One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰
Main
Harvard—Out the Frying Pan Into the Fire
Jan 5, 2024 00:48:04   #
dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA
 
Harvard—Out the Frying Pan Into the Fire
January 4, 2024
Victor Davis Hanson
American Greatness

Harvard may assume the forced resignation of its president, Claudine Gay, has finally ended its month-long scandal over her tenure.

Gay stepped down, remember, amid serious allegations of serial plagiarism—without refuting the charges. She proved either unable or unwilling to discipline those on her campus who were defiantly anti-Semitic in speech and action.

But Gay’s removal is not the end of Harvard’s dilemma. Rather, it is the beginning.

In the respective press releases from both Gay and the Harvard Corporation, racial animus was cited as a reason for her removal.

Gay did not even refer to her failure to stop anti-Semitism on her campus or her own record of blatant plagiarism.

Yet playing the race card reflects poorly on both and for a variety of reasons.

One, Gay’s meager publication record—a mere eleven articles without a single published book of her own—had somehow earned her a prior Harvard full professorship and presidency. Such a thin resume leading to academic stardom is unprecedented.

Two, the University of Pennsylvania forced the resignation of its president, Liz Magill. She sat next to Gay during that now-infamous congressional hearing in which they both claimed they were unable to discipline blatant anti-Semitism on their campuses.

Instead, both plead “free speech” and “context” considerations.

Such excuses were blatantly amoral and untrue. In truth, ivy-league campuses routinely sanction, punish, or remove staff, faculty, or students deemed culpable for speech or behavior deemed hurtful to protected minorities—except apparently white males and Jews.

Yet Magill was immediately forced to resign, and Gay was not. Also noteworthy was Magill’s far more impressive and extensive administrative experience, along with a more prestigious scholarship that was free of even a suggestion of plagiarism.

Academia’s immediate firing of a white woman while trying desperately to save the career of a less qualified and ethically challenged black woman will be seen not as a case of racial bias but more likely of racial preference.

Indeed, to keep Gay’s job and to defend her from plagiarism charges, both Harvard and Gay herself were willing to say things that were simply absurd, if not patently untrue.

Harvard invented a new phrase “duplicative language” to euphemize the reality of Gay’s intellectual theft.

Even after Gay resigned, Harvard jumped the shark by further downplaying her plagiarism by dubbing it as mere “missteps.”

Harvard and its supporters further embarrassed themselves by alleging that if the victims of Gay’s plagiarism didn’t object, then why did her expropriation matter that much?

Are we then to assume that plagiarism is not a serious violation of the entire ethos of scholarship, quite in addition to the aggrieved plagiarized party?

The university descended even further by suggesting that if the complaints were lodged by anonymous scholars, they were somehow less serious.

Has Harvard ever heard of the reasons why whistleblowers are often protected from retribution by grants of anonymity?

Liberal Harvard, through its lawyers, even threatened the New York Post with legal action if it aired charges of Gay’s plagiarism.

Yet only days later, the university was swamped by further proof of Gay’s scholarly misconduct, involving improper use of data and more plagiarism extending back even to her dissertation.

Harvard, remember, claimed that it had conducted a thorough investigation that had cleared her of actionable plagiarism—even as more charges arose of her prior culpability.

But more importantly, what happens to ex-president Gay now?

Does resigning from the Harvard presidency and returning to a full professorship mean that charges of plagiarism disappear?

Would any other Harvard professors continue to be employed without addressing over two dozen separate charges of plagiarism lodged against them?

Do Gay, the Harvard Corporation, and the more than 700 Harvard professors who closed ranks and wrote a letter supporting Gay now argue that plagiarism is no longer a serious offense at the nation’s supposedly most preeminent university?

Will students who emulate Gay’s habit of copy-and-paste, failure-to-footnote, and misuse-of-data now be exempt from dismissal or suspension?

After Gay’s embarrassing December 5 congressional testimony and her resignation, what now is the Harvard policy toward anti-Semitism?

If next week, anti-Israel students once again call for the destruction of the Jewish people in Israel all the way “from the river to the sea,” or if they again storm Harvard’s Widener library, screaming support for the October 7 massacre and intimidating Jewish students, what will the new—or old—Harvard do?

Again nothing?

Finally, Harvard insinuated that Gay was fired by racist outside pressure—despite the fact that many of her critics were large donors furious about the diminution of the reputation of their alma mater.

Is Harvard suggesting that its own mega-donors are racists?

What then might come next?
What should happen next is...
The resignation of the entire board of the Harvard Corporation that is the ultimate cause of Harvard’s descent into mediocrity.

Reply
Jan 5, 2024 08:49:05   #
American Vet
 
dtucker300 wrote:
Harvard—Out the Frying Pan Into the Fire
January 4, 2024
Victor Davis Hanson
American Greatness

Harvard may assume the forced resignation of its president, Claudine Gay, has finally ended its month-long scandal over her tenure.

Gay stepped down, remember, amid serious allegations of serial plagiarism—without refuting the charges. She proved either unable or unwilling to discipline those on her campus who were defiantly anti-Semitic in speech and action.

But Gay’s removal is not the end of Harvard’s dilemma. Rather, it is the beginning.

In the respective press releases from both Gay and the Harvard Corporation, racial animus was cited as a reason for her removal.

Gay did not even refer to her failure to stop anti-Semitism on her campus or her own record of blatant plagiarism.

Yet playing the race card reflects poorly on both and for a variety of reasons.

One, Gay’s meager publication record—a mere eleven articles without a single published book of her own—had somehow earned her a prior Harvard full professorship and presidency. Such a thin resume leading to academic stardom is unprecedented.

Two, the University of Pennsylvania forced the resignation of its president, Liz Magill. She sat next to Gay during that now-infamous congressional hearing in which they both claimed they were unable to discipline blatant anti-Semitism on their campuses.

Instead, both plead “free speech” and “context” considerations.

Such excuses were blatantly amoral and untrue. In truth, ivy-league campuses routinely sanction, punish, or remove staff, faculty, or students deemed culpable for speech or behavior deemed hurtful to protected minorities—except apparently white males and Jews.

Yet Magill was immediately forced to resign, and Gay was not. Also noteworthy was Magill’s far more impressive and extensive administrative experience, along with a more prestigious scholarship that was free of even a suggestion of plagiarism.

Academia’s immediate firing of a white woman while trying desperately to save the career of a less qualified and ethically challenged black woman will be seen not as a case of racial bias but more likely of racial preference.

Indeed, to keep Gay’s job and to defend her from plagiarism charges, both Harvard and Gay herself were willing to say things that were simply absurd, if not patently untrue.

Harvard invented a new phrase “duplicative language” to euphemize the reality of Gay’s intellectual theft.

Even after Gay resigned, Harvard jumped the shark by further downplaying her plagiarism by dubbing it as mere “missteps.”

Harvard and its supporters further embarrassed themselves by alleging that if the victims of Gay’s plagiarism didn’t object, then why did her expropriation matter that much?

Are we then to assume that plagiarism is not a serious violation of the entire ethos of scholarship, quite in addition to the aggrieved plagiarized party?

The university descended even further by suggesting that if the complaints were lodged by anonymous scholars, they were somehow less serious.

Has Harvard ever heard of the reasons why whistleblowers are often protected from retribution by grants of anonymity?

Liberal Harvard, through its lawyers, even threatened the New York Post with legal action if it aired charges of Gay’s plagiarism.

Yet only days later, the university was swamped by further proof of Gay’s scholarly misconduct, involving improper use of data and more plagiarism extending back even to her dissertation.

Harvard, remember, claimed that it had conducted a thorough investigation that had cleared her of actionable plagiarism—even as more charges arose of her prior culpability.

But more importantly, what happens to ex-president Gay now?

Does resigning from the Harvard presidency and returning to a full professorship mean that charges of plagiarism disappear?

Would any other Harvard professors continue to be employed without addressing over two dozen separate charges of plagiarism lodged against them?

Do Gay, the Harvard Corporation, and the more than 700 Harvard professors who closed ranks and wrote a letter supporting Gay now argue that plagiarism is no longer a serious offense at the nation’s supposedly most preeminent university?

Will students who emulate Gay’s habit of copy-and-paste, failure-to-footnote, and misuse-of-data now be exempt from dismissal or suspension?

After Gay’s embarrassing December 5 congressional testimony and her resignation, what now is the Harvard policy toward anti-Semitism?

If next week, anti-Israel students once again call for the destruction of the Jewish people in Israel all the way “from the river to the sea,” or if they again storm Harvard’s Widener library, screaming support for the October 7 massacre and intimidating Jewish students, what will the new—or old—Harvard do?

Again nothing?

Finally, Harvard insinuated that Gay was fired by racist outside pressure—despite the fact that many of her critics were large donors furious about the diminution of the reputation of their alma mater.

Is Harvard suggesting that its own mega-donors are racists?

What then might come next?
What should happen next is...
The resignation of the entire board of the Harvard Corporation that is the ultimate cause of Harvard’s descent into mediocrity.
Harvard—Out the Frying Pan Into the Fire br Januar... (show quote)


LOL

Leftists have invented a new word for lying!!!!

“duplicative language”

Reply
Jan 6, 2024 06:24:58   #
Radiance3
 
dtucker300 wrote:
Harvard—Out the Frying Pan Into the Fire
January 4, 2024
Victor Davis Hanson
American Greatness

Harvard may assume the forced resignation of its president, Claudine Gay, has finally ended its month-long scandal over her tenure.

Gay stepped down, remember, amid serious allegations of serial plagiarism—without refuting the charges. She proved either unable or unwilling to discipline those on her campus who were defiantly anti-Semitic in speech and action.

But Gay’s removal is not the end of Harvard’s dilemma. Rather, it is the beginning.

In the respective press releases from both Gay and the Harvard Corporation, racial animus was cited as a reason for her removal.

Gay did not even refer to her failure to stop anti-Semitism on her campus or her own record of blatant plagiarism.

Yet playing the race card reflects poorly on both and for a variety of reasons.

One, Gay’s meager publication record—a mere eleven articles without a single published book of her own—had somehow earned her a prior Harvard full professorship and presidency. Such a thin resume leading to academic stardom is unprecedented.

Two, the University of Pennsylvania forced the resignation of its president, Liz Magill. She sat next to Gay during that now-infamous congressional hearing in which they both claimed they were unable to discipline blatant anti-Semitism on their campuses.

Instead, both plead “free speech” and “context” considerations.

Such excuses were blatantly amoral and untrue. In truth, ivy-league campuses routinely sanction, punish, or remove staff, faculty, or students deemed culpable for speech or behavior deemed hurtful to protected minorities—except apparently white males and Jews.

Yet Magill was immediately forced to resign, and Gay was not. Also noteworthy was Magill’s far more impressive and extensive administrative experience, along with a more prestigious scholarship that was free of even a suggestion of plagiarism.

Academia’s immediate firing of a white woman while trying desperately to save the career of a less qualified and ethically challenged black woman will be seen not as a case of racial bias but more likely of racial preference.

Indeed, to keep Gay’s job and to defend her from plagiarism charges, both Harvard and Gay herself were willing to say things that were simply absurd, if not patently untrue.

Harvard invented a new phrase “duplicative language” to euphemize the reality of Gay’s intellectual theft.

Even after Gay resigned, Harvard jumped the shark by further downplaying her plagiarism by dubbing it as mere “missteps.”

Harvard and its supporters further embarrassed themselves by alleging that if the victims of Gay’s plagiarism didn’t object, then why did her expropriation matter that much?

Are we then to assume that plagiarism is not a serious violation of the entire ethos of scholarship, quite in addition to the aggrieved plagiarized party?

The university descended even further by suggesting that if the complaints were lodged by anonymous scholars, they were somehow less serious.

Has Harvard ever heard of the reasons why whistleblowers are often protected from retribution by grants of anonymity?

Liberal Harvard, through its lawyers, even threatened the New York Post with legal action if it aired charges of Gay’s plagiarism.

Yet only days later, the university was swamped by further proof of Gay’s scholarly misconduct, involving improper use of data and more plagiarism extending back even to her dissertation.

Harvard, remember, claimed that it had conducted a thorough investigation that had cleared her of actionable plagiarism—even as more charges arose of her prior culpability.

But more importantly, what happens to ex-president Gay now?

Does resigning from the Harvard presidency and returning to a full professorship mean that charges of plagiarism disappear?

Would any other Harvard professors continue to be employed without addressing over two dozen separate charges of plagiarism lodged against them?

Do Gay, the Harvard Corporation, and the more than 700 Harvard professors who closed ranks and wrote a letter supporting Gay now argue that plagiarism is no longer a serious offense at the nation’s supposedly most preeminent university?

Will students who emulate Gay’s habit of copy-and-paste, failure-to-footnote, and misuse-of-data now be exempt from dismissal or suspension?

After Gay’s embarrassing December 5 congressional testimony and her resignation, what now is the Harvard policy toward anti-Semitism?

If next week, anti-Israel students once again call for the destruction of the Jewish people in Israel all the way “from the river to the sea,” or if they again storm Harvard’s Widener library, screaming support for the October 7 massacre and intimidating Jewish students, what will the new—or old—Harvard do?

Again nothing?

Finally, Harvard insinuated that Gay was fired by racist outside pressure—despite the fact that many of her critics were large donors furious about the diminution of the reputation of their alma mater.

Is Harvard suggesting that its own mega-donors are racists?

What then might come next?
What should happen next is...
The resignation of the entire board of the Harvard Corporation that is the ultimate cause of Harvard’s descent into mediocrity.
Harvard—Out the Frying Pan Into the Fire br Januar... (show quote)

==============
One of the arguments Hannity and Col. West last night was about the Gays' anti-Semitism remarks. West argued why the Jews are being hated. It was about that land occupation Israel against the Palestinians.

Now, what is the truth? The truth is Israel owns the whole of Canaan, the lands that the Muslim now occupy. These are the land in Gaza, West Bank, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria. Israel owned all their land. It was called the land of Canaan. That started when God offered that land to Abraham after his faith was tested offering his only son Isaac.
Genesis 17:
The whole land of Canaan, where you are now an alien, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God." Then God said to Abraham, "As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come.

Upon return of Israel to the promised land.
https://bible.org/seriespage/23-joshua-1-%E2%80%93-24-taking-promised-land.

Now the land of Canaan has been mostly occupied by Muslims. Israel's land was taken away, and the Muslims are driving the Jews out of the land.

Cor. West and Claudine Gay are both ignorant of the origin where Israel started. They are not the occupier; they owned the whole land of Canaan where the Muslims have occupied at present.

God gave Canaan to Israel because the prior occupants of Canaan did not believe in God and were all in violations of God's command. They behaved wild without morals and filled with violence. God drove them away and ushered Joshua's conquest as soon as soon as the Jews returned from Egypt.

Now, they are driving the Jews from the "River to the Sea" according to Claudine and Col. West., Palestinian Talib, who accused that Israel is the occupier. The opposite of the truth.

God has the right to give the land to whom he chooses. He created the world. These people at Harvard are Godless, ignorant of history. That is why they hated Israel.

Reply
 
 
Jan 6, 2024 08:30:30   #
DAV
 
Radiance3 wrote:
==============
One of the arguments Hannity and Col. West last night was about the Gays' anti-Semitism remarks. West argued why the Jews are being hated. It was about that land occupation Israel against the Palestinians.

Now, what is the truth? The truth is Israel owns the whole of Canaan, the lands that the Muslim now occupy. These are the land in Gaza, West Bank, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria. Israel owned all their land. It was called the land of Canaan. That started when God offered that land to Abraham after his faith was tested offering his only son Isaac.
Genesis 17:
The whole land of Canaan, where you are now an alien, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God." Then God said to Abraham, "As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come.

Upon return of Israel to the promised land.
https://bible.org/seriespage/23-joshua-1-%E2%80%93-24-taking-promised-land.

Now the land of Canaan has been mostly occupied by Muslims. Israel's land was taken away, and the Muslims are driving the Jews out of the land.

Cor. West and Claudine Gay are both ignorant of the origin where Israel started. They are not the occupier; they owned the whole land of Canaan where the Muslims have occupied at present.

God gave Canaan to Israel because the prior occupants of Canaan did not believe in God and were all in violations of God's command. They behaved wild without morals and filled with violence. God drove them away and ushered Joshua's conquest as soon as soon as the Jews returned from Egypt.

Now, they are driving the Jews from the "River to the Sea" according to Claudine and Col. West., Palestinian Talib, who accused that Israel is the occupier. The opposite of the truth.

God has the right to give the land to whom he chooses. He created the world. These people at Harvard are Godless, ignorant of history. That is why they hated Israel.
============== br I One of the arguments Hannit... (show quote)


You all are saying it the wrong way....it's Haaaahvud !

Reply
Jan 6, 2024 14:15:27   #
BigJim
 
She should have been asked if there was a "context" in which calling for genocide of blacks would be acceptable.

Reply
Jan 6, 2024 14:40:21   #
Radiance3
 
DAV wrote:
You all are saying it the wrong way....it's Haaaahvud !

==============

One of the topics discussed by of Hannity and Col. West was about Israel. You don't understand history as well. That black man Col. West accused Israel as the occupier. The opposite is the fact.

Reply
Jan 6, 2024 17:56:24   #
dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA
 
BigJim wrote:
She should have been asked if there was a "context" in which calling for genocide of blacks would be acceptable.


I think she was asked that in the beginning. And she is still at Harvard earning over $1 million a year.

https://gellerreport.com/2024/01/exclusive-coverage-counter-protest-from-the-river-to-the-sea-israel-is-what-youll-see.html/?lctg=26369133

EXCLUSIVE COVERAGE COUNTER-PROTEST: From the River to the Sea: Israel Is What You’ll See!
By Pamela Hall - on January 5, 2024

10
ShareTweetTruthGettrTelegramLinkedIn

Listen to this article
0:00 / 2:23
1X
BeyondWords
From The River to the Sea, ISRAEL is what you’ll SEE!!



Dec 5, 2023. NYC. On E. 42nd St, YadYamim-NY counter-protested the obnoxious CUNY “palis”, again. It was a low key event, but whenever and where ever the ‘palis’ gather it is important to counter them with the truth.

Doctor: If You Have Toenail Fungus, Do This Immediately!
Nail Fungus Is Annoying. But It's Only A Symptom Of Bigger Issues
1/2 Cup Of This (Before Bed) Eats Your Belly Fat Like Never Before!

Pro-Israel supporters must stand up against the Jew hating “falesteen” protesters.


.#StandWithIsrael!!

Flickr Slide Show of both sides and the eponymous Crackhead Barney (no body welcomed her at this protest)


xCUNY alumni (and others) gathered outside of CUNY’s Chancellor’s office where the ‘pali’ organizers encouraged the protestors to “Bring your cap and gown for a denouncement ceremony”. (only a couple did)


Part 1 video – The pro-Israel side was small, but wonderfully loud. While filming the ‘palis’ it was obvious the Israel crowd’s chants carried across 42nd St. It’s the commitment., not the size that matters.


Part 2 video – Did my best to capture some of the speakers from the opposite of 42nd st. The falesteenians are very nasty to reporters who are known to expose their lies.


Part 3 video –The obscene Crack Head Barney was turned away from the ‘palis’. (they usually embrace her) Fun.


update- https://nypost.com/2023/12/08/news/israeli-hostage-naama-levys-mom-speaks-out-each-minute-an-eternity-in-hell/



The hard-core left is married to the idea that these evil deeds, the murders, the genocide comes from the right:

‘The process of indoctrination starts by telling you something is a threat, promising you the tools to defeat it, and then getting you to buy in more and more. Fear sells. And we’re all dumb enough to buy it, every time.” Talia Jane Ben Oro

The statement above describes perfectly the WEF, WHO, the elitist cabal: ALL deal in FEAR. (yet, the leftist-dominating reportage consistently alludes to anyone on the right) … the truth is so inconvenient …

It’s a bizarro world we live in.

Reply
 
 
Jan 7, 2024 08:01:44   #
Radiance3
 
dtucker300 wrote:
Harvard—Out the Frying Pan Into the Fire
January 4, 2024
Victor Davis Hanson
American Greatness

Harvard may assume the forced resignation of its president, Claudine Gay, has finally ended its month-long scandal over her tenure.

Gay stepped down, remember, amid serious allegations of serial plagiarism—without refuting the charges. She proved either unable or unwilling to discipline those on her campus who were defiantly anti-Semitic in speech and action.

But Gay’s removal is not the end of Harvard’s dilemma. Rather, it is the beginning.

In the respective press releases from both Gay and the Harvard Corporation, racial animus was cited as a reason for her removal.

Gay did not even refer to her failure to stop anti-Semitism on her campus or her own record of blatant plagiarism.

Yet playing the race card reflects poorly on both and for a variety of reasons.

One, Gay’s meager publication record—a mere eleven articles without a single published book of her own—had somehow earned her a prior Harvard full professorship and presidency. Such a thin resume leading to academic stardom is unprecedented.

Two, the University of Pennsylvania forced the resignation of its president, Liz Magill. She sat next to Gay during that now-infamous congressional hearing in which they both claimed they were unable to discipline blatant anti-Semitism on their campuses.

Instead, both plead “free speech” and “context” considerations.

Such excuses were blatantly amoral and untrue. In truth, ivy-league campuses routinely sanction, punish, or remove staff, faculty, or students deemed culpable for speech or behavior deemed hurtful to protected minorities—except apparently white males and Jews.

Yet Magill was immediately forced to resign, and Gay was not. Also noteworthy was Magill’s far more impressive and extensive administrative experience, along with a more prestigious scholarship that was free of even a suggestion of plagiarism.

Academia’s immediate firing of a white woman while trying desperately to save the career of a less qualified and ethically challenged black woman will be seen not as a case of racial bias but more likely of racial preference.

Indeed, to keep Gay’s job and to defend her from plagiarism charges, both Harvard and Gay herself were willing to say things that were simply absurd, if not patently untrue.

Harvard invented a new phrase “duplicative language” to euphemize the reality of Gay’s intellectual theft.

Even after Gay resigned, Harvard jumped the shark by further downplaying her plagiarism by dubbing it as mere “missteps.”

Harvard and its supporters further embarrassed themselves by alleging that if the victims of Gay’s plagiarism didn’t object, then why did her expropriation matter that much?

Are we then to assume that plagiarism is not a serious violation of the entire ethos of scholarship, quite in addition to the aggrieved plagiarized party?

The university descended even further by suggesting that if the complaints were lodged by anonymous scholars, they were somehow less serious.

Has Harvard ever heard of the reasons why whistleblowers are often protected from retribution by grants of anonymity?

Liberal Harvard, through its lawyers, even threatened the New York Post with legal action if it aired charges of Gay’s plagiarism.

Yet only days later, the university was swamped by further proof of Gay’s scholarly misconduct, involving improper use of data and more plagiarism extending back even to her dissertation.

Harvard, remember, claimed that it had conducted a thorough investigation that had cleared her of actionable plagiarism—even as more charges arose of her prior culpability.

But more importantly, what happens to ex-president Gay now?

Does resigning from the Harvard presidency and returning to a full professorship mean that charges of plagiarism disappear?

Would any other Harvard professors continue to be employed without addressing over two dozen separate charges of plagiarism lodged against them?

Do Gay, the Harvard Corporation, and the more than 700 Harvard professors who closed ranks and wrote a letter supporting Gay now argue that plagiarism is no longer a serious offense at the nation’s supposedly most preeminent university?

Will students who emulate Gay’s habit of copy-and-paste, failure-to-footnote, and misuse-of-data now be exempt from dismissal or suspension?

After Gay’s embarrassing December 5 congressional testimony and her resignation, what now is the Harvard policy toward anti-Semitism?

If next week, anti-Israel students once again call for the destruction of the Jewish people in Israel all the way “from the river to the sea,” or if they again storm Harvard’s Widener library, screaming support for the October 7 massacre and intimidating Jewish students, what will the new—or old—Harvard do?

Again nothing?

Finally, Harvard insinuated that Gay was fired by racist outside pressure—despite the fact that many of her critics were large donors furious about the diminution of the reputation of their alma mater.

Is Harvard suggesting that its own mega-donors are racists?

What then might come next?
What should happen next is...
The resignation of the entire board of the Harvard Corporation that is the ultimate cause of Harvard’s descent into mediocrity.
Harvard—Out the Frying Pan Into the Fire br Januar... (show quote)

==================
Not completely out! Gay still stays in Harvard to teach with her dumb brain, and a Jew hater communist who wall still be paid $900,000 annually, using DEI.

What is she going to teach the REI? Nothing substantial came out of her mouth but the word "race". She hates the Jews, accusing them of an
Occupier. Ignorant of the fact that the land that the Muslims occupy all belong to Canaan that God gave to Abraham as inheritance for their generation because God had tested the faith of Abraham when he offered his only son, ISAAC to God.

Genisis 17: 8-9
8. The whole land of Canaan, where you are now an alien, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God."

9 Then God said to Abraham, "As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come.

This Gay president has been teaching the students at Harvard that Israel is an occupier. Wrong, the opposite is true. Gay is anti-Semite. The Muslims are the occupier of the land of Canaan, now consisting of the Gaza, the West Bank, Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria. All these lands were called Canaan offered by God to Abraham and to his Israel descendants because of Isaac! That is why all the students protest against Israel, with the wrong knowledge that Israel is owned by Palestinians. The opposite is true. Now they are marching against Israel, driving them out "from the river to the sea".

Reply
Jan 7, 2024 08:07:03   #
Radiance3
 
DAV wrote:
You all are saying it the wrong way....it's Haaaahvud !

===========

Another Gay man?

Reply
Jan 7, 2024 08:18:26   #
Radiance3
 
dtucker300 wrote:
Harvard—Out the Frying Pan Into the Fire
January 4, 2024
Victor Davis Hanson
American Greatness

Harvard may assume the forced resignation of its president, Claudine Gay, has finally ended its month-long scandal over her tenure.

Gay stepped down, remember, amid serious allegations of serial plagiarism—without refuting the charges. She proved either unable or unwilling to discipline those on her campus who were defiantly anti-Semitic in speech and action.

But Gay’s removal is not the end of Harvard’s dilemma. Rather, it is the beginning.

In the respective press releases from both Gay and the Harvard Corporation, racial animus was cited as a reason for her removal.

Gay did not even refer to her failure to stop anti-Semitism on her campus or her own record of blatant plagiarism.

Yet playing the race card reflects poorly on both and for a variety of reasons.

One, Gay’s meager publication record—a mere eleven articles without a single published book of her own—had somehow earned her a prior Harvard full professorship and presidency. Such a thin resume leading to academic stardom is unprecedented.

Two, the University of Pennsylvania forced the resignation of its president, Liz Magill. She sat next to Gay during that now-infamous congressional hearing in which they both claimed they were unable to discipline blatant anti-Semitism on their campuses.

Instead, both plead “free speech” and “context” considerations.

Such excuses were blatantly amoral and untrue. In truth, ivy-league campuses routinely sanction, punish, or remove staff, faculty, or students deemed culpable for speech or behavior deemed hurtful to protected minorities—except apparently white males and Jews.

Yet Magill was immediately forced to resign, and Gay was not. Also noteworthy was Magill’s far more impressive and extensive administrative experience, along with a more prestigious scholarship that was free of even a suggestion of plagiarism.

Academia’s immediate firing of a white woman while trying desperately to save the career of a less qualified and ethically challenged black woman will be seen not as a case of racial bias but more likely of racial preference.

Indeed, to keep Gay’s job and to defend her from plagiarism charges, both Harvard and Gay herself were willing to say things that were simply absurd, if not patently untrue.

Harvard invented a new phrase “duplicative language” to euphemize the reality of Gay’s intellectual theft.

Even after Gay resigned, Harvard jumped the shark by further downplaying her plagiarism by dubbing it as mere “missteps.”

Harvard and its supporters further embarrassed themselves by alleging that if the victims of Gay’s plagiarism didn’t object, then why did her expropriation matter that much?

Are we then to assume that plagiarism is not a serious violation of the entire ethos of scholarship, quite in addition to the aggrieved plagiarized party?

The university descended even further by suggesting that if the complaints were lodged by anonymous scholars, they were somehow less serious.

Has Harvard ever heard of the reasons why whistleblowers are often protected from retribution by grants of anonymity?

Liberal Harvard, through its lawyers, even threatened the New York Post with legal action if it aired charges of Gay’s plagiarism.

Yet only days later, the university was swamped by further proof of Gay’s scholarly misconduct, involving improper use of data and more plagiarism extending back even to her dissertation.

Harvard, remember, claimed that it had conducted a thorough investigation that had cleared her of actionable plagiarism—even as more charges arose of her prior culpability.

But more importantly, what happens to ex-president Gay now?

Does resigning from the Harvard presidency and returning to a full professorship mean that charges of plagiarism disappear?

Would any other Harvard professors continue to be employed without addressing over two dozen separate charges of plagiarism lodged against them?

Do Gay, the Harvard Corporation, and the more than 700 Harvard professors who closed ranks and wrote a letter supporting Gay now argue that plagiarism is no longer a serious offense at the nation’s supposedly most preeminent university?

Will students who emulate Gay’s habit of copy-and-paste, failure-to-footnote, and misuse-of-data now be exempt from dismissal or suspension?

After Gay’s embarrassing December 5 congressional testimony and her resignation, what now is the Harvard policy toward anti-Semitism?

If next week, anti-Israel students once again call for the destruction of the Jewish people in Israel all the way “from the river to the sea,” or if they again storm Harvard’s Widener library, screaming support for the October 7 massacre and intimidating Jewish students, what will the new—or old—Harvard do?

Again nothing?

Finally, Harvard insinuated that Gay was fired by racist outside pressure—despite the fact that many of her critics were large donors furious about the diminution of the reputation of their alma mater.

Is Harvard suggesting that its own mega-donors are racists?

What then might come next?
What should happen next is...
The resignation of the entire board of the Harvard Corporation that is the ultimate cause of Harvard’s descent into mediocrity.
Harvard—Out the Frying Pan Into the Fire br Januar... (show quote)

=============
It was reported that Harvard and other Ivy League universities are given tens of billions of dollars by Muslims mostly coming from Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Communist China. Their purpose is to influence Muslim theology and collect intellectual properties. China has been doing that.

https://www.campusreform.org/article/ivy-league-among-top-recipients-of-85-billion-arab-funding/24195

https://www.city-journal.org/article/arab-countries-bankroll-u-s-universities/

All these had been hidden. Is it taxable? Of course, But hidden and kept under the radar!

That is why Muslim influences are very powerful. Their professors are well feed by these billions of Muslims influence. Qatar is the # 1 funder among them. Then Saudi Arabia. Professors of these Ivy League Schools are mostly radical, hate the US and Israel!

These universities have lost their integrity. Satan is very powerful influencing figure. it is not only Harvard. Cornell, Boston, etc. are also involved.

Reply
Jan 7, 2024 08:46:31   #
Radiance3
 
dtucker300 wrote:
I think she was asked that in the beginning. And she is still at Harvard earning over $1 million a year.

https://gellerreport.com/2024/01/exclusive-coverage-counter-protest-from-the-river-to-the-sea-israel-is-what-youll-see.html/?lctg=26369133

EXCLUSIVE COVERAGE COUNTER-PROTEST: From the River to the Sea: Israel Is What You’ll See!
By Pamela Hall - on January 5, 2024

10
ShareTweetTruthGettrTelegramLinkedIn

Listen to this article
0:00 / 2:23
1X
BeyondWords
From The River to the Sea, ISRAEL is what you’ll SEE!!



Dec 5, 2023. NYC. On E. 42nd St, YadYamim-NY counter-protested the obnoxious CUNY “palis”, again. It was a low key event, but whenever and where ever the ‘palis’ gather it is important to counter them with the truth.

Doctor: If You Have Toenail Fungus, Do This Immediately!
Nail Fungus Is Annoying. But It's Only A Symptom Of Bigger Issues
1/2 Cup Of This (Before Bed) Eats Your Belly Fat Like Never Before!

Pro-Israel supporters must stand up against the Jew hating “falesteen” protesters.


.#StandWithIsrael!!

Flickr Slide Show of both sides and the eponymous Crackhead Barney (no body welcomed her at this protest)


xCUNY alumni (and others) gathered outside of CUNY’s Chancellor’s office where the ‘pali’ organizers encouraged the protestors to “Bring your cap and gown for a denouncement ceremony”. (only a couple did)


Part 1 video – The pro-Israel side was small, but wonderfully loud. While filming the ‘palis’ it was obvious the Israel crowd’s chants carried across 42nd St. It’s the commitment., not the size that matters.


Part 2 video – Did my best to capture some of the speakers from the opposite of 42nd st. The falesteenians are very nasty to reporters who are known to expose their lies.


Part 3 video –The obscene Crack Head Barney was turned away from the ‘palis’. (they usually embrace her) Fun.


update- https://nypost.com/2023/12/08/news/israeli-hostage-naama-levys-mom-speaks-out-each-minute-an-eternity-in-hell/



The hard-core left is married to the idea that these evil deeds, the murders, the genocide comes from the right:

‘The process of indoctrination starts by telling you something is a threat, promising you the tools to defeat it, and then getting you to buy in more and more. Fear sells. And we’re all dumb enough to buy it, every time.” Talia Jane Ben Oro

The statement above describes perfectly the WEF, WHO, the elitist cabal: ALL deal in FEAR. (yet, the leftist-dominating reportage consistently alludes to anyone on the right) … the truth is so inconvenient …

It’s a bizarro world we live in.
I think she was asked that in the beginning. And ... (show quote)

===============

Claudine Gay accepted more of her own color at Harvard for DEI.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-03/harvard-president-s-shock-exit-exposes-decade-spanning-fractures

Claudine Gay used the brains of other smart people to get ahead through plagiarism. Another 5 more were added to her plagiarized collections.

She discriminated Whites and Asians entering Harvard the fact that their academic credentials are all at the top.

Reply
 
 
Jan 8, 2024 10:33:03   #
Radiance3
 
Radiance3 wrote:
===============

Claudine Gay accepted more of her own color at Harvard for DEI.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-03/harvard-president-s-shock-exit-exposes-decade-spanning-fractures

Claudine Gay used the brains of other smart people to get ahead through plagiarism. Another 5 more were added to her plagiarized collections.

She discriminated Whites and Asians entering Harvard the fact that their academic credentials are all at the top.

===================
Return the MERIT system to Harvard. Not DEI. With Merit Harvard's reputation will be restored again. Right now I think, it is a shit under Gay.

Reply
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use | DMCA
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.