In which I argue that the "misinformation crisis" is best solved by increasing institutional trust and highlight how academics are actively working AGAINST this
While I agree with much of what you say I think a critical part of restoring trust in academia is keeping focused on the fact that what it's supposed to be doing is producing and evaluating ideas. Plagarism standards are just a means to that end.
So what if grad students share a description of a methodology. Indeed, all the better if they aren't wasting their time rewriting it.
The concern with plagarism is when it either prevents us from tracking a claim down to the original evidence (not relevant here) or when it undermines our ability to evaluate who should get the next grant or job. In this case I don't see the sentence copying as doing either.
I see it as no different than if a husband and wife came up with the wording in a paper together and they choose to just submit it under one name. As long as they aren't trying to mislead people about future productivity who cares. It's not a test in school. Research is the end goal.
Sure, she should have been more careful given what standards are but this isn't a big deal. It's all the academics publishing results they've p-hacked to find an effect or who don't really think an argument is convincing who have engaged in the real ethical breech.
At the beginning I thought as you do now. I think in the meantime more serious breeches have been revealed. The other aspect is she seems like less than stellar scholar if you look at her record
No. The concern with plagiarism is dishonesty, which leads to incorrect attribution of merit. Do you want an honest, capable, careful person or any progressive hack as long as she's female and black? This is the bigger scandal: why did the people who hired her not know? Or did they?
At this point, shouts of misinformation seem more like in-group pandering than any genuine attempt at refuting an opposing viewpoint. Much less an attempt to convert those with the opposing views.
Ditto this one. If I had wanted to open it, I’d have done so one the first of MANY times Substack has sent it to me. Can I just tell them to cease and desist?
Based on the early revealed examples of Claudine Gay’s plagiarism, I also put them down to sloppiness, an embarrassment, for the same reasons you posted in your early twitter. For me it indicated mediocrity and add to that her very short publication record, made me question she could have obtained Tenure at any prestigious American university, never mind Harvard. And as the examples keep
on coming up, some simply embarrassing (copying language for credits for her thesis!) and serious - not crediting ideas - I find it hard to believe this is allowed to go on, with Gay keeping her post. How low USA academia is falling!!
Dec 29, 2023·edited Dec 29, 2023Liked by Ruxandra Teslo
I wouldn't vote to hire her as a research academic at an elite institution but that doesn't tell me much about whether she's a good president or not.
Truth is that those jobs probably have anti-correlated skill sets and her ability to publish research just isn't at all important as a university president. The only reason they pick academics for the position is so they understand and appreciate the activity they are managing.
As a general observation, that may be true (in my experience, many world leading Professors are excellent in research and their ability to foster excellence in others - including administrative), but if the President is hired to promote a political agenda - diversity in identity and conformity in ideas and not diversity of ideas and excellence in accomplishment - s/he is unlikely to be a good leader for the institution whatever the academic and administrative skills. This would seem to have been the case at Harvard.
(As far as the 3 presidents’ abysmal performances at the hearing, my immediate response was to attribute these to instructions from university lawyers, and not necessarily to personal opinion!)
I think that depends alot on what policies she adopts.
She won't be an effective advocate for far left attitudes at universities. She could be an extremely effective advocate for a moderate reformist agenda.
> “Is President Gay violating the Harvard plagiarism code?” is a relatively straightforward question, and it really does not matter a lot who flagged that she might have committed plagiarism in the first place.
Exactly! I was flabbergasted when I read Fried’s comment. Also note the condescending “these people.” Even worse, academics like to talk about “the science,” but when it comes time to apply the scientific process (which as you point out is straightforward in this case), some are unable to do so.
While I agree with much of what you say I think a critical part of restoring trust in academia is keeping focused on the fact that what it's supposed to be doing is producing and evaluating ideas. Plagarism standards are just a means to that end.
So what if grad students share a description of a methodology. Indeed, all the better if they aren't wasting their time rewriting it.
The concern with plagarism is when it either prevents us from tracking a claim down to the original evidence (not relevant here) or when it undermines our ability to evaluate who should get the next grant or job. In this case I don't see the sentence copying as doing either.
I see it as no different than if a husband and wife came up with the wording in a paper together and they choose to just submit it under one name. As long as they aren't trying to mislead people about future productivity who cares. It's not a test in school. Research is the end goal.
Sure, she should have been more careful given what standards are but this isn't a big deal. It's all the academics publishing results they've p-hacked to find an effect or who don't really think an argument is convincing who have engaged in the real ethical breech.
At the beginning I thought as you do now. I think in the meantime more serious breeches have been revealed. The other aspect is she seems like less than stellar scholar if you look at her record
I'll take a look and see if I'm just not up to date. As far as being a good scholar... probably better not to lose a great scholar to admin.
No. The concern with plagiarism is dishonesty, which leads to incorrect attribution of merit. Do you want an honest, capable, careful person or any progressive hack as long as she's female and black? This is the bigger scandal: why did the people who hired her not know? Or did they?
At this point, shouts of misinformation seem more like in-group pandering than any genuine attempt at refuting an opposing viewpoint. Much less an attempt to convert those with the opposing views.
I think it's a mixed bag. some people seem to genuinely believe in the righteousness of their cause
Ditto this one. If I had wanted to open it, I’d have done so one the first of MANY times Substack has sent it to me. Can I just tell them to cease and desist?
Based on the early revealed examples of Claudine Gay’s plagiarism, I also put them down to sloppiness, an embarrassment, for the same reasons you posted in your early twitter. For me it indicated mediocrity and add to that her very short publication record, made me question she could have obtained Tenure at any prestigious American university, never mind Harvard. And as the examples keep
on coming up, some simply embarrassing (copying language for credits for her thesis!) and serious - not crediting ideas - I find it hard to believe this is allowed to go on, with Gay keeping her post. How low USA academia is falling!!
I wouldn't vote to hire her as a research academic at an elite institution but that doesn't tell me much about whether she's a good president or not.
Truth is that those jobs probably have anti-correlated skill sets and her ability to publish research just isn't at all important as a university president. The only reason they pick academics for the position is so they understand and appreciate the activity they are managing.
As a general observation, that may be true (in my experience, many world leading Professors are excellent in research and their ability to foster excellence in others - including administrative), but if the President is hired to promote a political agenda - diversity in identity and conformity in ideas and not diversity of ideas and excellence in accomplishment - s/he is unlikely to be a good leader for the institution whatever the academic and administrative skills. This would seem to have been the case at Harvard.
(As far as the 3 presidents’ abysmal performances at the hearing, my immediate response was to attribute these to instructions from university lawyers, and not necessarily to personal opinion!)
I think that depends alot on what policies she adopts.
She won't be an effective advocate for far left attitudes at universities. She could be an extremely effective advocate for a moderate reformist agenda.
Only Nixon could go to China.
> “Is President Gay violating the Harvard plagiarism code?” is a relatively straightforward question, and it really does not matter a lot who flagged that she might have committed plagiarism in the first place.
Exactly! I was flabbergasted when I read Fried’s comment. Also note the condescending “these people.” Even worse, academics like to talk about “the science,” but when it comes time to apply the scientific process (which as you point out is straightforward in this case), some are unable to do so.