Harvard’s President Resigns

[Rebound]

Harvard President Claudine Gay resigned after more examples of plagiarism were reported. But plagiarism had nothing to do with it; the examples had to do with how she explained statistical methods she used.  It’s pretty difficult to explain how a Chi square or other method works without partially copying someone’s words, and it has nothing to do with scholarship. 
 

The real reason she was pressured to resign, of course, was her very legalistic response to a question about whether calling for genocide is acceptable free speech.  Here’s my take:

Gay: “It depends on the context.” I agree with that. Because, who is to judge whether a statement is or isn’t a call for genocide? But Gay had many opportunities to clarify her comment, and she didn’t. That, I think, is what did her in. 
 

On the other hand, pro-Palestinian protests at universities today often chant two slogans repeatedly: 

“There is only one solution, intifada revolution,” and

”From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.”

This is the heart of the problem. You can’t run around pretending to care about innocent Palestinian civilians being killed, by declaring that terrorist warfare against Israeli civilians is the “only solution,” and that the seven million Jews of Israel must be forcibly removed from their country. 
 

Israel is a nuclear power with a population of seven million Jews and two million Arabs (that doesn’t include West Bank and Gaza).  Calling for the overthrow of a nation and murder and expulsion  of their entire population doesn’t make you a peace activist, it makes you a war activist. And given Israel’s nuclear capabilities and powerful conventional military, it’s also irrational. 
 

Claudine Gay didn’t seem to understand the issues, and it cost her job.  I think more university officials are going to need to address the clearly anti-Semitic nature of some of these chants, and come up with solutions which classify such comments as hate speech, and punish them. Not a simple issue in a free speech nation, but hate speech is not constitutionally protected. 
 

“Hate speech can only be criminalized when it directly incites imminent criminal activity or consists of specific threats of violence targeted against a person or group.” (Snyder v Phelps)

[robosmith]

I saw a Palestinian activist on the news saying "from the river to the sea" means ONE STATE living in harmony, like it was BEFORE the Zionist movement swelled the Jewish population.

Not the preferred interpretation of Israeli right wingers who say it means genocide of Jews.

Just perhaps it means different things to different people.

[Michael Hardner]

24 minutes ago, robosmith said:

 Just perhaps it means different things to different people.

I get it, but... the question is what a reasonable person might interpret it to mean.  As a neutral person, I would assume it means Israel is removed from the map.  Therefore, this is not a chant looking for peace, or unification... not even solidarity in the face of genocide - it sounds like a war cry.

I get that it "could" be interpreted differently, but if the meaning is ambiguous they should not chant it.  

I'm pretty sick of a society where people actively use ambiguity to generate controversy, to generate attention, to generate support.  It's a cynical manipulation of mass reaction AND public discussion to achieve miniscule gains.  

Both sides have to start taking 2-state seriously, and that's the way to peace.  That also means Benjamin Netanyahu must go at some point. 

[Rebound]

31 minutes ago, robosmith said:

I saw a Palestinian activist on the news saying "from the river to the sea" means ONE STATE living in harmony, like it was BEFORE the Zionist movement swelled the Jewish population.

Not the preferred interpretation of Israeli right wingers who say it means genocide of Jews.

Just perhaps it means different things to different people.

"It depends on the context"? 

NY Times: "The phrase has also been adopted over the years by Hamas, which calls for the annihilation of Israel, taking on a darker meaning that has long shaped the way in which it is received."

Associated Press: "what the phrase means depends on who is telling the story... Many Palestinian activists say it’s a call for peace and equality... By 2012, it was clear that Hamas had claimed the slogan in its drive to claim land spanning Israel, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank... 

“Palestine is ours from the river to the sea and from the south to the north,” Khaled Mashaal, the group’s former leader, said that year in a speech in Gaza celebrating the 25th anniversary of the founding of Hamas. “There will be no concession on any inch of the land." The phrase also has roots in the Hamas charter."

Washington Post: "The slogan refers to the territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea — which includes the state of Israel... the phrase was taken up by supporters of the Palestine Liberation Organization, or PLO... “The vast majority of Jews in many contexts, hearing that slogan, hear something that feels deeply threatening and offensive and many, many Jews would characterize it as antisemitic,” said Ethan Katz, an associate professor of history and Jewish studies at the University of California at Berkeley."

Anti-Defamation League: "It is an antisemitic charge denying the Jewish right to self-determination, including through the removal of Jews from their ancestral homeland. Usage of this phrase has the effect of making members of the Jewish and pro-Israel community feel unsafe and ostracized. It is important to note that demanding justice for Palestinians, or calling for a Palestinian state, should not mean, as this hateful phrase posits, denying the right of the State of Israel to exist." 

 

3 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Both sides have to start taking 2-state seriously, and that's the way to peace.  That also means Benjamin Netanyahu must go at some point. 

I agree with you 100%. Such a lasting peace may take 10 or 20 years, but it starts with leaders who at least say they are committed to peaceful coexistence. 

Edited January 3, 2024 by Rebound

[Michael Hardner]

Let's also affirm something: Israel is aligned with the West.  Their sins and, let's say it, war crimes against Gaza need to be accounted for completely.  But in the end, there will still be an Israel.

[robosmith]

28 minutes ago, Rebound said:

"It depends on the context"? 

NY Times: "The phrase has also been adopted over the years by Hamas, which calls for the annihilation of Israel, taking on a darker meaning that has long shaped the way in which it is received."

Associated Press: "what the phrase means depends on who is telling the story... Many Palestinian activists say it’s a call for peace and equality... By 2012, it was clear that Hamas had claimed the slogan in its drive to claim land spanning Israel, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank... 

“Palestine is ours from the river to the sea and from the south to the north,” Khaled Mashaal, the group’s former leader, said that year in a speech in Gaza celebrating the 25th anniversary of the founding of Hamas. “There will be no concession on any inch of the land." The phrase also has roots in the Hamas charter."

Washington Post: "The slogan refers to the territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea — which includes the state of Israel... the phrase was taken up by supporters of the Palestine Liberation Organization, or PLO... “The vast majority of Jews in many contexts, hearing that slogan, hear something that feels deeply threatening and offensive and many, many Jews would characterize it as antisemitic,” said Ethan Katz, an associate professor of history and Jewish studies at the University of California at Berkeley."

Anti-Defamation League: "It is an antisemitic charge denying the Jewish right to self-determination, including through the removal of Jews from their ancestral homeland. Usage of this phrase has the effect of making members of the Jewish and pro-Israel community feel unsafe and ostracized. It is important to note that demanding justice for Palestinians, or calling for a Palestinian state, should not mean, as this hateful phrase posits, denying the right of the State of Israel to exist." 

 

I agree with you 100%. Such a lasting peace may take 10 or 20 years, but it starts with leaders who at least say they are committed to peaceful coexistence. 

Kinda like the terms CRT and Woke have been bastardized by the right wing here to be insults.

Of course that is dishonest, like those who choose an interpretation of "from the river to the sea" to fit their agenda. 

[Aristides]

Just points to the moral decay in institutes of higher learning. It's OK to call for the genocide of a group provided you don't actually kill anyone. They call that "context" and It's something I never thought I would see. 

[Rebound]

37 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Kinda like the terms CRT and Woke have been bastardized by the right wing here to be insults.

Of course that is dishonest, like those who choose an interpretation of "from the river to the sea" to fit their agenda. 

Kinda? No, you can't duck behind hate speech like that. 

It was a hate slogan of the PLO back in the 1960's and it's a hate slogan of Hamas today. No different than displaying a swastika with the Auschwitz line "Work Sets You Free" and claiming you aren't sending a hate message to Jews. 

[robosmith]

23 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Just points to the moral decay in institutes of higher learning. It's OK to call for the genocide of a group provided you don't actually kill anyone. They call that "context" and It's something I never thought I would see. 

It's the difference between calling for a general policy (with no power nor action to implement) and actual performance to back it up.

Like Trump was within his rights to CLAIM the election was stolen from him, but crossed over the FELONY line when he whipped up violence to try to steal it for himself.

[robosmith]

27 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Kinda? No, you can't duck behind hate speech like that. 

It was a hate slogan of the PLO back in the 1960's and it's a hate slogan of Hamas today. No different than displaying a swastika with the Auschwitz line "Work Sets You Free" and claiming you aren't sending a hate message to Jews. 

Others are saying it means something else.

And your own cite says it was ADOPTED by those hate groups, which means it originally was used to mean something else. The Zionists have been campaigning to split or takeover Palestine for over 150 years, long before the PLO and Hamas.

 

‘From the river to the sea': Why these 6 words spark fury and passion over the Israel-Hamas war

Quote

Many Palestinian activists say it’s a call for peace and equality after 75 years of Israeli statehood and decades-long, open-ended Israeli military rule over millions of Palestinians. Jews hear a clear demand for Israel’s destruction.

 

Edited January 3, 2024 by robosmith

[Rebound]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

Others are saying it means something else.

And your own cite says it was ADOPTED by those hate groups, which means it originally was used to mean something else. The Zionists have been campaigning to split or takeover Palestine for over 150 years, long before the PLO and Hamas.

 

‘From the river to the sea': Why these 6 words spark fury and passion over the Israel-Hamas war

 

You still don’t get it. Let me explain:

Swastika: Used to be Buddhist symbol; got used as Nazi slogan while calling for the death of all Jews. 

River to the Sea: Used to mean one thing; got used by both PLO and now used by Hamas while calling for the complete destruction of Israel.  
 

Intifada: Means “Revolution to destroy Israel,” and was the name of two periods of violent terrorist attacks against Jews.  
 

So, Robo, here’s the thing: 

1) Context: If somebody is wearing a swastika on their arm, with a brown shirt and jack boots… their claim that it’s just a Buddhist peace symbol doesn’t fly. 
 

2) Context: If a bunch of protesters chant “from the river to the sea, Palestine will soon be free,” followed by “Intifada revolution is the only real solution,” then I know for certain that they believe in destroying Israel. There’s no kumbaya in that.  

More to the point: There are MANY MANY pro-Palestinians who either call for the destruction of Israel, and state that Israel should not exist.  But they are often vague about where they stand, so using terms which are definitely associated with the destruction of Israel and terrorist attacks on Israel is a strong dog whistle.  This is why most Jews consider the phrase a call for the destruction of Israel. You don’t use a Nazi slogan if you aren’t a Nazi supporter, and you don’t use a Hamas slogan if you aren’t a Hamas supporter.  
 

Now do you see? That slogan is a thinly veiled call for Israel’s destruction. 

Edited January 3, 2024 by Rebound

[robosmith]

23 minutes ago, Rebound said:

You still don’t get it. Let me explain:

Swastika: Used to be Buddhist symbol; got used as Nazi slogan while calling for the death of all Jews. 

River to the Sea: Used to mean one thing; got used by both PLO and now used by Hamas while calling for the complete destruction of Israel.  
 

Intifada: Means “Revolution to destroy Israel,” and was the name of two periods of violent terrorist attacks against Jews.  
 

So, Robo, here’s the thing: 

1) If somebody is wearing a swastika on their arm, with a brown shirt and jack boots… their claim that it’s just a Buddhist peace symbol doesn’t fly. 
 

2) If a bunch of protesters chant “from the river to the sea, Palestine will soon be free,” followed by “Intifada revolution is the only real solution,” then I know for certain that they believe in destroying Israel. There’s no kumbaya in that.  

So if people are just saying "from the river to the sea," they could in FACT be calling for a SINGLE state solution.

Just like a Buddhist can still wear a swastika. 

Of course, it's the Jews who won't accept a single state solution and Netanyahu's extreme right coalition will never accept a 2 state solution.

[Rebound]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

So if people are just saying "from the river to the sea," they could in FACT be calling for a SINGLE state solution.

Just like a Buddhist can still wear a swastika. 

Of course, it's the Jews who won't accept a single state solution and Netanyahu's extreme right coalition will never accept a 2 state solution.

What is a single state? Wouldn’t you agree that a single state would be a democratic nation which encompasses all the land  and population of Israel, West Bank, and Gaza? Why do you think the Israeli Jews would oppose that?

Hmmm…. Could it be, maybe, that virtually every Muslim nation in the Mideast has expelled their entire Jewish population? So… you create one state, you have a vote, and Hamas or Islamic Jihad gets elected to power… they expel the Jews and now Islamic Jihad is a nuclear power. That’s not a mere possibility; it is the most likely outcome of a one state solution. So, obviously, the Jews are not going to accept that, and neither should you, if you care about stupid stuff like not being destroyed by nuclear weapons. 

What’s more… think about this, please??? There are MANY MANY Muslim nations. They run by Islamic law. They limit the jobs and societal roles of non-Muslims. They subject non-Muslims to special taxes. Many have supreme religious leaders who either run the government or have a strong role in establishing the nation’s laws. WHY THE F IS THAT OK WITH YOU? WHY ARE YOU ONLY PICKING ON THE JEWS, WHO HAVE BEEN PERSECUTED AND KICKED OUT OF A DOZEN COUNTRIES? The Jews have a legitimate reason for wanting a Jewish state. Over and over, history has persecuted them, for hundreds and hundreds of years, into this very day. The Catholics can have Vatican City — No Problem!!! The Muslims can have dozens of Muslim countries — No Problem!!! But the Jews? No!  Unfair! Not allowed?

You look at the job Palestinians have done at governing themselves, and you want to give them nuclear weapons? Dude, that’s the LSD talking! It’s a simple, unequivocal, absolutely hard NO. 

[robosmith]

34 minutes ago, Rebound said:

What is a single state? Wouldn’t you agree that a single state would be a democratic nation which encompasses all the land  and population of Israel, West Bank, and Gaza? Why do you think the Israeli Jews would oppose that?

Hmmm…. Could it be, maybe, that virtually every Muslim nation in the Mideast has expelled their entire Jewish population? So… you create one state, you have a vote, and Hamas or Islamic Jihad gets elected to power… they expel the Jews and now Islamic Jihad is a nuclear power. That’s not a mere possibility; it is the most likely outcome of a one state solution. So, obviously, the Jews are not going to accept that, and neither should you, if you care about stupid stuff like not being destroyed by nuclear weapons. 

What’s more… think about this, please??? There are MANY MANY Muslim nations. They run by Islamic law. They limit the jobs and societal roles of non-Muslims. They subject non-Muslims to special taxes. Many have supreme religious leaders who either run the government or have a strong role in establishing the nation’s laws. WHY THE F IS THAT OK WITH YOU? WHY ARE YOU ONLY PICKING ON THE JEWS, WHO HAVE BEEN PERSECUTED AND KICKED OUT OF A DOZEN COUNTRIES? The Jews have a legitimate reason for wanting a Jewish state. Over and over, history has persecuted them, for hundreds and hundreds of years, into this very day. The Catholics can have Vatican City — No Problem!!! The Muslims can have dozens of Muslim countries — No Problem!!! But the Jews? No!  Unfair! Not allowed?

You look at the job Palestinians have done at governing themselves, and you want to give them nuclear weapons? Dude, that’s the LSD talking! It’s a simple, unequivocal, absolutely hard NO. 

Like I said, the Jews will not accept a one state solution. And Netanyahu will not accept a 2 state solution.

All that's left is Israeli occupation or EVICTION of all Palestinians.

IMO the latter is what they are pursuing now with the total destruction of Gaza and continual Settler expansion in the West Bank. 

[Rebound]

11 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Like I said, the Jews will not accept a one state solution. And Netanyahu will not accept a 2 state solution.

All that's left is Israeli occupation or EVICTION of all Palestinians.

IMO the latter is what they are pursuing now with the total destruction of Gaza and continual Settler expansion in the West Bank. 

I do not support the Netanyahu government.  It’s helpful to understand the Israeli perspective a little better. 

Israel became an independent nation in 1948, and faced war immediately. And Truman forbid any arms shipments to Israel; they were on their own against six nations at once. But, long story short, the Israelis have been at war to one extent or another since 1948. Every family in Israel has lost a family member to war. They are a very small country for all of this warfare. They don’t want it and they were willing to hand over a LOT of land and oil reserves to Egypt in return for peace. 

Israel will not accept a 1-state solution for very good reason, and neither should you. It makes no rational sense.

The Second Intifada was senseless slaughter of children and other civilians. They blew up school buses of children, pizza parlors, and they’d usually detonate a second bomb after the first, to murder the ambulance crews who were rescuing the injured.. Basically, the second intifada made a LOT of Israelis decide that there was just no point in trying to deal with the Palestinians. 

Go and Wikipedia “Black September,” and you’ll understand why Jordan also has a sealed border with the West Bank. And, after the Arab Spring uprising in Egypt, the Egypt-Gaza border has been closed. Whether it’s the Palestinian people themselves or their extremely radicalized leadership, they have chosen to refuse compromise continually and instead demanded a perpetual state of war with Israel, as well as war with Jordan and Egypt. 

To be clear: Even if Israel had very liberal political leadership, and they shut down lots of West Bank settlements, it is unlikely that the situation of the Palestinians would improve. After all, one of their biggest political groups is called “Islamic Jihad.” 

[Army Guy]

7 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Let's also affirm something: Israel is aligned with the West.  Their sins and, let's say it, war crimes against Gaza need to be accounted for completely.  But in the end, there will still be an Israel.

You suggest war crimes, which ones would they be...and while we arer at it what of the war crimes committed by Hamas and or those committed by palestinians, or are we to assume that Hamas will be destroyed, along with it's leadership, and those responsible for terrorism...  

[Army Guy]

4 hours ago, robosmith said:

Of course, it's the Jews who won't accept a single state solution and Netanyahu's extreme right coalition will never accept a 2 state solution.

How many times has palestine been offer the 2 state solution, by outside governments and Israel...and how many times did the controlling palestinian government refuse...Maybe you can tell the readers what their response was put a little context to your statement...

and now you you state Netanyahu may not offer a 2 state solution like thats the problem, that is the straw that broke the camels back...perhaps you can explain what you would have done if 1400 of your countrymen died in a terrorist attack....i want to remind you what did your country do when after 9/11, it went to war....an action i supported... so why is it so wrong for Israel to defend itself and slap the shit our of those responsible... 

[CdnFox]

As a side note -  i love how our media is playing this.  Apperently plagerism is a RIGHT WING ATTACK tool

Plagiarism charges downed Harvard’s president. A conservative attack helped to fan the outrage

https://halifax.citynews.ca/2024/01/03/harvard-presidents-resignation-highlights-new-conservative-weapon-against-colleges-plagiarism/

 

Harvard president's resignation highlights U.S. conservatives' bid to remake higher education

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/harvard-plagiarism-gay-rufo-1.7073122

Harvard president's resignation highlights new conservative weapon against colleges: plagiarism - AP

 

ROFLMAO - so you see this isn't the president's fault for plagiarism and it's got nothing to do with israel - it's all a conservative plot

[Rebound]

10 hours ago, CdnFox said:

As a side note -  i love how our media is playing this.  Apperently plagerism is a RIGHT WING ATTACK tool

Plagiarism charges downed Harvard’s president. A conservative attack helped to fan the outrage

https://halifax.citynews.ca/2024/01/03/harvard-presidents-resignation-highlights-new-conservative-weapon-against-colleges-plagiarism/

 

Harvard president's resignation highlights U.S. conservatives' bid to remake higher education

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/harvard-plagiarism-gay-rufo-1.7073122

Harvard president's resignation highlights new conservative weapon against colleges: plagiarism - AP

 

 

ROFLMAO - so you see this isn't the president's fault for plagiarism and it's got nothing to do with israel - it's all a conservative plot

Quoting your article:

”A review ordered by Harvard acknowledged "duplicative language" and missing quotation marks, but it concluded the errors "were not considered intentional or reckless" and didn't rise to misconduct.”

It was her comment about Israel, and her failure to correct her statement, that got her booted.  

[Deluge]

22 hours ago, Rebound said:

Harvard President Claudine Gay resigned after more examples of plagiarism were reported. But plagiarism had nothing to do with it; the examples had to do with how she explained statistical methods she used.  It’s pretty difficult to explain how a Chi square or other method works without partially copying someone’s words, and it has nothing to do with scholarship. 

Are you saying Gay wasn't smart enough to quote when she was using other people's words? Are we certain she didn't use other people's words just to make herself look smarter? 

What surprises me is that Harvard is keeping her on as Professor of Government and African and African-American studies at nearly the same pay rate as when she was President. 

[Aristides]

20 hours ago, robosmith said:

It's the difference between calling for a general policy (with no power nor action to implement) and actual performance to back it up.

Like Trump was within his rights to CLAIM the election was stolen from him, but crossed over the FELONY line when he whipped up violence to try to steal it for himself.

No one is saying it was illegal although it would be hate speech in this country, this is about a morally bankrupt university policy. Universities will ban speakers because their opinions might offend the sensibilities of their precious students but won't sanction those same students for calling for another  Holocaust. 

Edited January 4, 2024 by Aristides

[Rebound]

6 minutes ago, Deluge said:

Are you saying Gay wasn't smart enough to quote when she was using other people's words? Are we certain she didn't use other people's words just to make herself look smarter? 

What surprises me is that Harvard is keeping her on as Professor of Government and African and African-American studies at nearly the same pay rate as when she was President. 

You’re thinking: “I really want to see this woman fired.” You WANT any excuse.

Harvard’s Thinking: “She’s become too much of a distraction as President, but her plagiarism was very minimal and had nothing to do with her fundamental research, analysis or conclusions, so we aren’t going to fire her.” In Harvard’s actual words:  The errors "were not considered intentional or reckless" and didn't rise to misconduct.  (Source: AP. I don’t want to plagiarize).

Edited January 4, 2024 by Rebound

[Nationalist]

So...Gay proved she's a typical Libbie. She cheated. What a surprise. 

[Deluge]

9 minutes ago, Rebound said:

You’re thinking: “I really want to see this woman fired.” You WANT any excuse.

Harvard’s Thinking: “She’s become too much of a distraction as President, but her plagiarism was very minimal and had nothing to do with her fundamental research, analysis or conclusions, so we aren’t going to fire her.”

No, MY thinking: "This b*tch is a plagiarist, and she should've been fired from the University". 

YOUR thinking: "This is outrageous, and Trump should be sued for harassing women of color!". 

Harvard's thinking: "We have to keep her on somewhere or we'll go down as the most racist school in all of history."

Edited January 4, 2024 by Deluge

[Rebound]

22 minutes ago, Deluge said:

No, MY thinking: "This b*tch is a plagiarist, and she should've been fired from the University". 

YOUR thinking: "This is outrageous, and Trump should be sued for harassing women of color!". 

Harvard's thinking: "We have to keep her on somewhere or we'll go down as the most racist school in all of history."

Yeah, well, you are ignoring what they’re saying, because true plagiarism would have gotten her fired.