, and then you falsely claimed she objected to something else. Is that not a lie? Did you not see the tweet?

Yes, it is all fair game. That's what freedom of speech and association entail. Social consequences are part of life. You won't dispute that. It's why you refused to answer the question: Would you stop associating with a person if you found out that they are secretly a member of the Ku Klux Klan?

Guess what freedoms I have? I can choose to stand up to the religious right or the MAGA conspiracy types. I can choose to simply not associate with them. Or I can find my own group of likeminded people, we can impose social consequences on the other group. That's the beauty of living in a free society.

Social consequences are fine. When malicious groups misuse them, I can criticize them for it. You can too. And when we engage on the substance, that can make for a worthwhile discussion. Just spare me the sanctimony about "cancel culture." Because almost nobody actually believes in this principle they're pretending to support. How do I know? Most of the anti-cancel-culture folks were all too happy to try and "cancel" Claudine Gay!

Right. Because Hooven quit her job voluntarily after Harvard took no action against her. What's your complaint? That universities can't force students and/or faculty to be nice to or friends with people they don't like? Good. That's freedom.

It was "fairly non controversial" in your opinion. To others, it wasn't. They have every right to criticize Hooven for it. And they have every right to ultimately decide they don't want to associate with her.

My take isn't that everybody at Harvard agrees. My take is that enough people agreed that Hooven decided to quit because she no longer felt welcome there. If you want to talk about whether people acted disproportionately in punishing her for the comments, I'm game (and I imagine we agree more than we disagree). But what I won't do is indulge the "cancel culture" stuff. Basically everybody thinks it's fine to "cancel" people. The dispute is over where to draw the line.

It's a choice. People have been willing to be beaten, imprisoned, tortured, and killed in the fight for equality. If folks decide this battle isn't worth fighting, what does that say about how much they really care about the stakes? If you thought it was a grave injustice, would you refuse to speak up because some people might not like you for it?

Sorry, this isn't compelling to me. I work often with people who speak up knowing that people will hate them for it and the government may try to retaliate against them for doing what's right. Why? Because they believe the cause they're fighting for is worth it.

No, man, China isn't an authoritarian state because people refuse to be friends with you if you say stuff they don't like. China is an authoritarian state because it has a history of imprisoning and killing dissenters.

 

I appreciate this added context. I found the Crimson article:
Biology Lecturer’s Comments on Biological Sex Draw Backlash | News | The Harvard Crimson
Hooven and Lewis have both received support and criticism on Twitter, though tweets criticizing Lewis’s original response have now reached the thousands.

In a statement to The Crimson on Friday, Lewis said she condemned “all harassment, abuse, and racism that has been directed toward anyone involved in the recent conversations.”

“I also want to reiterate that I respect Carole as both a scientist and valuable member of our department,” Lewis wrote. Lewis added that she believes the department can find mutual understanding over “inclusive language regarding biological sex and varying gender identities” to promote a supportive environment.

Several graduate students in the department have also circulated a statement in support of Lewis, condemning the “harassment, racist abuse, and threats of physical harm” she faced, and challenging Hooven’s views.
------------------------------------------------------
The statement from the graduate students in the department does criticize Hooven. But notably, Lewis did not.

 

Be careful, you are making too much sense. You will never convince a raciest who believes everyone else is a racist, of anything——-

 

After Harvard shakeup, Chris Rufo offers conservative game plan to retake elite institutions

 

My point was never to say Lewis was the problem. She was part of it as she started it, but it’s the whole environment of intolerance that effectively made it impossible for Hooven, an otherwise very popular teacher for two decades to be able to work.

 

I previously read that. It annoys me how people like him seem to think they are entitled to get their way and enforce their views and rules on everyone, similar to those Harvard pukes who want to jam their reality into everybody else.

This is the problem though. If those on the left can’t police themselves, then those on the right will, and possibly far right. I’ve heard it said that if democrats (small d) can’t manage a countries border, eventually fascists will. Same concept here.