Guilty! Guilty! Guilty!
A discussion on Claudine Gay’s resignment Julian J. Giordano/The Harvard Crimson
Nethra Pai, Staff Writer
Just six months into her tenure, Claudine Gay, former president of Harvard University, submitted her resignation.
The story began on Oct. 7, 2023, amid one of the world's most controversial conflicts. Hamas fighters stormed Israel, killing at least 1,139 people, most of whom were civilians. The Harvard Palestine Solidarity Committee also published a letter explaining Hamas' attacks and holding Israel responsible for all unfolding violence on the worst possible day. This led to a snowball effect, opening an investigation into instances of antisemitism at Harvard, and Gay's particularly poor answer to a particularly worded question.
Shortly after a congressional hearing, the Washington Free Beacon and the New York Post, two conservative publications, accused Gay of over 50 counts of plagiarism. These initiatives were primarily headed by Christopher Rufo, whose goal is simple: "to challenge and then overthrow the left-wing ideological regime that has dominated American life for a generation." He almost single-handedly created the conflict against Critical Race Theory, which is now a contested school subject across numerous states, and generally fights against the spread of "woke" ideology and diversity initiatives. Personally, I think his motives for investigating Gay might be slightly less than altruistic.
However, if Gay did indeed plagiarize, and no one was calling attention to it in the month and a half she was president, apart from this man (and now, many other conservatives), then she should face the consequences. After further review, Harvard found multiple instances of inadequate citation, but not research misconduct. While she lifted sections of literature reviews from other works, her data and conclusions were independently hers. Many authors whom she was accused of plagiarizing from denied that the accusations had any merit, and stood by her integrity as a researcher. And, promptly after these accusations, she requested several revisions to her work. If these instances of inadequate citation were found at the time the research was written, she likely would have failed a class or taken remedial courses, if such punishments were even in place. She would not have lost her degree, failed out of college, or lost her job.
So did Harvard investigate their first Black president because a group of people found inconsistencies in her academic work? Or did they investigate her because a group of people found the color of her skin and her (decidedly not great) response to a global issue problematic? Seeing as she received multiple letters calling her the N-word and serving death threats, Harvard ultimately investigated Gay because certain groups did not like that she, as a Black woman, held a position of power in one of the world's most esteemed institutions. Then, the media spotlighted her misdemeanors as she responded incorrectly to a highly controversial issue. She stepped into a carefully laid trap that should not have been there in the first place. Where are the traps for Neil Gorsuch, who, after plagiarizing part of his book almost verbatim, holds a position as a Supreme Court Justice?
While Gay did plagiarize, her punishment should have been consistent with her crime. If she had to resign, it should have been because Harvard conducted a thorough investigation and came to that conclusion. Not because she decided that free speech was protected at her university, and certainly not because she was the first Black president of Harvard.
