Unit2Sucks said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

The thread has gone in down a classic OT path...

I created the post with broader plagiarism in academia type considerations. Maybe I am naive or just out of touch but 50 instances of plagiarism??? How does the university not care enough about its academic reputation to allow this? The Stanford president resigned with 4 allegations of manipulated research data. Furd reportedly knew of the allegations from peer review stuff and didn't do anything...until the student newspaper reported on it. There's another prominent example I can't quite remember - something like a famous academic study on honesty included falsified data??? I realize that is only 3 examples and we have a gazillion universities in this nation but it just seems like things are out of whack in academia.

---

I've talked to my brother (a former academic) about this. His view is that there is a lot of like "boilerplate" across academia and that it really depends on the nature of the plagiarism. There are a lot of customs around when and how to cite prior work. Here's an article from the Harvard Crimson about this.


I'm not defending Gay, I have no doubt that she crossed some sort of line if Harvard was willing to can her over this, but I expect that we will see this charge leveled more and more and weaponized politically.

To wit.

Gorsuch was found to have "copied the structure and language used by several authors and failed to cite source material in his book and an academic article, according to documents."

Oddly, right-wing actors haven't asked for his resignation. So strange.https://t.co/hyp7tT4N5I

— Wajahat Ali (@WajahatAli) January 3, 2024

---

TheFiatLux said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

But there is still an element in our society that gets downright giddy when a woman of color gets her comeuppance.

---

This might be singularly, the most absurd take on here. And that's saying something.

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

No I think you're just too indoctrinated to understand levity.

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

The thread has gone in down a classic OT path...

I created the post with broader plagiarism in academia type considerations. Maybe I am naive or just out of touch but 50 instances of plagiarism??? How does the university not care enough about its academic reputation to allow this? The Stanford president resigned with 4 allegations of manipulated research data. Furd reportedly knew of the allegations from peer review stuff and didn't do anything...until the student newspaper reported on it. There's another prominent example I can't quite remember - something like a famous academic study on honesty included falsified data??? I realize that is only 3 examples and we have a gazillion universities in this nation but it just seems like things are out of whack in academia.

---

I've talked to my brother (a former academic) about this. His view is that there is a lot of like "boilerplate" across academia and that it really depends on the nature of the plagiarism. There are a lot of customs around when and how to cite prior work. Here's an article from the Harvard Crimson about this.


I'm not defending Gay, I have no doubt that she crossed some sort of line if Harvard was willing to can her over this, but I expect that we will see this charge leveled more and more and weaponized politically.

To wit.

Gorsuch was found to have "copied the structure and language used by several authors and failed to cite source material in his book and an academic article, according to documents."

Oddly, right-wing actors haven't asked for his resignation. So strange.https://t.co/hyp7tT4N5I

— Wajahat Ali (@WajahatAli) January 3, 2024

---

I shrugged my shoulders over the initial allegations. It sounded like the same type of thing I did as a 1st term frosh. I would say it is especially bad for her because she was way more advanced in her academic career but in the grand scheme of things...meh. But these later allegations included charges of large passages being lifted verbatim, as well as the shear volume of times that she cheated...yikes...and they are still keeping her on as a professor. WTH???

---

Maybe it was a negotiated settlement? Or perhaps they don't have nearly a strong enough case to terminate a tenured prof? I have no idea but I wonder whether she is going to stay there for very long after all of this mess. Her testimony was a mess and she damaged the university, she should have been fired from her leadership role for that alone.

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Maybe it was a negotiated settlement? Or perhaps they don't have nearly a strong enough case to terminate a tenured prof? I have no idea but I wonder whether she is going to stay there for very long after all of this mess. Her testimony was a mess and she damaged the university, she should have been fired from her leadership role for that alone.

---

I think the outside political pressure from the disastrous testimony, if anything, made it more difficult to fire her from her role. You never want to be seen as giving in to the agitators as if politicians have the power to dictate academic decisions (even if the left has already embedded themselves in academia).

Plagiarism is a good reason to fire her that does not necessarily look like it was from political pressure.

I am also confident that, absent such reason, MIT will not give in to pressure.

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Maybe it was a negotiated settlement? Or perhaps they don't have nearly a strong enough case to terminate a tenured prof? I have no idea but I wonder whether she is going to stay there for very long after all of this mess. Her testimony was a mess and she damaged the university, she should have been fired from her leadership role for that alone.

---

I think the outside political pressure from the disastrous testimony, if anything, made it more difficult to fire her from her role. You never want to be seen as giving in to the agitators as if politicians have the power to dictate academic decisions (even if the left has already embedded themselves in academia).

Plagiarism is a good reason to fire her that does not necessarily look like it was from political pressure.

I am also confident that, absent such reason, MIT will not give in to pressure.

---

There is a bit of a chicken and the egg thing going on with conservatives in academia. The conservative movement has for decades been extremely critical of higher education and like, science. As such, they are less likely to see academia as an interesting career path. Just like I would assume that liberals are less likely to be cops.

I won't claim that politics is non-existent in higher education but I don't want to just pretend like the reason there are more liberals than conservatives in academia is just because academia refuses to hire conservatives. Here's an article from the National Review from 2016. The piece discusses a variety of reasons but concedes that applicants are disproportionately liberal.

Given that conservatives believe in equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome, they should easily be able to understand that they are to blame for the fact that there are so few conservative academics. If conservatives want to see more of themselves in higher education, they should become academics rather than complaining about discrimination. I would suggest they pull themselves up by their bootstraps. They can do it!

---

Kind of confusing narrative. ...

I will just put this to you being in a bad mood and wanting to make a random snide, political comment.

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Maybe it was a negotiated settlement? Or perhaps they don't have nearly a strong enough case to terminate a tenured prof? I have no idea but I wonder whether she is going to stay there for very long after all of this mess. Her testimony was a mess and she damaged the university, she should have been fired from her leadership role for that alone.

---

I think the outside political pressure from the disastrous testimony, if anything, made it more difficult to fire her from her role. You never want to be seen as giving in to the agitators as if politicians have the power to dictate academic decisions (even if the left has already embedded themselves in academia).

Plagiarism is a good reason to fire her that does not necessarily look like it was from political pressure.

I am also confident that, absent such reason, MIT will not give in to pressure.

---

There is a bit of a chicken and the egg thing going on with conservatives in academia. The conservative movement has for decades been extremely critical of higher education and like, science. As such, they are less likely to see academia as an interesting career path. Just like I would assume that liberals are less likely to be cops.

I won't claim that politics is non-existent in higher education but I don't want to just pretend like the reason there are more liberals than conservatives in academia is just because academia refuses to hire conservatives. Here's an article from the National Review from 2016. The piece discusses a variety of reasons but concedes that applicants are disproportionately liberal.

Given that conservatives believe in equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome, they should easily be able to understand that they are to blame for the fact that there are so few conservative academics. If conservatives want to see more of themselves in higher education, they should become academics rather than complaining about discrimination. I would suggest they pull themselves up by their bootstraps. They can do it!

---

Kind of confusing narrative. ...

I will just put this to you being in a bad mood and wanting to make a random snide, political comment.

---

I'm in a great mood and made a random snide, political comment.

I really had two points to make. The first is that academia being loaded with liberals is multi-faceted.

The second is the snide political comment which is that rather than complain about academia being liberal (which conservatives have been doing for decades), conservatives should try to become academics. Of course, there is a right way and a wrong way to do that. The right way is to go get a PhD and apply for jobs through normal channels. The wrong way is to become governor, destroy an educational institution by bringing in right wing provocateurs like Rufo and just decide to make it conservative, academics be damned. That's what Ron D did in Florida.

For years conservatives have been downplaying institutional prejudice but claiming that institutions are prejudiced against them.

---

movielover said:

---

Dr. Thomas Sowell, Alan Dershowitz, and now Vivek Ramaswamy all advocate Diversity of Thought in universities. There is little in most departments.

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Maybe it was a negotiated settlement? Or perhaps they don't have nearly a strong enough case to terminate a tenured prof? I have no idea but I wonder whether she is going to stay there for very long after all of this mess. Her testimony was a mess and she damaged the university, she should have been fired from her leadership role for that alone.

---

I think the outside political pressure from the disastrous testimony, if anything, made it more difficult to fire her from her role. You never want to be seen as giving in to the agitators as if politicians have the power to dictate academic decisions (even if the left has already embedded themselves in academia).

Plagiarism is a good reason to fire her that does not necessarily look like it was from political pressure.

I am also confident that, absent such reason, MIT will not give in to pressure.

---

There is a bit of a chicken and the egg thing going on with conservatives in academia. The conservative movement has for decades been extremely critical of higher education and like, science. As such, they are less likely to see academia as an interesting career path. Just like I would assume that liberals are less likely to be cops.

I won't claim that politics is non-existent in higher education but I don't want to just pretend like the reason there are more liberals than conservatives in academia is just because academia refuses to hire conservatives. Here's an article from the National Review from 2016. The piece discusses a variety of reasons but concedes that applicants are disproportionately liberal.

Given that conservatives believe in equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome, they should easily be able to understand that they are to blame for the fact that there are so few conservative academics. If conservatives want to see more of themselves in higher education, they should become academics rather than complaining about discrimination. I would suggest they pull themselves up by their bootstraps. They can do it!

---

Kind of confusing narrative. ...

I will just put this to you being in a bad mood and wanting to make a random snide, political comment.

---

I'm in a great mood and made a random snide, political comment.

I really had two points to make. The first is that academia being loaded with liberals is multi-faceted.

The second is the snide political comment which is that rather than complain about academia being liberal (which conservatives have been doing for decades), conservatives should try to become academics. Of course, there is a right way and a wrong way to do that. The right way is to go get a PhD and apply for jobs through normal channels. The wrong way is to become governor, destroy an educational institution by bringing in right wing provocateurs like Rufo and just decide to make it conservative, academics be damned. That's what Ron D did in Florida.

For years conservatives have been downplaying institutional prejudice but claiming that institutions are prejudiced against them.

---

I would suggest we force academic institutions that promote diversity to punish those who openly discriminate against those with conservative view points in the same way that men who openly discriminate against women in the high paying jobs are punished. Saying women should stop complaining about wage gap and just go into hostile environment in tech companies to bridge the gender pay gap is not a deep discussion. Likewise, just saying that conservatives should go into a hostile environment in academia to bridge the political gap is not a deep discussion. Force diversity of thought and punish open discrimination even if politics is not a protected class, especially if they are going to promote academic pursuit and open dialogue. Otherwise, it becomes an echo chamber just like some tech companies are like frat houses.

And liberals have been pointing fingers at all the discrimination while they openly discriminate against select groups.

---

Cal88 said:

---

movielover said:

---

Dr. Thomas Sowell, Alan Dershowitz, and now Vivek Ramaswamy all advocate Diversity of Thought in universities. There is little in most departments.

---

Agree completely on principle, but in this case, the primary motive for pushing Gay out was because the political establishment and the Harvard establishment alike did not tolerate diversity of thought on their campus with regards to Israel/Palestine.

It's hypocritical for conservatives to rail about cancel culture then turn around and cancel anyone who is opposed to Israeli policies. The troubling aspect here is that it goes well beyond cancellation, for example it is actually illegal to boycott Israeli apartheid in many states.

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Maybe it was a negotiated settlement? Or perhaps they don't have nearly a strong enough case to terminate a tenured prof? I have no idea but I wonder whether she is going to stay there for very long after all of this mess. Her testimony was a mess and she damaged the university, she should have been fired from her leadership role for that alone.

---

I think the outside political pressure from the disastrous testimony, if anything, made it more difficult to fire her from her role. You never want to be seen as giving in to the agitators as if politicians have the power to dictate academic decisions (even if the left has already embedded themselves in academia).

Plagiarism is a good reason to fire her that does not necessarily look like it was from political pressure.

I am also confident that, absent such reason, MIT will not give in to pressure.

---

There is a bit of a chicken and the egg thing going on with conservatives in academia. The conservative movement has for decades been extremely critical of higher education and like, science. As such, they are less likely to see academia as an interesting career path. Just like I would assume that liberals are less likely to be cops.

I won't claim that politics is non-existent in higher education but I don't want to just pretend like the reason there are more liberals than conservatives in academia is just because academia refuses to hire conservatives. Here's an article from the National Review from 2016. The piece discusses a variety of reasons but concedes that applicants are disproportionately liberal.

Given that conservatives believe in equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome, they should easily be able to understand that they are to blame for the fact that there are so few conservative academics. If conservatives want to see more of themselves in higher education, they should become academics rather than complaining about discrimination. I would suggest they pull themselves up by their bootstraps. They can do it!

---

Kind of confusing narrative. ...

I will just put this to you being in a bad mood and wanting to make a random snide, political comment.

---

I'm in a great mood and made a random snide, political comment.

I really had two points to make. The first is that academia being loaded with liberals is multi-faceted.

The second is the snide political comment which is that rather than complain about academia being liberal (which conservatives have been doing for decades), conservatives should try to become academics. Of course, there is a right way and a wrong way to do that. The right way is to go get a PhD and apply for jobs through normal channels. The wrong way is to become governor, destroy an educational institution by bringing in right wing provocateurs like Rufo and just decide to make it conservative, academics be damned. That's what Ron D did in Florida.

For years conservatives have been downplaying institutional prejudice but claiming that institutions are prejudiced against them.

---

I would suggest we force academic institutions that promote diversity to punish those who openly discriminate against those with conservative view points in the same way that men who openly discriminate against women in the high paying jobs are punished. Saying women should stop complaining about wage gap and just go into hostile environment in tech companies to bridge the gender pay gap is not a deep discussion. Likewise, just saying that conservatives should go into a hostile environment in academia to bridge the political gap is not a deep discussion. Force diversity of thought and punish open discrimination even if politics is not a protected class, especially if they are going to promote academic pursuit and open dialogue. Otherwise, it becomes an echo chamber just like some tech companies are like frat houses.

And liberals have been pointing fingers at all the discrimination while they openly discriminate against select groups.

---

Seems like we both agree that institutional prejudice is a real problem in America and that merely telling someone to try harder or "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" is inadequate to address the real problems people are facing.

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

New conservative weapon.....PLAGERISM!!!

---

movielover said:

---

What a preening megalomaniac.

---

bear2034 said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Maybe I am naive or just out of touch but 50 instances of plagiarism??? How does the university not care enough about its academic reputation to allow this?

---

You can file this incident under rules for thee but not for me. Did Gavin Newsom's reputation take a hit among Californians when he wined and dined at the French Laundry during lockdowns?

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Maybe it was a negotiated settlement? Or perhaps they don't have nearly a strong enough case to terminate a tenured prof? I have no idea but I wonder whether she is going to stay there for very long after all of this mess. Her testimony was a mess and she damaged the university, she should have been fired from her leadership role for that alone.

---

I think the outside political pressure from the disastrous testimony, if anything, made it more difficult to fire her from her role. You never want to be seen as giving in to the agitators as if politicians have the power to dictate academic decisions (even if the left has already embedded themselves in academia).

Plagiarism is a good reason to fire her that does not necessarily look like it was from political pressure.

I am also confident that, absent such reason, MIT will not give in to pressure.

---

There is a bit of a chicken and the egg thing going on with conservatives in academia. The conservative movement has for decades been extremely critical of higher education and like, science. As such, they are less likely to see academia as an interesting career path. Just like I would assume that liberals are less likely to be cops.

I won't claim that politics is non-existent in higher education but I don't want to just pretend like the reason there are more liberals than conservatives in academia is just because academia refuses to hire conservatives. Here's an article from the National Review from 2016. The piece discusses a variety of reasons but concedes that applicants are disproportionately liberal.

Given that conservatives believe in equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome, they should easily be able to understand that they are to blame for the fact that there are so few conservative academics. If conservatives want to see more of themselves in higher education, they should become academics rather than complaining about discrimination. I would suggest they pull themselves up by their bootstraps. They can do it!

---

Kind of confusing narrative. ...

I will just put this to you being in a bad mood and wanting to make a random snide, political comment.

---

I'm in a great mood and made a random snide, political comment.

I really had two points to make. The first is that academia being loaded with liberals is multi-faceted.

The second is the snide political comment which is that rather than complain about academia being liberal (which conservatives have been doing for decades), conservatives should try to become academics. Of course, there is a right way and a wrong way to do that. The right way is to go get a PhD and apply for jobs through normal channels. The wrong way is to become governor, destroy an educational institution by bringing in right wing provocateurs like Rufo and just decide to make it conservative, academics be damned. That's what Ron D did in Florida.

For years conservatives have been downplaying institutional prejudice but claiming that institutions are prejudiced against them.

---

I would suggest we force academic institutions that promote diversity to punish those who openly discriminate against those with conservative view points in the same way that men who openly discriminate against women in the high paying jobs are punished. Saying women should stop complaining about wage gap and just go into hostile environment in tech companies to bridge the gender pay gap is not a deep discussion. Likewise, just saying that conservatives should go into a hostile environment in academia to bridge the political gap is not a deep discussion. Force diversity of thought and punish open discrimination even if politics is not a protected class, especially if they are going to promote academic pursuit and open dialogue. Otherwise, it becomes an echo chamber just like some tech companies are like frat houses.

And liberals have been pointing fingers at all the discrimination while they openly discriminate against select groups.

---

Seems like we both agree that institutional prejudice is a real problem in America and that merely telling someone to try harder or "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" is inadequate to address the real problems people are facing.

---

Absolutely. Have never done so other than with some small subset of Generation Z who complain about having to work 9-5 jobs. But, even as a C-Suite executive, I have been supportive of creating an inclusive and open culture that welcome diversity of thought and experience as long as it is respectful to each other. Having said that, people also need to hold themselves accountable for their work ethic instead of falling into the trap of entitlement. And organization have to make sure that those who are able and willing find an open and inclusive place for employees to thrive and develop. There is a risk of abandoning common sense and over calibrating to either side, but making sure that companies get the best talent available and not lose difference makers due to bias is just good business practice for long-term growth.

Hate echo chambers in any situation. Bunch of lemmings or parrots in those situations, spurring each other on like 3rd grade bullies. I would prefer people be more curious of those with different viewpoints instead of playing gotcha and self-promotion.

---

movielover said:

---

Lotta White Supremacy going on at Ha-vard. Are all the cheaters Liberal?

Harvard President
Stanford President
Pocahontas Warren - fake Native American
Elizabeth Hoover - Cal - fake Native American
Three profs- University of Kansas
UC Riverside prof - fake NA

"Jacqueline Keeler, a writer who investigates people who falsely claim Indigenous ancestry for personal gain, and who posted the details of Smith's agreement earlier this month, told Inside Higher Ed: "Academia is basically a pretendian factory."

"It is the ultimate form of colonization, where they actually become us instead of actually listening to us," she told the outlet."

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/28/california-professor-resigns-native-american-heritage

https://apnews.com/article/berkeley-professor-false-native-identity-apology-dabc6d97dcb6f96aedc6c6c62b4975ee

https://www.thecollegefix.com/three-university-of-kansas-professors-face-allegations-of-fake-native-american-ancestry/

---

Harvard president's resignation highlights new conservative weapon against colleges: plagiarism https://t.co/GiVkT3LgUo

— The Associated Press (@AP) January 3, 2024

The idea behind giving professors lifetime tenure is that this will enable them to speak out freely. But it would be hard to name any other occupation with a more cowardly record than academics, who have been giving in to politically correct campus bullies ever since the 1960s.

— Thomas Sowell Quotes (@ThomasSowell) January 4, 2024