Witch hunt. Institutional assassination. Political scheme. These words are apt to describe the journey behind the resignation of former Harvard President Claudine Gay. The recent Congressional hearings have exposed the ugliness of higher education. From robotic, overlawyered words that prevented presidents such as Liz Magill from condemning the call for genocide, to the constant deflection of any responsibility for the Islamaphobia and Anti-sementism happening on campus, it’s no wonder why people are kicking up such a storm.
Christopher Rufo, a bigtime donor to Harvard, proudly preened about his supposed achievement in his Wall Street Journal article titled “How We Squeezed Harvard to Push Claudine Gay Out” writing, “Conservatives can prevail in the culture wars by understanding how power works—and using it.” So clearly, no matter what is said about Claudine Gay and her conduct, we need to keep in mind that a vast majority of the conservative media ecosystem is motivated not by a sense of academic integrity but rather by political opportunism. People like Christopher Rufo and Elise Stefanik are more concerned about winning the ideological battle on college campuses, trying to fight against the perceived wave of “wokness.” and it’s no surprise they smelt blood in the water after the congressional hearings. However, the reflexive defense of Claudine Gay that we’re seeing is insufficient to clear her of blame. Still, it sets us down an argumentative slippery slope.
First and foremost, the accusations of plagiarism in Claudine Gay’s academic work is an indisputable fact. Yes, sloppy academic work is more forgivable than deliberately stealing another person’s work. Yes, Claudine Gay is not the only individual guilty of messing up a citation. Yes, Claudine Gay also requested that the journals where she published her papers correct the errors pointed out to her. These actions are all legitimate and commendable. However, it doesn’t change the fact that sloppy craft was produced, and at the time of this writing, Dr. Gay has racked up a total of 47 different charges of plagiarism in her writing, including her doctoral thesis. While I’d argue these mistakes were not made out of malicious intent to misrepresent information, it is also essential to respect the sanctity and integrity of one of the highest offices in Academia: the president of one of the most prestigious universities in the world. The standards need to be exceptional because that office is for extraordinary people.
Furthermore, the specific violation Dr. Gay committed, copying from the text as others and presenting it as paraphrased material, would land a Harvard student with an academic misconduct charge at best, or expulsion at worst if the stakes are high enough, showing the severity of these violations. There’s a reason why academia is so hard on plagiarism in Harvard and here, and trying to excuse Dr. Gay for her actions only contradicts those values. While the ultimate decision to bring out the story was politically motivated, we also need to believe that both parties can be guilty. The reason why the conservative bullying and harassment worked so well on Dr. Gay (besides general racism and sexism) is because she was genuinely guilty. If you want to defend Dr. Gay, defend her on the right grounds. There is no need to overturn long-standing academic values to defend someone who actively benefited from the violation of said values.
Academia, especially at Harvard’s level, is meant to be an open bastion of transparent scholarship. Harvard’s troubling reaction by trying to shield Dr. Gay and conducting a closed internal investigation displays the greater trend in elite education to prioritize their own public image over their values. We saw this same pattern with UPenn’s former President Liz Magill frantically dodging questions of campus safety and inclusiveness that she proudly boasts about in board meetings, using layered words and deflections to avoid taking responsibility for what was happening under her leadership. Yes, politics are ugly and shouldn’t corrupt platforms of higher learning, and I think the way Harvard’s donors squeezed Gay out was questionable at best and draconian at worst. However, we need to hold these positions accountable to the same extent as we hold them in esteem.
Candidates are not in short supply, and intellectual fortresses like Harvard have hundreds of scholars ready to carry the torch. As sanctimonious as it sounds, higher education should be as pure as possible, especially now when their legitimacy is being questioned by individuals who have a vested interest in unilaterally dictating the campus culture under the table with donations, chrony politicians and smear campaigns. By upholding and representing the highest standards of Academic excellence and integrity, we take ammunition away from these interest groups while providing a space for the country’s bright to grow.