Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
News

Harvard President Claudine Gay Resigns (thecrimson.com) 363

Posted by msmash from the breaking-news dept.
The Crimson: Harvard President Claudine Gay will resign Tuesday afternoon, bringing an end to the shortest presidency in the University's history, according to a person with knowledge of the decision. It is not clear who will be appointed to serve as interim president.

University spokesperson Jonathan L. Swain declined to comment on Gay's decision to step down. Gay's resignation -- just six months and two days into the presidency -- comes amid growing allegations of plagiarism and lasting doubts over her ability to respond to antisemitism on campus after her disastrous congressional testimony Dec. 5.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Harvard President Claudine Gay Resigns More

Harvard President Claudine Gay Resigns

Comments Filter:

  • An institution that penalizes plagiary (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Baron von Pilsner ( 1115373 ) on Tuesday January 02, 2024 @02:23PM (#64125111)
    Should not be led by someone who has been caught plagiarizing.

    • I wouldn't celebrate until we hear who's the replacement,

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by DarkOx ( 621550 )

        I wouldn't celebrate until we hear who's the replacement,

        Why not? If the issue was the plagiary - assuming they are not appointing another known plagiarist; why should we not celebrate justice being done, and every at Harvard right up to its president being held to the same academic standards?

        Or was this about something else, like 'head taking' ? As CNN has seemed to imply? If it was that was foolish there is a exactly no chance of anyone but some radical leftist woke-scold getting the top job at Harvard given the rest of its leadership. If you were thinking alo

        • Re:An institution that penalizes plagiary (Score:5, Insightful)

          by NomDeAlias ( 10449224 ) on Tuesday January 02, 2024 @02:44PM (#64125195)
          Plagiarism wasn't the only issue though there was still the ideological capture that lead to her not being able to denounce calls for genocide.

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by DarkOx ( 621550 )

            right well I don't see that changing do you. Sure the congressional testimony was a disaster for her and several other university presidents. I agree they should all be gone.

            However look Harvard's remaining leadership was not going to oust her over that. They as much as said so. So decent Americans went finding something else they could hang her for and they did. Which is all fine, even good I guess. However Harvard's board makeup has not otherwise changed. They are going to appoint someone who fundame

            • It's weird how MIT's president seems to have come out unscathed.

              • She's next on the list. She actually has degrees in political science and genetics. It will be fascinating to see how she handles or continues to cope with the gender diverse activists who are campaigning for Hamas and for Jewish genocide with the refrain "From the mountains to the sea!" It is equally fascinating to see how someone with a degree in genetics deals with the politics of gender ideology and its new focus, anti-Semitism.

          • She was an Equity Hire. Her qualifications for a professorship, especially at Harvard, were dubious at best, much less the presidency. It's what happens when you elevate mediocrity.

    • Re:An institution that penalizes plagiary (Score:5, Insightful)

      by drnb ( 2434720 ) on Tuesday January 02, 2024 @02:38PM (#64125173)

      Should not be led by someone who has been caught plagiarizing.

      An institution that claims to support "inclusion" should not limit the number of Asian Americans.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by CAIMLAS ( 41445 )

        They absolutely should limit any and all ethnic groups. Inclusion based on ethnicity is racist and exclusionary. Every ethnic group should be excluded by default.

        Here's an idea: make inclusion solely based on merit. It's an institution purposefully created for the purpose of fostering merit. That should be the only thing they use as basis.

        What they're doing now - as are all educational institutions in the US - is not only racist, but it's like having a time requirement for completion of the 100 meter dash a

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by drnb ( 2434720 )

          They absolutely should limit any and all ethnic groups ...

          This sentence likely needs reworking as it contradicts what follows. Merit does not limit any ethnic group.

          ... Inclusion based on ethnicity is racist and exclusionary. Every ethnic group should be excluded by default. Here's an idea: make inclusion solely based on merit.

          You are erroneously conflating "exclusion" with "not a consideration". Again, needs reworking.

    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      by cayenne8 ( 626475 )

      Should not be led by someone who has been caught plagiarizing.

      If that were truly the case...then Joe Biden should get tossed out of office too.

      ;)

      He's been publicly caught plagiarizing numerous times over the years, it's almost like he can't help himself.

      Example here '88 Presidential run [youtube.com]

      And His recent Climate Plans [youtube.com] published.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Z80a ( 971949 )

        I'm starting to doubt that any US politician represent the population in any way, shape or form.
        It's like they live on a parallel universe with completely unrelated problems.

      • '88 is undeniably true and he rightly payed the price as he was pushed out of the race pretty quickly after that.

        The second video though, thank you for reminding me why I don't watch TYT that much, it's really funny listening to them question if Biden cares about climate change at all and give him slim chances of winning, only to win the presidency and enact the most sweeping climate legislation in American history.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by CAIMLAS ( 41445 )

        I find your terms acceptable.

        If plagiarism were the worst of either of their offenses... well. Let's just say the world would be a much better place, and people could get both education and Russian vodka with fewer hassles.

    • I heard they couldn't accept her letter of resignation. She copied it from Liz Magill and forgot to change the letterhead or body.

  • What is Harvard good for? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Midnight_Falcon ( 2432802 ) on Tuesday January 02, 2024 @02:28PM (#64125129)
    I've worked with many Harvard graduates, ranging from the college to the business school to the law school. I can't say any of them are smarter, more qualified and better at their jobs than others who attended far less prestigious schools. It seems the key benefit of a Harvard education is getting connected to others, including students with wealthy families, private equity/venture capital etc..and being able to work those connections to get jobs as non-founder CEOs, General Counsel etc or to be able to raise money to become founding CEOs.

    It's just been made clear even the president of Harvard isn't significantly more qualified, politically deft or even less academically dishonest than you'd find elsewhere.

    What is the point of these non-meritocratic elite universities anymore?

    • Re:What is Harvard good for? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by registrations_suck ( 1075251 ) on Tuesday January 02, 2024 @02:32PM (#64125147)

      Same as it ever was.

      Getting connected to others, including students with wealthy families, private equity/venture capital etc..and being able to work those connections to get jobs as non-founder CEOs, General Counsel etc or to be able to raise money to become founding CEOs.

    • What is the point of these non-meritocratic elite universities anymore?

      You answered the question, "getting connected to others, including students with wealthy families, private equity/venture capital etc.."

      Now there are plenty of success stories of non-wealthy people making it their own way through the Ivys but those type of people likely would be successful no matter where they went but prestige is still prestige.

      That said the Harvard Business School has been the subject of discussion for it's negative role in driving the craven behaviour of American capitalism and the MBA c

    • What is the point of these non-meritocratic elite universities anymore?

      Being accepted marks you as a member of the in-group. Even if you end up flunking out. Getting accepted to Harvard gets you more Hollywood points than graduating from pretty much anywhere else.

    • When I worked in New England there were many I worked with who benefited from that system. More family connections than smarts.

      One was particularly egregious. Simply could not perform engineering tasks but shared common traits with many of the company leadership and also family connections. Glad to know the company no longer exists.

      • And if folks were hired because of family connections et al that might be a hint as to why the company no longer exists.

    • What is the point of these non-meritocratic elite universities anymore?

      The alumni network. This manifests in many meaningful ways, for example student entrepreneurial projects. Competitions offer more prize money. Access to Angel investors and VCs is so much easier at early stages. Welcome to the big, err "rich", league and all the support and protection that comes with.

    • The few graduates I've known were not only the smartest people in the room but the hardest workers.

      • Re:What is Harvard good for? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Midnight_Falcon ( 2432802 ) on Tuesday January 02, 2024 @02:56PM (#64125249)
        I wish my experience was the same. The first Harvard grad I worked with was at a small, 10-person software company nearly 20 years ago. He got hired for support, the CEO hired a lot of recent college graduates and was impressed by Harvard and his SAT score (which he requested from all applicants..). After about a week, it was obvious they didn't like him -- instead of learning about the software, he was constantly slacking off, going on facebook/chess web sites etc. He was fired after two weeks. Next hire was from a relatively unknown state school and he did quite well and stayed for years.

        I've had so many more experiences with harvard grads since then, it would be a chapter of a book to type out, but the summary is about 25% did well and the rest were disappointing.

    • Re:What is Harvard good for? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by DesScorp ( 410532 ) on Tuesday January 02, 2024 @02:52PM (#64125233) Journal

      I've worked with many Harvard graduates, ranging from the college to the business school to the law school. I can't say any of them are smarter, more qualified and better at their jobs than others who attended far less prestigious schools. It seems the key benefit of a Harvard education is getting connected to others, including students with wealthy families, private equity/venture capital etc..and being able to work those connections to get jobs as non-founder CEOs, General Counsel etc or to be able to raise money to become founding CEOs.

      It's just been made clear even the president of Harvard isn't significantly more qualified, politically deft or even less academically dishonest than you'd find elsewhere.

      What is the point of these non-meritocratic elite universities anymore?

      There was a time when the Ivies had the best and the brightest in academia, and an Ivy degree was truly a mark of quality and achievement. But that's long gone. Two things happened to change it: the massive postwar expansion of higher education (driven by increased access to college via the GI Bill for veterans), and the dumbing down of admissions standards by the Ivies themselves. The Ivies are still "selective" in that a small percentage of applicants get in. But the admission criteria is now greatly influenced by non-quantifiable things, such as essays and clubs/activities/activism outside the high school classroom. The admissions committee isn't looking for the best and brightest, they're looking for "the right mix", which is influenced largely by politics.

      So other elite schools that are math/tech driven still go mostly by grades and test scores (MIT, Cal Tech, etc), an and so-called "Public Ivies"... high quality state schools (Cal Berkeley, UNC, Michigan, etc) long ago strove to equal or better their classroom product with the Ivies.

      The grad schools at the Ivies are where they still shine. Harvard Law and Medicine are as highly competitive and rigorous as they've ever been. But undergrad? You can get as good or better an undergrad education pretty much anywhere else (especially with the heavy reliance of grad students as instructors in freshman courses at the Ivies).

      The only real advantage you have with a bachelors from Harvard or Yale, vs a bachelors at Typical State U. is networking with the powerful and connected. A degree from Princeton is going to open more doors (and more lucrative doors) than a degree from your local state U. THAT'S why you go to an Ivy... to get that internship or that job with NBC or the Washington Post or the US Senate.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by HBI ( 10338492 )

        I'd differ only in the reason why. The creation of the national security state postwar required a massive expansion in higher learning, and government subsidy played a strong part in creating that expansion. There are some good texts on how and why this happened, but it was no accident.

    • One thing I saw at MIT vs a state school is there are a lot more opportunities to work ahead of the curve and do things like participate in research (UROPS).

    • which about 33% of the population wants to do because "tradition".

  • The next hire (Score:4, Funny)

    by registrations_suck ( 1075251 ) on Tuesday January 02, 2024 @02:30PM (#64125141)

    They're going to need to hire a Jewish, black, non-binary transsexual furry with no university degree to make amends for this debacle.

  • surprising (Score:5, Insightful)

    by groobly ( 6155920 ) on Tuesday January 02, 2024 @02:36PM (#64125163)

    Very surprising that Hardvard would retreat from its march to woke perfection.

    Of course Gay got there not only on the woke quota, but indeed her entire field of study, one of the "grievance studies" fields, is itself almost entirely bogus, which is why the plagiarism was rampant in the first place. (Although I believe technically it was "political science," in her case it was essentially "black studies" under the aegis of political science.)

    I can imagine two possible *real* reasons for the resignation:

    1. There are even worse transgressions that haven't yet come to light that would surely kill her off anyway, so better to cut it off at the pass.

    2. Since the main function of a college president is to raise money, the corporation saw the writing on the wall and finally gave her the bum's rush.

    Or maybe the corporation realized she was not fully qualified in the woke pantheon, as they had mistakenly assumed, like many others, that Gay was gay.

    • I would argue that political science is a nothing field too. A friend of mine whose wife worked as an advisor at the university where I went to school a LONG time ago described most non science/math/medical degrees as 'a degree in common sense and bullshit.' I tend to agree. I do believe humanities and the liberal arts are important but as part of a more logic based form of study. An engineer, a chemist, a physicist, should have a passing knowledge of history, current events, should be able to write clea

  • What an L (Score:4, Insightful)

    by WDot ( 1286728 ) on Tuesday January 02, 2024 @02:38PM (#64125175)
    What a debacle this was! It’s not *just* that Claudine Gay had an embarrassingly anemic publication record for a Harvard president, with much of it plagiarized and with much of what was plagiarized *not worth plagiarizing*. It’s that so many scholars went on record defending the most egregious cases of plagiarism and her incredible mediocrity, so that everyone now has a clear view of Harvard’s idea of “merit.” That can’t be solved just by Claudine resigning. Now the rot is clear. The alleged prestige of Harvard, whatever was left of it, is now gone. There is probably more prestige to be had from graduating from Podunk Community College.

    • It's complicated.

      Just about everyone is lying so you know it's a real shitshow.

      She's a fraud, but that's been widely known since before she was were appointed.

      Harvard academics do not want to be seen as being susceptible to bullying and bribery so they supported her but the reasons stated were mostly lies too.

      It's well known that Ackerman attacked her not because she was a fraud but because she was unwilling to "crack-down" on legal but awful speech on campus. Even non-awful anti-Israel speech.

      But it appea

    • And she has created the most picture book perfect negative case of diversity-hire with the absolute lowest record of deserving the position to date! Beyond a shadow of a doubt.
      And shameless abuse of pseudo-victimhood.
      She is hurting other careers with this. And destroying formerly good reputations.
      A true and utter L of epic proportions.

  • In looking into the allegations behind this resignation I read articles outlining the complicity of Harvard (and other American institutions) in whitewashing Nazi war criminals. Given the quantity of statues removed of people with questionable actions (my preference is that in most cases, education in the form of an explanatory plaque would assist in providing balance to the typical one sided explanations on the statues of the personâ(TM)s actions) it seems odd that Harvard still has a chair and profes

  • How much information do we really need?

    She has outright refused to condemn the hatred against a group of people based on cultural and religious leanings, specially the Jews. If she wore an SS uniform while on video or giving a speech, and didn't mention it, didn't say anything antisemitic, and refused to comment on it when called it, she would still be an antisemite. There is no argument that her refusal to act, was an intentional display of antisemitic support.

    The other allegations levied against he

Slashdot Top Deals

Work continues in this area. -- DEC's SPR-Answering-Automaton

Close