UPDATE: Surprising no one Harvard will not fire Claudine Gay and also investigated the allegations of plagiarism. While they found a few instances of poor citation they cleared her of plagiarism.
JUST IN - Harvard board "unanimously stand in support" of Claudine Gay. pic.twitter.com/J7R5OdGrpt— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) December 12, 2023
Further down he cites more instances of what he thinks is plagiarism.
First, Gay lifts an entire paragraph nearly verbatim from a paper by Lawrence Bobo and Franklin Gilliam’s, while passing it off as her own paraphrase and language.— Christopher F. Rufo (@realchrisrufo) December 10, 2023
This is a direct violation of Harvard's policy: "When you paraphrase, your task is to distill the source’s ideas… pic.twitter.com/t6enHp3dN9
It looks like he found her thesis and ran it through plagiarism detection software. The thing about such software is that it is a start, one must then look at the citations and references and use their own brain.
Third, Gay composes an entire appendix in the dissertation directly taken from Gary King's book, 'A Solution to the Ecological Inference Problem.' While she cites King’s book later in the appendix—in fact, King was her dissertation advisor—Gay does not explicitly acknowledge that… pic.twitter.com/WGZAzc6gUn— Christopher F. Rufo (@realchrisrufo) December 10, 2023
Why this is NOT plagiarism.
A sampling of the specific allegations. All credit for these images goes to Chris F Rufo by the way.
I will not pick apart each of these in detail. This one is enough to demonstrate that the one making the allegations has no idea what the word even means. She paraphrases, or quotes and cites them. Plagiarism would be this.
Had she written "I found that they play less attention to local politics ...." That's plagiarism. Citing the work of others
What other scholars think.
If this is the Lit review section- it is less concerning- the whole point of a Literature Review is to layout the case for her new research by “reviewing” the previous research in the field.— Kim (@mommavestor) December 11, 2023
Thus, in the lit review the ideas are not your own, but rather the previous research…
eh, I don't get how this is quite a bombshell. A slightly sloppy lit review? sure. Show me where she habitually passes off others' ideas as her own without citations?— Thayne Currie (@AstroThayne) December 11, 2023
To be fair another outlet claims she plagiarized other things.
I wish she'd done serious plagiarism, but I'm not persuaded by this.— Michael Bailey (@profjmb) December 10, 2023
One of the works that allegedly contains plagiarism here is this essay. https://origins.osu.edu/sites/default/files/2021-09/Volume1Issue4Article2.pdf Looking at the website this looks kin to a magazine newspaper or a blog. The standards for citations in such a publication are much looser. No one is going to look at half a page of citations for such a thing. https://origins.osu.edu/ . I include references in my blogs in a number of ways. Sometimes very formal, sometimes with in text links as is standard on the informal internet. It depends on how formal the source is. IF it is a source that is a peer reviewed publication, I will cite a full reference. Seeing as this was a printed newsletter like item from years ago. Those to my recollection rarely if ever had references of any kind.
okay, this thread cites a bunch of other instances. The sticking point for me was if she cited the original sources in some way. If she gives no citation at all, as this thread claims, then bad. Otherwise, just a sloppy lit review.https://t.co/J2WJcN5as1— Thayne Currie (@AstroThayne) December 11, 2023
A personal example of not plagiarism.
For example, the concepts in " A Postquantum Theory of Classical Gravity? Jonathan Oppenheim Phys. Rev. X 13, 041040 – Published 4 December 2023". If I was a hack I would claim that the very concept of not quantizing gravity but trying to make quantum compatible with relativity instead was my idea first. (Cite as: Hontas Farmer. Fundamentals of Relativization. Authorea. June 11, 2015. DOI: 10.15200/winn.141487.76774). His specific idea of how this would work is different enough, and as I said in the sciences, we are all studying the same phenomena so it is likely that different people will reach the same conclusion.
Indeed, it is the best validation in theoretical physics short of direct experimental testing. Though a citation would've been nice, I published in an obscure journal and also gave some APS talks. At most I loosened the jar which has now been opened.
Part of my job as a professor is to teach people what plagiarism is and is not. Restating someone's idea with attribution is not plagiarism. Having the same idea independently is not plagiarism. Presenting the work of someone else as being your own work IS plagiarism.
Plagiarism is a serious allegation. As one will see in the original thread responses on Twitter no serious scholar, left, right, or center thinks this is plagiarism. It simply is not plagiarism.
Christopher F Rufo's Tweets see above.
Updated to note that Claudine Gay has on 1/2/2024 resigned but not because of plagiarism. The idea that she had plagiarized became more important that if it was or was not plagiarism. Let me put in this way IF what she did was Plagiarism then Johnathan Oppenhiem plagiarized me by taking my idea with attribution and elaborating on it. (Which is not plagiarism people who study the same natural phenomenon are apt to come to similar conclusions. In real hard natural science this is well known.) The best non woke, non left, take on this was in this tweet.
Another great take from a very pro Israel voice on Twitter.
Claudine Gay is a fool who never should have been hired. She is part of the woke establishment that is destroying universities in the US.— Bruce Fenton (@brucefenton) January 2, 2024
But I don’t cheer for her resignation because it is the result of pressure by the worse types of cancel culture censors who seek to…
Harvard's president, Claudine Gay, has just announced that she will be resigning.— Hen Mazzig (@HenMazzig) January 2, 2024
Dr. Gay has been heavily criticized for her response to Hamas' October 7th attacks and her refusal to condemn calls for Jewish genocide.
I'm sure all of you expect me to go on here and do a happy… pic.twitter.com/K6sQgb1YnX