Harvard Diversity Officer Accused of 40 Counts of Plagiarism

originally posted by: FlyersFan

... which is plagiarism.

And are they 'mistakes' or are they intentional. At that level people know how to write papers correctly so it's highly doubtful that 40 times were just 'mistakes'. Either way .. it's plagiarism.

Back in the day, people would spend more time ensuring their citations were correct than the time spent on the original parts of their work. Moving forward past 2000 there should be zero excuses as computers/the internet made it all that easier to accomplish, moving past 2010 it should be pretty much a simple task to do unless you want the words to appear as your own.

I think it is a mix of people just not that smart where they can write something good, or they are just lazy and don't really care as they are obviously not held accountable. Dr. Jill Biden's Ph.D. paper is said to read as a 3rd grader wrote it, I wonder if her citations are correct.

originally posted by: quintessentone

In this specific case it is not rewriting the rules, it's understanding the rules and how they apply that seems to be at issue, especially with antisemitism (a sensitive subject). Hundreds of Harvard academics stood by her side, the side of right, they believe.

We do know that many/most academics live in these isolated bubbles that have breeded levels of extremism, so to say 100s stood by their side is most likely true while also saying 100s were wrong in their actions. You are 100% correct things like this are not one-offs, they are norms of academia.

originally posted by: network dude

and until then, they will argue over what the meaning of "is" is. You can't fix stupid.

When Clinton did that I would have looked at the transcripts and said Mr. President you have used the word "is" correctly 2346 times so it is safe to assume you understand the meaning of it.

a reply to: FlyersFan

Did you read this?

In response, Harvard Corp., the university’s governing board, appointed a four-person subcommittee that included Shirley Tilghman, a former Princeton University president, and former justice of the Supreme Court of California, Mariano-Florentino Cuellar, to direct an investigation. They, along with an independent panel of political scientists, reviewed the claims.

They found some instances of inadequate citation, but no violations of school policy or instances of research misconduct, according to the statement. Gay submitted several corrections.

www.bnnbloomberg.ca...

It was the only way for her to overcome White supremacy which forces them to break the rules to be hired as staff. She is now going to sue for the University forcing her in to that position that treats her as a "slave" and triggers past life memories of her on plantations for 13 generations.

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: FlyersFan

Did you read this?

In response, Harvard Corp., the university’s governing board, appointed a four-person subcommittee that included Shirley Tilghman, a former Princeton University president, and former justice of the Supreme Court of California, Mariano-Florentino Cuellar, to direct an investigation. They, along with an independent panel of political scientists, reviewed the claims.

They found some instances of inadequate citation, but no violations of school policy or instances of research misconduct, according to the statement. Gay submitted several corrections.

www.bnnbloomberg.ca...

define plagiarism.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: FlyersFan

Did you read this?

In response, Harvard Corp., the university’s governing board, appointed a four-person subcommittee that included Shirley Tilghman, a former Princeton University president, and former justice of the Supreme Court of California, Mariano-Florentino Cuellar, to direct an investigation. They, along with an independent panel of political scientists, reviewed the claims.

They found some instances of inadequate citation, but no violations of school policy or instances of research misconduct, according to the statement. Gay submitted several corrections.

www.bnnbloomberg.ca...

define plagiarism.

I don't have to because the Harvard academics have taken up that task.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: network dude

and until then, they will argue over what the meaning of "is" is. You can't fix stupid.

When Clinton did that I would have looked at the transcripts and said Mr. President you have used the word "is" correctly 2346 times so it is safe to assume you understand the meaning of it.

that was the first shot fired in clown world takeover. things have escalated. We now have this, people trying to redefine words to fit their sad pathetic world views.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: FlyersFan

Did you read this?

In response, Harvard Corp., the university’s governing board, appointed a four-person subcommittee that included Shirley Tilghman, a former Princeton University president, and former justice of the Supreme Court of California, Mariano-Florentino Cuellar, to direct an investigation. They, along with an independent panel of political scientists, reviewed the claims.

They found some instances of inadequate citation, but no violations of school policy or instances of research misconduct, according to the statement. Gay submitted several corrections.

www.bnnbloomberg.ca...

define plagiarism.

I don't have to because the Harvard academics have taken up that task.

so you no longer have to think for yourself. Waiter, check please! I think we have found the root causes Harris has been looking for.

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.

Or they could just stop being dishonest (for a change). I know, it's not that profitable or advantageous to their careers, but they might for once set the right example for those I have conversed with lately in the thread about atheism and morality.

Chasing a succesful career in the sciences or education is like chasing after the wind anyway. Solomon, a king and educator in ancient times, said: “I set my heart to study and explore with wisdom everything that has been done under the heavens—the miserable occupation that God has given to the sons of men that keeps them occupied. I saw all the works that were done under the sun, and look! everything was futile, a chasing after the wind. What is crooked cannot be made straight, and what is lacking cannot possibly be counted. Then I said in my heart: “Look! I have acquired great wisdom, more than anyone who was before me in Jerusalem, and my heart gained a great deal of wisdom and knowledge.” I applied my heart to knowing wisdom and to knowing madness* [Or “extreme foolishness.”] and to knowing folly, and this too is a chasing after the wind. For an abundance of wisdom brings an abundance of frustration, so that whoever increases knowledge increases pain.” (Ecclesiastes 1:13-18)

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: FlyersFan

Did you read this?

In response, Harvard Corp., the university’s governing board, appointed a four-person subcommittee that included Shirley Tilghman, a former Princeton University president, and former justice of the Supreme Court of California, Mariano-Florentino Cuellar, to direct an investigation. They, along with an independent panel of political scientists, reviewed the claims.

They found some instances of inadequate citation, but no violations of school policy or instances of research misconduct, according to the statement. Gay submitted several corrections.

www.bnnbloomberg.ca...

The left loves putting foxes in charge of the henhouse.

originally posted by: whereislogic

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.

Or they could just stop being dishonest. I know, it's not that profitable or advantageous to their careers, but they might for once set the right example for those I have conversed with lately in the thread about atheism and morality.

Chasing a succesful career in the sciences or education is like chasing after the wind anyway. Solomon, a king and educator in ancient times, said: “I set my heart to study and explore with wisdom everything that has been done under the heavens—the miserable occupation that God has given to the sons of men that keeps them occupied. I saw all the works that were done under the sun, and look! everything was futile, a chasing after the wind. What is crooked cannot be made straight, and what is lacking cannot possibly be counted. Then I said in my heart: “Look! I have acquired great wisdom, more than anyone who was before me in Jerusalem, and my heart gained a great deal of wisdom and knowledge.” I applied my heart to knowing wisdom and to knowing madness* [Or “extreme foolishness.”] and to knowing folly, and this too is a chasing after the wind. For an abundance of wisdom brings an abundance of frustration, so that whoever increases knowledge increases pain.” (Ecclesiastes 1:13-18)

It all has to do with context, conduct and political science, in this specific case.

originally posted by: quintessentone
I don't have to because the Harvard academics have taken up that task.

They are trying to move the goal posts that have been in place for decades and decades, and accepted world wide, all to protect their minority elite membership.

I already gave links to what plagiarism is. Harvard itself has even produced a guide saying what it is. To try to rewrite the definition in order to cover for a black female elite who plagiarized is unethical and dishonest.

Harvard guide to using sources

Five Types of Plagiarism With Examples

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: quintessentone
I don't have to because the Harvard academics have taken up that task.

They are trying to move the goal posts that have been in place for decades and decades, and accepted world wide, all to protect their minority elite membership.

I already gave links to what plagiarism is. Harvard itself has even produced a guide saying what it is. To try to rewrite the definition in order to cover for a black female elite who plagiarized is unethical and dishonest.

Harvard guide to using sources

Five Types of Plagiarism With Examples

Well University academics disagree with you ... moving forward now.

originally posted by: quintessentone
Well University academics disagree with you ... .

Um ... no. HARVARD academics are trying to rewrite the definition. The rest of the world full of academics, who have followed the rules for decades, are not disagreeing. Harvard is scrambling and desperate. What constitutes plagiarism has been known and established for decades and decades, and those rules have been well established and followed and agreed upon.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: quintessentone
Well University academics disagree with you ... .

Um ... no. HARVARD academics are trying to rewrite the definition. The rest of the world full of academics, who have followed the rules for decades, are not disagreeing. Harvard is scrambling and desperate. What constitutes plagiarism has been known and established for decades and decades, and those rules have been well established and followed and agreed upon.

Let me show you what this is all about, you don't seem to have a grasp on it.

Plagiarism includes a broad range of possible offenses, from improperly placing a citation to claiming credit for another scholar’s research or insight, and individual institutions develop their own policies for evaluating and responding to allegations of research misconduct.

www.washingtonpost.com...

a reply to: quintessentone

nothing burger my ass.

from the link you posted,

The panel, however, concluded that nine of 25 allegations found by the Post were “of principal concern" and featured “paraphrased or reproduced the language of others without quotation marks and without sufficient and clear crediting of sources.” It also found one instance where “fragments of duplicative language and paraphrasing" by Gay could be interpreted as her taking credit for another academic's work, though there isn't any evidence that was her aim.

so a 1/3 of the allegations were a principal concern.


cherry picking your quotes, should have known

originally posted by: quintessentone

It all has to do with context, conduct and political science, in this specific case.

Nah, it's ...

Dishonesty gets you ahead, the better you are at it, the closer you'll get to those juicy positions at Harvard, or Fauci's seat.

Fraud in Science—Why It’s on the Increase (Awake!—1990)

“THE competition is savage. Winners reap monumental rewards; losers face oblivion. It’s an atmosphere in which an illicit shortcut is sometimes irresistible​—not least because the Establishment is frequently squeamish about confronting wrongdoing.” So opened the article “Publish or Perish​—or Fake It” in U.S.News & World Report. To escape perishing, many scientific researchers are faking it.

The pressure on scientists to publish in scientific journals is overwhelming. The longer the list of published papers to the researcher’s name, the better his chances for employment, promotion, tenure in a university, and government grants to finance his research. The federal government “controls the largest source of research funding, $5.6 [thousand million] a year from the National Institutes of Health.”

Because “the scientific community shows little stomach for confronting its ethical dilemma,” “has been strangely reluctant to probe too deeply for hard data about its ethical conduct,” and “isn’t keen about cleaning house or even looking closely for malfeasance,” congressional committees have held hearings and considered legislation to do the job of policing for them. (New Scientist; U.S.News & World Report) This prospect wrings from scientists much wailing and gnashing of teeth. Yet, one science journal asks and answers the question: “Is the house of science clean and in order? The bit of evidence that reaches the public invites serious doubts.”

Some researchers eliminate data that does not support what they want to prove (called cooking); report more tests or trials than were actually run (called trimming); appropriate for their own use data or ideas of other researchers (called plagiarism); and make up experiments or data they never performed or produced (called forging). A cartoon in a science journal poked fun at this last tactic, one scientist talking to another and saying of a third: ‘He’s published a lot since he took up that creative writing course.’

“What’s the major product of scientific research these days? Answer: Paper,” U.S.News & World Report said. “Hundreds of new journals are being founded each year to handle the flood of research papers cranked out by scientists who know that the road to academic success is a long list of articles to their credit.” Quantity, not quality, is the goal. Forty thousand journals published yearly produce a million articles, and part of this flood “is symptomatic of fundamental ills, including a publish-​or-​perish ethic among researchers that is stronger now than ever and encourages shoddy, repetitive, useless or even fraudulent work.”

A senior editor at The Journal of the American Medical Association, Dr. Drummond Rennie, commented on the lack of quality: “There seems to be no study too fragmented, no hypothesis too trivial, no literature citation too biased or too egotistical, no design too warped, no methodology too bungled, no presentation of results too inaccurate, too obscure, and too contradictory, no analysis too self-​serving, no argument too circular, no conclusions too trifling or too unjustified, and no grammar and syntax too offensive for a paper to end up in print.”

Making Mountains out of Molehills

The publish-​or-​perish syndrome has made many researchers very resourceful in nursing a modest output of published articles into phenomenal numbers. They write one article, then chop it up into four smaller ones​—called salami slicing in the jargon of the profession. In this way, instead of a publication credit for one article, they have four articles added to their publications list. Then they may send the same article to several journals, and each time it is published, it is counted again. More often than not, one article may show several scientists as authors, and each author adds the article to his list of published articles. A two- or three-​page article may show 6, 8, 10, 12, or more authors.

On the NOVA program entitled “Do Scientists Cheat?” telecast on October 25, 1988, one scientist commented on this practice: “People are trying to get their names attached to as many publications as they possibly can, so that very commonly now you find huge teams where 16 people all sign their name to a particular publication, which probably wasn’t worth publishing in the first place. But this is part of a kind of rat race, a competitiveness, a vulgar quantitative counting mentality that is absolutely encouraged by the structure of science in the United States today.” Some listed as coauthors may have had very little to do with the article, may not even have read it, yet add the article to their list of publications. Such bloated lists influence the granting of research requests involving hundreds of thousands of dollars of public funds.

Peer Review, a Safeguard Against Fraud?

Editors of science journals often​—but not always—​submit papers to other scientists for review before publishing them. This practice, called peer review, theoretically weeds out erroneous and fraudulent articles. “Science is self-​correcting in a way that no other field of intellectual endeavor can match,” Isaac Asimov says. “Science is self-​policing in a way that no other field is.” He marveled that “scandal is so infrequent.”

But many others do not share this view. Peer review is “a lousy way to detect fraud,” said previously quoted Dr. Drummond Rennie. The American Medical News said: “Peer-reviewed journals, once regarded as almost infallible, have had to admit that they are incapable of eradicating fraud.” “Peer review has been oversold,” said a medical writer and columnist for The New York Times.

The journal Science reports that one researcher assigned to review another researcher’s paper was charged with plagiarism. He “took data from paper he peer-​reviewed and used it for his own work,” according to the NIH (National Institutes of Health). Such conduct is a “violation of trust that is supposed to lie at the heart of the peer-​review system,” and in this particular case, the reviewer has been declared “ineligible for future federal funding.”

“For high-​octane gall in proclaiming its ethical purity, the scientific community has long been the runaway winner,” said New Scientist magazine. The highly vaunted peer-​review system that theoretically screens out all the cheats is felt by many to be a farce. “The reality,” New Scientist said, “is that few scientific scoundrels are caught, but, when they are, they frequently turn out to have been running wild for years, publishing faked data in respectable journals, with no questions asked.”

Previously, an official of the NIH said, as reported in The New York Times: “I think an age of innocence has ended. In the past people assumed that scientists didn’t do this kind of thing. But people are beginning to realize that scientists are not morally superior to anybody else.” The Times report added: “Although a few years ago it was rare for the National Institutes of Health to receive one complaint a year of alleged fraud, she said, there are now at least two serious allegations a month.” Science magazine observed: “Scientists have repeatedly assured the public that fraud and misconduct in research are rare . . . And yet, significant cases seem to keep cropping up.”

The chairman of one of the congressional investigating committees, John Dingell, at one time said to scientists: “I will tell you that I find your enforcement mechanisms are hopelessly inadequate and that rascality seems to be triumphing over virtue in many incidences in a fashion that I find totally unacceptable. I hope you do too.”

The NOVA program on “Do Scientists Cheat?” concluded with this acknowledgment by one of the scientists present: “Skeletons have to come out of the closets, bureaucrats’ careers have to be impaired if that’s what it takes, and there’s no alternative. This is ethically required, this is legally required, and it’s certainly morally required.”

Fraud in Science—A Greater Fraud (Awake!—1990)

...

“EVOLUTION is a fact.” This is the standard confession of faith that assures the scientific community of your orthodoxy. And for public consumption, the claim is often added: ‘It has been proved so often that there is no longer a need to repeat the proof.’ Very convenient, especially since the evolutionist has no proof to repeat. Yet, for years the statement has been made again and again, like some mystical chant: “Evolution is a fact.”

In April last year, in a book review in The New York Times Book Review magazine, biologist Richard Dawkins wrote: “We are here talking about the fact of evolution itself, a fact that is proved utterly beyond reasonable doubt.” He then said that to consider creation “in biology classes is about as sensible as to claim equal time for the flat-​earth theory in astronomy classes. Or, as someone has pointed out, you might as well claim equal time in sex education classes for the stork theory. It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).”

Stephen Jay Gould wrote an essay on evolution in the January 1987 issue of the science magazine Discover. Intent on overkill, in this five-​page article he proclaimed evolution to be a fact 12 times! Excerpts from the article follow: ... At one point in the article, Gould said: “I don’t want to sound like a shrill dogmatist shouting ‘rally round the flag boys,’ but biologists have reached a consensus . . . about the fact of evolution.” But really, does that not sound like “a shrill dogmatist shouting ‘rally round the flag boys’”? ...

There's more, I stopped around halfway down the page.

a reply to: FlyersFan

Mantra of the left, "we screwed up so we are going to change definitions and move goalpost all day long to make it to where we are in the clear"

People defending this are also those that are going to see everything that Trump does as evil and he should be thrown in jail and fined till his last breathe, but the second someone else does the exact same thing it's all okay.

originally posted by: BernnieJGato
a reply to: quintessentone

nothing burger my ass.

from the link you posted,

The panel, however, concluded that nine of 25 allegations found by the Post were “of principal concern" and featured “paraphrased or reproduced the language of others without quotation marks and without sufficient and clear crediting of sources.” It also found one instance where “fragments of duplicative language and paraphrasing" by Gay could be interpreted as her taking credit for another academic's work, though there isn't any evidence that was her aim.

so a 1/3 of the allegations were a principal concern.


cherry picking your quotes, should have known

... of principal concern... and their findings? No evidence that was her aim. Intent is everything.