Then I guess we're going to disagree.
by FaytlND (2024-01-04 12:39:57)
Edited on 2024-01-04 13:01:36

In reply to: Shocking that Ivy league admins aren't keen to investigate  posted by Barrister

Cannot Reply Return to Political

Going back to the original point of the thread and dealing with "rot" at academic institutions, I don't think supporting politically-targeted investigations to get rid of people we don't agree with is going to solve the problem.

EDIT: And as to why they don't "investigate their own", it has little to do with the Ivy league specifically. I'm sure they all know that if people looked hard enough, they'd all be guilty of similar attribution errors.

EDIT2: And to be clear, I do think the examples are plagiarism. So then what to be done about it? Well, it should have been handled by the same processes which govern all other academic misconduct at Harvard, including students. The result of that investigation may have warranted termination, or maybe it would have warranted something less severe.


So the solution to the problem of "rot" in higher education
by Barrister  (2024-01-04 12:57:54)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

is to stop looking for it and/or to put primary importance on the personal politics of those who uncover the misconduct?

That would seem to make the problem worse, not better.

The solution would be to investigate and
by FaytlND  (2024-01-04 13:03:57)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

handle it by processes that apply to all other faculty and students. And not let decisions on how it should be handled be driven by activism from those with ulterior motives.
I assume outside parties had no say in Prof. Gay's
by Barrister  (2024-01-04 13:09:10)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

resignation (she wasn't fired) beyond their ability to comment in the public arena.

Again, I don't see how that's a bad thing. I assume she could have demanded a formal review process beyond the secret anonymous panel the Harvard Corporation initially propped up to look at the first round of accusations (which were pretty weak in my view, in contrast to the later stuff that came out). She didn't. I assume there was a reason for that as well (the reason being she gets to keep her $900K a year professor position in Cambridge).

But if academia is going to take the position that the only allegations of misconduct that may be considered are those that (a) come from academics, and only from academics who (b) friends or allies of the subject of the investigation, then I think that says much about the quality and ethics of the academy.
It would be naive to think outside parties had no "say".
by FaytlND  (2024-01-04 13:15:39)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

Sure, they don't make the decisions. But they can certainly continue to beat the drum and stir up negative publicity to the point where she gets asked to resign (but isn't fired).

I think academia should take the position that people can be investigated and punished, but that the corrective action should not be based on whether the public perception of said correction is "sufficient".
She was caught plagiarizing work on multiple occasions.
by krudler  (2024-01-04 16:23:12)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

She and her ilk set a double standard up on campus regarding speech, favoring certain groups over others. Anyone who is objective sees the double standard regarding speech on campus (what speech is considered "violence", heckler's veto for conservative speakers without any punishments), and she embarrassed her university by allowing and enabling this rot. This was all exposed and she subsequently resigned. You're probably right in that she was nudged to that position by people both inside and outside the university, but she certainly could have demanded a more formal process that may or may not have let her keep a high six-figure position. You don't like the politics behind one of the people who helped expose her plagiarism, ok. But that kind of stuff happens all the time, in the numerous examples above, not to mention politics invading our legal system as people search out grievances to sue over in order to make a political point (gay wedding cakes etc.).

Harvard is the most prestigious and well-known university in the country, I have no doubt there are plenty of qualified candidates out there who haven't plagiarized to the level she did and who would likely be more proactive in cracking down on obvious double standards for speech on campus.

So are you pleased she got canned because
by FaytlND  (2024-01-04 17:13:41)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

she was plagiarizing, or because of (your assessment) of behavior with regard to speech on campus? And is it because of her specific actions/policies, or because you're just lumping in with "her ilk".

Your post is demonstrating my problem with the whole situation. Disagreeing with her politics, and then searching for a pretense to fire her is problematic. If you think she should be removed because of her policies related to campus speech, then make a case for that. As in Gay's case with plagiarism, "But that kind of stuff happens all the time" is rationalization, not justification.