Dec 13, 2023·edited Dec 13, 2023Liked by Anna Krylov
Before I read this, I didn't think the plagiarism was so bad as to warrant President Gay being fired (though I'd fire her for other reasons). This is the most convincing article I have seen on why this plagiarism is bad enough to warrant firing her, so I have changed my mind. Well done, Four Undergraduates!
I just discovered your stack with a cross post from Chris Brunet. If you want a by-the-book academic takedown of the entirety of Gay's career (it is truly awful) beyond the plagiarism, this stack today by Chris Bray is excellent. https://chrisbray.substack.com/p/seeing-through-smokescreens
“Fear of retribution” is what stood out to me in this article. The entity of Harvard Corp as a totalitarian actor with its tentacles and long reach in all aspects of American public and private life is truly a monstrous creation.
The blatant plagiarism is bad enough. But it’s far more egregious to copy and paste someone else’s work and then alter the passage so that it says the opposite of what the author wrote. This fraud would, at a minimum, earn you a “F” in any academic setting, and likely dismissal.
Yeah the fact she plagiarised then made it say the opposite conclusion is surely at least fail if not expulsion. Hard to comprehend that Harvard are still standing by her.
It is with a heavy heart that I reflect on the current state of our esteemed institution. It seems to me that we are witnessing what might be the lowest point in the University's storied history, particularly in terms of its standing and reputation in the eyes of the public. The behavior of various leadership groups within Harvard, with their apparent adherence to a singular leftist ideology, disturbingly echoes that of the Maoist Red Guard during China's Cultural Revolution. This historical parallel is not one to be drawn lightly, as it signifies a deviation not only from the University's mission (liberal education & ideological neutrality) but also a failed fiduciary duty to both the institution and the country.
The decision of Harvard's Board to retain President Claudine Gay amidst escalating controversies is not merely an administrative choice but a symbol of a deeper, more systemic issue. This decision reflects a pattern of rigid and radical thinking, pointing to a moral failure within the university's leadership. It’s not just a simple misstep; it's a clear sign that the Board, along with the Alumni Association Executive Committee and over 700 of the faculty, are entrenched in extreme, divisive ideologies. Their conduct strikingly resembles that of a political faction, especially in their apparent determination to maintain power and systematically silence divergent viewpoints.
The Board’s approach to handling substantial criticisms, such as those from investor Bill Ackman, dismissed as mere 'political interference,' is indicative of a worrisome trend. They seem to view challenges to their ideas not as opportunities for dialogue and improvement, but as threats to their authority. This reaction isolates them from crucial feedback, demonstrating a reluctance to engage with opposing views. This insularity could be mitigated by incorporating more politically diverse viewpoints, allowing for a richer discourse.
A 2022 report from The Harvard Crimson heightens these concerns; it revealed that over 97% of Harvard professors hold left-wing views. Shockingly, faculty members with extreme left-wing views outnumber the total number of their conservative counterparts. This significant imbalance in ideological representation within the faculty reflects a pattern similar to the Red Guard’s approach, where a dominant mode of thought was enforced, effectively marginalizing other perspectives. Some might view this as an inadvertent trend, but I believe it to be intentional, and the Board's recent actions seem to bolster this point.
In its handling of university matters, the Board shows a troubling inconsistency. They strictly regulate what they consider 'violent speech,' such as 'fatphobia', but paradoxically seem to allow the propagation of anti-Semitic sentiments under the guise of Marxist Oppressor/Oppressed DEI theories. The public sees this double standard as a significant flaw in their rationale -- one which undermines the university’s commitment to free speech and equitable treatment.
The negative response from the American public, including thousands of Harvard alumni and former donors, underscores the gravity of the situation. The Board’s actions are seen as transcending mere poor governance; they are perceived as a betrayal of trust to the university community and the nation. In my view, the severity of the leadership crisis at Harvard calls for urgent intervention.
The Board should be held accountable for actions that are increasingly perceived as demonstrating a clear bias and a neglect of their fiduciary responsibilities to the University. They have seemingly failed to uphold Harvard’s commitment to critical thought, discourse, and merit, which are the cornerstones of a liberal education. Moreover, they have disappointed the nation by failing to maintain Harvard's stature as a beacon of global excellence, vital for sustaining the United States' global competitiveness.
Harvard, despite its non-profit status, operates like a quasi-hedge fund with a teaching & research arm attached. This arrangement has been historically tolerated, largely due to the belief that Harvard contributes positively to the nation. However, as the University is increasingly accused of indoctrinating students with views antagonistic to America, Capitalism, and Western Civilization, and promoting 'Decolonization' of an 'Imperial' America in what critics call a 'Marxist indoctrination camp,' this tolerance is rapidly eroding. The growing perception is that Harvard might be contributing to the nation's decline rather than its advancement.
Inside Harvard, there might be a sense of normalcy, but outside, the University's brand is suffering a precipitous decline. Detractors now associate Harvard with disparaging terms like 'Hamas University' and 'Plagiarism University,' reflecting a severe reputational crisis. Moreover, this situation has raised questions about why Harvard should continue to receive support in the form of funding, tax-exempt status, low-interest government loans, and other benefits. The homogeneity in the Board's political leanings and ideologies is seen as a significant factor in creating this leftist (some would say, 'Marxist') ideological echo chamber. There is a pressing need for a thorough examination and questioning of the Board's political leanings, motivations and actions to prevent a recurrence of such situations.
Harvard must act swiftly to address these issues. Indeed, some Board members may have to replaced. The university needs a reform focused on intellectual diversity, ethical conduct, and responsible governance. The situation at Harvard is indicative of a broader leadership crisis in American institutions, marked by an inflexible adherence to a single ideology and a disregard for the importance of diverse thought and intellectual freedom. The Harvard community and the general public must demand accountability and reform. Removing some or all of the current Board members may be a crucial step in restoring Harvard's reputation and realigning its leadership with the principles of open inquiry and diverse thinking.
Harvard’s reputation has been tarnished in the public eye, mirroring its abysmal ranking in free speech (last in the nation). The question is: Can Harvard still save itself, or will the government be forced to intervene?
You expressed this as diplomatically and tactfully as possible. Great comment. It is indeed a political faction, the Long March Through the Institutions has always been real, has always been radical, and has never been secret.
The stranglehold on power achieved at ivy league schools will not be relinquished. And even if 90% of the country came to view them negatively the symbiosis/revolving door between Ivy Leaguers and Washington DC insiders would continue. Political factions vie for power, and use it to rule countries. The Left has attained power- media, government, academic, corporate, etc- and they will use it to rule our country. Its not a secret nor a surprise, just an unfortunate predicament.
Yes, is anyone still surprised to find out that large segments of our population are simply not to be held accountable? Cynically and hypocritically, it’s called social “justice”.
When living in Boston, I used to love spending days off work perousing book shops in Harvard Square, reading under trees in the Yard, and basking in the general aura of that great institution.
Or should I say 'once' great institution. Seeing Harvard capitulate to the politically correct psychosis of our present age is heartbreaking. Cowards, charlatans, and champagne socialists are destroying the West with their despicable DIE totalitarianism. One simple question illustrates this: what if Gay wasn't black?
Great work Undergrads. Even if the kindly tyrannical blob has captured the institution, the fact that individual’s within can still demonstrate loyalty to the pursuit of Truth is a source of hope.
I appreciate this take, but I'm disappointed that they lack the moral courage demonstrated by their decision to remain anonymous. Invite the potential retaliation and deal with it or be forced to live under the rule of incompetent cowards in perpetuity.
Most tenured professors fear to speak out, as our university censors do not hesitate to cancel them, tenure be damned. Retired professors, like myself, are free to challenge the woke orthodoxy. It is a bit much to expect undergraduates with their lives ahead of them to put their heads on the block.
What lives? Ones where they bend the knee to incompetent frauds until they become one themselves? You're probably right, I do expect too much. The appropriate expectation of an ivy league undergrad is that they never take any risk that may interfere with their ascent in the social hierarchy, for to them, there is nothing else. Nothing worth fighting for anyway.
I agree, but also think that if they did put their names out and were retaliated against, this would be even more damning. If not, it would ideally embolden other students to openly express heterodox positions.
Not a "moral courage" issue. Basic sensibility and intelligence issue. Stay anon or the demonic left will destroy you. Their lives are not your entertainment.
Plus it forces the reader to focus on the argument and not conclude 'So-and-so said this and they are <protected class>'.
It is a moral courage issue, you've just come to internalize that moral cowardice is "basic sensibility and intelligence." I'm not anon, the demonic left hasn't destroyed me. Doing what is right when there is no risk is easy, when there is risk, it is difficult and takes moral courage. In the long run the legitimacy of Harvard is at stake here. If these undergrads want the good reputation of the institution to survive, then they'll need to quit hiding and be exemplars of excellence. To be excellent, you must speak truth to power, a power that is hopelessly corrupt cannot stand without destroying everything around it. The longer it takes to circulate this power, the worse things will get for everyone. By staying anon they stay aligned with a regime oriented towards destruction. We need smart young people who can see blatant hypocrisy and incompetence for what it is, and communicate about that effectively if we're to turn things around. I'm not seeking entertainment, I'm seeking a world where all of the power brokers aren't spiritually and morally bankrupt, and to get to that world people will need to take risks. Your assumption that taking any risk in this regard will necessarily result in destruction is indicative of utilitarian consequentialist thinking. It isn't true and promotes the worst kind of behavior and degradation of character.
I've seen more 'moral courage' from cartoons on the internet than doxxed people like Sam Bankman-Fried, Su Zhu, Do Kwon, the people who ran Celsius, Jordan Peterson, etc.
If the students added their names, it would do nothing to enhance their story, and everything to put a target on their backs. Especially when they are undergrads, and have zero power. This is how they speak truth to power.
But if you still disagree, prove me wrong by enrolling in a college and seeing how far your idea of speaking truth to power gets you.
I'm not quite understanding your initial reference. As for students adding their names it would serve an important function that is linked to your perception that it would put a target on their back. They would be assuming risk. That is why it would take courage. You can't do anything without assuming risk. You can be somebody, ascend in the social hierarchy etc., but you can't do anything important. If they can't assume such risk now, they won't later. Well, maybe after they're retired like Philip above. Any retaliation on the part of the school just feeds into the overall fight that needs to be had if there's to be any hope of restoring the honor and integrity to the institution. Conversely, if they are retaliated against it appropriately accelerates the loss of prestige of the institution by providing clear and obvious evidence of moral bankruptcy. By leading in such a manner and dealing effectively with any retaliation they would also set a positive example for their peers, not to mention people like you. Unfortunately, the don't seem to have any faith in themselves, and you don't have any faith that they could succeed in a confrontation where we both agree they would clearly be in the right. Ivy league undergrads should be our nation's best and brightest, if they lack the competence to challenge obviously corrupt and incompetent institutional power when they clearly understand it is the right thing to do, then this is a massive spiritual loss. Perhaps looking to the example of Robert Barnes confronting Yale as an undergrad in the 1990s can help you understand what is possible here. He quit Yale out of protest after being offered a sweet backroom deal, but has gone on to be a great success nevertheless. If these students were to follow in the footsteps of Barnes it would be a great thing for each of them spiritually and for all Americans.
As for me, I've assumed risk confronting DoD as an AD soldier, and I'll continue to do so as long as the oath I swore to the constitution compels such. I might have the opportunity to do so in an academic setting starting next summer, and perhaps other opportunities thereafter. I anticipate confronting an academic institution engaged in wrongdoing if it comes to that to be much less harrowing, frankly.
The references are to those fields where anonymity is possible and regularly used. The top field is crypto, where the major ($1B+) scammers all had the "moral courage" to use their names. Social media is a close second, where people who cannot challenge ideas on their own merits cry about not being able to easily ruin the lives of people they hate.
You've confused moral courage with ego and stupidity. These students did the smart and humble thing. If you support what they have said, support them by respecting their intelligence, and not demanding their destruction. How did you get through the military without learning to minimize attack surfaces?
And to your risks... how many false sexual assault accusations or EEO investigations have been made against you? What's your lawyer's track record defending you? In what ways did speaking out shorten or alter your career?
I'm not disappointed in anonymity in general, only this specific case. I have many friends who are anons who I think the world of, and almost always exposing their identity wouldn't serve any particular purpose. The identity of these individuals is highly relevant to the point they're making. If it wasn't, then why even say they're harvard undergrads? I'm also making the point that the action assumes risk, and invites retaliation for that particular action, which is strategically useful for all dissidents.
I'm not confused, and I'm not demanding anyone's destruction. I have enough faith in these students to believe that they would benefit from attaching their names to this, hence my disappointment. As to how I've gotten through the military, I suppose that is a good question. Maybe luck has played an outsized role, or maybe its my charming personality.
I'm not in command nor will I ever command so false accusations aren't an issue for me and probably won't be. If it happens, I'll deal with it. This is of course a problem, but it typically results from people in command positions attempting to hold SMs accountable who are part of protected groups.
Many of the impacts to my career are difficult to describe in a comment here, one likely impact is that I wasn't selected by any of the boards I competed in while my vaccination status was reflected on my ORB, which was never an issue before or since. Could be a coincidence, I guess we'll never know since board deliberations can't be FOIA'd. Many of my peers had it way worse, I had a few close calls that were averted somewhat miraculously. I honestly didn't expect to fare as well as I did, nobody did, was told my career was over and that I would get a GOMOR etc...
In any case, it isn't the same situation. A better comparison example is what Barnes went through. I did assume substantial risk speaking out though, and will continue to do so. If I were to shut up and keep my head down for the next few years I would be virtually guaranteed a multimillion dollar retirement, and I will get nothing otherwise. My friend Brad Miller did give up that retirement in protest and he's been able to parlay that into increased attention on the issues DOD is facing. I've seen leftists unable to believe he did it. They literally can't process it. These students putting their names on this would have profound impact. It would send shockwaves through academia and shame everyone sitting on the sidelines in silence, most especially if they're able to continue on and graduate/effectively deal with any retaliation.
Good on them. Although "rules for thee but not for me" has become the standard for justice in our society of late, perhaps this will mark the reversing of the trend.
Taking a step back, isn't it clear the most leftist elements of society control many of the departments in our universities? IMHO, the "question" is not what these lefties like Gay did (although I applaud the outrage). The evidence is just so overwhelming and widespread. Many departments at Universities have become lefty echo chambers for decades. It's just getting worse.
However, perhaps it is now the time we look at the count of departments at Universities where the overwhelming majority of existing/new faculty come from a single political affiliation. Perhaps we require (1) University accreditation scores drop the higher the "politicalization" and (2) Universities be held to a "de-politicalized" compliance requirement to keep public funding and (3) we legislate the blocking all gov grants and student loans/assistance for the non-compliant departments. Call it "The University Depoliticalization Act." Am I nuts? Anyone working on that?
The bigger worry from all of this is the rot in the board independence to oversee these institutions. The fact the board unanimously supports her seems to indicate they aren’t independent and are more akin to political appointments supporting each other rather than being of a governance nature. Bill Ackman on Twitter recently details this better than I can.
A blind eye was turned toward that fraud Michael King known by his illegitimate name "MLK jr." Many cases of his plagiarism including academic.
And this woman Gay would have never come under scrutiny if she dared not question the cultists who are not allowed to be questioned. Is that a triple-standard? Not only is Israel no better than Hamas, it is a good deal worse. Plus, it is being done with our tax dollars. Add to that that Hamas never would have existed if not for these delusional Russians LARPing as Hebrews and stealing land.
"We would love to know why, in an email to the Harvard family, the members of the Harvard Corporation deliberately minimized the importance of the president’s misconduct."
Before I read this, I didn't think the plagiarism was so bad as to warrant President Gay being fired (though I'd fire her for other reasons). This is the most convincing article I have seen on why this plagiarism is bad enough to warrant firing her, so I have changed my mind. Well done, Four Undergraduates!
I just discovered your stack with a cross post from Chris Brunet. If you want a by-the-book academic takedown of the entirety of Gay's career (it is truly awful) beyond the plagiarism, this stack today by Chris Bray is excellent. https://chrisbray.substack.com/p/seeing-through-smokescreens
Good work by these undergrads. Cheers!
“Fear of retribution” is what stood out to me in this article. The entity of Harvard Corp as a totalitarian actor with its tentacles and long reach in all aspects of American public and private life is truly a monstrous creation.
The blatant plagiarism is bad enough. But it’s far more egregious to copy and paste someone else’s work and then alter the passage so that it says the opposite of what the author wrote. This fraud would, at a minimum, earn you a “F” in any academic setting, and likely dismissal.
Yeah the fact she plagiarised then made it say the opposite conclusion is surely at least fail if not expulsion. Hard to comprehend that Harvard are still standing by her.
It is with a heavy heart that I reflect on the current state of our esteemed institution. It seems to me that we are witnessing what might be the lowest point in the University's storied history, particularly in terms of its standing and reputation in the eyes of the public. The behavior of various leadership groups within Harvard, with their apparent adherence to a singular leftist ideology, disturbingly echoes that of the Maoist Red Guard during China's Cultural Revolution. This historical parallel is not one to be drawn lightly, as it signifies a deviation not only from the University's mission (liberal education & ideological neutrality) but also a failed fiduciary duty to both the institution and the country.
The decision of Harvard's Board to retain President Claudine Gay amidst escalating controversies is not merely an administrative choice but a symbol of a deeper, more systemic issue. This decision reflects a pattern of rigid and radical thinking, pointing to a moral failure within the university's leadership. It’s not just a simple misstep; it's a clear sign that the Board, along with the Alumni Association Executive Committee and over 700 of the faculty, are entrenched in extreme, divisive ideologies. Their conduct strikingly resembles that of a political faction, especially in their apparent determination to maintain power and systematically silence divergent viewpoints.
The Board’s approach to handling substantial criticisms, such as those from investor Bill Ackman, dismissed as mere 'political interference,' is indicative of a worrisome trend. They seem to view challenges to their ideas not as opportunities for dialogue and improvement, but as threats to their authority. This reaction isolates them from crucial feedback, demonstrating a reluctance to engage with opposing views. This insularity could be mitigated by incorporating more politically diverse viewpoints, allowing for a richer discourse.
A 2022 report from The Harvard Crimson heightens these concerns; it revealed that over 97% of Harvard professors hold left-wing views. Shockingly, faculty members with extreme left-wing views outnumber the total number of their conservative counterparts. This significant imbalance in ideological representation within the faculty reflects a pattern similar to the Red Guard’s approach, where a dominant mode of thought was enforced, effectively marginalizing other perspectives. Some might view this as an inadvertent trend, but I believe it to be intentional, and the Board's recent actions seem to bolster this point.
In its handling of university matters, the Board shows a troubling inconsistency. They strictly regulate what they consider 'violent speech,' such as 'fatphobia', but paradoxically seem to allow the propagation of anti-Semitic sentiments under the guise of Marxist Oppressor/Oppressed DEI theories. The public sees this double standard as a significant flaw in their rationale -- one which undermines the university’s commitment to free speech and equitable treatment.
The negative response from the American public, including thousands of Harvard alumni and former donors, underscores the gravity of the situation. The Board’s actions are seen as transcending mere poor governance; they are perceived as a betrayal of trust to the university community and the nation. In my view, the severity of the leadership crisis at Harvard calls for urgent intervention.
The Board should be held accountable for actions that are increasingly perceived as demonstrating a clear bias and a neglect of their fiduciary responsibilities to the University. They have seemingly failed to uphold Harvard’s commitment to critical thought, discourse, and merit, which are the cornerstones of a liberal education. Moreover, they have disappointed the nation by failing to maintain Harvard's stature as a beacon of global excellence, vital for sustaining the United States' global competitiveness.
Harvard, despite its non-profit status, operates like a quasi-hedge fund with a teaching & research arm attached. This arrangement has been historically tolerated, largely due to the belief that Harvard contributes positively to the nation. However, as the University is increasingly accused of indoctrinating students with views antagonistic to America, Capitalism, and Western Civilization, and promoting 'Decolonization' of an 'Imperial' America in what critics call a 'Marxist indoctrination camp,' this tolerance is rapidly eroding. The growing perception is that Harvard might be contributing to the nation's decline rather than its advancement.
Inside Harvard, there might be a sense of normalcy, but outside, the University's brand is suffering a precipitous decline. Detractors now associate Harvard with disparaging terms like 'Hamas University' and 'Plagiarism University,' reflecting a severe reputational crisis. Moreover, this situation has raised questions about why Harvard should continue to receive support in the form of funding, tax-exempt status, low-interest government loans, and other benefits. The homogeneity in the Board's political leanings and ideologies is seen as a significant factor in creating this leftist (some would say, 'Marxist') ideological echo chamber. There is a pressing need for a thorough examination and questioning of the Board's political leanings, motivations and actions to prevent a recurrence of such situations.
Harvard must act swiftly to address these issues. Indeed, some Board members may have to replaced. The university needs a reform focused on intellectual diversity, ethical conduct, and responsible governance. The situation at Harvard is indicative of a broader leadership crisis in American institutions, marked by an inflexible adherence to a single ideology and a disregard for the importance of diverse thought and intellectual freedom. The Harvard community and the general public must demand accountability and reform. Removing some or all of the current Board members may be a crucial step in restoring Harvard's reputation and realigning its leadership with the principles of open inquiry and diverse thinking.
Harvard’s reputation has been tarnished in the public eye, mirroring its abysmal ranking in free speech (last in the nation). The question is: Can Harvard still save itself, or will the government be forced to intervene?
You expressed this as diplomatically and tactfully as possible. Great comment. It is indeed a political faction, the Long March Through the Institutions has always been real, has always been radical, and has never been secret.
The stranglehold on power achieved at ivy league schools will not be relinquished. And even if 90% of the country came to view them negatively the symbiosis/revolving door between Ivy Leaguers and Washington DC insiders would continue. Political factions vie for power, and use it to rule countries. The Left has attained power- media, government, academic, corporate, etc- and they will use it to rule our country. Its not a secret nor a surprise, just an unfortunate predicament.
Yeh it’s a joke.
You forgot the Zeroth Commandment: Thou shalt not fail the "oppressed".
Yes, is anyone still surprised to find out that large segments of our population are simply not to be held accountable? Cynically and hypocritically, it’s called social “justice”.
And it's hard to find a more oppressed group than the stupid. Dr. Gay falls within that group.
When living in Boston, I used to love spending days off work perousing book shops in Harvard Square, reading under trees in the Yard, and basking in the general aura of that great institution.
Or should I say 'once' great institution. Seeing Harvard capitulate to the politically correct psychosis of our present age is heartbreaking. Cowards, charlatans, and champagne socialists are destroying the West with their despicable DIE totalitarianism. One simple question illustrates this: what if Gay wasn't black?
Great work Undergrads. Even if the kindly tyrannical blob has captured the institution, the fact that individual’s within can still demonstrate loyalty to the pursuit of Truth is a source of hope.
I appreciate this take, but I'm disappointed that they lack the moral courage demonstrated by their decision to remain anonymous. Invite the potential retaliation and deal with it or be forced to live under the rule of incompetent cowards in perpetuity.
Most tenured professors fear to speak out, as our university censors do not hesitate to cancel them, tenure be damned. Retired professors, like myself, are free to challenge the woke orthodoxy. It is a bit much to expect undergraduates with their lives ahead of them to put their heads on the block.
What lives? Ones where they bend the knee to incompetent frauds until they become one themselves? You're probably right, I do expect too much. The appropriate expectation of an ivy league undergrad is that they never take any risk that may interfere with their ascent in the social hierarchy, for to them, there is nothing else. Nothing worth fighting for anyway.
I think the fact that these Harvard undergrads don't feel they can put their names out at this time is another damning indictment of Harvard.
I agree, but also think that if they did put their names out and were retaliated against, this would be even more damning. If not, it would ideally embolden other students to openly express heterodox positions.
Not a "moral courage" issue. Basic sensibility and intelligence issue. Stay anon or the demonic left will destroy you. Their lives are not your entertainment.
Plus it forces the reader to focus on the argument and not conclude 'So-and-so said this and they are <protected class>'.
It is a moral courage issue, you've just come to internalize that moral cowardice is "basic sensibility and intelligence." I'm not anon, the demonic left hasn't destroyed me. Doing what is right when there is no risk is easy, when there is risk, it is difficult and takes moral courage. In the long run the legitimacy of Harvard is at stake here. If these undergrads want the good reputation of the institution to survive, then they'll need to quit hiding and be exemplars of excellence. To be excellent, you must speak truth to power, a power that is hopelessly corrupt cannot stand without destroying everything around it. The longer it takes to circulate this power, the worse things will get for everyone. By staying anon they stay aligned with a regime oriented towards destruction. We need smart young people who can see blatant hypocrisy and incompetence for what it is, and communicate about that effectively if we're to turn things around. I'm not seeking entertainment, I'm seeking a world where all of the power brokers aren't spiritually and morally bankrupt, and to get to that world people will need to take risks. Your assumption that taking any risk in this regard will necessarily result in destruction is indicative of utilitarian consequentialist thinking. It isn't true and promotes the worst kind of behavior and degradation of character.
I've seen more 'moral courage' from cartoons on the internet than doxxed people like Sam Bankman-Fried, Su Zhu, Do Kwon, the people who ran Celsius, Jordan Peterson, etc.
If the students added their names, it would do nothing to enhance their story, and everything to put a target on their backs. Especially when they are undergrads, and have zero power. This is how they speak truth to power.
But if you still disagree, prove me wrong by enrolling in a college and seeing how far your idea of speaking truth to power gets you.
I'm not quite understanding your initial reference. As for students adding their names it would serve an important function that is linked to your perception that it would put a target on their back. They would be assuming risk. That is why it would take courage. You can't do anything without assuming risk. You can be somebody, ascend in the social hierarchy etc., but you can't do anything important. If they can't assume such risk now, they won't later. Well, maybe after they're retired like Philip above. Any retaliation on the part of the school just feeds into the overall fight that needs to be had if there's to be any hope of restoring the honor and integrity to the institution. Conversely, if they are retaliated against it appropriately accelerates the loss of prestige of the institution by providing clear and obvious evidence of moral bankruptcy. By leading in such a manner and dealing effectively with any retaliation they would also set a positive example for their peers, not to mention people like you. Unfortunately, the don't seem to have any faith in themselves, and you don't have any faith that they could succeed in a confrontation where we both agree they would clearly be in the right. Ivy league undergrads should be our nation's best and brightest, if they lack the competence to challenge obviously corrupt and incompetent institutional power when they clearly understand it is the right thing to do, then this is a massive spiritual loss. Perhaps looking to the example of Robert Barnes confronting Yale as an undergrad in the 1990s can help you understand what is possible here. He quit Yale out of protest after being offered a sweet backroom deal, but has gone on to be a great success nevertheless. If these students were to follow in the footsteps of Barnes it would be a great thing for each of them spiritually and for all Americans.
As for me, I've assumed risk confronting DoD as an AD soldier, and I'll continue to do so as long as the oath I swore to the constitution compels such. I might have the opportunity to do so in an academic setting starting next summer, and perhaps other opportunities thereafter. I anticipate confronting an academic institution engaged in wrongdoing if it comes to that to be much less harrowing, frankly.
The references are to those fields where anonymity is possible and regularly used. The top field is crypto, where the major ($1B+) scammers all had the "moral courage" to use their names. Social media is a close second, where people who cannot challenge ideas on their own merits cry about not being able to easily ruin the lives of people they hate.
You've confused moral courage with ego and stupidity. These students did the smart and humble thing. If you support what they have said, support them by respecting their intelligence, and not demanding their destruction. How did you get through the military without learning to minimize attack surfaces?
And to your risks... how many false sexual assault accusations or EEO investigations have been made against you? What's your lawyer's track record defending you? In what ways did speaking out shorten or alter your career?
I'm not disappointed in anonymity in general, only this specific case. I have many friends who are anons who I think the world of, and almost always exposing their identity wouldn't serve any particular purpose. The identity of these individuals is highly relevant to the point they're making. If it wasn't, then why even say they're harvard undergrads? I'm also making the point that the action assumes risk, and invites retaliation for that particular action, which is strategically useful for all dissidents.
I'm not confused, and I'm not demanding anyone's destruction. I have enough faith in these students to believe that they would benefit from attaching their names to this, hence my disappointment. As to how I've gotten through the military, I suppose that is a good question. Maybe luck has played an outsized role, or maybe its my charming personality.
I'm not in command nor will I ever command so false accusations aren't an issue for me and probably won't be. If it happens, I'll deal with it. This is of course a problem, but it typically results from people in command positions attempting to hold SMs accountable who are part of protected groups.
Many of the impacts to my career are difficult to describe in a comment here, one likely impact is that I wasn't selected by any of the boards I competed in while my vaccination status was reflected on my ORB, which was never an issue before or since. Could be a coincidence, I guess we'll never know since board deliberations can't be FOIA'd. Many of my peers had it way worse, I had a few close calls that were averted somewhat miraculously. I honestly didn't expect to fare as well as I did, nobody did, was told my career was over and that I would get a GOMOR etc...
In any case, it isn't the same situation. A better comparison example is what Barnes went through. I did assume substantial risk speaking out though, and will continue to do so. If I were to shut up and keep my head down for the next few years I would be virtually guaranteed a multimillion dollar retirement, and I will get nothing otherwise. My friend Brad Miller did give up that retirement in protest and he's been able to parlay that into increased attention on the issues DOD is facing. I've seen leftists unable to believe he did it. They literally can't process it. These students putting their names on this would have profound impact. It would send shockwaves through academia and shame everyone sitting on the sidelines in silence, most especially if they're able to continue on and graduate/effectively deal with any retaliation.
Once upon a time the penalty for plagiarism was rather severe But in today’s woke DIE academic universe such penalties are nonexistent
Good on them. Although "rules for thee but not for me" has become the standard for justice in our society of late, perhaps this will mark the reversing of the trend.
Taking a step back, isn't it clear the most leftist elements of society control many of the departments in our universities? IMHO, the "question" is not what these lefties like Gay did (although I applaud the outrage). The evidence is just so overwhelming and widespread. Many departments at Universities have become lefty echo chambers for decades. It's just getting worse.
However, perhaps it is now the time we look at the count of departments at Universities where the overwhelming majority of existing/new faculty come from a single political affiliation. Perhaps we require (1) University accreditation scores drop the higher the "politicalization" and (2) Universities be held to a "de-politicalized" compliance requirement to keep public funding and (3) we legislate the blocking all gov grants and student loans/assistance for the non-compliant departments. Call it "The University Depoliticalization Act." Am I nuts? Anyone working on that?
It's nothing short of amazing. It's a brave new world in academia for sure.
The bigger worry from all of this is the rot in the board independence to oversee these institutions. The fact the board unanimously supports her seems to indicate they aren’t independent and are more akin to political appointments supporting each other rather than being of a governance nature. Bill Ackman on Twitter recently details this better than I can.
A blind eye was turned toward that fraud Michael King known by his illegitimate name "MLK jr." Many cases of his plagiarism including academic.
And this woman Gay would have never come under scrutiny if she dared not question the cultists who are not allowed to be questioned. Is that a triple-standard? Not only is Israel no better than Hamas, it is a good deal worse. Plus, it is being done with our tax dollars. Add to that that Hamas never would have existed if not for these delusional Russians LARPing as Hebrews and stealing land.
Take your Haldol. It may help those delusions.
"We would love to know why, in an email to the Harvard family, the members of the Harvard Corporation deliberately minimized the importance of the president’s misconduct."
-----------------------------
Well, children...