She Resigned?! Harvard President Plagiarism Claims Explained
Вставка
- Опубліковано 11 чер 2024
- Go to ground.news/pete to stay fully informed. Subscribe through my link to get 30% off unlimited access this month only.
For anyone who says I'm biased. Am I biased, or did I just not confirm your bias?
My Website: petejudo.com
Harvard Crimson article: www.thecrimson.com/article/20...
Follow me:
Behavioral Science Instagram: @petejudoofficial
Instagram: @petejudo
Twitter: @petejudo
LinkedIn: Peter Judodihardjo
Good tools I actually use:
Shortform: www.Shortform.com/pete
Ground News: ground.news/Pete
Go to ground.news/pete to stay fully informed. Subscribe through my link to get 30% off unlimited access this month only.
You asked: "is it.a big deal?" Of course this is significant because you overlooked the crux of the ethical matter with Harvard's former President: she had a mandate to uphold plagiarism rules across the academic community (which you downplay as "technical"). Ethically, she undermined her role as the guardian of these fundamental academic principles. While you argue it wasn't a major issue as there were no consequences to third parties, you now recognize it had substantial repercussions for her. Being dismissed for lax oversight of basic citation rules is indeed a significant consequence.
You omitted highlighting that her academic output falls below an average researcher at Harvard - eleven peer-reviewed papers. This is a significant concern for one of the world's foremost research institutions.
@@DJVARAOexcellent response
@@DJVARAO Go enroll yourselves in a university. Then you can feel what Pete is talking about
@@takiyaazrin7562 You didn't?
It's summer in London? Or there is a heatwave taking place?
SHE MAKES 900K?!?!?!?!?! Why on earth is she making literally more than 10x the salary of an assistant prof? Heavens forbid we compare with the post-docs and phd students that do the actual lab work... Wtf
I know right? She should have been fired, not just moved to a different department. Harvard is protecting her. I doubt that would have happened if she were a white male.
Let you get this straight. It's a no show job. She is not going to do single solitary thing in this new capacity. So she resigned a job from which she was vastly under qualified other than she was woke female and black and now is getting 900k to do nothing.
Because she is still a department chair of African American study - it probably is more important than Computer Science or Economy or Biology. I don't know if this is true but the monetary value at least would say in that way lol.
I am thinking 900k is the contract she got for president, and that on stepping down did not require giving up the salary.
What is salary for tenured full professor?, department head? 250k, 400k?
Isn't it same in any company, the ceo works less and earns way more
"It's technically plagiarism, but it's small potatoes," might be a valid excuse for an undergrad (not in my classes), but not a doctoral candidate, and especially not a school president.
Double that for Harvard the worlds premiere institution.
And she's plagiarized in papers since receiving her PhD.
And it’s usually *not* ok for an undergrad.
@@JM-vp8zc Did you even watch the vid? Even citing? Shut the fuck up.
Stop making such a big deal folks. It's just a complete lack of integrity.
In my opinion the issue isn’t that the plagiarism is “harmless” it’s that the president of Harvard is being held to a lower standard than students and applicants. When the opposite should be happening.
that's not what is happening tho. many of these students get told to properly cite etc but they are given a huge leeway practically.
@@yikeslikes4457you just missed the point that you responded to
People make mistakes in citation all the time, it slips through the cracks every single day. And it has gotten far, far easier to spot such mistakes over the past few years. Not to mention that the work shown here at least, the worst that would happen is that you got it back from your advisor with a note telling you to add the citation.
If it had looked like a malicious attempt at stealing someone else work I'd agree. But she clearly shows where she got the information, so the intent isn't there. It's just a mistake, and a very small one at that.
If anything it only highlights how easy it is for some missed citations to slip through the cracks when you work on something for upwards of 2-3 years, continuously revising and making changes the entrire time.
@@ggusta1well no they did not miss the point the fact of the matter is the president made very miniscule mistakes while writing which everyone had done while doing a thesis or any form of paper she has attempted to rectify the mistakes though they are small and inconsequential as stated by the people she's apparently "stealing" from.
This channel has discussed far worst forms of plagiarism in elite spaces that have not gotten this level of attention and discourse by the general public. Clearly there is a biase
Also the act of correcting your dissertation years later because of minor mistakes is normal and expected in academia
I used to work for a large insurance company that had a cafeteria where we could buy lunch. The lady cashier would very frequently make an error counting the change. The funny thing was, the error was always in her favor. Sometimes mistakes aren't mistakes, they're just little flags pointing to character flaw.
I find very disappointing that having studied behavioral sciences, you fail to recognize that those same professors who think “it’s no big deal” are incentivized to claim so. One of them even works at Harvard, under Gay.
This isn’t “small potatoes”, this person has rewritten works from others with minimal changes to pass them as their own, and I’m sure with proper scrutiny more will be found.
This would be grounds for an immediate suspension for any phd at my college, and it’s a very bad look for Harvards president.
I am very disappointed as well. I have not held Harvard in high regard for a long time, and this is one more instance that supports that view.
It actually is “small potatoes”.
@@eldenfindley186 Well, clearly we have different standards, but If students would be expelled for this, so should the president.
EDIT: By the way, if you go look at the actual source, the plagiarism is way more extended, pretty much every page of the thesis has this style of rewriting, there's nothing original in there.
He also fails to recognize his own bias. "I did 'plagiarism'' worse than that" is his declaration of bias
@@theondono clearly you deserve a handicap placard
I agree, the way you show it as just a couple instances, it seems like small potatoes. But, this video is misleading, because it misses the fact that there were over (allegedly) over 40 instances of plagiarism, including full paragraphs being copied. This occurred in more that 40% of her works. In some cases, it wasn't just words that were copied but authors weren't cited. That's pretty bad and not small potatoes. It shows a consistent trend. The fact that some of the people she plagiarized are not upset about it does not mean it's not plagiarism. As one of your other listeners points out, you didn't mention the plagiarism of Carol Swain (allegedly two clear instances + many of Gay's main ideas - at least according to Swain). The main thing is, since Gay was the President (and at Harvard), she must be held to a much higher standard.
Sadly this video seems pretty haphazardly put together, normally they are much batter. It only took me a few mins to find out about Carol Swain's accusations. I also agree with others that a Harvard Run Newspaper, student run or not is no an unbiased source. Clearly the School, Student Body and graduates benefit from downplaying yet another Harvard scandal. Harvard has been in the news frequently for the past several years and not for good reasons.
I understand why he avoided the Antisemitism aspects but frankly her answers where absurd and it would be hard to navigate it without causing outrage one way or the other.
See my post on this video (nearly a week after yours): It's 50 rather than 40 instances of plagiarism--and they aren't close. According to the very standards she is supposed to uphold at all costs, Gay bald-facedly cheated...multiple times, and in serious ways.
Agreed. Actually this was so weak and pathetic that I’m dropping subscription and maybe I’ll check again periodically to see if it’s improved.
Oh no we found 40 small potatoes…..
@@kucingmiumiu854 If you don't think that's a big deal, try eating 40 small potatoes.
It's also quite interesting how he completely ignored Professor Carol Swain, whose work was plagiarized by Claudine. Professor Carol Swain publicly accused Claudine for this on several occasions.
This video took him from a trusted source I viewed frequently to a source I can no longer trust.
Your comment got me curious, so I looked into the Swain part of the accusations. Seemed like one of the the weakest parts; I see why the video didn't bother with them.
Anyone reading can judge for themself, though: freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Complaint2.pdf
@@phloog Sad but true.
The Harvard Crimson is not exactly an unbiased independent source. I've seen an interview with a Black author she plagiarised who was definitely not OK with it and condemned her in the most withering terms. I'm not sure why the Crimson didn't mention that. The interview is worth digging out, it's on youtube somewhere.
Her name is Carol Swain
I am surprised and disappointed Pete did not examine other sources.
The author, Carol Swain's criticisms of Ms Gay's plagiarising of her work were justifiably withering. You didn't cover this.
Also there's the part where she's literally their boss that would be deserving of some attention. It's hard to call out your boss for something that isn't egregiously bad and isn't a sure nail in the coffin.
Also, did she get an unfair advantage in the job market from this? That is a form of damage that would be hard to quantify.
the victims are not just the people she plagiarized, as you make it out to be, but the deceit and career advancements she was able to attain by lying to everyone. how about Carol Swain? you seem to have conveniently overlooked how she was plagiarized by Gay... and Swain does not think for her they were "small potato".
Something about your username makes you look quite a lot like a troll account.
You miss his point though that she didn't steal someone's research idea. The hard part is coming up with an original, important research idea. Anyone can do a lit review or a methodology section. It's still a bad look, especially for a university president, but I agree with Pete that it's not that big of a deal.
@@agilagilsen8714That doesn't make the his/her post false.
From a Dec. 17 Wall Street Journal op-ed written by Dr. Carol Swain:
“scholarship on black congressional representation, electoral districting and descriptive representation builds on terrain where I plowed the ground.”
“When scholars aren’t cited adequately or their work is ignored, it harms them because academic stature is determined by how often other researchers cite your work,” Swain’s op-ed stated.
“Ms. Gay had no problem riding on the coattails of people whose work she used without proper attribution. Many of those whose work she pilfered aren’t as incensed as I am. They are elites who have benefited from a system that protects its own.”
@@sundrenched6248 PhD students are kicked out for such. Even if that weren't the case when she attended Harvard, the fact that she seemed to attribute others well enough -- but not the Black academics specifically -- says enough & speaks volumes.
@@sundrenched6248 Carol Swain says she did steal her research ideas
COMPLETLEY WRONG STANDARD FOR PLAGIARISM. It is not up to sources if something is plagiarized and if it does any harm to them. That is not the standard students are judged by. From the Harvard Guide to Using Sources: " When you fail to cite your sources, or when you cite them inadequately, you are plagiarizing,which is taken extremely seriously at Harvard. Plagiarism is defined as the act of either intentionally OR unintentionally submitting work that was written by someone else. If you turn in a paper that was written by someone else, or if you turn in a paper in which you have included material from any source without citing that source, you have plagiarized".
Plagiarism is the act of presenting the words, ideas, or images of another as your own; it denies authors or creators of content the credit they are due. Whether deliberate or unintentional, plagiarism violates ethical standards in scholarship. Writers who plagiarize disrespect the efforts of original authors by failing to acknowledge their contributions, stifle further research by preventing readers from tracing ideas back to their original sources, and unfairly disregard those who exerted the effort to complete their own work.
Quotations must always be identified as such by the use of either quotation marks or indentation, and with full referencing of the sources cited. It must always be apparent to the reader which parts are your own independent work and where you have drawn on ideas and language from another source.
Paraphrasing the work of others by altering a few words and changing their order, or by closely following the structure of their argument, is plagiarism if you do not give due acknowledgement to the author whose work you are using.A passing reference to the original author in your own text may not be enough; you must ensure that you do not create the misleading impression that the paraphrased wording or the sequence of ideas are entirely your own.
But those examples do, in fact, quite clearly cite their sources.
@@hermenegildakociubinska6665 Not cited in many cases and in other cases not cited correctly.
If that were the standard, Carol Swain has deemed her guilty. Funny that Pete doesn't mention her.
@@hermenegildakociubinska6665 Yeah but you are trusting the maker of this video to have not cherry picked his examples he certainly excluded Professor Carol Swain who she plagiarized that did think she was harming them
How did you miss the plagiarism against Carole Swain, and the fact that she did say it was plagiarism and it should be punished? You have access to all those different sources and yet somehow you missed arguably the most egregious case of plagiarism, and the one where the victim wasn't willing to give her a pass?
If you ignore the white elephant, then you can focus on “small potatoes” which is thus loaded in Gay’s favor.
The answer is at 11:35. He himself has plagiarized.
Apparently Ground News didn't favor that particular bit of news, perhaps it read a minority award winning professor who wrote an award winning book she now claims Gay plagiarized large parts off as what right wing?
He ignored the totality of more than 50 instances of plagiarism. What a joke.
He missed it because he's mostly interested in advertising his sponsor.
Plagiarism is plagiarism. “Small potatoes” is just a two tiered system of potatoes.
I'm a lifelong academic, have served on the editorial boards of seven international journals, and in my expert opinion there is no question-not the slightest-that Gay committed plagiarism, and at a level far far greater than as specified in Harvard's codes on this subject. And no... the fact that half of Gay's publications bear plagiarized material cannot be ascribed to some graduate assistant or such. There are SO many examples to provide (more than I've ever heard of from a single person), but here's my favorite. Palmquist & Voss (1996) wrote: "… the average turnout rate seems to DECREASE linearly as African Americans become a larger proportion of the population. This is one sign that the data
contain little aggregation bias. If racial turnout rates changed depending upon a precinct’s racial mix..." which Gay plagiarizes as (Gay, 1997) "… the average turnout rate seems to DECREASE linearly as African Americans become a larger proportion of the population. This is one sign that the data contain little aggregation bias. If racial turnout rates changed depending upon a precinct’s racial mix,..." Note the verbatim (and unacknowledged) copying... save for one word, the change of "DECREASE" to "INCREASE," which the careful reader might ascribe to an attempt to forward a political agenda. In my expert opinion, this is far WORSE than plagiarism: It is a) not doing the original data collection or analysis, b) copying verbatim the scholars who DID do the data collection and analysis, and c) inverting the conclusions (likely to further a political agenda). No wonder Professor Carol Swain of Vanderbilt, whose work was plagiarized by Gay (and who happens to be black), said Gay stole Swain's ideas and hence doesn't deserve to be called "Dr." because she (Gay) didn't do "original" research for her PhD. And Gay is the best Harvard could find from 600 applicants? Really?
small note, in your example from Gay you still use the word DECREASE. just an fyi :)
Adding to the note above, I think that your comment would be more effective if you were to break it up into separate sections with the original text on a new line as its own section followed by the plagiarism as its own section. That way readers can quickly identify and contrast the two without having to go back and sort through the comment.
Adding to the note above, I believe that your comment would be more effective if you were to break it up into separate sections with the original text on a new line as its own section followed by the plagiarism as its own section. That way readers can quickly compare and contrast the two without having to go back and sort through the comment.
This! Literally is changing the results to fit her political agenda.
"... in my expert opinion there is no question-not the slightest-that Gay committed plagiarism, and at a level far far greater than as specified in Harvard's codes on this subject.":
Please allow me to respond in defence of Gay... "It depends on the context. Innit?"
It doesn’t really matter if the original authors think it’s ok. Even when you’re quoting your own work, you need to cite it properly. It’s not just about giving credit (of course this is important too), it’s also about readers finding the proper source of the claim or results
Plagiarism laws are majorly to avoid theft not just to find sources. For actual peoplein academia to consider this plagiarism, there has to be intent to theft. For all we know, there was no intent on Gay's part.
An academic journal is not just a place to find information, it is a tool. You orient yourself by following the threads of current research back and building a picture of how work on a particular topic has evolved. If somebody's work is relevant enough to lift, it is relevant enough to cite so that current and future readers can look up that source and see what it has to contribute to the context they are constructing for their own research.
Plot twist: Dr. Gay plagiarized from Dr. Carol Swain, a black conservative academic who basically "wrote the book" on modern African-American voting patterns and Congressional districting. Dr. Swain was mostly diplomatic, but ultimately very harsh in her criticism of Dr. Gay's plagiarizing from her book.
@@briannnnnnnnnn1037Ah yes, the Hillary Clinton defense of "no intent." 😅
@@timothyrday1390 Bill Ackman's defense for his wife who is also accused of plagiarism is that there was no intent. He was one of the key players in bringing Gay down. He is correct, his wife didn't plagiarize as there has not been any evidence of intent, similarly Gay didn't plagiarize cause there was no intent.
You can argue all day but plagiarism requires intent for it be punishable in academia. If there was no intent, the worse that can happen is you being required to make edits to your publication adding the citations.
The primary messaging from academic institutions across much of the western world is that word for word plagiarism is a serious offense. I cannot remember how many times during undergraduate or postgraduate studies we were told even failure to attribute was an automatic failure and potentially a reviewable/expellable offense.
Now with many of us graduated some years ago we’re being told actually it’s not a big deal in this case. Whether you lift a paragraph or an entire paper that is still plagiarism, and it’s beyond frustrating to see the rules being changed to fit the circumstances.
Yes, I agree. I have studied for 3 degrees at 3 institutes in 2 countries. Have worked as an academic for over 20 years in a few countries. Warnings about plagiarism and research ethics, not just for the students, but also to the staff, are ALWAYS presented in the strongest terms. No question, we are told, it is the worst offense we could do as an academic, not counting faking data and result or committing actual criminal acts.
She didn't lift an entire paragraph.
In Imperial College in my year we kicked out a bunch of kids for plagiarism. No one I spoke to questioned the decision. We were there to be scientists, to further human knowledge and to cheapen that was immoral.
@@Halkin85 no one questioned the decision because it wouldn't have benefitted you and let's be real it's not like you were allowed to read the actually papers. So in reality you still don't know what they were expelled for you just took their word for it.
@@paulomilan515 I was a scientist for a few years of my life. I believe science is what has dragged humans out of the gutter. These institutions are important and need to be treated with respect. If you cannot pass the lowest bar, I am sorry perhaps academia is not for you.
Not like that happened. Gay still on the payroll for 900k USD.
Based on these comments and the fact that you used a Harvard newspaper to get most of your analysis instead of independently coming up with this information on your own, you should probably make a follow-up. Also, because I love your videos. keep up the good work!
He's not doing "good work". This was tantamount to intentional misinformation.
One thing that doesn't seem to be mentioned is Harvard's standard for plagiarism. Harvard is very tough on plagiarism and will suspend a student, for a semester, for a first offense of forgetting to cite or incorrectly citing. A second offense will result in a suspension for a full year, and third will require withdrawal from Harvard. By their very own standards, she would not have been able to receive her PhD
I disagree. In practice the rules are relatively lax
@@sir_aken9706You disagree... with by their own standards. Maybe the rules are lax for dei reasons... And how do you judge that they're lax? You go there?
@There are so many factors that would lead to a student getting caught. A lot of plagiarism doesn’t get caught or enforced, just look at Neri Oxman. Should plagiarism always be punished? Yes, however, it often is not. That’s why you make sure you have no skeletons in your closet before taking on a job with great prestige and responsibility, like being the president of an Ivy League university. She didn’t, and her opponents took advantage of that, her fault.
Anybody who’s went to university knows this. *Every* university has incredibly strict rules regarding plagiarism, not just Harvard
Not yet, but I went to a university near there and did research with several Harvard grads. If she’s getting flagged for plagiarism, then nearly 90% of the faculty would be in trouble as well.
@@sir_aken9706 If the president of a university isn’t getting caught during their *PhD dissertation* imagine all of the lower level students who didn’t get caught either. Especially in the time before software like turnitin
I disagree that the second instance isn't plagiarism. It completely is; sure some concepts and words will be repeated but the words and their order are not "random" flukes. Clearly Claudine Gay looked at other people's phrasing and copied over the ones she liked. If that isn't plagiarism, nothing is.
Do we notice the people excusing her are her underlings, right?
Nah, calling this plagiarism is pretentious. What is the percentage of her work is made of the "bad" quote? In term of idea and word usage. Reducing a huge range into yes/no is simple radicalism, easily turn everyone into criminals, equating jaywalking with murdering. Once you refuse to address the issue correctly, every word comes after that is just a facade.
Student plagiarises 3 words - 'You're out!'
Teacher plagiarises paragraph - 'It's not that bad.'
The programming runs deep.
There's a giant differences in consequences here. One loses reputation and career meaning to get canceled.....the student is getting canceled too? It's a blatant cancel hit piece. Are you one of those cancel culture supporter fucks? I don't like Gay's action or her person, she seems arrogant. But I absolutely despise cancel culture and the people doing it.
I don't think students often get in trouble for plagiarism or even other forms of academic fraud (like copying in a test, or looking at their phone). Especially if it's the first time, they usually get a warning, or if it's automated nothing might even happen.
University president gets caught plagiarizing 50 times... Here's a 900k no show job and our deepest sympathy.
@@MrEdes7 Students CAN BE FAILED for plagiarism as standards are set by universities, even in schools these days plagiarism is taken seriously.
Students don't actually get in trouble for plagiarism. You have to be completely disconnected from the reality of our modern education system to think any university is going to voluntarily lose tens of thousands of dollars of tuition money every semester. The same universities that don't kick out students who are caught and convicted of violent felonies or kick out student athletes who game the system by either taking bribes or signing up for fake classes (which when discovered rarely if ever even mean punishment for the coaches and faculty who created these fake classes) to artificially keep their GPA up?
Sure, they'll kick out the students who commit a purely academic infraction when that infraction can be used as a teaching moment, and using that as a teaching moment allows the university to keep raking in that sweet sweet tuition money. If you think that sounds like any university in the world, I have ten thousand bridges to sell you for a very nice price.
'They interviewed the original authors and they didn't care.....so she really didn't do anything wrong there.'
WTF?? So, if I hand in my older sister's paper.....but she said it was ok....I guess I didn't *really* do anything wrong. lol
It's even funnier: self-plagiarism rarely makes the previous author vivid :D
😂😂😂😂😂 GREAT analogy
Not only that - Gay is in a great position of power.
Hello Pete, I appreciate your video on the ongoing saga involving Dr Gay. I was however disappointed that you didn’t mention the objections raised by Dr Carol Swain who had complained that her scholarly work was not credited by Dr Gay in the said dissertation you referenced albeit the non-objections raised by the other authors whose works were cited. An analysis on this angle of the controversy involving Dr Swain would be quite helpful. Thanks for your video sir.
It looks like Pete has some sort of agenda, which of course he will readily admit to
I’m going to disagree with you strongly on this. Yes, this seems like very minor instances of improper citation. My problem is that the standards aren’t applied equally. When I was a grad student writing a paper in an early draft, I paraphrased some of my own research and also added the citation to the published article. My thesis advisor told me that what I had done constituted self-plagiarism and had to make some significant changes to the manuscript in order to submit it to the journal. You can’t brush off instances like Dr Grays case as minor issues and then come down on students and post docs, accusing them of plagiarism for even more minor examples.
So you did the same thing and had no consequences? Seems like gay was treated much harsher
@@zimzim7 Well the difference if of course that one is an early draft and the other is a fully published paper.
"No one cared so it isn't a problem"
- This is the problem. Even a teacher of hers does not care that his student copies and pastes his work.
It might be because they know that they are just doing something meaningless or they don't care about academic standards.
Either way it is shameful.
It is probably difficult to find an in-depth comparison of texts to identify plagiarism, but I am very wary when you mention that the main source for looking at the plagiarism accusation is the Harvard Crimson, a student-run newspaper at Harvard University.
Why does that worry you? Oh nevermind misread it. Yeah self policing is always suspect.
It's not difficult to find an in-depth comparison of texts in Claudine Gay's case. I found the one with 39 instances submitted to the Research Integrity Officer within 5 minutes of searching online...
They actually were decently critical in _Harvard Crimson._ Hell, a Stanford journalism student brought down their former president.
Good to know, I still wish he had more sources, txs for pointing this out.@@Heyu7her3
Pete, the question is did she hold students to a standard that she did not maintain herself? Moreover, the professors saying its not a big deal may get in trouble for not toeing the party line!
Yes I wondered if any of those giving her a pass were at or may want to be at Harvard.
Right?@@cameronlapworth2284
Do you actually have source to backup your assertion or you just making claims and pass them off as fact? What's the actual percentage of her plagiarism (which go unpunished) and what's the percentage of plagiarism that's punished for the students?
If those are the most egregious examples of plagiarism then this is all a big nothing. Plagiarism within a larger body of work is not determined by matching fragments of sentences or parts of a single paragraph.
@@nguyenvu8262 I never made an assertion. I asked Pete about a line of enquiry. Note the question mark. Where did I try to pass something off as fact?
@PeteJudo1 Dr. Carol Swain, from whom Claudine Gay plagiarized, disagrees with your conclusion and wrote the following in a Dec. 17 Wall Street Journal op-ed:
From a Dec. 17 Wall Street Journal op-ed written by Dr. Carol Swain:
“scholarship on black congressional representation, electoral districting and descriptive representation builds on terrain where I plowed the ground.”
“When scholars aren’t cited adequately or their work is ignored, it harms them because academic stature is determined by how often other researchers cite your work,” Swain’s op-ed stated.
“Ms. Gay had no problem riding on the coattails of people whose work she used without proper attribution. Many of those whose work she pilfered aren’t as incensed as I am. They are elites who have benefited from a system that protects its own.”
The last sentence says it all.
Carol Swain is a know conservative, extremely on the right so she saying all these is expected. For all I know, she is the only author Gay has been accused of plagiarizing that actually thinks there was plagiarism.
@@briannnnnnnnnn1037 Plagiarism is an objective charge, it does not matter if the original source is okay with it or not. Clearly where the source is left wing they have excused her - but that is irrelevant. The crime is against the academic community as a whole, as well as the individual uncited scholar.
Failure to cite is particularly damaging if it is done to lessen the reputation of scholars you disagree with politically, even if you agree with what they are saying. There is the accusation that Gay did that to Swain (which may or may not be true).
@briannnnnnnnnn1037 Nope. Swain's political persuasion does not negate her claims. However, the other authors' cronyism negates theirs. What *especially* shouldn't be lost on anyone is the fact that she plagiarized from Black scholars in particular.
I didn't know this was a magic channel. Lots of hand waving to excuse away a faculty member who couldn't meet a standard that I've seen seniors at university get expelled for.
You have not seen seniors at universities get expelled for the kind of behavior Claudine Gay is accused of engaging in because no university actually does that. While plagiarism is taken seriously, by itself it does not constitute an offense for which expulsion is the solution. While there are punishments when there is clear evidence the plagiarism was engaged in intentionally, universities would (to put it bluntly) not want to lose the tuition money of any student and would if they can work to teach the student not to commit such an act of academic misconduct again.
Christ almighty, universities don't even expel students who are caught in the act of sexually assaulting other students on campus or student athletes who are caught taking bribes or enrolled in false classes in order to artificially keep their GPA up to stay on the football/basketball/whatever team. You think they're going to throw away tens of thousands of dollars of tuition money on a purely academic infraction that is actually far more nuanced to understand fully than people think it is?
Like, there's dense, and then there's just completely detached from reality.
Bullshit comment.
How many seniors have you actually seen expelled for plagiarism?
@@Lantertronics when I was in university first I met a man in his 40's finally getting the degree he started 20 years earlier, his story was that he was kicked out for plagiarism. Then as a senior, an honor student I knew was expelled after the university found four of his term papers were lifted from essay websites. So technically I know two people who were booted from university for it.
Well said! She wouldn't have passed muster in a research methodology class.
Can the researchers who were asked about Gay's plagarism really answer thuthfully whether it's a big deal or not? There are probably repercussions for doing so. That's not the standard that should be taken to judge her case.
These people are saying it's no big deal. Betcha 1000 to 1 odds that if someone who shared Chris rufos ideology made the identical error it would be one heckuva big deal.
The plagiarism evidence was initially raised by The Harvard Crimson, the university's newspaper.
Curious that, in other of your examples you examine the work directly, but here you chose a second hand source. So, I suppose we can offer you thanks for bringing us The Harvard Crimson analysis?
The moral outrage against Harvard is about Harvard's grotesque Hypocrisy and double standards:
• In their “standards” about free speech.
• In their treatment of students who plagiarize in similar ways.
• In the quality of those who they hire to teach, give tenure to and select as president.
Only in commercial plagiarism (eg: a novel) is the “victim” harmed financially.
In academic plagiarism, consent by those plagiarized is completely irrelevant.
"In their treatment of students who plagiarize in similar ways" - do you have any proof?
Consent is irrelevant because:
1. as defined by one of those who were victims of her plagiarism, there is indeed plagiarism, although he calls it "technical" and "without consequences"
2. if someone whom the entire left considers a victim because she fulfills all the checks (a token basically) is accused of plagiarism and I am the victim of plagiarism, and I am asked publicly if it was plagiarism, I will probably say no for fear of the consequences
3. if I am the author of a plagiarized work and I say that I do not care that it was plagiarized, plagiarism does not cease to be plagiarism
4. if a person is so lazy or lacks the intellectual capacity to cite another paper explaining in her own words the idea she cites, then what is the point of reading a paper that is a copy and paste of others and therefore was written for the mere purpose of meeting the publication quota and nothing else?
@@corcoos
If the victim of her plagiarism effectively says that there was indeed technical plagiarism, how then does it cease to be plagiarism? aren't the leaders of an institution supposed to be held to the highest standards that institution represents? or is it that being a woman and black automatically represents an inferior category that therefore has to be held to lower standards?
@@huveja9799 I said an entirely different thing. I'm not an expert in plagiarism in academia, but apparently everyone else in the comment section is.
@@corcoos
The victim of plagiarism, who is a renowned researcher says that there was indeed technical plagiarism, that is, there was plagiarism, and that was my basis for asking you a very specific question, which you choose not to answer by deflecting the topic and making a personal attack ..
She is still faculty collecting $900000. What kind of standard is this?
$900K a year going to someone in a top university who thinks genocide "depends on context" is a huge deal.
It has also been claimed that she refused to produce her raw data. That deserves more attention.
She is also accused of plagiarizing in the acknowledgements section of her dissertation from a book "Facing up to the American Dream:Race, Class,and the Soul of the Nation" by Harvard political scientist Jennifer L Hochschild.In that example, Hochschild thanked her adviser who “showed me the importance of getting the data right and of following where they lead without fear or favor,” and “drove me much harder than I sometimes wanted to be driven.”
In Gay’s acknowledgment, she thanked her dissertation adviser who “reminded me of the importance of getting the data right and following where they lead without fear or favor” and her family who “drove me harder than I sometimes wanted to be driven.”
Holy cow. She's never said a single original thing. Even that "context" line at Congress was word for word what the other witness said. 😬
@@nineteenfortyeight6762 The contributions in her dissertation were original. The ideas were her own. Likely doesn't care much about minor things like acknowledgements sections (or apparently background). You don't get tenure because of literature reviews and acknowledgements sections.
I wonder how many other dissertations use the exact same quote. It's hard to know because people didn't have every word they've ever written scrutinized until recently.
@@adammilano8556 It is quite absurd to plagiarize an acknowledgement section without acknowledging your sources of acknowledgement.
Something else about writing this “drove me harder than I sometimes wanted to be driven.”... Either she lied or her standard and effort for academic work is extremely low. If she has been driven harder than she wanted to be and still produced those paltry works, how bad a scholar she really is?
The people who get harmed by plagiarism are READERS: when you don’t properly cite information with the actual references, it creates a false impression of where info is coming from. The academy is not ‘for’ the academy; it’s supposed to serve a purpose for the public, and the problem is that the public is being gatekept by academics who fundamentally are picking and choosing what they consider valid and invalid critiques - like, if it’s plagiarism, it’s plagiarism, and it makes a difference to the reader who doesn’t get to have the correct names in front of them when they’re actually trying to to discern what’s what from what’s not.
LOL, you can't be an academic. You mean the 5 people who ever read the dissertation, if that. I'm pretty sure 90+% of dissertations only get read by the advisor and 3 committee members. What does get read a bit more is the journal articles coming out of the dissertation hopefully, but even that. In my field, the modal number of journal papers coming out of a dissertation is... zero. Besides, how does it harm a reader to read a description that wasn't exactly her wording?
Basically you're awarding PhD to someone who went to Wikipedia and lifted a bunch of crap and didn't generate anything new. But that's where we are now. This person is a mediocrity. A box checker, head nodder and agrees with all the correct opinions. And when she stopped getting special treatment and the one time in her life she got equal treatment then it obviously felt like abuse. I'd have felt the same. No accomplishment to speak of because what garbage she kept submitting always got applauded as genius until it got exposed to public scrutiny.
@@sundrenched6248
By that logic, plagiarism should be allowed in all dissertations since it harms so few people. @@sundrenched6248
@@sundrenched6248 Love being insulted by a self-styled academic and told that I can’t possibly know anything because… you don’t agree. If you think it’s fine to just let people do whatever they want regardless of standards, that’s on you: it says more about you as an ‘academic’ then it does about anything else, dude. Have fun in your field, where I’m sure people are definitely reading your work… unless, no, that’s not happening, my mistake, no one care about the actual process of academic publishing, right? Public is stupid, public like rocks, me very smart teacher person who tell like it is. Yea. Okay bud. Take care.
@@sundrenched6248 Also, you’re literally the prime example of academic gatekeeping - oh, an opinion I disagree with? Let me make sure that they know I’m a real important person who gets to call the academy on the tele and get the whoopass coming down on these fakers. Like. Dude. You are not the measure by which other people get to be considered academics or not. But you know something? The culturally cultivated standards for ethically-informed academic work ARE the measure by which others get to have their contributions considered by. Like. The world is not just gonna take your word for it because you have a piece of paper; you need to actually recognize that people are smart enough to engage with academic work beyond the limited context of your constrained academic institution, which is obviously colouring your perception insomuch as you think that doesn’t matter if someone plagiarizes if it’s hand waived by the powers that be who get to approve it in the first place.
This guy is missing the point. He’s also cherry picking. The Harvard Research Integrity Office is investigating more than 40 allegations.
The point is whether a Harvard student would be admonished, suspended, or even expelled if they did the same thing as Claudine Gay?
The answer appears to be yes, based on the Harvard’s plagiarism policy:
“Students who, for whatever reason, submit work either not their own or without clear attribution to its sources will be subject to disciplinary action, up to and including requirement to withdraw from the College.”
An accused student can’t expect to get a pass because they were taught by the person who wrote the paper they copied from without attribution. They can’t simply defend themselves by saying things like, “I just checked with the original author and he said it’s ok.”
I recently completed a masters degree at a university that does not have the reputation or influence of Harvard, and they take their plagiarism policy so seriously we couldn’t even quote from our own past papers without proper attribution.
Sorry, Gay’s resignation was completely appropriate.
The issue is what is the standard for everyone else…students. Is it “small potatoes” for them?
if you watched the video you would know the answer is yes
@@ICHBinCOOLERalsJeman If you read the Harvard guide to plagiarism the answer is no: "When you fail to cite your sources, or when you cite them inadequately, you are plagiarizing,
which is taken extremely seriously at Harvard. Plagiarism is defined as the act of either intentionally OR unintentionally submitting work that was written by someone else. If you turn in a paper that was written by someone else, or if you turn in a paper in which you have included material from any source without citing that source, you have plagiarized."
Apparently, they were trying to find what the academic honesty policies were at the time to give an accurate assessment. But even so, she lifted entire passages from scholars such as Carol Swain... when has that ever been okay? 😒
Integrity only matters for the little people. Once you're a gate keeper it only matters which wine you pair with the foie gras.
@@Heyu7her3 So do you htink the standard would have been lower then? it was just harder to detect without the software.
Pete, your views on plagiarism are not just wrong but dangerous for anybody doing academic work. You have deliberately mis-defined plagiarism to the benefit of Ms. Gay (I will not call her a doctor for the same reason Dr. Swain refuses). This appears to be an attempt on your part, along with many others, to close ranks with Ms. Gay in an attempt to minimize the reputational harm both Gay and her collogues have caused. But let me try to inform others here what plagiarism is.
The Harvard website on What Constitutes Plagiarism? defines plagiarism as: "In academic writing, it is considered plagiarism to draw any idea or any language from someone else without adequately crediting that source in your paper. " The University of Houston Academic Honesty Policy states that plagiarism is "Representing as one’s own work the work of another without acknowledging the source (plagiarism)." The rest of the two definitions are inclusive examples. There are numerous other academic institutions that define plagiarism similarly. But if you can find a different one that supports your argument, I would be interested in seeing it.
Notice two things about Harvard and UH's definitions. One is that this is a strict liability offense. Claiming it was unintentional is no defense. It is a mitigating circumstance, but it's still plagiarism. Second, there is no requirement for any harm. It is irrelevant whether others were harmed in the commission of plagiarism and equally irrelevant that the 'victims' of plagiarism believe it to be harmless. This is because the rule against plagiarism is intended to be prophylactic, or to prevent harm in the first place, and to protect the general reputation of academic research.
Notice also what it is not. Plagiarism is not, in essence, "trying to pass off somebody else's ideas as your own." That is the most egregious form, but nowhere in either definition is that the essence. In fact, the Harvard website clearly states that other forms of plagiarism are far more common, and should be avoided. If anything, the essence of plagiarism is the failure to acknowledge the source, with Harvard requiring that it be 'adequate.'
Plagiarism is not avoiding harm. Plagiarism is not asking a bunch of professors if they think they've been plagiarized and taking their answers in the negative as evidence of absence. Plagiarism is not negated by arguing that it was "minor." Plagiarism is not avoided by claiming, "Well, I cited the work elsewhere" or "other people can figure out that I borrowed it." And plagiarism is certainly not avoided just because it happened once or (in Ms. Gay's case) forty times.
In sum, Pete, your defense of Ms. Gay's plagiarism is not only dangerous but also pathetic. Like Ms. Gay's victims, you have pulled every excuse and every rhetorical trick to try to minimize what she did, with no effort made to do the basic work of applying the explicitly stated definition of plagiarism to Ms. Gay's so-called academic work. Her actions, as well as those of her defenders, have done more damage to the credibility of academia than a thousand conservative talking heads. This Albatross will hang for a long time.
Given your past work Pete, I thought you would know better. I was wrong.
Literally by your definition of plagiarism she didn't it soo i don't see how can you claim that the guy on the video is wrong
@@chicabubr7094 "adequately crediting" I believe the author of this post is saying that in several instances that Claudine Gay gave inadequate citations.
I don't think Pete gave a rigorous analysis about this issue. It looks like he only read a few articles and didn't really give any independent thought on this. I also didn't appreciate him trying to compare this issue to the fake anesthesia studies. It's like saying stealing is okay because they didn't murder someone.
Pete blew it. Big time. It’s academic dishonesty. Maybe small potatoes for a sophomore term paper, but a huge infraction of the rules for a tenured faculty member much less the friggin president of the university.
The "feelings" of those plagiarized seems rather irrelevant to the truth value of the claim of plagiarism.
The definition of plagiarism is equally not founded in the opinion of those whose work has been copied.
The victims in my view is the integrity of academia and the people who pay for it - taxpayers.
There is a difference between plagerism and fraud (although it depends on what exactly you are copying). And when did the standard become "yeah she copied it, but nobody died so it's OK"?
Her tenure might not have been very long, but she did find the time to fire Roland Fryer.
Students at Harvard could be expelled for doing the exact same thing. Incorrect citation, inadequate citation: these are the definition of plagiarism. The key here, Pete, is academic standard and hypocrisy. If indeed the President of Harvard is not guilty of plagiarism in all these instances, then no student or other professor at Harvard can be disciplined for doing it either.
No student at Harvard should have to face an oral exam either after her pathetic display in front of Congress. Gay repeated the exact legal jargony statement that the UPenn president had crashed and burned repeating. She couldn't even use her own words, when saying anything would have been better than mindlessly reciting that epic fail.
Would literally never happen at Harvard or any other school
The only people she is hurting is just everyone who prizes honesty and integrity. What are people getting upset about 🤷♂️
I'll take integrity is small potatoes for 500 alex
@@ggusta1 Guys go enroll yourselves in a university. Then you will feel what Pete is talking about
We appreciate your sarcasm. 😄
Nah, calling this plagiarism is pretentious. What is the percentage of her work is made of the "bad" quote? In term of idea and word usage. Reducing a huge range into yes/no is simple radicalism, easily turn everyone into criminals, equating jaywalking with murdering. Once you refuse to address the issue correctly, every word comes after that is just a facade.
Yeah, it irked when he said 'the only person it is hurting is Voss'
All throughout college, I was told that if I made a citation mistake, I would be accused plagiarism and could be kicked out. I was told this by faculty. I don't consider the president of the university commiting plagiarism on any scale "small potatoes." This woman should have a perfect record, considering how professors can destroy a student's life over the same thing. Nah. She deserves to scrutiny. Academia needs to stop being a bunch of assholes if they don't want to be held to account. She did wrong and now she's getting found out.
Then again, who cares since she's being kept on with a $900K salary??? She's not losing anything over this. Anymore than James Charles did when he admitted to inappropriate conversations with minors.
I've seen undergraduates get into trouble for that kind of "small potatoes".
2 points: 1. We expect a University President making 900k to be able to handle these questions easily or at least, not agree to testify. 2. What everyone wanted to hear was a human response. What we got instead sounded like it came from a bot.
Her response resulted in $1 billion loss in donations to Harvard.
It is about credibility and position. Her position at the top of Harvard makes any academic malfeasance that much worse. She also has a power imbalance so the people she plagerigized have an incentivento still stay on her good side. Her position is the most coveted in all of academia and should be held to a higher standard.You have extensively covered more egregious issues but if we want academia to regain trust it must actually do things like call out deans who cheated.
Yes. The colleagues she plagiarized from yet have good rapport with are minimizing her offense.
How is this "small potatoes?!" If you're just the average student 'minion,' this would totally NOT be treated as "small potatoes" 🙄
As a non traditional student who went back to college at the age of 45, I was astounded by how militant the administration and professors, many of whom were my age, were against this type of plagiarism. Almost all of these institutions use AI platforms to analyze turned in work/papers by students and they specifically flag any such writing as plagiarism and won’t accept it, even if you cite it. You’re not allowed to even extensively quote other works with quotations and references.
The irony is that many of these people were the ones who made extensive use of copying other people’s work and passing it off as their own.
So yes, hypocrisy is alive and well, but more importantly to me, it appears that an entire generation of leaders are guilty of “technical plagiarism “ and are now trying to legitimize and sanitize their past at the expense of the current generation by holding them to a standard they have never held themselves or their peers. Which , to me is disgusting.
Yeah, but what's the alternative keep letting everyone copy?
@@vleliv11 no, just enforce the rules uniformly and start by admitting instead of covering up the people who plagiarized.
Yes, you brought up something I observed in some of the assignments submitted by my students. There are substantial copying of texts from other sources but also comprehensive citations. One student even cited a fellow student he copied from! They submitted work to be passed as their own and be graded on as their work. Just because they cite all the references doesn't mean they might not have plagiarised. I didn't report them for plagiarism. But they did get a fail grade for that type of work.
@@sunway1374 that really wasn’t my point, it actually contradicts it. Which maybe is your point?
Of course I can’t speak for your personal experiences, but mine is that plagiarism is less rampant than it used to be prior to the ability to easily check with technology.
I have repeatedly seen that AI picks up any semblance of sentence structure that is similar and reports it as suspicious. It flags quoting titles of articles as flagrant copying. It flags references to your past work.
If the words of others is used, especially in quotes and properly cited it isn’t plagiarized, but it could be poorly or lazily written. Hopefully you take your job seriously enough to actually teach your students the difference and show clear examples of your expectations.
@@jdenmark1287 I was referring to these sentences you wrote "Almost all of these institutions use AI platforms to analyze turned in work/papers by students and they specifically flag any such writing as plagiarism and won’t accept it, even if you cite it. You’re not allowed to even extensively quote other works with quotations and references. "
It reminds me of what I have observed. I wasn't specifically commenting on whether I agree or disagree with the main gist of your comment.
However, it does seem the sentiment in your initial post is that you would regard what I described as plagiarism. But in your latter reply, you say it is not (?)
This is plagiarism strictly defined, it is on the minor side and sloppy more than major fraud etc. But Havard sets itself out as the best academic institute (likely not remotely the best if accounting for how much cash/resources it has to support their staff) and therefore will be looked at closely when its practices fall short. I don't think anyone can dispute that Claudine Gays academic record is poor relative to colleagues in her field at same career stage.
Plagiarism in the liberal arts is about more than stealing ideas, it’s primarily about academic excellence. A cut and paste job on the introductory paragraph of a doctoral thesis-that is, a near regurgitation of others’ thoughts-should not be dismissed as “inconsequential” at a flagship university devoted to the pursuit of knowledge (although an academic advisor, or someone involved in awarding the degree, might do so). It would be akin to awarding a PhD in physics for a paper that collated data supporting the photoelectric effect.
What about Dr Carol Swain? She claimed that Claudine Gay used her work without citation and therefore Dr Gay had harmed her. Citations are important to scholars. Not citing Dr Swain may not have been a firing offense but Dr Gay should have apologized to Dr Swain.
The examples in isolation may not seem tremendous to many. However, the volume (something like serveral dozen) of problems demonstrates a clear pattern of problematic behavior. Additionally, the big cover up employed (as opposed to just admitting mistakes) was unprecedented in academia and is very concerning.
Actually Chris Ruffo is the best source for the plagiarism allegations.
Not only did you neglect to investigate or discuss the full scope of the allegations, you didn't even bother to review review the text of Harvard's very broad plagiarism policy which thoroughly articulates and illustrates all the categories of plagiarism (such as mosaic plagiarism) encompassed by the policy.
Short of having reviewed the policy you're actually unable to assess whether or not she violated it. What are you even doing?
The level of rigor in this video is insufficient and problematic
I agree
I agree, and I am surprised as I value this channel for its rigor.
Well below his usual standard. He's obviously just looking for evidence for a conclusion he drew at first glance.
yes the first and most basic rule of academic research is you never ever do this! @@nineteenfortyeight6762
Probably so, but what if Pete has an unconscious bias in her favor, or he wishes to avoid the messy topics of DEI and affirmative action?@@nineteenfortyeight6762
Honestly, I expected better from this video. I don’t think you actually looked at the full scope of the plagiarism allegations because you just brushed it off as people being mad over “small potatoes” and political stuff. Claudine Gay plagiarized on over half of her academic work-which was only 11 articles, far less than what you need to get tenure at a university-and she was called out by other people like Carol Swain, who was very upset by her work being plagiarized. You also did not look at Harvard’s own standard for plagiarism, which states that, "When you paraphrase, your task is to distill the source’s ideas in your own words. It’s not enough to change a few words here and there and leave the rest; instead, you must completely restate the ideas in the passage in your own words. If your own language is too close to the original, then you are plagiarizing, even if you do provide a citation." There are other parts of Harvard’s plagiarism rules that she’s violated, but that’s the main one, so I wonder what definition of plagiarism you were operating on for this video. I think you should also ask WHY she was the President of Harvard in the first place with such a meager academic output? You did not address any of this, nor the fact that Gay is evidently held to lower standards than her own students. That is disgraceful for an institution like Harvard. How many students were expelled for stuff more minor than this?
It's no wonder she gets blamed for plagiarism, but it's not her fault, she is just repeating the mantra she has learned from her tutors. If you look at the subjects of these papers, they seem to be high on empty words and actual hard science and filled with critical theory nonsense. It's more about ideology and less about making actual science.
You make a good point.
Bingo. 95% fluff and empty pseudoscientific sounding garbage.
He also doesn't seem to hold her to the same standards due to her race
Oh bullshit. First of all she MIGHT be less personally culpable than assumed at first blush for the reasons you state, but so what? Society is supposed to not punish the people who do this kind of shit because of the old ‘hey everyone else was doing it!’ argument?? Are you joking? Complete nonsense. Hey, bad luck for her that society-at-large took so long to wake up and happened to wake up when she was doing her dirt, but if you think that absolves her from punishment or society from their responsibility to stop this silliness, you’re not to be taken seriously.
This is how you have to write or people think you’re an idiot, you should read how big the words we’re in speeches by the founding fathers
Did these small plagerisms give her an unfair advantage in the job market?
$900k/year to do what? This is the real issue with education, and other institutions. People getting paid to do NOTHING. Knowing this, I'm against any government funds, or programs going to schools.
You also failed to note that her Acknowledgments -- the most personal part of a Ph.D. thesis -- copied heartfelt language written in another student's thesis. What human does that? Surely it cheapens the people she tried to thank, not to mention herself. More than any other single plagiarism this tipped the balance in many an academic mind.
5:04 Did I miss something ? The Palmquist-Voss paper says "increase", and Gay's says "decrease".
I know, no one says anything. She cites the opposite result.
Likely a mistake.
@@handsanitizer2457 A BIG mistake ! cause it says the opposite.
I'm starting to think she's as dumb as a box of rocks.
I missed that.
It kinda is a big deal. I hope that wasn't an important part of her argumentation.
plagiarism ist a question about integrity and not about how much harm it causes
Apparently integrity is small potatoes.
The main question for plagiarism is not "Who is being harmed by this?" That is a pragmatic approach to an ethical question. The main issue is the integrity of the writer. A Harvard Ph.D. student should be at the top level of academic excellence and integrity, and this applies even more for someone who becomes a Harvard professor.
Respectfully, I think most strongly disagree that plagiarism is inconsequential and small potatoes. As other have pointed out, proper citation is necessary EVEN WHEN you quote your own previous papers. Otherwise, you'll need to explain why Dr. Gay deserves the "kid gloves." Others have also noted this video lacks Dr. Swain's account and Dr. Gay's own responses...
And the people being hurt include the students who will pay for a questionable career advancement (over $900k WTF??), as well as the Jewish students at Harvard who will continue to be discriminated against.
While I agree that some of these examples are minor, with some not rising to plagiarism (in my opinion), there are additional instances of lack of proper citation in some of Gay's other academic papers which were not addressed by the Harvard Crimson where the alleged victims are not so conciliatory (if that matters). Again, these claims of plagiarism seem to be of varying degrees of validity.
Some members of the Harvard Honor Council also had some pointed opinions citing double-standards for faculty and students, claiming that a student would typically be suspended a year for similar conduct. The Boston Globe too, published an op-ed critical of Harvard's double-speak and lack of transparency.
Finally there was the initial threat from Harvard to sue the press in an effort to suppress any plagiarism claims before committing to an internal review.
When you have 50 billion dollars in the bank you can afford to sue anybody to try to shut them up even or especially if you are in the wrong. A bully behaviour basically.
Harvard or any institution bleed credibility with such standards on staff.
If you steel from millionaires and they say „I can afford to spare a few dimes“, is it not stealing anymore?
That's what all those skip- sccanners at Walmart say and sometimes they get tazed.
steal
Dr. Swain who Gay plagiarized from has lawyered up and is potentially suing.
Btw, I knew you had plagiarized. My theory is that anyone who condones Gay's plagiarism has committed plagiarism themself. You proved my theory right.
That's not how you prove a theory. What a terrible theory you have anyway.
@@AB-et6nj This is UA-cam, not a professional publication. Not even Wikipedia 😂 According to my theory, you have plagiarized! 🤣
@@fayrefitness5416 Because it's UA-cam you can use logical fallacies? You sound really stupid
You have a very strange logic here, what does it mean "small potatoes"? Why are you comparing with something worse? So we should not punish a thief coz it is a small potato? Or because "no one was hurt"? Who is hurt by a student doing plagiarism? Let's just allow it,right?
I guess he feels like he would be a hypocrite if he called her plagiarism plagiarism because then he would have to call himself a plagiarist. Ergo, small potatoes.
I mean if the author himself that has been plagiarized doesn't think anything of it, I would say it's harmless
The authors getting it slide like nothing happened is really funny case by itself - a case of how the powerful can get away with breaking the rules that they teach their students to follow. Not the best rules, for sure, but at least we have some@@riru363
@@riru363So I'm going to buy my dissertation from some Bangla dude who really needs 100 bucks. He doesn't care.
The AP title says plagiarism. You seemed to skip over that very word.
I'll start watching youtubers who insufficiently cite pete judo as their source and don't spend so many minutes talking about their sponsor. No harm will be done and any imagined harm will be more than off-set by time I save.
A handful of small potatoes may be forgivable, but a sackful is not. If nothing else, it's sloppy scholarship unbecoming in a college president.
Gay wrote 10 papers since graduation, since 1998. 10 papers over 25 years. That's less than 1 in every other year. And she was the president? And now she is getting a tenured position that paid $900,000 per year. This data is good enough for me to call her a DEI hire.
Plagiarism doesn't depend on how much the uncited part cares. It's about taking attribution for ideas that are not your own. The fact that she is very closely paraphrasing in the first example but never cites her source sews doubts on her work.
When did Wikipedia become a valid source for academic papers? When I was in school it wasn't allowed, but it was acknowledged as a good place to find reference to valuable source material.
I noticed this among my undergrad students I have taught... After being fed severe warnings about plagiarism throughout their student career, and receiving suggestion like cite your sources, their assignments and writing can still have substantial materials that are not their original works (copying texts from the internet for eg). The only difference now is they give the references. I even had a student submitting work with citation to his fellow student he copied from!
I consider that this is still plagiarism although I don't report them for it. I mean they submit work that is not their own to be graded as their own work. Just because you cite the references doesn't mean you could not be plagiarising. Anyhow, the students get a fail mark for that kind of work.
In the context of what constitutes plagiarism at Harvard for undergrads, most of these are significant infractions. She is clearly not held to the same standard.
Completely disagree with your take. The actual issue is that she is not just a run of the mill undergrad in some second rate college, but someone who ended up being promoted to the PRESIDENT of one of the world's top universities. Why?! Which stellar accomplishments landed her that role? The highest standards should have applied in this case, and they obviously weren't. Yes, she is not a criminal / scammer, but in a fair world, she never should have been president of any university, let alone Harvard.
Sadly its likely something to do DEI. For anyone who genuinely cares about genuinely helping minorities they have virtue signaled the world to the real standards of Harvard. Look like your doing the right thing but don't go to the effort of actually doing something. They have also armed the far right to ignore any research coming from that institution. I am so sick and tired of FOX news and their ilk being handed nuclear bombs like this. The left has to hold itself to a higher standard. You want to elevate minorities, DO SO! But REALLY do it don't elevate someone based on skin pigment alone to the highest position unless they are properly qualified. And if you are going to choose on skin colour or genitals do it better, find a more credible box ticker. Apparently they can't even do that carefully enough so how many layers of slackness (small potatoes) does this rabbit hole go?
In a way she is a victim here of being elevated above her actual ability level. People are now going to be wondering is Harvard really that incompetent that they don't pick up plagiarism at all in a PhD candidate or is it that they don't pick it up if you are a minority? That's now the question being asked. What needed to happen is she should have been picked up on this early in her education. Surely she didn't write a paper for her PhD and suddenly start to be slack in this manner? Surely by that stage she knew what she could get away with. Had someone failed her in an assignment for plagiarism, pulled her aside early on and straightened her out early (perhaps at high school) she might actually be a good academic. Instead you get the feeling a bright but undisciplined student has been elevated due to characteristics she can't control or take credit for.
That's weird, cos' back when I was writing my dissertation copying (yes, "copying" not "quoting" as you for some reason put it) whole paragraphs word for word and without acknowledging the source was in no way small potatoes. If that kind of thing is noticed in your dissertation you would not get your Ph.D. and get suspended for at least 2 semesters if lucky. You are not being fair in your analysis in the slightest and academics would know this immediately.
Additionally, the idea of plagiarism only harming the plagiarized party is, pardon my French, so incredibly stupid and nonsensical that I can't believe you actually repeat it multiple times through the video. By pure logical deduction if that statement is correct, not only plagiarism would not be necessarily a negative action, it could even be considered a positive action for the betterment of society as a whole - after all as long as it spreads ideas and knowledge to a larger number of recipients the small damage being done to an individual researcher's ego is infinitely neglectable in comparison to the masses being enlightened and science being promoted. The problem is that plagiarism in fact does not only harm the authors being plagiarized, it creates false experts and spreads incompetency and lack of knowledge. This very story is an example of that - what we have here is an academic who exhibits complete incompetence in expressing her ideas and rephrasing the ideas of others in her own words in her dissertation and later when she has to address Congress struggles heavily to give insightful, meaningful, weighted, and educated answers to any of the questions presented to her. And what was her excuse later? "I didn't phrase my answers well and was misinterpreted. I didn't receive the questions before the inquiry and could not prepare answers ahead of time." Seems like she needed advance notice so she could copy the answers to a similar inquiry from her colleagues. So who is getting harmed here? Every single student in Harward who has to study under a blatantly incompetent professor, obviously.
I hope you have some kind of explanation for the disgraceful take presented in this video. Because an academic is obligated to be impartial and detail-oriented, and you have shown in this video that you are not much of an academic.
It wasn't about "Anti-Semitism" and it wasn't even about Plagiarism. It was because she supported protests against the Gen0 side committed against Palestinians. First they tried the "Anti-Semitism" stuff but it couldn't be proven since it wasn't true, so they dug up her past.
It's a matter of free speech and censorship.
Exactly, just look at the kind of people leading the charge, and their responses when it turns out THEY were plagerizers. Their accusations continue to be confessions.
The headline read "...amid plagiarism claims, backlash from anti-semitism testimony."
Use of quotation marks differs by field. They are almost never used in Mathematics papers. Mathematics has a different issue: quotation of definitions and theorems has to be exact. No paraphrasing allowed, but quotation marks are never used. The only context for quotation marks might be sometime like -- As Bourbaki remarks in [87], " All such arguments are variations of...."
Maybe bc I’m in a different part of academia, but I completely disagree with your assessment in that this “doesn’t hurt anybody”. Like some have said, it’s a blow to the integrity of the process and entire academic institution. I’ve given 0s on undergrad assignments for citation errors, I’ve known of people getting suspended for it. The avg person isn’t going to understand the nuance of the “mistakes” (until proven otherwise) they’ll just see that academics just copy others and therefore the scholarship isn’t worth paying attention to…and then it grows from there
I see your point but given 0s is too much. Academia can be too drastic in SOME cases. But i agree she should have stepped down. The opening sequence of her defending anti seminism was...
@@lizxu322 "The opening sequence of her defending anti seminism was..." Poor idea of someone who only got her position due to one ethno-religious pushing DIE initiatives to further their interests...
I completely agree with the @lizxu332. I think OP is an example of the blatant academic elitism that is being criticized. How arrogrant must a professor have to be to assign a O based on a couple of mistakes in an essay? Yes. Deduct points but a 0?
People who she plagiarized say they do not mind. But she had power over them, and they were possibly being intimidated.
And while what she did was not as bad as some of the other things Judo covered, that does not mean they were not bad. Stalin was nowhere near as bad as Hitler.
The way professors are defending - rather - deflecting from this is issue is MINDBLOWING. I can not respect these people. Ima do my research, mind my professional business and have a life outside these hypocrites.
Agreed that her plagiarism was borderline and very minor. The problem I have with Gay is that in the congressional hearing she portrayed Harvard as near absolutist about free speech -- despite the fact that Harvard absolutely forbids any speech that leans against the politics that prevail there. You can't be deeply mired in cancel culture and with a straight face claim that you're dedicated to free speech. Gay said their free speech policy protects even extreme speech, but she didn't mention that such protection extends only to speech that's extreme towards the left. If speech leans right, even if only slightly, then one way or another it will not be allowed anywhere on Harvard grounds.
Nobody should lament her departure, but it seems pretty clear that this situation has very little to do with upholding academic values.
Harvard was ranked dead last in Academic Free Speech.
She was a clown.
ua-cam.com/video/pvqifXZQOFo/v-deo.html This is a News Nation Interview with Carol Swain who explains the extent of the plagiarism and the long term impact on her which is how I found out about the plagiarism charge. After watching your video, I must say that I was surprised (unless I missed it) that no reference was made to Professor Swain. I have to thank you for including the Harvard Crimson's article. Since you included it and the article referenced Professor Swain, I am now mystified as to why you didn't mention her!
Because she goes against his case.
Even 1 act of Plagerism is enough to get a student thrown out of Harvard. Why is she so special?
Doctoral dissertation should be held at the highest standard of academic integrity. There is no such thing as "small potatoes" or "technical plagiarism" in doctoral dissertation. Any candidate that does these things would be questioned to the end of earth during viva.
In my university, if a PhD candidate did that, the candidate would most likely be dismissed (receive a fail) or the degree will be lowered to postgraduate diploma pending removal of all of these plagiarize contents. This is unacceptable.
What is the reason you "forgot" to mention Dr. Carol Swain. She was clearly upset with Claudine Gay copying her work.
While I would agree that the examples of plagerism shown do not rise to particularly egregious levels, it really puzzles me. Is writing that difficult? Are they really so busy that they can't take the time to find their own words? I would actually find it difficult to shoehorn somebody else's narrative into my own composition. It would break the flow and I would have to work my own writing around it. Just doesn't seem worth the effort. So I am left not with the feeling that they are unethical, but rather that they are either lazy or inarticulate. Which isn't much better.
A big issue is that a student would likely be admonished for plagiarism like this.
You can't just copy someone else's work word for word, even if you cite them and especially if you don't.
It is a sign of not just taking another's ideas but it creats poor quality scholariship.
You've missed the entire point. There should be no "potatos" if you are the Harvard president. The fact that she's keeping her $900k salary also shows there are biases at play, the same biases that may have elevated her to that role in the first place.
I dont think the opinions of the authors should matter.
Hopefully you get the message from the comments that you dropped the ball on this one.
Massively.
😂😂 y’all are insane! How come the CEO’s wife get a pass for doing same thing?? Y’all crack me up!
Point to where anyone in this thread said they should. Stop eating paint chips.@@flashbarry296
@@flashbarry296 She's no longer a professor. What are they supposed to do to her?
What student today hasn’t changed their essay after submitting to Turnitin ? That tech didn’t exist in 1997.
Surely doing anything that can get an undergraduate expelled is wrong? Double standards at its best. Also stealing work from other people isn’t harmless. It’s not a victimless crime imo. I failed a paper once because I accidentally used the wrong referencing system, why can someone achieve a PhD without even citing at the very least? It’s called having integrity and honesty. She should know better. Most academic institutions use the Harvard Referencing System for a reason
So fraud is fine as long as no one dies?
Very obvious what your bias is in this situation. Your mind was made up before you even looked into it by your own admission and proven by the fact that your conclusion matches your initial reaction 1:1.
Because she wouldn't say a policy against bullying is the same as a policy against hate speech when it isn't, they dredged up everything they could and fired her. Very simple.
Appreciate your efforts to review this. At the end of the day, Claudine Gay should have absolutely have included quotations for direct quotes, in addition to her text citations. But let's talk about the difference between academic plagiarism and fraud. I think many of the people in the comments confuse both concepts. They overlap but are not the same. One is a descriptive fact and speaks to quality of publication-worthy research and the other is a moral judgement, which speaks to the quality of integrity. If you find yourself conflating the two, it's worth taking a step back to reframe this way. I think Gay's situation is plagiarism without the intent to commit fraud.
One small issue with your ground news segment. When you talked about how right leaning sources didn't cover the racial data in traffic stops you didn't go any further. The reason they didn't was because so many metropolitan areas use statistical policing in areas that have higher crime rates. I.e new York city uses comstat. These programs skew the data into areas with more minorities as there tends to be more crime in those areas therefore making the traffic stop data akin to survivorship bias from planes in ww2. The actual story is a nonstory.
This is your most motivated video by far in terms of bias. Boo.
You forgot to talk about the thank you letter she plagiarised. Woman can’t even write a thank you letter.
I do not think it is inconsequential. She earned her post, ahead of other professors, because of her “work”. Once you learn her work is not actually hers, and that she is actually stealing from someone else, you have to ask her position. In the end, she didn’t deserve to be dean, someone else should have been promoted instead, so definitely her plagiarism did harm people.