@lolgop.bsky.social The way I was trained, much of her plagiarism did cross the line. Though the attacks ARE motivated by all sorts of bad faith, they did uncover violations—some quite serious.
Their motivations does not change tye seriousness of the violations. She did it. She did repeatedly.
1/
I don’t doubt that the NYC prosecutions of Donald Trump are in part politically motivated. Others do that shit, too.
But the violations are real. The existence of political motivations does not excuse the violations and should not play a roll in determination of his guilt or of the punishment.
I dunno, seems like people have been bending over backwards for years to not hold Trump accountable for criminal behavior that would get most people in trouble
And I criticize that. I call bullshit on that.
It reflects incredibly poorly on folks who preach “law and order” and accuse others of “corruption” to excuse their guy like that.
It shows that their rhetoric should be presumed to be bullshit.
That’s not the tactic for us to adopt.
Ok.
Why not?
I explained the basis for the comparison I made. Why do you think it doesn’t hold?
Doesn’t the prosecutorial power of the state demand greater scrutiny than a private employer—even Harvard? Certainly more than a journalist.
I don’t care whether Gay has been an influential scholar. That’s not the role of a university president.
But that role must demonstrate in their scholarship the expectations we have for students. It’s just so public a role.
In this academic context, these violations really do matter.
I don’t think the same should matter for Senator Warren. In her current role, she does not exist as a high profile academic leader.
But university president? Yeah, it matters a ton. It matters more than the motivations for the investigations.
What exactly did she plagiarize? All I see in the media is accusations by the right wing people and centrists saying “plagiarism is bad,” but can’t find what she copied.
Chris Rufo, to whom I do not wish to link, found the most egregious examples. Look up his piece, “is claudine gay a plagiarist?”
He’s an ass. But, this time, his facts are accurate.
Yeah, I don’t blame you. That’s why I won’t actually post a link to him.
The NYTimes’s long standing institution arrogance about including (and giving credit) to others’ reporting is an old problem.
Now, how important is any of that? Seems trivial to those outside the academy. But this is VERY important inside the academy.
It’s easy for outsiders to say the academy should bail on its values, as those outsiders are not invested in them.
They are wrong.
www.aledev.com/blog/2024/1/...
I was in academia & these are minor issues that didn’t need to go beyond the University.
There was no need of a concerted effort by multiple national newspapers who only did it because they gave in to racist right wing bad actors who want to “prove” black people shouldn’t be in leadership positions
Yeah. I agree.
The university should have investigated more carefully. Should have done that before answering or deciding anything.
Harvard always gets WAAAAAAAAYYYYYY too much attention, especially in NYTimes.
You you provide some of examples of her quite serious ones, and maybe a little context as to why it was bad?
The only examples I have seen are her introduction and a missing source for a statistic. Both of which feel far more like editorial oversights.
1) Missing quotation marks are NOT editorial oversights. They are the violation.
2) I really don’t want to link to Rico’s original piece, but that’s the original source for the worst violations. Look there.
3) The acknowledgments one is quite bad, but just acknowledgments, so doesn’t matter.
I’ve looked for others explaining Rufo’s example. I was shocked that more mainstream sources have NOT reported on their details, preferring to add new (and perhaps less significant) violations.
I can’t even find an alternative citation to give you on them.
It's hard to take this seriously, as the mainstream articles provide no examples, and the examples provided in other sources are exceptionally thin. Since the reporters making/reporting the claim are not backing anything up with evidence, it's very hard to see this as anything other than bullshit.
I hear you.
Look for Chris Rufo’s original post on this. That’s got the most egregious examples I’ve seen.
The others are either meh, near-but-not-over-the-line or just-over-the-line.
It’s the egregious plus the quantity that makes he case.
Why would I view Rufo as a credible source? He's clearly got an agenda, and has all the tell tail signs of acting in bad faith. If he had a smoking gun, I would have expected journalists to be verifying his claims.
Look at the originals and her works. I did.
I downloaded the originals and I downloaded her stuff, to make sure nothing was altered.
No, I don’t trust Rufo.
I would note, though, that no one has questioned the facts. They only questioned their meaning and significance.
But I checked, to be sure. Because the don’t trust Rufo.
Frankly, given the deference and money and standing that Harvard uniquely gets, I would hold them to the highest standard. The elite should should not be cut slack.
And the president of Harvard is a VERY high profile position. They gotta exemplify good practice.
I don’t follow.
What is the video game journalism equivalent of Harvard’s standing in America culture and America politics.
I am saying that Harvard is THE name brand elite institution in this country.
Nothing is video game journalism has that standing.
I am NOT merely saying that ethics matter or that hypocrisy is a sin. I’m saying *Harvard* should get less slack than community colleges or regional universities or just about anyone.
Caesar’s wife must be approve reproach. So should Ceaser.
The NYTimes is notorious for ignoring stories until they can add to them, and for failing to include enough originally reported by others.
This goes back to Watergate and Woodward & Bernstein’s reporting there for WaPo, at least.
