Harvard Diversity Officer Accused of 40 Counts of Plagiarism

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: quintessentone

You spend way too much time going out of your way to try and make me look like the bad guy for me not to be important to you.

It's quite flattering, but I'm married and don't need someone groveling at my feet 24/7, I have dogs that already dot hat, so feel free to find someone else to adore and bother.

Says the members who misrepresents people's context in his signature line.

You always reply to me first in threads and that says it all.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: quintessentone

You spend way too much time going out of your way to try and make me look like the bad guy for me not to be important to you.

It's quite flattering, but I'm married and don't need someone groveling at my feet 24/7, I have dogs that already dot hat, so feel free to find someone else to adore and bother.

Says the members who misrepresents people's context in his signature line.

Nothing is misrepresented in any of my signature lines, they are all things that were stated, verbatum, by users.

You always reply to me first in threads and that says it all.

False

originally posted by: PorkChop96

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: quintessentone

You spend way too much time going out of your way to try and make me look like the bad guy for me not to be important to you.

It's quite flattering, but I'm married and don't need someone groveling at my feet 24/7, I have dogs that already dot hat, so feel free to find someone else to adore and bother.

Says the members who misrepresents people's context in his signature line.

Nothing is misrepresented in any of my signature lines, they are all things that were stated, verbatum, by users.

You always reply to me first in threads and that says it all.

False

Yes, stated by users which have no context included, which misrepresents the context.

You are a pip.

So getting back on topic. The last point I will be making here is what the reality seems to be here, that being: the right wing have long been at war with colleges.

"A brief history of the right’s long-running battle against higher education."

In the wake of the resignations of two university presidents; campaigns against diversity, equity, and inclusion programs; and a Supreme Court ruling ending affirmative action, conservatives are vowing that their crusade against higher education is far from over.

Conservative activist Christopher Rufo, who played a role in smearing critical race theory and in pushing out Harvard President Claudine Gay last month, told students at the University of Colorado Boulder recently that America must “lay siege to the institutions” to root out radical liberal policies that were established in the 1960s — an idea he’s been repeating for years. According to Rufo, those policies include diversity and inclusion initiatives that are bringing America down today.

At a time when colleges and universities are facing criticism from all sides over rising tuition costs and resulting student debt, decreasing enrollment, and admissions challenges, conservatives want to spearhead the changes that lie ahead for the institutions. But the desire of Rufo and others to remake higher education in their conservative vision isn’t new.

www.vox.com...

originally posted by: quintessentone
So getting back on topic. The last point I will be making here is what the reality seems to be here, that being: the right wing have long been at war with colleges.

Agreed.

Now, how long have colleges been at war with Republicans and conservatives?

It only makes sense that Republicans wouldn't shy away from that war.

What's new here is that AI and internet technology is hitting universities squarely in the "The Appeal to Authority" Fallacy. For a while now, information technology has hurt Academia's ability to hold a monopoly on information... now AI is giving the general public a means to scrutinize the works of Academia and we are finding they are not as ethical as they once pretended to be.

originally posted by: Dandandat3

originally posted by: quintessentone
So getting back on topic. The last point I will be making here is what the reality seems to be here, that being: the right wing have long been at war with colleges.

Agreed.

Now, how long have colleges been at war with Republicans and conservatives?

It only makes sense that Republicans wouldn't shy away from that war.

What's new here is that AI and internet technology is hitting universities squarely in the "The Appeal to Authority" Fallacy. For a while now, information technology has hurt Academia's ability to hold a monopoly on information... now AI is giving the general public a means to scrutinize the works of Academia and we are finding they are not as ethical as they once pretended to be.

Hey, I'm all for scrutinizing authority and integrity, it's what I've been doing all my life, but deliberate targeting of any uni. official within a DEI framework is the red flag for me here.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Dandandat3

originally posted by: quintessentone
So getting back on topic. The last point I will be making here is what the reality seems to be here, that being: the right wing have long been at war with colleges.

Agreed.

Now, how long have colleges been at war with Republicans and conservatives?

It only makes sense that Republicans wouldn't shy away from that war.

What's new here is that AI and internet technology is hitting universities squarely in the "The Appeal to Authority" Fallacy. For a while now, information technology has hurt Academia's ability to hold a monopoly on information... now AI is giving the general public a means to scrutinize the works of Academia and we are finding they are not as ethical as they once pretended to be.

Hey, I'm all for scrutinizing authority and integrity, it's what I've been doing all my life, but deliberate targeting of any uni. official within a DEI framework is the red flag for me here.

Understood.

Why people target each other are many; and to me almost irrelevant. Don't want to be attracte, don't give others reasons to attack you.

a reply to: Dandandat3

Why is it that trying to hold someone, who should hold themselves to the highest standard, to a high standard considered targeting?

Should we not hold uni presidents, uni DEI officials, and any other highs ranking uni personnel to the highest standard? These are the people that are teaching and "molding" peoples minds and making them into something that can be productive in society.

I agree when you say "don't give others reason to attack you". If they were doing what they were supposed to be doing, there would have been no reason for anyone to bring up the fact that they plagiarized in the first place.

originally posted by: Dandandat3

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Dandandat3

originally posted by: quintessentone
So getting back on topic. The last point I will be making here is what the reality seems to be here, that being: the right wing have long been at war with colleges.

Agreed.

Now, how long have colleges been at war with Republicans and conservatives?

It only makes sense that Republicans wouldn't shy away from that war.

What's new here is that AI and internet technology is hitting universities squarely in the "The Appeal to Authority" Fallacy. For a while now, information technology has hurt Academia's ability to hold a monopoly on information... now AI is giving the general public a means to scrutinize the works of Academia and we are finding they are not as ethical as they once pretended to be.

Hey, I'm all for scrutinizing authority and integrity, it's what I've been doing all my life, but deliberate targeting of any uni. official within a DEI framework is the red flag for me here.

Understood.

Why people target each other are many; and to me almost irrelevant. Don't want to be attracte, don't give others reasons to attack you.

If standing up for one's rights is reason for others' to attack then that age old battle will always be there. In this case, the attacks are specific to those in positions within diversity.

originally posted by: quintessentone

With members like you it's a mountain to climb to make you see sense.

Sense?

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: FlyersFan

The corporation initially rallied behind Gay, saying a review of her scholarly work turned up “a few instances of inadequate citation” but no evidence of research misconduct. The allegations of plagiarism continued to surface through December and Gay resigned this month.

abcnews.go.com...

Seems like a nothing burger, but it is sparking a new debate on what exactly constitutes plagiarism.

Just google 'the blurred lines of (fill in the blank) re: plagarism and it's everywhere; music industry, academic integrity, universities...everywhere, so this debate is really needed.

People don't resign over nothing burgers lmfao

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Dandandat3

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Dandandat3

originally posted by: quintessentone
So getting back on topic. The last point I will be making here is what the reality seems to be here, that being: the right wing have long been at war with colleges.

Agreed.

Now, how long have colleges been at war with Republicans and conservatives?

It only makes sense that Republicans wouldn't shy away from that war.

What's new here is that AI and internet technology is hitting universities squarely in the "The Appeal to Authority" Fallacy. For a while now, information technology has hurt Academia's ability to hold a monopoly on information... now AI is giving the general public a means to scrutinize the works of Academia and we are finding they are not as ethical as they once pretended to be.

Hey, I'm all for scrutinizing authority and integrity, it's what I've been doing all my life, but deliberate targeting of any uni. official within a DEI framework is the red flag for me here.

Understood.

Why people target each other are many; and to me almost irrelevant. Don't want to be attracte, don't give others reasons to attack you.

If standing up for one's rights is reason for others' to attack then that age old battle will always be there. In this case, the attacks are specific to those in positions within diversity.

THERE it is. The race card. You should have been intellectually honest and said that from the beginning since you finally showed what your REAL point you were trying to make was.

originally posted by: BaddieMcBadass

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Dandandat3

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Dandandat3

originally posted by: quintessentone
So getting back on topic. The last point I will be making here is what the reality seems to be here, that being: the right wing have long been at war with colleges.

Agreed.

Now, how long have colleges been at war with Republicans and conservatives?

It only makes sense that Republicans wouldn't shy away from that war.

What's new here is that AI and internet technology is hitting universities squarely in the "The Appeal to Authority" Fallacy. For a while now, information technology has hurt Academia's ability to hold a monopoly on information... now AI is giving the general public a means to scrutinize the works of Academia and we are finding they are not as ethical as they once pretended to be.

Hey, I'm all for scrutinizing authority and integrity, it's what I've been doing all my life, but deliberate targeting of any uni. official within a DEI framework is the red flag for me here.

Understood.

Why people target each other are many; and to me almost irrelevant. Don't want to be attracte, don't give others reasons to attack you.

If standing up for one's rights is reason for others' to attack then that age old battle will always be there. In this case, the attacks are specific to those in positions within diversity.

THERE it is. The race card. You should have been intellectually honest and said that from the beginning since you finally showed what your REAL point you were trying to make was.

Liberals can’t see they are the racists . They want to use color to push their agenda . We should be colorblind by now but they keep bringing it up . Honestly it’s the republicans too because they are in the uni-party . The media sells the lies . One of the easiest ways to control a population is to divide them and they use race to do it . So in effect the poster you are replying to is actually the one trying to divide everyone by color and sex . It’s like they came from the 40’s . Take it with a grain of salt though . Springer told us all we need to know about why people come here and I’m not talking jerry .

originally posted by: jidnum2

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: FlyersFan

The corporation initially rallied behind Gay, saying a review of her scholarly work turned up “a few instances of inadequate citation” but no evidence of research misconduct. The allegations of plagiarism continued to surface through December and Gay resigned this month.

abcnews.go.com...

Seems like a nothing burger, but it is sparking a new debate on what exactly constitutes plagiarism.

Just google 'the blurred lines of (fill in the blank) re: plagarism and it's everywhere; music industry, academic integrity, universities...everywhere, so this debate is really needed.

People don't resign over nothing burgers lmfao

Sherri Ann Charleston did not resign.

originally posted by: Marxisttreaderom

originally posted by: BaddieMcBadass

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Dandandat3

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Dandandat3

originally posted by: quintessentone
So getting back on topic. The last point I will be making here is what the reality seems to be here, that being: the right wing have long been at war with colleges.

Agreed.

Now, how long have colleges been at war with Republicans and conservatives?

It only makes sense that Republicans wouldn't shy away from that war.

What's new here is that AI and internet technology is hitting universities squarely in the "The Appeal to Authority" Fallacy. For a while now, information technology has hurt Academia's ability to hold a monopoly on information... now AI is giving the general public a means to scrutinize the works of Academia and we are finding they are not as ethical as they once pretended to be.

Hey, I'm all for scrutinizing authority and integrity, it's what I've been doing all my life, but deliberate targeting of any uni. official within a DEI framework is the red flag for me here.

Understood.

Why people target each other are many; and to me almost irrelevant. Don't want to be attracte, don't give others reasons to attack you.

If standing up for one's rights is reason for others' to attack then that age old battle will always be there. In this case, the attacks are specific to those in positions within diversity.

THERE it is. The race card. You should have been intellectually honest and said that from the beginning since you finally showed what your REAL point you were trying to make was.

Liberals can’t see they are the racists . They want to use color to push their agenda . We should be colorblind by now but they keep bringing it up . Honestly it’s the republicans too because they are in the uni-party . The media sells the lies . One of the easiest ways to control a population is to divide them and they use race to do it . So in effect the poster you are replying to is actually the one trying to divide everyone by color and sex . It’s like they came from the 40’s . Take it with a grain of salt though . Springer told us all we need to know about why people come here and I’m not talking jerry .

You are right most people no matter their political affiliation can't see past their bias - and that is what is happening in this thread. No race card was being putting forth - what it is is what is all over the internet, and it's a right wing political agenda (as seen in Florida right now) to attack DEI, anywhere and everywhere. More like - not facing the right's - fixing society the way we want it to be card.

A culture war is going on and it needs to be brought out into the light.

In the ongoing Culture War, the concept of “Reversity” has emerged as a conservative strategy to counter Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives. This term, inspired by the insights of diversity expert Effenus Henderson, and from Derrick Bell’s metaphor “Faces at the Bottom of the Well,” Reversity reflects a centuries-old tactic of resisting social change, targeting DEI professionals, and silencing critical thinkers who advocate for more inclusive organizations.

effenus-henderson.medium.com...

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: quintessentone
It's more than that and you know it. What this thread is really about.

That's just Harvard covering it's own mess up by trying to insinuate racism/sexism and while trying to push the racist DEI crap on everyone.

Plagiarism and being promoted without being worthy of it is unethical. Kicking Harvard students out of school for doing the exact same thing that this Diversity Officer did ... that's beyond hypocritical and it's unforgivable.

And calling her a piece of # and others' negative posts about Harvard, before an independent panel investigates this case, speaks volumes about what this is really about.

More insinuations of racism and sexism. Predictable.

People are tired of the elites getting away with crap. People are tired of left wing DEI bullcrap whitewashing crimes and racism and sexism. They have a right to call out something as hypocritical and garbage when they see it, and not just accept Harvards sugar coating as 'right'.

Again, Harvard did not conduct the investigation an independent panel did on Gay, and will do so for Charleston.

This is actually only part true. In the articles you posted and doing a big of delving into how Harvard specifically handles this, they have an "independent panel", which based on other cases is actually previous subcommittee members who are no longer employed by Harvard, but were at some point, who fact check the allegations and give those checks to a subcommittee of Harvard employees who focus on this who investigate the facts and render a verdict to the board of Harvard. By their own admission they only covered the allegations of three of her works. In her defense, she self corrected 4 issues in her works, which means the intent is tricky.

My takeaways from all this:
1) is Gay being inept and not a thief actually that much better when talking about putting her in change of a school of learning?
2) Harvard does the bare minimum to use Independent as a statement of fact in something that seems extremely incestuous
3) We have a huge problem that one of these was her PHD work and no one caught it... do we have a bunch of people who actually did steal works and would we even know?

originally posted by: BigDuckEnergy

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: quintessentone
It's more than that and you know it. What this thread is really about.

That's just Harvard covering it's own mess up by trying to insinuate racism/sexism and while trying to push the racist DEI crap on everyone.

Plagiarism and being promoted without being worthy of it is unethical. Kicking Harvard students out of school for doing the exact same thing that this Diversity Officer did ... that's beyond hypocritical and it's unforgivable.

And calling her a piece of # and others' negative posts about Harvard, before an independent panel investigates this case, speaks volumes about what this is really about.

More insinuations of racism and sexism. Predictable.

People are tired of the elites getting away with crap. People are tired of left wing DEI bullcrap whitewashing crimes and racism and sexism. They have a right to call out something as hypocritical and garbage when they see it, and not just accept Harvards sugar coating as 'right'.

Again, Harvard did not conduct the investigation an independent panel did on Gay, and will do so for Charleston.

This is actually only part true. In the articles you posted and doing a big of delving into how Harvard specifically handles this, they have an "independent panel", which based on other cases is actually previous subcommittee members who are no longer employed by Harvard, but were at some point, who fact check the allegations and give those checks to a subcommittee of Harvard employees who focus on this who investigate the facts and render a verdict to the board of Harvard. By their own admission they only covered the allegations of three of her works. In her defense, she self corrected 4 issues in her works, which means the intent is tricky.

My takeaways from all this:
1) is Gay being inept and not a thief actually that much better when talking about putting her in change of a school of learning?
2) Harvard does the bare minimum to use Independent as a statement of fact in something that seems extremely incestuous
3) We have a huge problem that one of these was her PHD work and no one caught it... do we have a bunch of people who actually did steal works and would we even know?

I don't see you posting any snippets from the source to those claims just your opinion. Here is who was in that independent panel:

In that document, Harvard for the first time named the four members of a Harvard Corporation subcommittee formed to weigh the charges against Gay: Mariano-Florentino (Tino) Cuellar, former justice of the Supreme Court of California; former Amherst College President Biddy Martin; former Princeton University President Shirley Tilghman; and Theodore Wells, Jr, partner at the law firm Paul, Weiss.

ca.finance.yahoo.com...

What's important are the conclusions which found no academic plagiarism rather only citing mistakes. Also important is looking at an agenda by conservatives to target DEI programs and the people who run them.

I don't see any anonymous complaints being put forward at universities' officials other than those with DEI, so it's blatantly obvious what is going on here.

a reply to: quintessentone

Both Theodore Wells Jr and Biddy Martin are currently, or were in the past, part of the Harvard Corporation. (1 of 2 governing boards for Harvard)

Also, Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar attended Harvard.


Hard to not have a bias in that group....

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: quintessentone

Both Theodore Wells Jr and Biddy Martin are currently, or were in the past, part of the Harvard Corporation. (1 of 2 governing boards for Harvard)

Also, Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar attended Harvard.


Hard to not have a bias in that group....

Hard to not assume much isn't it?

a reply to: quintessentone

Hard not to see what is staring you in the face when you don't want to believe it


But, regardless, I was just giving you the information you asked for.