Harvard President Claudine Gay may have done more than just plagiarize her work

American Thinker ^ | 12/24/2023 | Andrea Widburg

[SeekAndFind]

We already know that Claudine Gay has “borrowed without attribution” works from other scholars (i.e., she plagiarized). However, it appears that she may have done more than merely plagiarize. There’s a distinct (although currently unproven) possibility that she faked the data behind her purported studies.

With Gay’s problems of…attribution in the news, people have gone back to look at her writing. This isn’t hard because, while publish or perish used to be the rule for surviving in academia, if you’re a woke black “scholar,” that rule no longer applies.

What those analyzing Gay’s small body of work—a ridiculously small output for the president of a supposedly prestigious institution—have discovered is that the data don’t make sense. Pay special attention to the last paragraph of the tweet below, which says, “Claudine Gay should release her data.”

If we look at Claudine Gay's 2001 paper, there are some numbers that raises questions. This has been discussed on Econjobrumors.

The thesis is that Black representatives make White people vote less.

Looking at the the White Turnout in Clay's district it seems to be about middle of the pack.



But if we look at the regression results in Table 3, Bill Clay is listed as having a highly significant effect of a 16.8% reduction in voter turnout:



I took a look at her PhD thesis which looked at the same data. And here the coefficient is as expected for a data point in the middle of the pack:

pic.twitter.com/4I49lbZo53 — Jonatan Pallesen (@jonatanpallesen) December 23, 2023

Yes, indeed, Gay should release her data to put at rest any concerns about the accuracy of the numbers and analysis she introduces to support her contention

[SeekAndFind]

Christopher Brunet explains that when scholars went looking for it, not only did they find nothing, but Gay stonewalled them:

So, where is her data?

Well, it turns out that I am not the first one who has searched for it.

She was granted tenure at Stanford in 2005 with just 4 peer-reviewed political science articles to her name: 1998 PolPsych, 2001 APSR, 2002 AJPS, 2004 APSR.

Her 2001 APSR paper, which was central to her already-meager tenure case, was debunked by Michael C. Herron, the Remsen 1943 Professor of Quantitative Social Science at Dartmouth, and Kenneth W. Shotts, the David S. and Ann M. Barlow Professor of Political Economy at Stanford Graduate School of Business, in a paper presented at the 2002 conference of The Society for Political Methodology (PolMeth) after she would not share her data or code with them.

We were, however, unable to scrutinize Gay’s results because she would not release her dataset to us (personal communication with Claudine Gay, 2002).

[Nervous Tick]

>> She was granted tenure at Stanford in 2005 with just 4 peer-reviewed political science articles to her name

Our once-great universities have flushed themselves down the DEI toilet. The consequences of this over time will be horrific.

[frank ballenger]

A comment I heard was Gay wrote one or two scholarly journal pieces that were published in over a year but the man before her at Harvard wrote and published a large number of them, as presidents of universities like Harvard are supposed to contribute to scholarship and the advancement of education.

[frank ballenger]

RE: So, where is her data?

Well, it turns out that I am not the first one who has searched for it.
//////////////////////
Check in the place where the FBI has Hillary’s missing emails and the CIA has the missing second tourist film of JFK getting shot in Dallas. Around here somewhere.

[Seaplaner]

“Our once-great universities have flushed themselves down the DEI toilet. The consequences of this over time will be horrific.”

Harvard, Yale, and Stanford have achieved the stature of community colleges. If that.

[Taxman]

Ping

[FlingWingFlyer]

It seems she also suffers from a bad case of misandry like most of Joe Pedo’s Women of Hate and Color.

[Calvin Cooledge]

And she might know nothing of the stats. In my younger days, armed only with a liberal arts degree and my experience as a government statistician, I had a small consulting business doing the stats chapter for several PhD dissertations. All of my clients got their degrees but they don’t know a standard deviation from a hole in the ground.

[Dalberg-Acton]

[j.havenfarm]

I dont worry about it. Like most liberals she’s plainly smarter than the rest of us. No one would voluntarily choose to look like her unless there’s a very good reason we’re just not smart enough to understand /s

[steve86]

“I had a small consulting business doing the stats chapter for several PhD dissertations. All of my clients got their degrees but they don’t know a standard deviation from a hole in the ground. “

I believe you but in the neuropsychology program I attended there was an extremely heavy emphasis on multivariate inferential statistics and you can't do much of that without knowing basic things about a Gaussian distribution.

[Calvin Cooledge]

My clients were all going to EdD. They ran their experiments/studies and collected data that needed reduction and analysis for correlation and significance. As EdD majors, math was not their thing. I didn’t do anything too complicated, just correlation coefficients.

[steve86]

Math is not my thing either — horrible at it — but for some odd reason very good at advanced statistics.

[Stosh]

For Harvard to dump Gay they’d have to admit (at least implicitly) two things:

1) they made a mistake in promoting her to president

2) given the fact that they could have offered that position to virtually any top-flight academician or university administrator, they gave her the job because of demographic considerations (female and black), which of course everybody now realizes.

If they don’t fire her, given the fact that anybody with any knowledge of academia realizes that she is a credentialed mediocrity at best, who would have been relieved of a position as an adjunct faculty given the revelations we’ve seen, the Harvard board of trustees is essentially saying they have so little respect for black females that they can only employ them if they ignore standards of conduct and professionalism that they would normally demand in any routine university hiring decision.

So they look stupid either way. Good for them.

[KingofZion]

I’m shocked! /sarc

How much more punishment will Harvard Corp take before it dumps its DEI poster child?

[glorgau]

She got tenure with 4 peer reviewed papers.

If she had different color skin that wouldn’t even rate getting a post doc appointment at a state university, let alone Stanford.

[metmom]

Of course.

Cheaters cheat and by the time they are caught, it’s hardly their first time doing it.

It’s just their first time getting caught.

Someone like that can NEVER be trusted.

[JayGalt]

Gay is the perfect President for Harvard, cynical, corrupt, dishonorable and without talent or integrity, a show president destroying the University with her diversity agenda.

[SauronOfMordor]

the Harvard board of trustees is essentially saying they have so little respect for black females that they can only employ them if they ignore standards of conduct and professionalism

Oh, it's far worse than that.

They would have to implicitly admit that, among black female academics, Gay was the best they could find.

The implications of that are so bad that they would rather fall on their swords than admit it.