Posted on 12/26/2023 4:35:58 AM PST by MtnClimber
It was less than three weeks ago, December 5, when the name of Claudine Gay, President of Harvard University, suddenly burst into the news. That was the day that she, along with the Presidents of Penn and MIT, testified before Congress — and could not give a clear answer as to whether it was against the policy at their schools to call for the genocide of Jews. All three women attempted to use the occasion to paint themselves as defenders of free speech, particularly important in such extreme cases.
Manhattan Contrarian readers already knew that Ms. Gay was the opposite of a defender of free speech. In a post on December 16, 2022 with the title “Goodnight, Poor Harvard!” — written on the occasion of the announcement that Ms. Gay would become the next President of Harvard — I reviewed her record on the subject. My conclusion, based on multiple examples mostly from the work of independent journalist Christopher Brunet, was that Ms. Gay was “the enforcer-in-chief of wokist orthodoxy at Harvard.”
In the few short weeks since December 5, the news as to Ms. Gay has gotten worse and worse, seemingly by the day. First, some big donors ramped up threats to pull their funding. Then came a handful of allegations of plagiarism found in a few among Ms. Gay’s small number of academic papers. On December 12 the New York Times reported that the Harvard Corporation had appointed a special committee to investigate the allegations of plagiarism, and that the committee had cleared Ms. Gay. Then it emerged that a source had given the allegations of plagiarism to the New York Post back in October, and the Post had sent them to Harvard for confirmation — only to get in return a threatening letter from the Clare Locke law firm (the same firm that had recovered over $700 million from Fox in the Dominion Voting case) asserting that the accusations of plagiarism were “demonstrably false.” Then (December 19 in the Washington Free Beacon) there emerged a new dossier now with some 40 instances of alleged plagiarism — almost four for each of Ms. Gay’s eleven academic articles — many of the new allegations much more serious than the ones that the special committee had just deemed minor.
So by December 19 the Clare Locke letter and the attempt of the special committee to whitewash Ms. Gay’s plagiarism had blown up in the face of the Harvard Corporation. On December 22 the New York Post ran a big story demonstrating that the special committee had cleared Ms. Gay before investigating her work. Could it get any worse for Ms. Gay?
Yes. Here’s the latest from Christopher Brunet in a post at something called The Dossier yesterday: Claudine Gay has been asked for, but has refused to provide, the data that underlie a 2001 article she published in the American Political Science Review (“The Effect of Black Congressional Representation on Political Participation”). The 2001 APSR article was a critical piece in Ms. Gay receiving tenure from Stanford. In 2002, two researchers who had looked at the APSR paper — Michael Herron of Dartmouth and Kenneth Schotts of Stanford — thought the result anomalous and sought the underlying data from Gay. Herron and Schotts reported the results of that effort in a working paper they presented at the 2002 conference of the Society for Political Methodology. Brunet has obtained a copy of the Herron/Schotts working paper, and links to it at his piece. Here is the key quote from the Herron/Schotts working paper:
We were, however, unable to scrutinize Gay’s results because she would not release her dataset to us (personal communication with Claudine Gay, 2002).
Consider Gay’s (2001) EI–R analysis of the precinct-level socioeconomic covariates that affect black and white turnout. […] For Gay’s Michigan and Pennsylvania EI–R analyses to be logically consistent, it must be true that knowledge of a precinct’s percent black (Xi) tells us nothing about the precinct’s per capita income (an element of Gay’s Zi). This is untenable in light of contemporary American social realities: if a precinct has a large African-American population, then all things equal this precinct will have a relatively low per capita income. Nonetheless, without assuming that a precinct’s per capita income is not a function of its racial composition, and without making a host of similarly implausible assumptions for the other right hand side variables in her second stage regressions, Gay’s use of EI–R is logically inconsistent.
Yes, it’s technical mumbo-jumbo, but the gist is that the Gay paper’s methodology appears on its face to be “logically inconsistent,” so the authors asked for the underlying data, and they were refused. As far as I am concerned, failure by a researcher to share the underlying data as to published work is prima facie evidence that the data have been falsified. The ability to disprove that inference is completely in the hands of the researcher, here Ms. Gay, and there is no reason to refuse disclosure other than known problems in the data. Readers here know that the phenomenon of refusal to disclose underlying data is endemic in narrative-supporting politicized “science,” most famously in the Hockey Stick graph of Mann, et al., that is the primary basis of the global warming scare.
Is there any other reason to think that something suspicious is going on here? Well, the Herron/Schotts paper from which the above quote comes appears nowhere on the internet (except as Brunet has now posted it), and there is evidence to suggest that the paper was intentionally disappeared. Brunet:
The program for every PolMeth conference from 1984-2021 is available for download on the PolMeth website, except for 2002, indicating the missing year of 2002 was deliberately removed from this span, seemingly to protect Gay. This is especially true because there was no internet in e.g. 1984, so there is clearly a repository of old programs somewhere that was uploaded to the website at one point, from which 2002 is conspicuously missing. Perhaps 2002 was the sole year lost in the shuffle during this span.
Was the reason for disappearance of the Herron/Schotts paper to protect Gay, as Brunet hypothesizes? You be the judge. Anyway, it is completely in Ms. Gay’s hands to disprove any inference of data manipulation by disclosing her data. I’m somehow guessing that that’s not going to happen.
As they used to say about Donald Trump, “the walls are closing in” on Claudine Gay.
I can’t say that I am shocked.
Bkmk
She’s UNTOUCHABLE because she’s a BLACK DEMOCRAT (LESBIAN?) backed by the HEAD BLACK DEMOCRAT, BARRACK HUSSEIN OBAMA!!
Any moment now I expect some high-level Republican to tell us to COOL IT and that we’re already showing of racism by pointing this out in regard to a black woman.
And “they” wonder why we disrespect them, and get angry when we do.
A lot of the true crime stories I watch have to do with black-on-white murders simply because “he disrespected me”. “Disrespect” is a legitimate reason for murder in their world. And this is how they act... SMH
Manhattan Contrarian Ping
That woman’s hands are so ugly, I’d be inclined to think she’s a tranny.
Unwillingness to provide the underlying data applies to both of "Efficacy of Bear Deterrent Spray in Alaska" and “Efficacy of Firearms for Bear Deterrence in Alaska.”
The two papers are uncritically compared to each other to come up with the bogus "bear spray is more effective than firearms in stopping bear attacks" nonsense.
In my opinion, both papers suffer from the common faults of selection bias and confirmation bias.
THIEF!
(Way to uphold the stereotype.)
No updates on MIT President....so assume she escaped and still at MIT?
Disgraced “Harvard president,” Claudine Gay, built
a towering ghetto-nurtured DEI empire on campus.
Source-—12/21/23 FR thread
In one example, Gay commissioned a “Task Force on Visual Culture and Signage” after the death of George Floyd in 2020. This task force later released a series of recommendations for engaging in what it referred to as the “historical reckoning with racial injustice.”
Among its recommendations reportedly included a mandate to change “spaces whose visual culture is dominated by homogenous portraiture of white men.”
It also said administrators should “refresh” the walls of Annenberg Hall, which “prominently display a series of 23 portraits, none of [which] depict women, and all but three of [which] depict white men.”
The task force never explained who the white men were or why they were on the walls of Annenberg Hall in the first place. The only reasons for the removal of these paintings appeared to be due to their skin color and sex, according to white-biased Gay.
Last year, Gay launched an initiative within the Faculty of Arts and Sciences for “de-naming” any “space, program, or other entity” deemed racist by the faculty and administration.
Moreover, deeming such entities “racist” would be “based on the perception that a namesake’s actions or beliefs were ‘abhorrent’ in the context of current values,” meaning that Harvard would use presentism in order to pass judgment on individuals who lived hundreds of years ago.
“Since then, the university has grappled with denaming multiple buildings, including Winthrop House, named after John Winthrop, governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, and his great grandson, also John Winthrop, a Harvard professor and president,” Rufo pointed out.
In another example, Gay, as president of Harvard, is leading a “sprawling DEI bureaucracy,” otherwise known as Diversity, equity, and inclusion, which “seeks to influence how students speak, think, and behave in relation to race.”
The CRT expert noted that....... Harvard has deleted nearly all DEI materials from its website....... following Gay’s disastrous congressional testimony, in which she declined to say whether advocating for the genocide of Jews is permissible on campus.
Recovered DEI documents through an Internet archive show that Harvard’s diversity administrators urge students to internalize the Critical Race Theory narrative, which is that America is systemically racist, riddled with white-baiting code words like “police brutality,” “white supremacist violence,” and the “weaponization of whiteness.”
Students have also been encouraged to “unpack” their so-called “white” and “male” privileges, and to consider their “white fragility,” which ghetto-nurtured Gay’s DEI documents say is derived from “the privilege that accrues to white people living in a society that protects and insulates them from race-based stress.”
As Breitbart News reported, Gay has been facing nationwide scrutiny since the October 7 Hamas terrorist attacks against Israel due to her failure to properly respond to the matter.
The Harvard leadership botched its statement after more than 30 of its student groups signed a pro-terror later blaming Israel for the terrorist attack against itself.
Gay later delivered a disastrous testimony during a congressional hearing regarding antisemitism alongside the presidents of University of Pennsylvania and Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).
Now, the Harvard president’s own Ph.D. dissertation is being called into question over allegations of plagiarism.
You can follow Alana Mastrangelo on Facebook and X/Twitter at @ARmastrangelo, and on Instagram.
I have carried a firearm for bear deterrence in Colorado, but never bear spray. My opinion matches yours.
cut and paste claudine strikes again!
A totally unqualified affirmative action hire recommended by Obama. This makes her perfect for Harvard.
Enjoy it while it last Afro-Americans, because when the Mexicans take over the USA, there is going to be a complete end to catering to dark skin people. For an example, look at how Dominicans treat Haitians. /spit
Gay even plagiarized her acknowledgments.
snip
Wash/Post Associate Editor, Ruth Marcus, points out in a 12/23/23 op-ed.....”In her 1997 doctoral dissertation, for example, Gay quoted from a paper by Bradley Palmquist and D. Stephen Voss, then her colleagues in the Harvard political science department, about turnout rates among Black voters. “This is one sign that the data contain little aggregation bias,” they wrote. “If racial turnout rates changed depending upon a precinct’s racial mix, which is one description of bias, a linear form would be unlikely in a simple scatter plot (resulting only when changes in one race’s turnout rate somehow compensated for changes in the other’s across the graph.)”
Gay’s dissertation — which nowhere cites Palmquist and Voss — contains nearly identical language. “This is one sign that the data contain little aggregation bias,” she wrote. “If racial turnout rates changed depending upon a precinct’s racial mix, which is one way to think about bias, a linear form would be unlikely in a simple scatter plot. A linear form would only result if the changes in one race’s turnout were compensated by changes in the turnout of the other race across the graph.”
That’s not sloppiness. That’s plagiarism.
snip
MARCUS-—I take no joy in saying this, but Harvard President Claudine Gay ought to resign. Her track record is unbefitting the president of the country’s premier university. Remaining on the job would send a bad signal to students about the gravity of her conduct.
snip
EXCERPT——Harvard said it launched an inquiry into Gay’s conduct after being contacted by the New York Post in October about plagiarism allegations. It said an independent panel of three respected political scientists with no ties to Harvard had examined Gay’s published works and found instances of “inadequate citations” that, “while regrettable, did not constitute research misconduct” because there was no evidence of intentional deception or recklessness.
It said Gay had submitted four corrections to two articles and, after questions were raised about her dissertation, promised to update that document as well to fix “duplicative language without appropriate attribution.” Most of the scholars involved told the Harvard Crimson that they were untroubled by the conduct.
Really? Here’s what Harvard tells its students. “Taking credit for anyone else’s work is stealing, and it is unacceptable in all academic situations, whether you do it intentionally or by accident.”
And: “It’s not enough to have good intentions and to cite some of the material you use.”
And this: “When you write papers in college, your work is held to the same standards of citation as the work of your professors.”
Which raises the question: Is the university president’s work being held to the same standards?
It sure doesn’t look that way.
Nothing would surprise me at this point.
This a quick peek under the tent to see what the real value of the Ivy League is, made up data, stolen work and identity politics.
“She’s UNTOUCHABLE because she’s a BLACK DEMOCRAT (LESBIAN?) backed by the HEAD BLACK DEMOCRAT, BARRACK HUSSEIN OBAMA!!”
And where are the college and law school records of Barak Hussein Obama? If he is as brilliant as his sycophants claim, wouldn’t he have wall-papered the internet with them?
Data, what data? 2002? That was so long ago, what difference does it make now?
Can't we just move on?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.