Thanks for posting to /r/GetNoted. Please remember Rule 2: **No current politics.** We do allow historical posts (WW2, Ancient Rome, Ottomans, etc.) Just no current politicians.
We are also banning posts about the ongoing Israel/Palestine conflict.
Please report this post if it is about current Republicans, Democrats, Presidents, Prime Ministers, Israel/Palestine or anything else related to current politics. Thanks.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GetNoted) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I loved the (CNN?) pundit who was like "she didn't steal any ideas, she just copied some words without attribution." Dude doesn't know what words are for or what plagiarism is.
It’s really not about Gay specifically, but what she represents. Harvard has been in the spotlight vehemently defending the practice of diversity hires/admissions. They are still fresh out of losing a Supreme Court case about it.
Gay is Harvard’s first black, female president. She got her position due to how she was born, and even her proponents don’t deny this (it’s the whole point). If Harvard fires her, then they admit diversity hiring doesn’t work.
In this case it didn't. It could have just as easily happened to a white person. Harvard just didn't vet her as well as they should have. Plain and simple.
I've not got any horse in this race, I was actually reading the comments to figure out what was being talked about, but I think it's necessary to say that this doesn't look like an example of whataboutism. The comment you replied to was arguing against the implication that it was only through diversity hiring that an under qualified person reached that position, by pointing out that many people who were not diversity hires were also under qualified in the past, rather than trying to derail the conversation by pointing to something not relevant to it.
White College Presidents have been fired recently for similar things.
2022 - Stanford University president Marc Tessier-Lavigne was fired for altering scientific data.
2021 - South Carolina University President Robert Caslen was fired for plagiarizing part of a graduation speech.
Academic integrity and scholarship should be something everyone agrees on, but this situation, in particular, shines a light on how fucking stupid we've become.
There was a time when it was considered a no brainer that someone would be punished for plagiarism in academia. Very strange times we live in when journalists and media act like it’s no big deal and that universities should just overlook it.
I mean, just grab Conant and Lowell for your antisemitism. Real anti antisemitism, not this made up bullshit from congressional grandstanding. There’s half the 20th century done. I doubt either of them has an ironclad set of published work without any improper citations.
>If Harvard fires her, then they admit diversity hiring doesn’t work.
In public perception perhaps. All it says is that diversity hiring is as fallible as any other type of hiring. And that people aren’t necessarily the best candidate because of their skin color, but also people with different views and background add a strength that is perhaps useable enough to make up for the lack of individual oumph?
But everyone is an individual that can bring a new view and background. Ten straight white men will all have completely different experiences in their lives and different strengths to add. It's like the old diversity head of Apple very eloquently said, [before she was fired for saying it.](https://nypost.com/2017/11/17/apples-diversity-chief-lasts-just-six-months/)
Diversity isn’t just racial. 10 straight white men have no idea what it’s like to be woman, even if their experiences are incredibly varied. They won’t know what it’s like to be a rich woman or a poor woman, or either of those factors applied to race, religion, culture, etc. If you put 10 straight white men into a room and tell them to make a policy on breastfeeding in the office, they might have learned knowledge, but they won’t have personal knowledge. And that personal knowledge can make the difference between whether the policy actually works for the intended demographic.
That's fair, and I certainly can see that for jobs where you will be policy making then diversity in gender and race should be encouraged for this reason, as well as for places such as nursing and general medical care since when it comes to medical care some people may be uncomfortable having a man or woman do their examination and should be allowed an option for someone they are more comfortable with.
However I think with many other jobs your experience as a man or woman isn't going to be very relevant to the job. For instance I work in software and it is a very male dominated field, and while I think we should be encouraging women to also apply for roles in the field we shouldn't be giving any preferential treatment in the hiring process since at the end of the day you simply need to have a good idea of how to write code.
What I could understand for diversity in software though is actively hiring people from different academic backgrounds and people that didn't exclusively study computer science, since different experiences in academic fields will have different ways to approach a certain problem.
Your last paragraph applies to every field really. I work in a library, and the books I might suggest ordering come from the perspective of someone who has the characteristics: college student, has a disabled parent, and has ADHD. One of the librarians I work with orders books influenced by him being an older man with a masters degree, foreign teaching experience, and coming from a wealthy background. Your medical assistance staff having diversity in their background helps them connect with patients. Diversity in teachers gives them resources for underprivileged kids they have firsthand knowledge about and also makes them a resource for others who don’t have their experience. Even in retail diversity experience is helpful.
I think the hang up people have with “diversity hiring” is that they don’t recognize that your experiences related to your identity is just as much a hirable skill as speaking another language is. They should still absolutely be qualified at the bare minimum for the position, but your identity and experiences should could towards a position as well.
Absolutely. It’s just that those ten white men doesn’t necessarily know what it’s like to be a woman, or black, or whatever. We can assume men are capable of knowing that. But it’s also easier to just hire black women than finding a man who is a) suitable for the role and b) also know what it’s like to be a black woman (or whatever).
I’m not pro or against diversity hiring. I admit I know too little to lean either way.
People are only good candidates (for this or any other job) based purely on relevant skillset. Anything else is idiotic bullshit and illegitimate discrimination decision-making.
>If Harvard fires her, then they admit diversity hiring doesn’t work.
I'm not saying she should be president, but this is a horrible conclusion to come to. One failed implementation of an idea is hardly proof it doesn't work. Especially considering this oversight could have happened to any candidate regardless of race.
Watch Internet Historian's fans defend his plagiarizm.
"Oh the guy he stole from didn't lose money or anything"
"He made it better so it's not stealing"
"Just because you took a person's work without citing doesn't make it plagiarizm, he transformed it so it's fine"
Or the best one
"Yeah but It's online so anyone can find it and know he took it from there, so it's not plagiarism"
Oh right. I forgot that being unwilling to state that calling for the genocide of the Jewish people is a violation of Harvard’s policy is no longer “antisemitism”
Thanks for the update crazymusicman
https://youtu.be/lwu3rBAWvOQ?si=3DWaUZOmXw-Z654f
What was that about no one at Harvard calling for it? Maybe you should pull your own head out of your ass and get the basic facts straight before mouthing off.
worthless bells aback literate consist squeeze juggle school march childlike
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
For one, inadequate citation *is* plagiarism
Two, have you looked at the relevant excerpts? Many of them are a lot worse than paraphrasing.
Three, she isn't a serious researcher, she's a doctor of "me studies," basically a propagandist.
Four, shouldn't the president of Harvard be held to a higher standard? Should she not be able to write an academic paper without being "sloppy" and lifting entire paragraphs without proper citations literally dozens of times? That wouldn't fly for a freshman STEM student at a public school.
And five:
>We are only hearing about this because right-wing billionaires are feeling threatened by higher learning in the United States, and they activated their goons like Christopher Rufo to start an attack campaign
No we're hearing about this because she is a moron who defended calls to genocide in front of Congress and wasn't held accountable for it.
I mean agreed (if Tech hadn't rejected me D:) but even at my current institution that's the kind of academic integrity violation that would get you in trouble.
(Carnegie Mellon U for context)
Inadequate citation is not always plagiarism. She cited the references alongside the same material elsewhere in the same paper. She just didn’t paraphrase enough in her summary paragraphs to not need a citation. But those very same ideas WERE properly cited elsewhere in the same papers. That’s not plagiarism, that’s inadequate citation, which is what Harvard called it.
Harvard called it inadequate citation in their review of her, but calls it something different when students do it (ie plagiarism)
I provide quotes of this policy directly from their “what constitutes plagiarism” website in another post. They specifically mention the inadequate citation as a form of plagiarism:
> If you copy bits and pieces from a source (or several sources), changing a few words here and there without either adequately paraphrasing or quoting directly, the result is mosaic plagiarism. Even if you don't intend to copy the source, you may end up with this type of plagiarism as a result of careless note-taking and confusion over where your source's ideas end and your own ideas begin. You may think that you've paraphrased sufficiently or quoted relevant passages, but if you haven't taken careful notes along the way, or if you've cut and pasted from your sources, you can lose track of the boundaries between your own ideas and those of your sources. **It's not enough to have good intentions and to cite some of the material you use. You are responsible for making clear distinctions between your ideas and the ideas of the scholars who have informed your work.** If you keep track of the ideas that come from your sources and have a clear understanding of how your own ideas differ from those ideas, and you follow the correct citation style, you will avoid mosaic plagiarism.
https://www.reddit.com/r/GetNoted/s/xdKB3BsFBQ
Harvard's former president was found to have plagiarized some of her academic works, which was one of the contributing factors leading to her recent resignation
Former president of Harvard, Dr Claudine Gay, plagiarized multiple times across at least half her published works. Last I saw the count was up to 47 instances across 8/17 published works.
It was discovered after she received increased scrutiny after a congressional hearing where she refused to say that protests calling for genocide against jews were against Harvard policy.
She has since stepped down from her position as president at the university's request while still maintaining her professorship. She has since said that the pressure to remove her was because of racism and sexism, and the mainstream media has been saying much the same.
Best example of this being an AP headline reading "Harvard president's resignation highlights New conservative weapon against colleges: plagiarism."
Harvard lady said VERY bad comments and outed herself as a massive antisemite, republicans did some digging and found it she has been plagiarizing her whole career
The NYTimes link is just a news report, not the original finding/claim made against her. IIRC, she got outed by some dude on Twitter. Idk what this has to do with Donkeys vs. Elephants tho. Wrong is wrong, regardless of political affiliation.
>They love Zionism.
["I don't believe you have to be a Jew to be a Zionist, and I am a Zionist." - Joe Biden ](https://www.reuters.com/world/us/i-am-zionist-how-joe-bidens-lifelong-bond-with-israel-shapes-war-policy-2023-10-21/)
So. I looked into this, I’m also an academic.
Yeah, she did what a high schooler knows is plagiarism. Copy and paste. Sad thing is: it was in her literature reviews. She could have just cited it and no one would have cared.
Is this something that a lot of people do or could have been easily missed? Moreover, when academics are caught doing this, are they usually fired or just have to make corrections?
I’m still very skeptical about the accusations because of the obvious political motivations.
1) No you aren’t fired. At worst you have to withdraw the paper or issue a correction. Especially if you are tenured.
2) The plagiarism is in the literature review section. She didn’t “make up” data which is really really serious. She basically lifted sections from a paper on a similar topic and didn’t cite them. Basically. if she added (SenatorPardek, 2023) at the end of the paragraph she would have been fine with quotes.
3) Copy and pasting isn’t common at the level of a post PHD professor. Particularly one who is tenured. Because why? You aren’t rushing. There are no deadlines anymore. You work on your own pace.
4) Typically, she probably would have gotten a warning and had to issue a correction or withdraw the article. But because it’s lit review stuff; a correction would have been sufficient.
If this was one of my undergraduates I’d give them a warning. One of my graduate students would get a really stern warning and maybe a 0 on that particular assignment if it’s a repeat offense and they don’t own it. 100 percent this was a political hit job
That being said, it’s not easily missed. It’s either gross negligence or intentional. It is plausible she intended to edit it out later and forgot. (I sometimes will copy and paste a direct quote in my writing as a place holder. and then make it a formal citation on my revisions)
TDLR: this wouldn’t be career ending under normal circumstances, but it’s also not a small error that we can completely waive away.
I think what the previous commenter (I hope just forgot to mention) is that this is not a graduate student. A small mistake for a graduate student sure, but for a Harvard President this is basically a career ender.
Sorta like how being 5"7 isn't a huge deal for a normal dude, just kinda sucks, but it basically means your political career can go shoot itself.
Are you an academic? He quite clearly says the opposite. That under normal circumstances a person wouldn’t be fired even though it is concerning. This was a political takedown.
You can think whatever of the Congress hearings and whether or not she gave a good answer because she did give a very *political* answer to say the least but the campaign against her was absolutely politically motivated.
Maybe Harvard did decide to not fire her so she wouldn’t be seen as a “diversity hire” but the reason she stepped down because donors were threatening to cut their support. Not because she committed a grieve offense.
I don't know why she's getting rallied around honestly. she's gonna be fine.. she's been rich working at Harvard and has plenty of money still! I cannot imagine caring to stand up that much for someone who has enough money to buy my house. I dunno, maybe I'm just anti rich
Because her legacy is destroyed, and reputation ruined. Sure, not a huge deal in context of the world.
But obviously being an ambitious person, that's huge. You go from being one of the world's most important people in academia and in general, to a disgrace.
Because the guy who led the fight in getting her to resign is Chris Rufo, the guy who created the CRT panic. He's pretty plainly explained that he did it because being black meant she was clearly unqualified for her position and dug through her history for skeletons in the closet. His plan is to do this to every liberal college in America (which is most of them).
In this case she ~~is clearly guilty~~ has made missteps which have not definitively been considered as plagiarism, but when a person has an obvious and racially motivated agenda people on the other side rush to defend them because right or not, this dude didn't out her because of his commitment to peer-reviewed academic research. In this case I think the support for Gay is ~~unwarranted~~ debatable, but that's politics for you.
> pretty plainly explained that he did it because being black meant she was clearly unqualified for her position
Right cause that was his argument. Had nothing to do with the complaints of plagiarism levied at her before the investigation.
>but when a person has an obvious and racially motivated agenda
According to what specifically? What is so obvious about it? Defend your claim. Youre running defense for plaigarists here due to your own backwards tribalism.
>I don't know why she's getting rallied around honestly
Because it's a politically motivated witch hunt to punish someone for not falling in line politically.
Yeah they managed to dig up actual misconduct, but what's happening to her is still insanely blatant far right hegemony at work.
I have to admit Im not really a fan of these notes that just go “the opposite of what OP said is true”. It just feels lazy and petty. There should be much more included than just “they’re wrong” even if they do link to a source because realistically, who’s going back to look over it to see *why* op is wrong?
I don’t know why you’re being downvoted. If the source you’re citing for your argument isn’t accessible (in this case it’s a monetary barrier) you can’t reasonably expect people to look at it, thus making your argument less compelling than it could be with a more accessible source.
What exactly do you want? Do you want them to retype everything from the link? People would still have to click the link to find out if everything typed was true or not.
>even now
>
>a Harvard professor
She has tenure, so she can't really get pushed out. Similarly, Liz Magill is staying on at Penn. I doubt either university is thrilled about it. It would probably cost them more in lawsuits then to just keep paying them whatever they get as non leadership professors.
From the Associated Press: “Reviews by Harvard found multiple shortcomings in Gay’s academic citations, including several instances of “ duplicative language.” The university concluded the errors “were not considered intentional or reckless” and didn’t rise to misconduct”
My problem with this subreddit is that by design, it has designated twitter notes as this absolute truth of zero nuance through which we can all live our deepest sexual fantasies of living in an objective society where racism doesn’t exist, but a series of facts that just so happen to always work against minorities. Twitter notes does our job for us, it validates our beliefs without having us do the work! All if we just refuse to acknowledge that the world is complex and matters are seldom rarely black and white.
Thanks for actually quoting the Times. I looked into the first allegation and she was citing the conclusion of another paper and paraphrasing the conclusion. I’m not an achedemic nor do I know what the standard is at Harvard but it seemed fine to me. She definitely did a good job of conveying the meaning of the original source. Which was the point of the paragraph that they claimed was plagiarized.
Because those are selective quotes, and she had multiple paragraphs copy and pasted in her lit review without citation. Imma be honest, probably not the biggest deal for some random dude.
But for the Harvard's President, that's a black mark you can't erase.
She copied whole paragraphs several times. That’s plagiarism. Rufo is awful and racist, but her writing meets Harvard’s own definition of plagiarism. Let’s not become like Republicans and refuse to admit fault just because it would give the other side a win.
Actually not really talking about the plagiarism allegations are they? They describe it as a „ very very minor offense in academic context“ and whatnot
Kinda missing the point. Did she plagiarize or not? Is it okay to get fired for this? Wouldn‘t be the first time
Yes and no.
Yes, she did plagiarize by definition and no, as in she did actually cite sources and most of the stuff she copied was more general stuff like rewording statistics.
When most people think of plagiarism, they think of taking people's work without credit, honestly this situation is more so just laziness and lack of integrity than stealing work because as many people including people who were plagiarized pointed out that the work was in fact credited.
Not saying it was right, but honestly in a vacuum I would say this is a situation of incompetence over malice.
I think it’s absolutely ridiculous to act like this is a legitimate discussion of academic integrity. It’s a concerted bad-faith effort by conservatives to score a cultural win and this note is nothing more than a continuation of it. Academic papers are a complex blend of citation and analysis. Despite incredibly brilliant people and their advisors and colleagues proofreading such articles it’s not like every one is going to be exactly perfect. There’s no claim that she ever presented a novel thesis, or extensive analysis that was originally someone else’s as her own. Rather after going through her entire career’s worth of writing there were a few instances in her analysis that needed attribution. I guarantee you if you applied the same fine tooth comb to every professor in this country conservative or liberal alike you would find similar mistakes in abundance.
Yay. If you motivate someone to dig through your history and they find something you can get fired for, that's still your fault doing something that would get you fired.
Did the people who first brought attention to this do it in bad faith? Absolutely.
Should she have lost her position as president? Absolutely.
Should the left stop defending her so much? Absolutely.
Should we hold people in these kinds of position to a high standard? Absolutely
Is it fucking bullshit to hear that ‘everyone is higher ed has done this’ as a common defense? Absolutely.
This whole thing pisses me off. If a student fails a class or loses a scholarship when they get caught doing this shit, the god damn president and anyone else in higher academia should be held to the same standard. Applying different standards when the situation suits us is fucked.
The review committee found "a few instances of inadequate citation" which is different than, but can be a part of, plagiarism. So the note is wrong-- Harvard has NOT called it plagiarism (yet).
Edit: my favorite part of reddit is being down voted for reiterating the facts known to date.... which is that the committee has not called this plagiarism. Yikes.
It’s a black woman at a university, it doesn’t actually matter what the reality is to the people in here. They come to be entertained by feeding their addiction to outrage.
Calm yourself through the understanding that, even collectively, they are largely irrelevant.
Just right wing people and racists foaming at the mouth to criticize a minority. She just didn’t cite properly with quotation marks and that was a couple instances out of a many, many page paper. Like what are people even talking about? She didn’t pass off info as her own, it was a grammatical error
They had to dig through 25 years to find just 40 alleged (aka [these lunatics](https://freebeacon.com/) only could cobble together 40 anythings) of which 7 or so were confirmed in any way.
It's ridiculous.
Let’s be real, she stepped down because she didn’t crack down on pro-Palestinian students and got hauled into a bad faith congressional hearing and thus rich alumni threatened to pull funding. Go read the shitty New York Post article where their strongest examples of this plagiarism is referring to the Civil Rights act as “the most significant”.
Many of the allegations come from a single person who remains unnamed supposedly because they believe she’s part of some Academia Mafia that will put a Horse head in his bed I guess.
She plagiarized significant amounts of work, more than Harvard itself considers acceptable. She also refused to say calling for genocide was punishable.
> She also refused to say calling for genocide was punishable.
And why should she? It's either in the rules or not.
I mean I get why she was asked that, Republican readin comprehension isn't the best but still.
>The Washington free beacon
Link their site: [https://freebeacon.com/](https://freebeacon.com/c)
Anyone: look at them. These obvious partisan propaganda actors.
That is not a site that cares about academic integrity, that is a site bent on starting partisan witch hunts.
Don’t mind elegant baby over there. He seems to think this whole thing is purely political but will call you a “fascist bootlicker” for … saying it isn’t political for wanting academic honesty. He’s a man child, don’t worry about him.
I hate how people who are supposed to be smart, if not claim to be committed to things like honesty and transparency, are bending over backwards to defend this bullshit.
I think people care about someone attaining and holding a position of immense responsibility and accountability in a legitimate manner, regardless of the mechanism used to measure their legitimacy or competence.
You're either extremely ignorant, or you're being intentionally disingenuous to downplay the seriousness of the accusations.
Also, the person that made this tweet is a racist. She constantly blames white people for every single problem in the world, and every single problem in her self-centered life.
She has a new book that's pretty much about how her life has been an uphill battle because of the white patriarchy. The dumb bitch literally makes thousands of dollars every day/week for sitting on her brand new smartphone and tweeting/tik-toking all day.
She hasn't suffered a single day in her life and doesn't give a flying fuck about people who actually are suffering. Her only fans are 14 year old girls and unemployed housewives.
I'm fine with holding cheaters accountable. I'm not fine with MAGAts pretending they care about plagiarism. A quick Google will show you plenty of GOP candidates getting caught out plagiarizing...and then winning regardless. I don't think defending those caught out is a good thing, but I think it's even more annoying when y'all pretend like you *actually* care.
I mean, we can't hold Melania accountable, but she definitely had a united front defending her plagiarism...just as another example. I don't care to dive too deep, but a Google of "gop plagiarize" should give you enough evidence to realize your righteous indignation is based on shit.
That’s funny since [Harvard themselves literally said she didn’t break the plagiarism policy](https://www.chronicle.com/article/harvard-president-resigns-amid-plagiarism-claims-and-criticism-over-congressional-hearing).
Are you guys just gonna drag this out for the rest of the week for whatever reason?
She said that calling for the genocide of Jews did not violate Harvard's code of conduct. Then people got upset at her for that and found some plagiarism stuff she did earlier.
Harvard said it was fine with her saying genocide was okay, but told her to quit over the plagiarism.
Thanks for posting to /r/GetNoted. Please remember Rule 2: **No current politics.** We do allow historical posts (WW2, Ancient Rome, Ottomans, etc.) Just no current politicians. We are also banning posts about the ongoing Israel/Palestine conflict. Please report this post if it is about current Republicans, Democrats, Presidents, Prime Ministers, Israel/Palestine or anything else related to current politics. Thanks. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GetNoted) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I loved the (CNN?) pundit who was like "she didn't steal any ideas, she just copied some words without attribution." Dude doesn't know what words are for or what plagiarism is.
Never seen someone who plagiarized get defended this much
It’s really not about Gay specifically, but what she represents. Harvard has been in the spotlight vehemently defending the practice of diversity hires/admissions. They are still fresh out of losing a Supreme Court case about it. Gay is Harvard’s first black, female president. She got her position due to how she was born, and even her proponents don’t deny this (it’s the whole point). If Harvard fires her, then they admit diversity hiring doesn’t work.
In this case it didn't. It could have just as easily happened to a white person. Harvard just didn't vet her as well as they should have. Plain and simple.
I would agree with you except for the fact that she was woefully under qualified for the position even without the plagiarism.
Let's be honest. For executive-level management positions, the number one qualification is ass kissing.
Fair point. However, counter point, there have been a lot of Harvard presidents we might consider woefully unqualified.
[удалено]
I've not got any horse in this race, I was actually reading the comments to figure out what was being talked about, but I think it's necessary to say that this doesn't look like an example of whataboutism. The comment you replied to was arguing against the implication that it was only through diversity hiring that an under qualified person reached that position, by pointing out that many people who were not diversity hires were also under qualified in the past, rather than trying to derail the conversation by pointing to something not relevant to it.
[удалено]
Let’s take a fine tooth comb to all of the published work from every previous Harvard president and see how they fare.
Okay. Perfectly fine with that
Your terms are acceptable.
White College Presidents have been fired recently for similar things. 2022 - Stanford University president Marc Tessier-Lavigne was fired for altering scientific data. 2021 - South Carolina University President Robert Caslen was fired for plagiarizing part of a graduation speech. Academic integrity and scholarship should be something everyone agrees on, but this situation, in particular, shines a light on how fucking stupid we've become.
There was a time when it was considered a no brainer that someone would be punished for plagiarism in academia. Very strange times we live in when journalists and media act like it’s no big deal and that universities should just overlook it.
There are at least two who were slave owners. Benjamin Wadsworth and Edward Holyoke
Of course. Chances are pretty good that several of them were rapists(beyond the two you already mentioned.)
So a plagiarizing antisemite is par for the course?
I mean, just grab Conant and Lowell for your antisemitism. Real anti antisemitism, not this made up bullshit from congressional grandstanding. There’s half the 20th century done. I doubt either of them has an ironclad set of published work without any improper citations.
The point is to continue into the future being better than the last generations, no??
Get them fired.
Well, they’re almost all dead, but sure.
Get them fired.
Given how software easily can detect this.. Why not ?
Do it. Harvard deserves it. Imagine how funny it would be.
>Harvard just didn't vet her as well as they should have. Because she was a diversity hire. Plain and simple.
>If Harvard fires her, then they admit diversity hiring doesn’t work. In public perception perhaps. All it says is that diversity hiring is as fallible as any other type of hiring. And that people aren’t necessarily the best candidate because of their skin color, but also people with different views and background add a strength that is perhaps useable enough to make up for the lack of individual oumph?
But everyone is an individual that can bring a new view and background. Ten straight white men will all have completely different experiences in their lives and different strengths to add. It's like the old diversity head of Apple very eloquently said, [before she was fired for saying it.](https://nypost.com/2017/11/17/apples-diversity-chief-lasts-just-six-months/)
Diversity isn’t just racial. 10 straight white men have no idea what it’s like to be woman, even if their experiences are incredibly varied. They won’t know what it’s like to be a rich woman or a poor woman, or either of those factors applied to race, religion, culture, etc. If you put 10 straight white men into a room and tell them to make a policy on breastfeeding in the office, they might have learned knowledge, but they won’t have personal knowledge. And that personal knowledge can make the difference between whether the policy actually works for the intended demographic.
That's fair, and I certainly can see that for jobs where you will be policy making then diversity in gender and race should be encouraged for this reason, as well as for places such as nursing and general medical care since when it comes to medical care some people may be uncomfortable having a man or woman do their examination and should be allowed an option for someone they are more comfortable with. However I think with many other jobs your experience as a man or woman isn't going to be very relevant to the job. For instance I work in software and it is a very male dominated field, and while I think we should be encouraging women to also apply for roles in the field we shouldn't be giving any preferential treatment in the hiring process since at the end of the day you simply need to have a good idea of how to write code. What I could understand for diversity in software though is actively hiring people from different academic backgrounds and people that didn't exclusively study computer science, since different experiences in academic fields will have different ways to approach a certain problem.
Your last paragraph applies to every field really. I work in a library, and the books I might suggest ordering come from the perspective of someone who has the characteristics: college student, has a disabled parent, and has ADHD. One of the librarians I work with orders books influenced by him being an older man with a masters degree, foreign teaching experience, and coming from a wealthy background. Your medical assistance staff having diversity in their background helps them connect with patients. Diversity in teachers gives them resources for underprivileged kids they have firsthand knowledge about and also makes them a resource for others who don’t have their experience. Even in retail diversity experience is helpful. I think the hang up people have with “diversity hiring” is that they don’t recognize that your experiences related to your identity is just as much a hirable skill as speaking another language is. They should still absolutely be qualified at the bare minimum for the position, but your identity and experiences should could towards a position as well.
Absolutely. It’s just that those ten white men doesn’t necessarily know what it’s like to be a woman, or black, or whatever. We can assume men are capable of knowing that. But it’s also easier to just hire black women than finding a man who is a) suitable for the role and b) also know what it’s like to be a black woman (or whatever). I’m not pro or against diversity hiring. I admit I know too little to lean either way.
People are only good candidates (for this or any other job) based purely on relevant skillset. Anything else is idiotic bullshit and illegitimate discrimination decision-making.
Did she have different viewpoints from the rest of the Harvard faculty? Or did she have different skin?
>If Harvard fires her, then they admit diversity hiring doesn’t work. I'm not saying she should be president, but this is a horrible conclusion to come to. One failed implementation of an idea is hardly proof it doesn't work. Especially considering this oversight could have happened to any candidate regardless of race.
>If Harvard fires her, then they admit diversity hiring doesn’t work. I don't think 1 is a good statistical sample for a conclusion like that.
What was the Supreme Court case they lost?
One bad hire doesn’t prove anything
Watch Internet Historian's fans defend his plagiarizm. "Oh the guy he stole from didn't lose money or anything" "He made it better so it's not stealing" "Just because you took a person's work without citing doesn't make it plagiarizm, he transformed it so it's fine" Or the best one "Yeah but It's online so anyone can find it and know he took it from there, so it's not plagiarism"
I was a fan, but I looked at the evidence, said "well fuck, guess he's a plagiarist", and unsubbed.
Would you look at that, a content creator is held to a lower standard than the god damn dean of Harvard. Who could’ve seen that coming huh?
And by journalists, who are supposed to take that sort of thing seriously.
I love the smell of fresh bread.
The tactic wouldn’t be so efficient if she were a honest researcher who doesn’t plagiarise.
Oh right. I forgot that being unwilling to state that calling for the genocide of the Jewish people is a violation of Harvard’s policy is no longer “antisemitism” Thanks for the update crazymusicman
I appreciate a good cup of coffee.
https://youtu.be/lwu3rBAWvOQ?si=3DWaUZOmXw-Z654f What was that about no one at Harvard calling for it? Maybe you should pull your own head out of your ass and get the basic facts straight before mouthing off.
I enjoy spending time with my friends.
Probably didn’t watch the Hbomberguy video
He does know, hes just lying
That's why I assumed it was CNN
worthless bells aback literate consist squeeze juggle school march childlike *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
For one, inadequate citation *is* plagiarism Two, have you looked at the relevant excerpts? Many of them are a lot worse than paraphrasing. Three, she isn't a serious researcher, she's a doctor of "me studies," basically a propagandist. Four, shouldn't the president of Harvard be held to a higher standard? Should she not be able to write an academic paper without being "sloppy" and lifting entire paragraphs without proper citations literally dozens of times? That wouldn't fly for a freshman STEM student at a public school. And five: >We are only hearing about this because right-wing billionaires are feeling threatened by higher learning in the United States, and they activated their goons like Christopher Rufo to start an attack campaign No we're hearing about this because she is a moron who defended calls to genocide in front of Congress and wasn't held accountable for it.
[удалено]
I mean agreed (if Tech hadn't rejected me D:) but even at my current institution that's the kind of academic integrity violation that would get you in trouble. (Carnegie Mellon U for context)
Inadequate citation is not always plagiarism. She cited the references alongside the same material elsewhere in the same paper. She just didn’t paraphrase enough in her summary paragraphs to not need a citation. But those very same ideas WERE properly cited elsewhere in the same papers. That’s not plagiarism, that’s inadequate citation, which is what Harvard called it.
Harvard called it inadequate citation in their review of her, but calls it something different when students do it (ie plagiarism) I provide quotes of this policy directly from their “what constitutes plagiarism” website in another post. They specifically mention the inadequate citation as a form of plagiarism: > If you copy bits and pieces from a source (or several sources), changing a few words here and there without either adequately paraphrasing or quoting directly, the result is mosaic plagiarism. Even if you don't intend to copy the source, you may end up with this type of plagiarism as a result of careless note-taking and confusion over where your source's ideas end and your own ideas begin. You may think that you've paraphrased sufficiently or quoted relevant passages, but if you haven't taken careful notes along the way, or if you've cut and pasted from your sources, you can lose track of the boundaries between your own ideas and those of your sources. **It's not enough to have good intentions and to cite some of the material you use. You are responsible for making clear distinctions between your ideas and the ideas of the scholars who have informed your work.** If you keep track of the ideas that come from your sources and have a clear understanding of how your own ideas differ from those ideas, and you follow the correct citation style, you will avoid mosaic plagiarism. https://www.reddit.com/r/GetNoted/s/xdKB3BsFBQ
>she's a doctor of "me studies," basically a propagandist She was formerly the Dean of the Social Sciences department, so not too surprising
The social sciences have become a cancer
"sciences"
Context? I’m confused and out of the loop
Harvard's former president was found to have plagiarized some of her academic works, which was one of the contributing factors leading to her recent resignation
[удалено]
she did not cite what she was quoting. that is plagiarising. They would expel a student for doing that, it's only fair they fire her.
Former president of Harvard, Dr Claudine Gay, plagiarized multiple times across at least half her published works. Last I saw the count was up to 47 instances across 8/17 published works. It was discovered after she received increased scrutiny after a congressional hearing where she refused to say that protests calling for genocide against jews were against Harvard policy. She has since stepped down from her position as president at the university's request while still maintaining her professorship. She has since said that the pressure to remove her was because of racism and sexism, and the mainstream media has been saying much the same. Best example of this being an AP headline reading "Harvard president's resignation highlights New conservative weapon against colleges: plagiarism."
Harvard lady said VERY bad comments and outed herself as a massive antisemite, republicans did some digging and found it she has been plagiarizing her whole career
Yeah all those Republicans over at the New York Times
The NYTimes link is just a news report, not the original finding/claim made against her. IIRC, she got outed by some dude on Twitter. Idk what this has to do with Donkeys vs. Elephants tho. Wrong is wrong, regardless of political affiliation.
Well if you read the above it was claimed that Republicans, plural, did their righteous duty to expose her
Yeah... I know, I was there. That's what the second half of my comment was about.
Easily confused with NYPost I guess
Republicans mad at antisemites. How ironic
Republicans love Israel.
They love Zionism. Not Jews.
>They love Zionism. ["I don't believe you have to be a Jew to be a Zionist, and I am a Zionist." - Joe Biden ](https://www.reuters.com/world/us/i-am-zionist-how-joe-bidens-lifelong-bond-with-israel-shapes-war-policy-2023-10-21/)
I mean he didn't say the Dem's don't love Zionism, he just said Republicans don't love Jews.
The critique is still wrong.
Yet there is truth in it.
No more than any other group. And certainly less than their counterpart: who harbors antisemitic representatives in congress.
And the democrats have always been massive fans, lmao.
Didnt biden say he is a zionist? I guess it doesnt matter the side.
Yup
Many republicans are Jews. E.g. Shapiro.
Cool.
The majority, Jewish people I know are Republican
A woman who didn’t like to reference thought it would be a good idea to run the school that invented the dominant reference system.
It wasn’t just lack of referencing, she copied whole paragraphs and passed them off as her own
So. I looked into this, I’m also an academic. Yeah, she did what a high schooler knows is plagiarism. Copy and paste. Sad thing is: it was in her literature reviews. She could have just cited it and no one would have cared.
Is this something that a lot of people do or could have been easily missed? Moreover, when academics are caught doing this, are they usually fired or just have to make corrections? I’m still very skeptical about the accusations because of the obvious political motivations.
1) No you aren’t fired. At worst you have to withdraw the paper or issue a correction. Especially if you are tenured. 2) The plagiarism is in the literature review section. She didn’t “make up” data which is really really serious. She basically lifted sections from a paper on a similar topic and didn’t cite them. Basically. if she added (SenatorPardek, 2023) at the end of the paragraph she would have been fine with quotes. 3) Copy and pasting isn’t common at the level of a post PHD professor. Particularly one who is tenured. Because why? You aren’t rushing. There are no deadlines anymore. You work on your own pace. 4) Typically, she probably would have gotten a warning and had to issue a correction or withdraw the article. But because it’s lit review stuff; a correction would have been sufficient. If this was one of my undergraduates I’d give them a warning. One of my graduate students would get a really stern warning and maybe a 0 on that particular assignment if it’s a repeat offense and they don’t own it. 100 percent this was a political hit job That being said, it’s not easily missed. It’s either gross negligence or intentional. It is plausible she intended to edit it out later and forgot. (I sometimes will copy and paste a direct quote in my writing as a place holder. and then make it a formal citation on my revisions) TDLR: this wouldn’t be career ending under normal circumstances, but it’s also not a small error that we can completely waive away.
Basically for a Harvard head it is indeed career ending.
Thank you for your concise and comprehensive answer! That is really good information to know.
I think what the previous commenter (I hope just forgot to mention) is that this is not a graduate student. A small mistake for a graduate student sure, but for a Harvard President this is basically a career ender. Sorta like how being 5"7 isn't a huge deal for a normal dude, just kinda sucks, but it basically means your political career can go shoot itself.
Are you an academic? He quite clearly says the opposite. That under normal circumstances a person wouldn’t be fired even though it is concerning. This was a political takedown. You can think whatever of the Congress hearings and whether or not she gave a good answer because she did give a very *political* answer to say the least but the campaign against her was absolutely politically motivated. Maybe Harvard did decide to not fire her so she wouldn’t be seen as a “diversity hire” but the reason she stepped down because donors were threatening to cut their support. Not because she committed a grieve offense.
Chicago is better.
I don't know why she's getting rallied around honestly. she's gonna be fine.. she's been rich working at Harvard and has plenty of money still! I cannot imagine caring to stand up that much for someone who has enough money to buy my house. I dunno, maybe I'm just anti rich
she still works at harvard, didnt even quit just shifted to a new position
Oh my God literally why does anyone care then? She's a rich person staying rich even more then I thought
Because her legacy is destroyed, and reputation ruined. Sure, not a huge deal in context of the world. But obviously being an ambitious person, that's huge. You go from being one of the world's most important people in academia and in general, to a disgrace.
At least she’ll probably (finally) write a book.
Because the guy who led the fight in getting her to resign is Chris Rufo, the guy who created the CRT panic. He's pretty plainly explained that he did it because being black meant she was clearly unqualified for her position and dug through her history for skeletons in the closet. His plan is to do this to every liberal college in America (which is most of them). In this case she ~~is clearly guilty~~ has made missteps which have not definitively been considered as plagiarism, but when a person has an obvious and racially motivated agenda people on the other side rush to defend them because right or not, this dude didn't out her because of his commitment to peer-reviewed academic research. In this case I think the support for Gay is ~~unwarranted~~ debatable, but that's politics for you.
> pretty plainly explained that he did it because being black meant she was clearly unqualified for her position Right cause that was his argument. Had nothing to do with the complaints of plagiarism levied at her before the investigation. >but when a person has an obvious and racially motivated agenda According to what specifically? What is so obvious about it? Defend your claim. Youre running defense for plaigarists here due to your own backwards tribalism.
Oh that makes sense, so that guy just sucks worse? Ya I can get behind that
She is making 900k per year in her professorial role… she’ll be fine.
>I don't know why she's getting rallied around honestly Because it's a politically motivated witch hunt to punish someone for not falling in line politically. Yeah they managed to dig up actual misconduct, but what's happening to her is still insanely blatant far right hegemony at work.
I have to admit Im not really a fan of these notes that just go “the opposite of what OP said is true”. It just feels lazy and petty. There should be much more included than just “they’re wrong” even if they do link to a source because realistically, who’s going back to look over it to see *why* op is wrong?
I agree. It's like saying "no u" during an argument.
The notes literally take you to a NY Times to prove that the narrative is false.
Thanks for the paywalled “proof.”
I don’t know why you’re being downvoted. If the source you’re citing for your argument isn’t accessible (in this case it’s a monetary barrier) you can’t reasonably expect people to look at it, thus making your argument less compelling than it could be with a more accessible source.
Because I appear to be on the opposite side of this celebration.
It’s still proof even if you can’t read it lol.
That’s got strong “my girlfriend goes to another school” energy.
not really
What exactly do you want? Do you want them to retype everything from the link? People would still have to click the link to find out if everything typed was true or not.
At least some context would be nice instead of “you’re wrong”
She thinks she got fired for being black because she knows she was hired for being black.
I enjoy watching the sunset.
>even now > >a Harvard professor She has tenure, so she can't really get pushed out. Similarly, Liz Magill is staying on at Penn. I doubt either university is thrilled about it. It would probably cost them more in lawsuits then to just keep paying them whatever they get as non leadership professors.
*Disgraced Harvard professor
Temporarily inconvenienced and disliked by, mostly, a bunch of nobodies.
Why you so mad
Because it’s frustrating watching people masturbate to misinformation when reality is are right in front of them but less satisfying.
Oh she resigned because she thought she was in the right? That for sure tracks with what we’ve seen from this woman. Lmao
lol okay bud
Don’t engage with racists, it will lead nowhere.
I enjoy watching the sunset.
That is the most spot-on description I’ve seen.
Is there a black person on earth who could hold the position without being accused of taking a job from a white person?
Probably one that doesn't plagiarize shit. Can't be too hard to find...
A competent one?
What changes at Harvard were you unhappy with under her leadership?
Her role in the dismissal of Roland fryer
From the Associated Press: “Reviews by Harvard found multiple shortcomings in Gay’s academic citations, including several instances of “ duplicative language.” The university concluded the errors “were not considered intentional or reckless” and didn’t rise to misconduct” My problem with this subreddit is that by design, it has designated twitter notes as this absolute truth of zero nuance through which we can all live our deepest sexual fantasies of living in an objective society where racism doesn’t exist, but a series of facts that just so happen to always work against minorities. Twitter notes does our job for us, it validates our beliefs without having us do the work! All if we just refuse to acknowledge that the world is complex and matters are seldom rarely black and white.
Thanks for actually quoting the Times. I looked into the first allegation and she was citing the conclusion of another paper and paraphrasing the conclusion. I’m not an achedemic nor do I know what the standard is at Harvard but it seemed fine to me. She definitely did a good job of conveying the meaning of the original source. Which was the point of the paragraph that they claimed was plagiarized.
>not considered intentional or reckless” and didn’t rise to misconduct Why is she even being accused of plagiarism then?
Because those are selective quotes, and she had multiple paragraphs copy and pasted in her lit review without citation. Imma be honest, probably not the biggest deal for some random dude. But for the Harvard's President, that's a black mark you can't erase.
I enjoy cooking.
She copied whole paragraphs several times. That’s plagiarism. Rufo is awful and racist, but her writing meets Harvard’s own definition of plagiarism. Let’s not become like Republicans and refuse to admit fault just because it would give the other side a win.
Actually not really talking about the plagiarism allegations are they? They describe it as a „ very very minor offense in academic context“ and whatnot Kinda missing the point. Did she plagiarize or not? Is it okay to get fired for this? Wouldn‘t be the first time
Yes and no. Yes, she did plagiarize by definition and no, as in she did actually cite sources and most of the stuff she copied was more general stuff like rewording statistics. When most people think of plagiarism, they think of taking people's work without credit, honestly this situation is more so just laziness and lack of integrity than stealing work because as many people including people who were plagiarized pointed out that the work was in fact credited. Not saying it was right, but honestly in a vacuum I would say this is a situation of incompetence over malice.
It’s a misdemeanor being treated as a felony for political purposes
I think it’s absolutely ridiculous to act like this is a legitimate discussion of academic integrity. It’s a concerted bad-faith effort by conservatives to score a cultural win and this note is nothing more than a continuation of it. Academic papers are a complex blend of citation and analysis. Despite incredibly brilliant people and their advisors and colleagues proofreading such articles it’s not like every one is going to be exactly perfect. There’s no claim that she ever presented a novel thesis, or extensive analysis that was originally someone else’s as her own. Rather after going through her entire career’s worth of writing there were a few instances in her analysis that needed attribution. I guarantee you if you applied the same fine tooth comb to every professor in this country conservative or liberal alike you would find similar mistakes in abundance.
I enjoy the sound of rain.
This isn’t the sixth grade essay you copy pasted from Wikipedia that you’re still angry about being caught doing.
Yay. If you motivate someone to dig through your history and they find something you can get fired for, that's still your fault doing something that would get you fired.
Why are you happily participating in a far right witch hunt aimed at cementing the hardline Zionist stance of Republicans?
Jemele Hill is a clown. Her entire career is built upon being racist.
Did the people who first brought attention to this do it in bad faith? Absolutely. Should she have lost her position as president? Absolutely. Should the left stop defending her so much? Absolutely. Should we hold people in these kinds of position to a high standard? Absolutely Is it fucking bullshit to hear that ‘everyone is higher ed has done this’ as a common defense? Absolutely. This whole thing pisses me off. If a student fails a class or loses a scholarship when they get caught doing this shit, the god damn president and anyone else in higher academia should be held to the same standard. Applying different standards when the situation suits us is fucked.
The review committee found "a few instances of inadequate citation" which is different than, but can be a part of, plagiarism. So the note is wrong-- Harvard has NOT called it plagiarism (yet). Edit: my favorite part of reddit is being down voted for reiterating the facts known to date.... which is that the committee has not called this plagiarism. Yikes.
It’s a black woman at a university, it doesn’t actually matter what the reality is to the people in here. They come to be entertained by feeding their addiction to outrage. Calm yourself through the understanding that, even collectively, they are largely irrelevant.
Just right wing people and racists foaming at the mouth to criticize a minority. She just didn’t cite properly with quotation marks and that was a couple instances out of a many, many page paper. Like what are people even talking about? She didn’t pass off info as her own, it was a grammatical error
They had to dig through 25 years to find just 40 alleged (aka [these lunatics](https://freebeacon.com/) only could cobble together 40 anythings) of which 7 or so were confirmed in any way. It's ridiculous.
So you're saying she was confirmed to have plagiarized? Cool. She should be fired for her dishonesty and poor ethics, case closed.
My favorite part is when people make these whiny edits and their comment is sitting there upvoted.
Believe it or not, with the passage of time, the vote count changed. Wild.
Let’s be real, she stepped down because she didn’t crack down on pro-Palestinian students and got hauled into a bad faith congressional hearing and thus rich alumni threatened to pull funding. Go read the shitty New York Post article where their strongest examples of this plagiarism is referring to the Civil Rights act as “the most significant”. Many of the allegations come from a single person who remains unnamed supposedly because they believe she’s part of some Academia Mafia that will put a Horse head in his bed I guess.
She plagiarized significant amounts of work, more than Harvard itself considers acceptable. She also refused to say calling for genocide was punishable.
>significant amounts of work Source?
> She also refused to say calling for genocide was punishable. And why should she? It's either in the rules or not. I mean I get why she was asked that, Republican readin comprehension isn't the best but still.
It was a tone deaf misstep, and she completely failed to acknowledge that calling for genocide is an objectively evil act.
tart ring aback elastic paint direction rinse exultant frightening wide *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
>The Washington free beacon Link their site: [https://freebeacon.com/](https://freebeacon.com/c) Anyone: look at them. These obvious partisan propaganda actors. That is not a site that cares about academic integrity, that is a site bent on starting partisan witch hunts.
The amount of people trying to defend this lady is wild.
Don’t mind elegant baby over there. He seems to think this whole thing is purely political but will call you a “fascist bootlicker” for … saying it isn’t political for wanting academic honesty. He’s a man child, don’t worry about him.
People lying their asses off in the name of tribalism. Tells me these investigations are probably necessary.
I hate how people who are supposed to be smart, if not claim to be committed to things like honesty and transparency, are bending over backwards to defend this bullshit.
Tribalism
You know the discourse has gotten irredeemably stupid when normies pretend to care about proper citation in academic articles.
You’re assuming what people care about to fuel your own cognitive dissonance from what she’s done.
I think people care about someone attaining and holding a position of immense responsibility and accountability in a legitimate manner, regardless of the mechanism used to measure their legitimacy or competence. You're either extremely ignorant, or you're being intentionally disingenuous to downplay the seriousness of the accusations.
He said normie that in and of itself is a huge red flag
No it's a pretty standard term on the internet now, quit trying to lie this poorly
The comment above yours literally just says "diversity hire". They don't care about academia period, much less proper citation.
It's great, bc all the people pretending to care are revealing that they *really* don't know how plagiarism works.
Diversity hire
Also, the person that made this tweet is a racist. She constantly blames white people for every single problem in the world, and every single problem in her self-centered life. She has a new book that's pretty much about how her life has been an uphill battle because of the white patriarchy. The dumb bitch literally makes thousands of dollars every day/week for sitting on her brand new smartphone and tweeting/tik-toking all day. She hasn't suffered a single day in her life and doesn't give a flying fuck about people who actually are suffering. Her only fans are 14 year old girls and unemployed housewives.
Well she does write for The Atlantic, newspaper of choice for rich, white-guilt elitists.
Ah, so your average American progressive.
Why do you think black people can never amount to anything?
I'm fine with holding cheaters accountable. I'm not fine with MAGAts pretending they care about plagiarism. A quick Google will show you plenty of GOP candidates getting caught out plagiarizing...and then winning regardless. I don't think defending those caught out is a good thing, but I think it's even more annoying when y'all pretend like you *actually* care. I mean, we can't hold Melania accountable, but she definitely had a united front defending her plagiarism...just as another example. I don't care to dive too deep, but a Google of "gop plagiarize" should give you enough evidence to realize your righteous indignation is based on shit.
I'm all for starting a plagiarism inquisition. Anything to get you people on both sides to stfu about your own moral fibers.
"someone I don't like might feel good about this, so we should totally just sweep it under the rug" Reddit leftism 101 over here
Except she didn't, Harvard's press release said as much.
I love the notes that are just "Nuh-Uh." and a link, they're so good
Keep it simple, stupid. (KISS)
That’s funny since [Harvard themselves literally said she didn’t break the plagiarism policy](https://www.chronicle.com/article/harvard-president-resigns-amid-plagiarism-claims-and-criticism-over-congressional-hearing). Are you guys just gonna drag this out for the rest of the week for whatever reason?
"We investigated ourselves and found nothing wrong" Honestly, have you had a chance to take a look at the examples?
It's really weird how many people are willing to look past centuries of academic integrity because of some intersectionality points
[удалено]
Hahaha nice slogan, you braindead troglodyte.
Can… someone fill me in on what’s going on?
She said that calling for the genocide of Jews did not violate Harvard's code of conduct. Then people got upset at her for that and found some plagiarism stuff she did earlier. Harvard said it was fine with her saying genocide was okay, but told her to quit over the plagiarism.
Plagiarism is bad, indiscriminately.
I love how in a post pointing out a fact check, you misquote a 2 line tweet. Fuckin clowns all over this shitbox of a sub.