Letters to the Editor: Claudine Gay’s ‘inadequate citation’ sure looks like plagiarism
To the editor: While reading your article on Claudine Gay’s resignation as Harvard’s president, the specter of plagiarism was noted.
Allegations regarding her dissertation were apparently not regarded as misconduct (i.e. plagiarism) but only a “few instances of inadequate citation.” The article noted that additional instances of “duplicative language without appropriate attribution” had been brought to light.
This seems like Harvard was trying to acknowledge plagiarism without actually having to say it out loud.
Thinking I might be missing something, I looked up the definition of plagiarism in the dictionary. Gay’s instances of alleged plagiarism would seem to precisely fit the definition, despite the Harvard board’s verbal tip toe routine.
I also reviewed online summaries of Harvard’s undergraduate and graduate policies regarding plagiarism. For undergrads, a single instance might not result in expulsion, but expulsion was not off the table. For graduate students, the bar is high, with plagiarism ordinarily resulting in expulsion.
Your article implied Gay’s resignation was simply the result of a conservative witch hunt, and I got no sense that this tenured professor was likely to get anything other than a mild slap on the wrist.
Gerald Swanson, Long Beach
..
To the editor: So leaders in the movement against cancel culture are rejoicing in the resignation of Harvard’s president because her answers to a congressional committee were not “woke” enough.
What will happen to the presidential candidate who can’t say “slavery”?
Lorraine Priceman, Woodland Hills
..
To the editor: The treatment that Gay received during her appearance before a congressional panel was abhorrent. It was totally political and went far beyond any sense of common decency.
Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) demanded simple answers in response to her rather complicated, loaded questions. She also interrupted Gay several times during the proceedings. This shows contempt for the person you are talking too. Gay’s appearance at the hearing was a courtesy, not a requirement.
Is this the new reality, that anybody called to appear before Congress can expect to be dispassionately grilled? Will future “witnesses” speak only with armies of lawyers coaching every word, gesture, sniffle, throat clearing, eye blink, whatever?
How does this help democracy in the United States?
Patrick Sullivan, Reseda
..
To the editor: It’s people like Gay and her apologists and defenders who make otherwise decent citizens turn to politicians like Donald Trump.
Fletcher Goldin, Orange
