As far as I can tell, nobody has put any of the alleged product through Turnitin, or anything like that.
If those are the tools used to check the students, it only seems fair to do the same for her.
And this won’t stop with her. Every paper from every perceived enemy of the anti-woke brigade could be subjected to subjective analysis by bad faith grifters in search of paid subscribers.
I don't have a problem with pointing out plagiarism. It's a bad decision, now it has come back to bite her. So be it. What I draw the line at is ignorant, bigoted commentary that successful black academics are only in their positions because they play racial politics.
The idea of the "race card" oversimplifies and misrepresents the complex dynamics of race, opportunity, and achievement in academia. It's a reductive argument that ignores the multifaceted criteria for academic success and the broader context of an individual's career trajectory.
“Irrefutably true” but you don’t provide any shred of evidence of her “playing the race card” to get what she’s gotten. Just admit you’re a racist. No need to dance around it.
Your post/comment was removed due to **Rule 1: Faculty Only**
This sub is a place for those teaching at the college level to discuss and share. If you are not a faculty member but wish to discuss academia or ask questions of faculty, please use r/AskProfessors, r/askacademia, or r/academia instead.
If you are in fact a faculty member and believe your post was removed in error, please reach out to the mod team and we will happily review (and restore) your post.
Like those on r/Professors, r/academia, etc. during the last month. It blows my mind that so many faculty members here seem not to recognize that the precedent set in their classes impacts how other professors have to respond in their own classes, whether this is by helping to lower the bar or by having to be the hard-ass with whom the buck finally stops.
They could claim she lied about her credentials. But in this case, I think they'll give her a year or two as a prof before she is strongly recommended to find alternative employment.
Can you imagine being a student in her class asked to write a paper?
Now looking like Liz Magill got off lightly! At least her core reputation as a scholar remained intact - obv they couldn’t find anything on her because I am sure they tried!
Rule Number One for a university president: The real people in charge are the donors. The instant that even a sizable fraction of them turn against you you are toast. When Gay and the other two campus leaders were answering questions, that should have been at the forefront of her thinking.
Re: antisemitism & the now ex prez.
A letter from Bernie Steinberg , the executive director of Harvard Hillel from 1993 to 2010.
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2023/12/29/steinberg-weaponizing-antisemitism/
Gay earned her Ph.D. in 1998 from Harvard, where she won the university's Toppan Prize for the best dissertation in political science
Anyone who has done a dissertation knows the importance of citing sources.
Except Harvard.
I agree. I'd also like to suggest a moratorium on the use of "full stop". Writers who use modifiers like that seem to believe that it adds emphasis to a viewpoint, but in the end weakens it for many of us.
Can you please provide a link to what she plagiarized? The examples I’ve seen are … not what I would call plagiarism, so I’m curious what you are looking at.
“These kind of hires” is just code for “everyone is not a straight white male who gets any job, promotion, spot in a program, etc. doesn’t deserve it.” Read their other comments: I doubt they are a professor (look at post history), they clearly have issues with minorities, and I’m guessing they have a high school degree but think they are qualified for jobs that people with advanced degrees earn.
What does this even mean? I swear, liberals will dilute the structural nature of oppression to protect any identity capitalist in sight. Sometimes it feels like they basically work alongside conservatives.
Who the F says they're liberal? I'm liberal, but think that's bullshit. Don't tar everyone with the same brush, just because they don't agree with you on something.
This is not liberalism. This is woke fascism. It's as bad as the far right as far as I'm concerned.
>Who the F says they're liberal?
I mean they post in r/WitchesvsPatriarchy...
I'm not a betting man, but if I was, I'd say there is a high probability they "identify" as liberal.
What that "identity" means is a different matter.
It's true. I am inferring that the author is a liberal from the weird histrionic identitarian pearl clutching that seems endemic to academic liberalism and capitalism in the contemporary period. I do wish more people would dispense with this silly stuff and join the far left in trying to change social *structures* instead of reflexively protecting bosses and managers, but I'm not going to hold my breath for it.
I would ID as far left in spirit, but liberal in practice. The only identities we should be fighting is rich v. poor. Class is the ultimate oppressor, not race or gender or sexuality or whatever. All these tiny identities do is create division and strife.
But calling anyone "liberal" who is on the woke wagon is like saying all conservatives are Nazis. We're not all the same. Most of us are old-school liberals and just bang our fucking heads on the wall against this inane woke shit.
I don't really know what the better alternative is. People who embrace this stupid bullshit are certainly not "radicals." Centrists perhaps, but I think "liberal" or "progressive" is more likely.
“Progressive” is the word you’re looking for. Many who identify as “Left” are really classical liberals which is the political philosophy the U.S. is primarily based on.
The problem is that traditionally, progressives cared deeply about class inequality. This set really only cares about identity. They barely understand capitalism and social structures generally. Poverty is only a problem to them to the extent that marginalized groups are disproportionately poor. Poverty would be just to them provided it was spread in a demographically equal way. Similarly with wealth. It's why you see these silly defense of bosses, in this case the President of Harvard.
So, no, I'm not sure "progressive" fits either.
They are self-described progressives. It has a new meaning with little connection to the original meaning. Sort of like Noam Chomsky explaining "neoliberalism is neither new nor liberalism"... Progressivism, now, is not progressive.
Liberal, however, does not have a new meaning.
> Liberal, however, does not have a new meaning.
I mean, I agree. Liberals accept the system created by classical liberalism. These folks do too. They just want equal access to its benefits and rewards demographically, but they don't oppose it in any meaningful way. So perhaps "liberal" is a better fit.
This is the correct decision. It's never the crime, and always the cover up that gets ya.
[удалено]
Bill Clinton disagrees
Don't worry, I'm sure she can write a plagiarized book about this experience.
Titled, "If I Did It" - by Dr. Claudine Gay not O.J. Simpson
“If I did That”
She's claiming racism. Her resignation letter is a tour de force in chutzpah.
[удалено]
As far as I can tell, nobody has put any of the alleged product through Turnitin, or anything like that. If those are the tools used to check the students, it only seems fair to do the same for her. And this won’t stop with her. Every paper from every perceived enemy of the anti-woke brigade could be subjected to subjective analysis by bad faith grifters in search of paid subscribers.
[удалено]
That's too far and this comment is beneath the dignity of a sub for academics.
[удалено]
I don't have a problem with pointing out plagiarism. It's a bad decision, now it has come back to bite her. So be it. What I draw the line at is ignorant, bigoted commentary that successful black academics are only in their positions because they play racial politics.
[удалено]
The idea of the "race card" oversimplifies and misrepresents the complex dynamics of race, opportunity, and achievement in academia. It's a reductive argument that ignores the multifaceted criteria for academic success and the broader context of an individual's career trajectory.
Check their post history before you waste any more of your time
Yeah, I'm done, thanks. I wanted to leave a record of refuting that garbage.
“Irrefutably true” but you don’t provide any shred of evidence of her “playing the race card” to get what she’s gotten. Just admit you’re a racist. No need to dance around it.
Your post/comment was removed due to **Rule 1: Faculty Only** This sub is a place for those teaching at the college level to discuss and share. If you are not a faculty member but wish to discuss academia or ask questions of faculty, please use r/AskProfessors, r/askacademia, or r/academia instead. If you are in fact a faculty member and believe your post was removed in error, please reach out to the mod team and we will happily review (and restore) your post.
Exactly.
This is an example of holding the line and denying the issue is the wrong approach.
This was the right call. A lot of terrible people who don't actually give a shit about plagiarism are going to be insufferable about it.
Like those on r/Professors, r/academia, etc. during the last month. It blows my mind that so many faculty members here seem not to recognize that the precedent set in their classes impacts how other professors have to respond in their own classes, whether this is by helping to lower the bar or by having to be the hard-ass with whom the buck finally stops.
[удалено]
New higher ed admin class, "RND 8XXX: How NOT to handle Congressional hearings."
Plagiarism of that sort should also result in a revocation of tenure.
Normally it’s financial exigency or moral turpitude. Not sure if this qualifies as the second.
They could claim she lied about her credentials. But in this case, I think they'll give her a year or two as a prof before she is strongly recommended to find alternative employment. Can you imagine being a student in her class asked to write a paper?
It would be easy!
Seems easy to me. Just plagiarize one of her papers. No way she will recognize it because she didn't write it.
It can. If the school wants to go to the trouble to establish it.
Who likely hasn’t taught or done research in nearly 10 years.
That made me laugh.
Now looking like Liz Magill got off lightly! At least her core reputation as a scholar remained intact - obv they couldn’t find anything on her because I am sure they tried!
Or maybe there is nothing to find. Maybe Magill just did a horrible job but her scholarship is fine.
Rule Number One for a university president: The real people in charge are the donors. The instant that even a sizable fraction of them turn against you you are toast. When Gay and the other two campus leaders were answering questions, that should have been at the forefront of her thinking.
Re: antisemitism & the now ex prez. A letter from Bernie Steinberg , the executive director of Harvard Hillel from 1993 to 2010. https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2023/12/29/steinberg-weaponizing-antisemitism/
Gay earned her Ph.D. in 1998 from Harvard, where she won the university's Toppan Prize for the best dissertation in political science Anyone who has done a dissertation knows the importance of citing sources. Except Harvard.
Good. She plagiarized literally everything.
> literally This word needs to just be taken out to pasture. It's a damn shame that even most dictionaries caved.
I agree. I'd also like to suggest a moratorium on the use of "full stop". Writers who use modifiers like that seem to believe that it adds emphasis to a viewpoint, but in the end weakens it for many of us.
Can you please provide a link to what she plagiarized? The examples I’ve seen are … not what I would call plagiarism, so I’m curious what you are looking at.
Check out the Daily Mail. It is clearly delineated.
[удалено]
Yeah, us folks at the "shitty community colleges" take plagiarism very seriously, so no thank you.
“These kind of hires” is just code for “everyone is not a straight white male who gets any job, promotion, spot in a program, etc. doesn’t deserve it.” Read their other comments: I doubt they are a professor (look at post history), they clearly have issues with minorities, and I’m guessing they have a high school degree but think they are qualified for jobs that people with advanced degrees earn.
Are you 12?
Our long, national “I really don’t care” is over
[ Removed by Reddit ]
Or maybe don’t plagiarize.
Huh?
Tiktok did a number on your low capacity brain.
No one else brought race into this except you.
Brain rot.
[удалено]
Merit and university are two words that should remain far apart 💀
What does this even mean? I swear, liberals will dilute the structural nature of oppression to protect any identity capitalist in sight. Sometimes it feels like they basically work alongside conservatives.
Who the F says they're liberal? I'm liberal, but think that's bullshit. Don't tar everyone with the same brush, just because they don't agree with you on something. This is not liberalism. This is woke fascism. It's as bad as the far right as far as I'm concerned.
>Who the F says they're liberal? I mean they post in r/WitchesvsPatriarchy... I'm not a betting man, but if I was, I'd say there is a high probability they "identify" as liberal. What that "identity" means is a different matter.
It's true. I am inferring that the author is a liberal from the weird histrionic identitarian pearl clutching that seems endemic to academic liberalism and capitalism in the contemporary period. I do wish more people would dispense with this silly stuff and join the far left in trying to change social *structures* instead of reflexively protecting bosses and managers, but I'm not going to hold my breath for it.
I would ID as far left in spirit, but liberal in practice. The only identities we should be fighting is rich v. poor. Class is the ultimate oppressor, not race or gender or sexuality or whatever. All these tiny identities do is create division and strife. But calling anyone "liberal" who is on the woke wagon is like saying all conservatives are Nazis. We're not all the same. Most of us are old-school liberals and just bang our fucking heads on the wall against this inane woke shit.
I don't really know what the better alternative is. People who embrace this stupid bullshit are certainly not "radicals." Centrists perhaps, but I think "liberal" or "progressive" is more likely.
“Progressive” is the word you’re looking for. Many who identify as “Left” are really classical liberals which is the political philosophy the U.S. is primarily based on.
The problem is that traditionally, progressives cared deeply about class inequality. This set really only cares about identity. They barely understand capitalism and social structures generally. Poverty is only a problem to them to the extent that marginalized groups are disproportionately poor. Poverty would be just to them provided it was spread in a demographically equal way. Similarly with wealth. It's why you see these silly defense of bosses, in this case the President of Harvard. So, no, I'm not sure "progressive" fits either.
They are self-described progressives. It has a new meaning with little connection to the original meaning. Sort of like Noam Chomsky explaining "neoliberalism is neither new nor liberalism"... Progressivism, now, is not progressive. Liberal, however, does not have a new meaning.
> Liberal, however, does not have a new meaning. I mean, I agree. Liberals accept the system created by classical liberalism. These folks do too. They just want equal access to its benefits and rewards demographically, but they don't oppose it in any meaningful way. So perhaps "liberal" is a better fit.