Claudine Gay's entire career is a lesson in racism-grifting and plagiarism. It is good she has been called out but unfortunate the NYT provides her with a platform to defend herself with.
Was it really against her? Or just against sucking and being incompetent and unethical?
I think any president that acted with her behavior would meet the same fate. I don’t think people knew who she was or cared. Just that she was not good and needed to go.
It’s natural to feel targeted and special. But sometimes it’s not me. It’s just that I suck.
> I think any president that acted with her behavior would meet the same fate.
Oh I can think of a president who has acted in an incredibly incompetent and unethical fashion and got to serve out a full term. Maybe will even get another term.
We don't usually hear about plagiarism accusations in the news for weeks at a time. There's a particular reason these scandals came up at all and became a major focus for the national news.
Right. But I think it stemmed from her incompetence in her testimony. She seemed really stupid and false in her answers.
Then people examined her and found other dumb things.
My point is that it’s not like they said “let’s get Dr. Gay.” But that attention was focused on an idiot and it led to their firing. Any idiot would suffer the same fate if they gave those answers. No one really cares about her intrinsically.
> But I think it stemmed from her incompetence in her testimony. She seemed really stupid and false in her answers.
You mean the testimony compelled as part of that campaign? I wasn’t impressed with her performance but that circus was set up trying to create a gotcha situation where the same people who have spent decades telling us that all positions should be welcomed on campuses would portray anything less than a complete restriction on speech as the universities embracing antisemitism. The guy gunning for the Penn president had been waiting for years to get an opportunity like this.
Gay was trying to thread a line between the gotcha framing and what a legal free speech policy allows, and fumbled into the trap. Yes, she handled it poorly but that doesn’t excuse the successful campaign to create the situation which made it look worse than it actually was or the massive national media effort to make this the issue everyone is talking about rather than something important.
> My point is that it’s not like they said “let’s get Dr. Gay.”
Actually, that's exactly what they did. They were very open about it. Christopher Ruffo was very open about it. They wanted to get her fired for her Israel content, so they went hunting to find an excuse.
> Any idiot would suffer the same fate if they gave those answers. No one really cares about her intrinsically.
In the same vein, one would expect an idiot to misattribute the criticism of their aptitude and view it as a personal attack. Only an idiot would say the things Gay said in congress; only an idiot would interpret a critical take on her leadership abilities as racism or sexism.
>And at a congressional hearing last month, I fell into a well-laid trap.
That trap and the subsequent actions that follow it will, in the long run, greatly increase anti-Semitism in the United States and elsewhere.
The message is clear, don't you dare, accidentally or otherwise, allow anyone to come to the conclusion that Palestinians are humans, or worthy of rights. It's best to stand with the Onion[1] in this case.
Gotta disagree. The President of Harvard should be stellar in front of Congress. Otherwise don’t go. I watched bits and pieces of President Gay’s remarks, and she was not stellar.
If you're called to testify by a Congressional committee, and you don't show up, federal marshalls find you and drag you to the committee room or you get charged with contempt of congress.
She didn't come to the conclusion that Palestinians are human. She came to the conclusion that calls for genocide of Jews would be punished based on context. I am guessing that context being if you are a white conservative that's the next Charlottesville so you can be penalized immediately but if you are a Muslim or Palestinian student calling for Israel to be wiped off the map it is fine until you start acting on those genocidal chants.
It doesn't help that the culture cultivated in universities lately didn't leave room for nuance either. There were protests, pulled fire alarms, and general activism against people who had a slightly inconvenient opinion. Something anyone at a university should certainly be able to stomach. But leadership did not defend people with divergent opinions lately, even if that is foundational to academic teaching. To now do so in case of calling for genocide, summoning the broad excuse of context, is severely contradicting previous behavior and not convincing. Context can often explain something not obvious, but in this case that would still be very hard to do.
Yes, it was a show trial. An easy one because the rules were laid out themselves by the accused. In my opinion, a change of leadership could benefit a few universities instead of their vanity around race, sex or their simple worldview of oppressor and oppressed that is mirrored by a lot of people I would describe as miseducated.
18 comments
[ 12.3 ms ] story [ 71.7 ms ] threadWas it really against her? Or just against sucking and being incompetent and unethical?
I think any president that acted with her behavior would meet the same fate. I don’t think people knew who she was or cared. Just that she was not good and needed to go.
It’s natural to feel targeted and special. But sometimes it’s not me. It’s just that I suck.
Oh I can think of a president who has acted in an incredibly incompetent and unethical fashion and got to serve out a full term. Maybe will even get another term.
Then people examined her and found other dumb things.
My point is that it’s not like they said “let’s get Dr. Gay.” But that attention was focused on an idiot and it led to their firing. Any idiot would suffer the same fate if they gave those answers. No one really cares about her intrinsically.
You mean the testimony compelled as part of that campaign? I wasn’t impressed with her performance but that circus was set up trying to create a gotcha situation where the same people who have spent decades telling us that all positions should be welcomed on campuses would portray anything less than a complete restriction on speech as the universities embracing antisemitism. The guy gunning for the Penn president had been waiting for years to get an opportunity like this.
Gay was trying to thread a line between the gotcha framing and what a legal free speech policy allows, and fumbled into the trap. Yes, she handled it poorly but that doesn’t excuse the successful campaign to create the situation which made it look worse than it actually was or the massive national media effort to make this the issue everyone is talking about rather than something important.
Actually, that's exactly what they did. They were very open about it. Christopher Ruffo was very open about it. They wanted to get her fired for her Israel content, so they went hunting to find an excuse.
In the same vein, one would expect an idiot to misattribute the criticism of their aptitude and view it as a personal attack. Only an idiot would say the things Gay said in congress; only an idiot would interpret a critical take on her leadership abilities as racism or sexism.
That trap and the subsequent actions that follow it will, in the long run, greatly increase anti-Semitism in the United States and elsewhere.
The message is clear, don't you dare, accidentally or otherwise, allow anyone to come to the conclusion that Palestinians are humans, or worthy of rights. It's best to stand with the Onion[1] in this case.
[1] https://www.theonion.com/the-onion-stands-with-israel-becaus...
If you're called to testify by a Congressional committee, and you don't show up, federal marshalls find you and drag you to the committee room or you get charged with contempt of congress.
All nuance was quashed, so I can only assume things, and your assumptions are different.
Yes, it was a show trial. An easy one because the rules were laid out themselves by the accused. In my opinion, a change of leadership could benefit a few universities instead of their vanity around race, sex or their simple worldview of oppressor and oppressed that is mirrored by a lot of people I would describe as miseducated.