Already a subscriber? Log in
Gay was inaugurated as Harvard’s new president on September 29. In her inaugural address, ‘Courage to be Harvard,’ Gay declared that Harvard’s purpose is ‘to question the world as it is and imagine and make a better one.’
Just over a week later, some 3,000 Hamas terrorists did indeed ‘question the world as it is’ and imagined a better one could be brought about by an orgy of murder, rape and kidnapping. Their version of a ‘better world’ was a place without Jews, and they hit a responsive chord with 31 Harvard student organisations. On evening of October 7 — the day of the attack — they issued their ‘Joint Statement by Harvard Palestine Solidarity Groups on the Situation in Palestine.’
This was awkward. President Gay had made it abundantly clear that she views herself as the ally of everyone she deems to be victims of racism and oppression. Harvard, she said in her inaugural, must uphold ‘the collective courage of all those who walked that impossible distance, across centuries and dared to create a different future.’ Among those walkers were Titus, Venus, Bilhah and Juba, ‘four enslaved people [who] lived and worked in Wadsworth House as the personal property of the president of Harvard University.’
Gay had been mining stories of institutional racism for many years before this. Her August 2020 letter as dean to the Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences laid out a complete programme for overcoming ‘the devastating legacies of slavery and white supremacy’ and implanting ‘racial justice’ at Harvard. She declared that Harvard was suffering two pandemics: Covid and ‘white supremacy.’ And she was the cure for the latter.
So perhaps Gay’s natural affinity was with the students who declared they ‘hold the Israeli regime entirely responsible for all unfolding violence.’ Settler colonialism, according to Hamas’s western apologists, is the real problem. And those Jewish settlers, don’t you know, are white.
Presidents at some other universities were likewise twisting themselves into knots so as to stay on the good side of the pro-Palestine faction without offending Jewish students, faculty and alumni. Hypocrisy of this sort is not so much a tightrope to be walked as it is a bed of hot coals to be crossed. Forced to stand in one place for more than a few seconds, the firewalker ignites.
Which is pretty much what happened when Congresswoman Elise Stefanik asked Gay, University of Pennsylvania president Liz Magill, and MIT president Sally Kornbluth, ‘Whether calling for the genocide of the Jews constitutes bullying or harassment?’ Each in succession gave the same answer, ‘It depends on the context.’ It was an answer that might have warranted a passing grade on a logic exam. What doesn’t ‘depend on context?’ But it was not an answer that was going to help Gay, Magill or Kornbluth traverse the hot coals. It was instantly clear to millions of Americans that the three were extremely reluctant to cross their pro-Palestine supporters or to condemn the wave of anti-Semitism that has broken out on campus.
While Gay was still in engulfed in her Hamas/anti-Semitism controversy, a seemingly new story broke. Christopher Rufo and Christopher Brunet published ‘Is Claudine Gay a Plagiarist?’ documenting alleged instances of plagiarism in Gay’s PhD dissertation at Harvard. A day later, Aaron Sibarium writing in the Washington Free Beacon alleged plagiarism in four journal articles published between 1993 and 2017. Harvard was not caught unaware. It had a polished excuse ready and waiting — waiting because Gay had learned at least some of what was coming back in October, and Harvard had appointed a special committee to ‘examine’ the evidence.
The appointment of the committee bypassed Harvard’s regulations on how to deal with allegations of academic misconduct. It looks pretty much like a straightforward public relations exercise aimed at minimising Gay’s culpability and giving the Harvard Corporation cover to declare that she would not be fired.
The committee explained that Gay was guilty of no more than a ‘few instances of inadequate citation.’ That could happen. In my second paragraph in this piece I paraphrased Shakespeare where he has Hamlet pondering whether ‘to be or not to be,’ by taking arms against a sea of troubles. I assumed anyone reading a Spectator article would catch it and a citation would have been ridiculously pedantic. Was that Gay’s situation?
Not hardly. Gay seemingly made a practice of lifting whole paragraphs and changing up a few words or phrases. Where the source she has copied has a mid-paragraph phrase ‘which is one description of bias,’ Gay amends it to ‘which is one way to think about bias.’ In another case, the source paragraph refers to ‘the torture and assassination of a black worker, Robson Silveira da Luz’ which Gay rewrites as the ‘beating death of black worker, Robson Silveira da Luz.’ The importance of these tiny changes is that Gay did not seem to be just leaving out citations to her sources but actively modifying the content.
What, you may well ask, would be the point of making such tiny changes or, as she does elsewhere, rearranging the order of some phrases? The point I assume would be to disguise — to make it a little harder for a computer or a reader somewhat familiar with the material to recognise that the words have been twice-born. (Gay has argued, ‘I stand by the integrity of my scholarship. Throughout my career, I have worked to ensure my scholarship adheres to the highest academic standards.’)
I’ve been involved with investigations of numerous cases of plagiarism over my career and I’m familiar with the pattern. Plagiarists often engage in such slight modification of the texts they steal. This must be partly a psychological matter: so the plagiarist can tell themselves that they didn’t ‘really’ plagiarise because they changed things around.
A college freshman may well think this until she gets her first ‘F’ for plagiarising. But that leaves open the question of how someone can rise to the position of president of Harvard university when your work suggests an ingrained habit of stealing other people’s words and ideas.
The possible answers to that aren’t pretty. One is that her teachers and colleagues recognised what she was doing and didn’t care. Another is that the community that Adam Wheeler bamboozled so easily was similarly bamboozled by Claudine Gay: no one ever bothered to look. Yet another answer is that Gay barely pretended to be a scholar. She published 11 peer-reviewed journal articles from 1998 to 2016, all of them on racial politics, and all of them derivative of other people’s ideas. This wasn’t even journeyman work, let alone the sort of writing that would have drawn close attention from busy scholars.
But then we are back to Gay’s signature strength. She is a tireless advocate of the Diversity, Equity and Inclusion movement. It is the carriage that brought her to the ball. And it is the solid link between her disheartening unwillingness to protect Jews from anti-Semitic threats of violence and what looks like a disheartening disregard for the standards of academic dishonesty.
It has been noted that as dean at Harvard, Gay presided over the forced withdrawal of 27 students for ‘academic dishonesty,’ mostly plagiarism. It has also been noted that Gay has been a strong supporter of ‘mandatory training’ of students to teach them to avoid ‘using wrong pronouns’ and other hurtful language that is tantamount to ‘violence.’ So, yes, words really do matter at Gay’s Harvard. But not all words. Context does matter, as in ‘It’s not plagiarism if President Gay does it.’
I don’t know if any of those 27 students she expelled will now ask Harvard to apologise and make restitution. When Adam Wheeler’s case eventually went to trial, Harvard submitted a statement that said not only was the university a victim but (Zauzmer’s paraphrase) ‘public faith in institutions of higher education everywhere had been shaken by his actions.’ Wheeler ultimately went to jail. Gay at the moment isn’t going anywhere. But she is teaching us a lot about how corruption of words and the seductions of ideology go hand in hand.
Also in Politics
Also by Peter Wood
Latest
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in