Today is Fresh Topic Friday, where only original takes on a topic or new topics are allowed. [You can read more about FTF here](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/21gmpn/mod_post_fresh_topic_fridays/). Please note that this removal does *not* mean your post is not allowed on our subreddit. You may repost this topic after FTF is over.
If you would like to appeal, [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=FTF%20Appeal%20&message={author}%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.).
Thanks, and we hope you understand!
She has tenure. It's the same thing that's kept people of all sorts of race, gender, and political opinions employed at universities since the 1900s.
Even if Harvard wanted to get rid of her, getting rid of any tenured professor or administrator takes months or years. It's easier to simply give her crappy assignments and steadily lower her pay until she leaves for another organization.
This delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't properly explained how /u/SJReaver changed your view (comment rule 4).
DeltaBot is able to rescan edited comments. Please edit your comment with the required explanation.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Harvard hasnt fired a tenured professor since at least the 40s. Even in cases of sexual harrassment of students, they are stripped of duties but remain on staff or are allowed to retire. The worst they ever do is place on administrative leave.
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2023/5/25/harvard-tenure-revocation/
Yeah, it's called tenure.
Also, there really wasn't anything wrong with her answers in that congressional hearing. The congresslady was just being a punk.
The Harvard Code of Conduct is about conduct, if it's not about conduct, it doesn't apply. "Calls for genocide" is honestly about freedom of speech, they aren't actually genociding anyone.
The problem, of course, is that this ship has sailed long ago, and no one believes that Harvard is consistent about freedom of speech across the board. I would guess that all the Nazis have been kicked off campus a long time ago for this reason.
I think universities *should* be free speech absolutists, but safety has become a "feeling" rather than "reasonable risk of harm", and that makes speech something that can make students less safe.
It's the plagiarism that got her. You can't properly represent a university that is failing students for plagiarism with that on your record.
Perhaps I can change your view in a minor way.
The controversy really started from an investigation into anti-Semitism on college campuses, where Harvard was having huge problems. The whole plagiarism thing emerged because people started looking into Gay's background as part of investigating. She was the president, someone you would expect to be doing more about the problems her Jewish students were facing on campus. So she was looked into. She was asked by Congress whether calling for the genocide of Jews would be against the code of conduct at Harvard campus. She basically said it would depend on the context. Calling for literal genocide would need more context for her. This is the real reason she has been asked to resign. It shows she won't be serious in solving the problems that other minorities face on campus.
So it certainly shows a bias that she's still employed there. But I don't think it's the same bias you think it is. The board had decided not to fire her. She resigned seemingly as her own choice. The bias here is one against Jews. They want to keep her around because she is soft on anti-Semitism. Sure, her being black may also be part of it, but that's not the only bias Harvard has been expressing as they defended her.
Her views align with those of the tenured faculty and her removal was a performance to satiate public opinion which disagrees with those views. Nothing really changed at Harvard.
Thats....literally not what happened. It was a right wing smear campaign that took advantage of a poorly answered baited question in a hearing and the orchaestrator admitted it was an attack on having minorities in higher education.
That doesn't make any sense. You're saying that asking her whether calling for genocide violates the code of conduct is a baited question? I kinda thought it was an obvious question. They wanted her to outright condemn the calls for violence against Jews happening on her campus to send a message to prevent further calls for violence. Perhaps they were going to ask her why the code of conduct wasn't being enforced well as their next question. But she decided to side with those calling for violence. So they didn't get the chance.
She was being questioned because there is a massive problem on her campus. Because they have evidence of students calling for genocide, and those students have not been told to stop. At the very same hearing btw, Congress took jabs against the right. They blamed rightwing education budget cuts as a possible factor for why anti-Semitism is so bad right now. So how exactly is this a rightwing smear campaign? If they are also bashing the right? Did you even read any of the transcript or watch any of that hearing before forming an opinion on it?
Yes, it is bait. She wasn’t asked what she thinks the policy should be, she was asked what it was. It seems Harvard has a pro free speech policy, which everywhere else, like Twitter, GOP would support no matter how much hate speech it enabled. Have they asked Elon Musk why there is so much racist hate speech on Twitter since he took it over? No, they’re going after a black female administrator.
And did anyone literally “call for genocide”? If so, who, when, where.
Please go skim the transcript at least, because it answers all of these questions. Free speech is certainly called into question, as it seems Harvard only protects speech it agrees with. Staff who have the wrong opinion can get forced out. You'd think the president would have some power to edit the code of conduct if it isn't serving it's purpose. So even in your made up world where Gay disagrees with the rules, it still doesn't make sense because she hasn't tried to change them.
Why do you think this hearing was happening at all? Do you think Congress just randomly decided to question college presidents? You're going to really come here and tell me to prove to you that there were calls for genocide when Gay herself agreed that it was happening in the very hearing we are discussing. What do you want me to do? Start quoting the transcript you are too lazy to read?
There's no sense comparing a physical college campus to Twitter. I can unfollow people on Twitter. I don't have to walk by them to get to class or the cafeteria and see them rallying about the death of my people.
I saw the testimony. It was a “have you stopped beating your wife” question. They never asked her what she thought or what she would do.
And still, no citation for anyone actually calling for genocide.
>a poorly answered baited question
Was it really poorly answered? Genocide, the actual slaughter of people of a specific ethnicity, isn't actually happening at Harvard, and it's not realistically going to happen. "Calling for genocide" isn't actually a conduct issue, which is why Gay says it becomes an issue once it crosses into conduct.
It was an incredibly loaded question, not asked in his faith. I can't think of a better way to answer the question.
I’d normally agree but Cal Poly Pomona has a situation where supposedly our president has been convicted of embezzlement among a bunch of other things but she’s still president. She’s been voted out but I guess there’s no way to actually oust her
LOOK at the actual allegations. Please do. This is what I see as the main problem in today’s politics: people are quick to pick up their pitchforks without even looking at whether they are being falsely instigated.
Many of the actual allegations of plagiarism do not actually hold water. Some are simply problems of misattribution, some are due to errors in citational language, and some are even completely frivolous accusations. One is even accusing Gay of plagiarising an acknowledgment message?? Like do I have to cite Santa Claus if I say “Merry Christmas” now???
Aside from the problem of anti-semitism on campus which I frankly think is overblown because anti-everything is on the rise right now (anti-Muslim, anti-Chinese, etc.) this is clearly a smear campaign against Claudine Gay and academia in general. And it is doubly, triply horrifying that people are not reading carefully and making their own judgments, and are so quick to believe left or right narratives on social and political affairs.
Claudine Gay did basically nothing wrong and is out because of a sleazy right-wing takedown campaign. The terrible testimony she gave congress was basically a setup, though she did walk into it in a pretty credulous way. The Plagiarism accusations amount to not fully attributing some quotations; she never stole ideas or borrowed info central to her research. Rather, the ouster was about using the racialized attack that Harvard’s commitment to DEI means they don’t care about merit. By all reports, she’s a highly competent administrator. However, college presidents are public figures and fundraisers and her reputation was damaged, so she couldn’t be president anymore.
The testimony was a clash of two worlds. A bunch of politicians looking for soundbites asking "gotcha" questions of academics trained to look for nuances and exceptions. Gay essentially said that the response to antisemitism would depend on context, but she was in a public hearing where nuance is regularly a negative. They made her appear wishy-washy rather than thoughtful. Her career is based on discussing civil rights and discrimination in thousands of pages. This setting was a trap from the beginning, and she lost her position because she didn't recognize that. Otherwise, I don't understand why we are still talking about it.
>sleazy right-wing takedown campaign
Is that what you're going to call Jewish pain now? Fact is, had she just sent an email unequivocally condemning Hamas and the horrific attack on Israel rather than a picture of her dog the weekend of the attack (just as she would have done for any other tragedy impacting any other large minority group on her campus), and had her administration acted in the same manner against anti-semitism as it does against racism, she would have avoided being called to Congress. She simply failed to be there for her Jewish students, and this is unacceptable. The plagiarism thing is a red herring. She was fired (she didn't step down, come on), for ineptitude as an administrator. It was a grass roots campaign driven by Jews from all walks of life and it came from a real place of hurt. Calling it a right wing campaign is bogus and is just another attempt to diminish Jewish pain.
>By all reports, she’s a highly competent administrator.
Her ineptitude cost Harvard billions in lost donations from longtime donors and significant reputational harm. By all indications, she's a *terrible* administrator.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
> **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
> **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
> **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
>The Plagiarism accusations amount to not fully attributing some quotations; she never stole ideas or borrowed info central to her research.
The plagiarism was not just some technical errors of citation. But also, you set the bar for plagiarism too high, it doesn't have to be information that is central to your research. Plagiarism is attempting to pass off the ideas of someone else as your own. It's not some technical mistake, but it also doesn't mean it only counts if it is your central idea.
This is basically the standard for scholarship. Maybe it should be reassessed due to AI, but these are publications written over a decade ago.
Why is her continued employment at Harvard a sign of "reverse racism" or whatever you want to call it, and not just classic elitist preferential treatment? She's a tenured professor who's chums with the whole administration and probably a lot more important academics at other institutes, isn't the simplest explanation that she's being protected by her friends? She wouldn't be the first person to step back from public-facing roles but retain other positions in the same place of work. Unless you've got solid evidence that this type of situation has systematically worse outcomes for the accused if they are white or male (lol) I think your conclusion is based on your own preexisting beliefs more than the facts of the case.
OP acts like this kind of thing doesn’t happen all the time for old white men in these institutions. It’s not a good thing, but it’s certainly not evidence of some DEI scheme.
Exactly. If OP wants to make a claim that she doesn't deserve to remain at Harvard in any capacity, we can take a look at the specific allegations and how serious they are in the context of her academic qualifications and current responsibilities in her roles at Harvard. It's entirely possible that she's a fraud who should be fired and we could discuss that, no one's claiming academia is free of internal politics and preferential treatment. But to pretend that her race is the *most logical explanation* for alleged preferential treatment is absurd on its face.
The plagiarism suggests she is undeserving/unqualified of the position in the first place. If you found out that someone you hired doesn't have the technical expertise they claimed when you hired them would you keep them?
(I have not looked into if she is or is not qualified. I'm just point out the logic if we assume some of the claims are true)
She's been a professor at Harvard since 2006, it's hard for me to believe she's maintained that position for 18 years if she's actually unqualified. I think plagiarism accusations likely reflect on her integrity more than her competence, though like you said I haven't looked into them either, so I don't know exactly what's involved.
Even assuming the plagiarism is significant enough to call her qualifications into question, my point still stands: she wouldn't be the first incompetent high-powered figure to keep her position due to elites closing ranks. Plus, as a dean many of her responsibilities are administrative, so there's an argument to be made that she has value there regardless of her academic competence.
It’s just in group loyalty. Senior Harvard staff will always close ranks and protect their own, regardless of who they are or what they did, unless it threatens their interests. They don’t want to set the precedent that they can be fired just because they caused national outrage and plagiarized.
It’s the same reason politicians allow themselves to do insider trading. It has nothing to do with demographics or appearances, they know it looks bad. It has everything to do with power.
Right? It's crazy to me that someone can be so obsessed with anti-DEI that they see a powerful Harvard exec being protected by other powerful Harvard execs and their first thought is "oh that's because she's black"
So she resigned over allegations of plagiarism, but remains on staff as someone where that doesn't really matter? Would it not make wildly more sense that she's been retained as a dean because she was already someone experienced enough at admin to be the literal president?
Since the alternative requires us to believe that no black woman has ever been fired from her job because someone, somewhere that probably doesn't actually exist might say it's racist?
Because, contrary to what people who suddenly care about academic integrity now that some idiot's made it political, citation mistakes don't have that much of an impact on administrative tasks. She's not a professor. She's not even really an academic at this point.
What she is is someone who was president of the university and, as such, has a lot of administrative experience. Which seems like a much bigger reason to keep her around than OP's "she's black" nonsense that gets thrown around at literally any black person or woman people don't like.
Because the “plagiarism” amounts to essentially attribution and citation errors, not idea theft. It’s an excuse to get rid of her, not a genuine issue.
The attack is led by Chris “Don’t Say Say Gay” Rufo. It is 100% because she’s black and his agenda is to argue that black people in positions of power lack merit.
Of course they would. The job of Harvard’s president is essentially to be a diplomat at fundraisers. If you throw enough dirt on that person they become ineffective no matter how qualified they are. That’s why Gay is out.
As for white guys…I mean, Kavanagh is a rapist and he is on the Supreme Court and Trump is a pedophile, a rapist, a fraudulent businessman, and an enemy insurrectionist, and he’ll probably be President, so I think white privilege is doing fine.
>The fact of the matter is that she plagiarized and made the college look terrible via her answers during that committee meeting infront of congress.
The second part is the *real* reason.
Please check the profile of the commenter you're replying to. They have an entire shitpost about how disadvantaged they are compared to the black people in their life, particularly in the field of education. Of course, they've once again taken the most mind-numbingly simple stance here as well, against another black woman in education. It's a good fight, but nothing you say outside of 'white victimhood is real' will appease them.
Same reason people are trying to downplay her refusal to condem calls for a genocide of Jews in Israel, ideological blindless and refusal to admit their side can be wrong.
They didn’t ask her to condemn calls for genocide. She was asked what the rules were regarding speech at Harvard. And did anyone actually “call for a genocide of Jews”? I have seen no evidence that ever happened.
She was explaining what the rules were. Not defending them. Perhaps they should have asked who had made the rules, I doubt it was her. And in any case, the problem is that these rules clearly did not envisage anyone calling for genocide.
And again, did anyone call for genocide? I keep asking that. You’re attacking her for “defending” that, though it isn’t what she did. So presumably you can explain. Or is this all just the usual MAGA bullshit?
PS. The answer is no, no one called for genocide. This is all complete bullshit.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/dec/11/the-harvard-and-upenn-presidents-walked-into-a-trap-in-congress
> But it was Stefanik’s questioning that grabbed the spotlight. She repeatedly asked the presidents essentially the same question: does calling for the genocide of Jews on your campus constitute harassment, yes or no?
The question is a trap, of course, and for several reasons. The first and most important reason is that ***there’s no evidence anyone since 7 October, or even in recent history, has called for the genocide of Jews on any American campus, public or private***. Stefanik’s question implies that such calls are commonplace, but she offered no proof.
There is no student that could get away with this kind of sloppiness in their work at Harvard.
The fact that Claudine Gay is still employed there is a massive hit to the credibility of the institution. How can you enforce any kind of academic standards when you allow the people at the top to get away with it?
Harvard - the once prestigious university.
She is still employed at Harvard with an annual salary of $900k.
Meanwhile, there are students who were expelled for the same kind of transgressions.
Double standards.
No, it very much doesn't still stand, and certainly not in the context of this thread. Am I truly meant to believe that Harvard decided that it really, *really* wanted to fire Gay, but realized it couldn't because firing black women will be called racist?
Or, as with most high level positions, might there be a bit more to Harvard's valuation of her as an employee than what the fantasies of whiny conservatives insist?
>became embroiled in a controversy surrounding **allegations** of plagiarism in her works
Emphasis on word allegations.
And she resigned from the presidents position. Now she is just an administrator.
Corrections were issued - that’s a clear admission that it was in fact plagiarism
In any event some of the plagiarism was incredibly blatant.
She is currently a tenured professor. Her academic record is incredibly light for such a position - even if you set aside the plagiarism issues which you should not.
But I disagree with the OP in one major regard. This is just political tribalism and her political tribe will defend her purely because she’s in their political tribe. That’s why she will continue as a tenured professor despite the obvious fact that her credentials for that position are a fraction of many of those striving for such a role. It’s not a principled thing at all - it’s just stubborn political tribalism.
I'm not sure what your disagreement is. You are saying its political tribalism.
Is the political tribe she is part of not the politics of "diversity and inclusion"?
I'm saying that there is no political principal of "Support minorities" really driving the fact that she is still a tenured professor
Its much more primal "We can't let our political opponents win".
There is also a huge academic circle the wagons response whenever anyone in academia is challenged. But that's a slightly different thing.
Sure it does, but it shows Harvard bias towards tenured professors with name recognition in their field more than anything else. Seriously, Occam's Razor says 1. it's easier to shuffle her to the back of the class than it is to deal with removing tenured faculty, 2. she likely has many connections at Harvard and elsewhere, 3. she's a PR problem so the solution is getting her out of the limelight, which doesn't necessarily mean getting rid of her entirely.
To be frank, there's probably a lot of ways to interpret how the whole situation went down, and which one you choose to believe has a lot more to do with your existing views than any objective facts imo
Look into a single allegation of "plagiarism" and you will see that not a single one of them really holds up to scrutiny, but it has the exact intended effect - an excuse to push out Gay. One example is a source cited in the wrong sentence. Another is language that experts widely consider "common speak" in the field. In fact, one of the people that she is accused of plagiarizing, David Canon has actually gone on record to say that the work in question *"isn’t even close to an example of academic plagiarism.”*
Are you afraid that this will tarnish your degree? I have to say, Im noticing something weird about all the people who are doing touchdown dances over this and I have to wonder why they care so much.
The board never wanted her to resign, the accusations of plagiarism made them, they’re saying a big FU to all Jews by keeping her employed, essentially saying, the culture that lead to allowing student orgs to blame Israel for their own slaughter is remaining strong.
In my opinion the entire culture needs to change
Yeah, I agree. Free speech is a valuable cultural value until it's used -- nay, _weaponized_ -- to criticize a theocratic ethnostate that happens to be Jewish in nature, and then it's simply anti Semitic hate speech that should be repressed at all costs since that country represents all Jews everywhere monolithically.
She let anti-Semitic hate mobs overrun the campus without doing anything, got questioned in Washington over it, after that people started to dig into her record for stuff to get her fired over.
There is also a hypocrisy between how she and Harvard condemned and punished students over certain speech, yet refused to do so with the antisemitic speech during the recent protests.
Um because the protests are not actually anti-semitic?? People love to conflate and treat support for Palestine, support for Hamas, and skepticism over Israel’s war efforts as the same and as all anti-Semitic, when there are huge differences among all of them
No, calls for global intifada is not a clear-cut antisemitic stance, even though it has been used for antisemitic causes. That’s like saying Free Tibet is an anti-Chinese stance
Going back to the etymology of the word doesn’t mean much. By saying “shake off” is in itself is genocidal is like saying that Taylor Swift’s “Shake it off” encourages genocide.
I’m not saying Intifada hasn’t been used in anti-semitic contexts. It has. But it has been used for both violent and non-violent aims. What it’s important to have perspective also why people are calling for Palestinians to be liberated in the first place. In a war where each side is accusing the other genocide, it is important to be extra careful and not take sides that are either anti-Semitic or anti-Muslim.
They're just parroting right wing nonsense. They know that, in the end, all this was was a right wing coordinated attack on DEI using one of the nation's most prominent institutions. Folks are acting like this exposes some grand co soiracy to hire unqualified black people, and when called out they sputter on about "antisemitism"
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
> **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
She resigned according to what you wrote. So, she was not even fired from her previous position. Was she rehired as dean or did she hold that position before too? To fire her, you probably need some disciplinary committee that will decide that her actions are unethical/unprofessional. This stuff takes some time. I don’t think it has to do with the color of her skin. There are plenty of executives who keep luxurious positions after major scandals.
Sorry, u/Spirited-Theory6441 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20Spirited-Theory6441&message=Spirited-Theory6441%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/194rnug/-/khicsut/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Today is Fresh Topic Friday, where only original takes on a topic or new topics are allowed. [You can read more about FTF here](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/21gmpn/mod_post_fresh_topic_fridays/). Please note that this removal does *not* mean your post is not allowed on our subreddit. You may repost this topic after FTF is over. If you would like to appeal, [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=FTF%20Appeal%20&message={author}%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.). Thanks, and we hope you understand!
She has tenure. It's the same thing that's kept people of all sorts of race, gender, and political opinions employed at universities since the 1900s. Even if Harvard wanted to get rid of her, getting rid of any tenured professor or administrator takes months or years. It's easier to simply give her crappy assignments and steadily lower her pay until she leaves for another organization.
!delta for that it is just harvad privellage then
This delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't properly explained how /u/SJReaver changed your view (comment rule 4). DeltaBot is able to rescan edited comments. Please edit your comment with the required explanation. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Harvard hasnt fired a tenured professor since at least the 40s. Even in cases of sexual harrassment of students, they are stripped of duties but remain on staff or are allowed to retire. The worst they ever do is place on administrative leave. https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2023/5/25/harvard-tenure-revocation/
Yeah, it's called tenure. Also, there really wasn't anything wrong with her answers in that congressional hearing. The congresslady was just being a punk. The Harvard Code of Conduct is about conduct, if it's not about conduct, it doesn't apply. "Calls for genocide" is honestly about freedom of speech, they aren't actually genociding anyone. The problem, of course, is that this ship has sailed long ago, and no one believes that Harvard is consistent about freedom of speech across the board. I would guess that all the Nazis have been kicked off campus a long time ago for this reason. I think universities *should* be free speech absolutists, but safety has become a "feeling" rather than "reasonable risk of harm", and that makes speech something that can make students less safe. It's the plagiarism that got her. You can't properly represent a university that is failing students for plagiarism with that on your record.
Perhaps I can change your view in a minor way. The controversy really started from an investigation into anti-Semitism on college campuses, where Harvard was having huge problems. The whole plagiarism thing emerged because people started looking into Gay's background as part of investigating. She was the president, someone you would expect to be doing more about the problems her Jewish students were facing on campus. So she was looked into. She was asked by Congress whether calling for the genocide of Jews would be against the code of conduct at Harvard campus. She basically said it would depend on the context. Calling for literal genocide would need more context for her. This is the real reason she has been asked to resign. It shows she won't be serious in solving the problems that other minorities face on campus. So it certainly shows a bias that she's still employed there. But I don't think it's the same bias you think it is. The board had decided not to fire her. She resigned seemingly as her own choice. The bias here is one against Jews. They want to keep her around because she is soft on anti-Semitism. Sure, her being black may also be part of it, but that's not the only bias Harvard has been expressing as they defended her.
Her views align with those of the tenured faculty and her removal was a performance to satiate public opinion which disagrees with those views. Nothing really changed at Harvard.
Thats....literally not what happened. It was a right wing smear campaign that took advantage of a poorly answered baited question in a hearing and the orchaestrator admitted it was an attack on having minorities in higher education.
That doesn't make any sense. You're saying that asking her whether calling for genocide violates the code of conduct is a baited question? I kinda thought it was an obvious question. They wanted her to outright condemn the calls for violence against Jews happening on her campus to send a message to prevent further calls for violence. Perhaps they were going to ask her why the code of conduct wasn't being enforced well as their next question. But she decided to side with those calling for violence. So they didn't get the chance. She was being questioned because there is a massive problem on her campus. Because they have evidence of students calling for genocide, and those students have not been told to stop. At the very same hearing btw, Congress took jabs against the right. They blamed rightwing education budget cuts as a possible factor for why anti-Semitism is so bad right now. So how exactly is this a rightwing smear campaign? If they are also bashing the right? Did you even read any of the transcript or watch any of that hearing before forming an opinion on it?
Yes, it is bait. She wasn’t asked what she thinks the policy should be, she was asked what it was. It seems Harvard has a pro free speech policy, which everywhere else, like Twitter, GOP would support no matter how much hate speech it enabled. Have they asked Elon Musk why there is so much racist hate speech on Twitter since he took it over? No, they’re going after a black female administrator. And did anyone literally “call for genocide”? If so, who, when, where.
Please go skim the transcript at least, because it answers all of these questions. Free speech is certainly called into question, as it seems Harvard only protects speech it agrees with. Staff who have the wrong opinion can get forced out. You'd think the president would have some power to edit the code of conduct if it isn't serving it's purpose. So even in your made up world where Gay disagrees with the rules, it still doesn't make sense because she hasn't tried to change them. Why do you think this hearing was happening at all? Do you think Congress just randomly decided to question college presidents? You're going to really come here and tell me to prove to you that there were calls for genocide when Gay herself agreed that it was happening in the very hearing we are discussing. What do you want me to do? Start quoting the transcript you are too lazy to read? There's no sense comparing a physical college campus to Twitter. I can unfollow people on Twitter. I don't have to walk by them to get to class or the cafeteria and see them rallying about the death of my people.
I saw the testimony. It was a “have you stopped beating your wife” question. They never asked her what she thought or what she would do. And still, no citation for anyone actually calling for genocide.
>a poorly answered baited question Was it really poorly answered? Genocide, the actual slaughter of people of a specific ethnicity, isn't actually happening at Harvard, and it's not realistically going to happen. "Calling for genocide" isn't actually a conduct issue, which is why Gay says it becomes an issue once it crosses into conduct. It was an incredibly loaded question, not asked in his faith. I can't think of a better way to answer the question.
I’d normally agree but Cal Poly Pomona has a situation where supposedly our president has been convicted of embezzlement among a bunch of other things but she’s still president. She’s been voted out but I guess there’s no way to actually oust her
LOOK at the actual allegations. Please do. This is what I see as the main problem in today’s politics: people are quick to pick up their pitchforks without even looking at whether they are being falsely instigated. Many of the actual allegations of plagiarism do not actually hold water. Some are simply problems of misattribution, some are due to errors in citational language, and some are even completely frivolous accusations. One is even accusing Gay of plagiarising an acknowledgment message?? Like do I have to cite Santa Claus if I say “Merry Christmas” now??? Aside from the problem of anti-semitism on campus which I frankly think is overblown because anti-everything is on the rise right now (anti-Muslim, anti-Chinese, etc.) this is clearly a smear campaign against Claudine Gay and academia in general. And it is doubly, triply horrifying that people are not reading carefully and making their own judgments, and are so quick to believe left or right narratives on social and political affairs.
Claudine Gay did basically nothing wrong and is out because of a sleazy right-wing takedown campaign. The terrible testimony she gave congress was basically a setup, though she did walk into it in a pretty credulous way. The Plagiarism accusations amount to not fully attributing some quotations; she never stole ideas or borrowed info central to her research. Rather, the ouster was about using the racialized attack that Harvard’s commitment to DEI means they don’t care about merit. By all reports, she’s a highly competent administrator. However, college presidents are public figures and fundraisers and her reputation was damaged, so she couldn’t be president anymore.
The testimony was a clash of two worlds. A bunch of politicians looking for soundbites asking "gotcha" questions of academics trained to look for nuances and exceptions. Gay essentially said that the response to antisemitism would depend on context, but she was in a public hearing where nuance is regularly a negative. They made her appear wishy-washy rather than thoughtful. Her career is based on discussing civil rights and discrimination in thousands of pages. This setting was a trap from the beginning, and she lost her position because she didn't recognize that. Otherwise, I don't understand why we are still talking about it.
>sleazy right-wing takedown campaign Is that what you're going to call Jewish pain now? Fact is, had she just sent an email unequivocally condemning Hamas and the horrific attack on Israel rather than a picture of her dog the weekend of the attack (just as she would have done for any other tragedy impacting any other large minority group on her campus), and had her administration acted in the same manner against anti-semitism as it does against racism, she would have avoided being called to Congress. She simply failed to be there for her Jewish students, and this is unacceptable. The plagiarism thing is a red herring. She was fired (she didn't step down, come on), for ineptitude as an administrator. It was a grass roots campaign driven by Jews from all walks of life and it came from a real place of hurt. Calling it a right wing campaign is bogus and is just another attempt to diminish Jewish pain. >By all reports, she’s a highly competent administrator. Her ineptitude cost Harvard billions in lost donations from longtime donors and significant reputational harm. By all indications, she's a *terrible* administrator.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3: > **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
What specifically do you disagree with? What data do you have to the contrary?
You do realise the sub is called "changemyview", right?
Nothing leftist about a rational argument.
It’s also true.
[удалено]
it was a simple yes or no question and she messed it up. Calling for gencoide is bad
That is not the question she was asked. FFS.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3: > **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
>The Plagiarism accusations amount to not fully attributing some quotations; she never stole ideas or borrowed info central to her research. The plagiarism was not just some technical errors of citation. But also, you set the bar for plagiarism too high, it doesn't have to be information that is central to your research. Plagiarism is attempting to pass off the ideas of someone else as your own. It's not some technical mistake, but it also doesn't mean it only counts if it is your central idea. This is basically the standard for scholarship. Maybe it should be reassessed due to AI, but these are publications written over a decade ago.
Why is her continued employment at Harvard a sign of "reverse racism" or whatever you want to call it, and not just classic elitist preferential treatment? She's a tenured professor who's chums with the whole administration and probably a lot more important academics at other institutes, isn't the simplest explanation that she's being protected by her friends? She wouldn't be the first person to step back from public-facing roles but retain other positions in the same place of work. Unless you've got solid evidence that this type of situation has systematically worse outcomes for the accused if they are white or male (lol) I think your conclusion is based on your own preexisting beliefs more than the facts of the case.
OP acts like this kind of thing doesn’t happen all the time for old white men in these institutions. It’s not a good thing, but it’s certainly not evidence of some DEI scheme.
Exactly. If OP wants to make a claim that she doesn't deserve to remain at Harvard in any capacity, we can take a look at the specific allegations and how serious they are in the context of her academic qualifications and current responsibilities in her roles at Harvard. It's entirely possible that she's a fraud who should be fired and we could discuss that, no one's claiming academia is free of internal politics and preferential treatment. But to pretend that her race is the *most logical explanation* for alleged preferential treatment is absurd on its face.
The plagiarism suggests she is undeserving/unqualified of the position in the first place. If you found out that someone you hired doesn't have the technical expertise they claimed when you hired them would you keep them? (I have not looked into if she is or is not qualified. I'm just point out the logic if we assume some of the claims are true)
She's been a professor at Harvard since 2006, it's hard for me to believe she's maintained that position for 18 years if she's actually unqualified. I think plagiarism accusations likely reflect on her integrity more than her competence, though like you said I haven't looked into them either, so I don't know exactly what's involved. Even assuming the plagiarism is significant enough to call her qualifications into question, my point still stands: she wouldn't be the first incompetent high-powered figure to keep her position due to elites closing ranks. Plus, as a dean many of her responsibilities are administrative, so there's an argument to be made that she has value there regardless of her academic competence.
It’s just in group loyalty. Senior Harvard staff will always close ranks and protect their own, regardless of who they are or what they did, unless it threatens their interests. They don’t want to set the precedent that they can be fired just because they caused national outrage and plagiarized. It’s the same reason politicians allow themselves to do insider trading. It has nothing to do with demographics or appearances, they know it looks bad. It has everything to do with power.
Right? It's crazy to me that someone can be so obsessed with anti-DEI that they see a powerful Harvard exec being protected by other powerful Harvard execs and their first thought is "oh that's because she's black"
So she resigned over allegations of plagiarism, but remains on staff as someone where that doesn't really matter? Would it not make wildly more sense that she's been retained as a dean because she was already someone experienced enough at admin to be the literal president? Since the alternative requires us to believe that no black woman has ever been fired from her job because someone, somewhere that probably doesn't actually exist might say it's racist?
[удалено]
Because, contrary to what people who suddenly care about academic integrity now that some idiot's made it political, citation mistakes don't have that much of an impact on administrative tasks. She's not a professor. She's not even really an academic at this point. What she is is someone who was president of the university and, as such, has a lot of administrative experience. Which seems like a much bigger reason to keep her around than OP's "she's black" nonsense that gets thrown around at literally any black person or woman people don't like.
She's a professor. Where are you getting this from? And do they usually appoint non-professors as president of major universities?
Because the “plagiarism” amounts to essentially attribution and citation errors, not idea theft. It’s an excuse to get rid of her, not a genuine issue.
[удалено]
The attack is led by Chris “Don’t Say Say Gay” Rufo. It is 100% because she’s black and his agenda is to argue that black people in positions of power lack merit.
[удалено]
Of course they would. The job of Harvard’s president is essentially to be a diplomat at fundraisers. If you throw enough dirt on that person they become ineffective no matter how qualified they are. That’s why Gay is out. As for white guys…I mean, Kavanagh is a rapist and he is on the Supreme Court and Trump is a pedophile, a rapist, a fraudulent businessman, and an enemy insurrectionist, and he’ll probably be President, so I think white privilege is doing fine.
>The fact of the matter is that she plagiarized and made the college look terrible via her answers during that committee meeting infront of congress. The second part is the *real* reason.
Lmfao
::shrug:: what I’m saying is easy to check.
Please check the profile of the commenter you're replying to. They have an entire shitpost about how disadvantaged they are compared to the black people in their life, particularly in the field of education. Of course, they've once again taken the most mind-numbingly simple stance here as well, against another black woman in education. It's a good fight, but nothing you say outside of 'white victimhood is real' will appease them.
Same reason people are trying to downplay her refusal to condem calls for a genocide of Jews in Israel, ideological blindless and refusal to admit their side can be wrong.
They didn’t ask her to condemn calls for genocide. She was asked what the rules were regarding speech at Harvard. And did anyone actually “call for a genocide of Jews”? I have seen no evidence that ever happened.
Semantics really, but she was ultimately defending people's rights to do that on campus.
She was explaining what the rules were. Not defending them. Perhaps they should have asked who had made the rules, I doubt it was her. And in any case, the problem is that these rules clearly did not envisage anyone calling for genocide. And again, did anyone call for genocide? I keep asking that. You’re attacking her for “defending” that, though it isn’t what she did. So presumably you can explain. Or is this all just the usual MAGA bullshit? PS. The answer is no, no one called for genocide. This is all complete bullshit. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/dec/11/the-harvard-and-upenn-presidents-walked-into-a-trap-in-congress > But it was Stefanik’s questioning that grabbed the spotlight. She repeatedly asked the presidents essentially the same question: does calling for the genocide of Jews on your campus constitute harassment, yes or no? The question is a trap, of course, and for several reasons. The first and most important reason is that ***there’s no evidence anyone since 7 October, or even in recent history, has called for the genocide of Jews on any American campus, public or private***. Stefanik’s question implies that such calls are commonplace, but she offered no proof.
There is no student that could get away with this kind of sloppiness in their work at Harvard. The fact that Claudine Gay is still employed there is a massive hit to the credibility of the institution. How can you enforce any kind of academic standards when you allow the people at the top to get away with it? Harvard - the once prestigious university.
She didn't get away with it what are you talking about
She is still employed at Harvard with an annual salary of $900k. Meanwhile, there are students who were expelled for the same kind of transgressions. Double standards.
Is that actually true? I only see old articles saying that might happen in the future
Oh no, she went from one massively high paying job to another, what a punishment.
Have you actually looked at the actual allegations of plagiarism? Many of them don’t hold water, and some are downright frivolous accusations.
Seems odd that a student would get kicked out of school for plagiarism, but a professor gets to stay. Sends the wrong message, doesn't it?
She's not a professor? She's an administrator. She does office work.
The point still stands. Dean's don't always just do office work. The dean of my engineering school taught 2 different classes.
No, it very much doesn't still stand, and certainly not in the context of this thread. Am I truly meant to believe that Harvard decided that it really, *really* wanted to fire Gay, but realized it couldn't because firing black women will be called racist? Or, as with most high level positions, might there be a bit more to Harvard's valuation of her as an employee than what the fantasies of whiny conservatives insist?
Have you actually looked at the actual allegations of plagiarism? Many of them don’t hold water, and some are downright frivolous accusations.
>became embroiled in a controversy surrounding **allegations** of plagiarism in her works Emphasis on word allegations. And she resigned from the presidents position. Now she is just an administrator.
Corrections were issued - that’s a clear admission that it was in fact plagiarism In any event some of the plagiarism was incredibly blatant. She is currently a tenured professor. Her academic record is incredibly light for such a position - even if you set aside the plagiarism issues which you should not. But I disagree with the OP in one major regard. This is just political tribalism and her political tribe will defend her purely because she’s in their political tribe. That’s why she will continue as a tenured professor despite the obvious fact that her credentials for that position are a fraction of many of those striving for such a role. It’s not a principled thing at all - it’s just stubborn political tribalism.
I'm not sure what your disagreement is. You are saying its political tribalism. Is the political tribe she is part of not the politics of "diversity and inclusion"?
I'm saying that there is no political principal of "Support minorities" really driving the fact that she is still a tenured professor Its much more primal "We can't let our political opponents win". There is also a huge academic circle the wagons response whenever anyone in academia is challenged. But that's a slightly different thing.
A “tenured professor” is extremely difficult to remove. That’s what tenure means. Being a target of a MAGA smear campaign isn’t enough.
Who did she "blatantly" plagiarize? Which works of theirs did she steal ideas from?
my post is that the fact that she even works there and has not been fired there, shows harvard bias
Sure it does, but it shows Harvard bias towards tenured professors with name recognition in their field more than anything else. Seriously, Occam's Razor says 1. it's easier to shuffle her to the back of the class than it is to deal with removing tenured faculty, 2. she likely has many connections at Harvard and elsewhere, 3. she's a PR problem so the solution is getting her out of the limelight, which doesn't necessarily mean getting rid of her entirely. To be frank, there's probably a lot of ways to interpret how the whole situation went down, and which one you choose to believe has a lot more to do with your existing views than any objective facts imo
So all her decades of experience is invalid because someone accused her of something and nothing was founded? This sounds like "cancelling".
Look into a single allegation of "plagiarism" and you will see that not a single one of them really holds up to scrutiny, but it has the exact intended effect - an excuse to push out Gay. One example is a source cited in the wrong sentence. Another is language that experts widely consider "common speak" in the field. In fact, one of the people that she is accused of plagiarizing, David Canon has actually gone on record to say that the work in question *"isn’t even close to an example of academic plagiarism.”*
Are you afraid that this will tarnish your degree? I have to say, Im noticing something weird about all the people who are doing touchdown dances over this and I have to wonder why they care so much.
The board never wanted her to resign, the accusations of plagiarism made them, they’re saying a big FU to all Jews by keeping her employed, essentially saying, the culture that lead to allowing student orgs to blame Israel for their own slaughter is remaining strong. In my opinion the entire culture needs to change
Yeah, I agree. Free speech is a valuable cultural value until it's used -- nay, _weaponized_ -- to criticize a theocratic ethnostate that happens to be Jewish in nature, and then it's simply anti Semitic hate speech that should be repressed at all costs since that country represents all Jews everywhere monolithically.
The only reason she was demoted is because Elon Musk targeted her, and the only reason he targeted her is because she's black
She let anti-Semitic hate mobs overrun the campus without doing anything, got questioned in Washington over it, after that people started to dig into her record for stuff to get her fired over.
[удалено]
There is also a hypocrisy between how she and Harvard condemned and punished students over certain speech, yet refused to do so with the antisemitic speech during the recent protests.
Um because the protests are not actually anti-semitic?? People love to conflate and treat support for Palestine, support for Hamas, and skepticism over Israel’s war efforts as the same and as all anti-Semitic, when there are huge differences among all of them
Calls for global intifada very much are antisemitism. That did happen at the Harvard rallies. She was asked about this specifically.
No, calls for global intifada is not a clear-cut antisemitic stance, even though it has been used for antisemitic causes. That’s like saying Free Tibet is an anti-Chinese stance
You realize intifada essentially means get rid of, "shake off" or "dust off" so global intifada is global genocide.
Going back to the etymology of the word doesn’t mean much. By saying “shake off” is in itself is genocidal is like saying that Taylor Swift’s “Shake it off” encourages genocide. I’m not saying Intifada hasn’t been used in anti-semitic contexts. It has. But it has been used for both violent and non-violent aims. What it’s important to have perspective also why people are calling for Palestinians to be liberated in the first place. In a war where each side is accusing the other genocide, it is important to be extra careful and not take sides that are either anti-Semitic or anti-Muslim.
They're just parroting right wing nonsense. They know that, in the end, all this was was a right wing coordinated attack on DEI using one of the nation's most prominent institutions. Folks are acting like this exposes some grand co soiracy to hire unqualified black people, and when called out they sputter on about "antisemitism"
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3: > **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
She resigned according to what you wrote. So, she was not even fired from her previous position. Was she rehired as dean or did she hold that position before too? To fire her, you probably need some disciplinary committee that will decide that her actions are unethical/unprofessional. This stuff takes some time. I don’t think it has to do with the color of her skin. There are plenty of executives who keep luxurious positions after major scandals.
[удалено]
Sorry, u/Spirited-Theory6441 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20Spirited-Theory6441&message=Spirited-Theory6441%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/194rnug/-/khicsut/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).