Claudine Gay is a pseudointellectual who specialises in being a Diverse Black Female Academic. She first served as a Diverse Black Female Academic at Stanford University, before leaving to become a Diverse Black Female Academic at Harvard University. In 2018, Harvard decided it would be even more Diverse of it to make Gay the Diverse Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, and in 2023 it thought it could achieve a new pinnacle of Diversity by making her its first Diverse Black Female President. Because Gay’s importance derives entirely from being a Diverse Black Female Academic, she is an underqualified mediocrity, and she has never published anything interesting. In fact, relative to the average tenured Harvard professor, she has never published much of anything at all.
Like a lot of overpromoted mediocrities, Gay does not do her job very well. A mere four months into her presidency, she was drawing fire for her hesitancy to condemn the Hamas attacks on Israel and facing a secret plagiarism inquiry by her university. A month later, her inept answers to questions from U.S. Congresswoman Elise Stefanik on whether calls for Jewish genocide would violate Harvard conduct codes led to sudden calls for her resignation. While the Harvard Corporation considered whether to fire her, friend-of-the-blog Christopher Rufo and Chris Brunet broke the plagiarism story on his Substack. On Wednesday, Harvard finally cleared her of charges of academic wrongdoing and announced she would stay in office, but new plagiarism accusations just keep coming, like a great deluge. There are now so many that I have trouble keeping track of them all, but this Free Beacon article uncovers some of the most damning instances.
EXCLUSIVE: @PhilWMagness has discovered that Harvard president Claudine Gay plagiarized material in another academic paper. This makes five total papers—nearly half of her entire scholarly output.
— Christopher F. Rufo
In her 2001 APSR paper, "The Effect of Black Congressional Representation on… pic.twitter.com/CNUYjxC3FK(@realchrisrufo) December 13, 2023
Because academia is full of craven and cowardly people on the one hand, and malicious politically motivated people on the other hand, Gay has no shortage of defenders. I am not going to quote them because their statements are stupid and indefensible. Even some of the scholars Gay has plagiarised insist she is not guilty of plagiarism, though a growing number have come forward to state the obvious.
Three prominent scholars have now come forward to say that Claudine Gay's use of their work amounts to "plagiarism." The Harvard student newspaper found that Gay violated the university's own standard of academic integrity. And the NYP reports that Harvard tried to cover it up. pic.twitter.com/KAMKaF7f4I
— Christopher F. Rufo
What Gay has done in her dissertation and across at least five of her meagre career-total 11 papers is obviously plagiarism, and students at Harvard are very aware that they would be suspended for infractions like these. Gay’s job is not to be a good President or a good scholar, however. Her job is to be a black female president and a black female scholar, and for this reason Harvard will try to keep her around.
Many people believe plagiarism to be the wholesale theft of the papers and ideas of others, because this is the common approach of unsophisticated undergraduates who have not even read the books they’re supposed to be writing about. That is not, however, the only way to plagiarise, and it is emphatically not how scholars plagiarise. Gay has committed the absolutely typical garden-variety plagiarism of a scholar. This involves the unattributed use of the words and phrases of others, as well as the broader appropriation of their original ideas without citation. I used to be a professor, I have published various books and articles, and for a while I even edited a journal. I know many students and the odd academic who have faced serious consequences for offences much lesser than Gay’s. I have also, somewhat to my amusement, had my own work plagiarised by a very well-regarded and senior scholar.
Accused plagiarists commonly plead that their lapses arise from simple mistakes of note-taking, and Gay has accordingly pledged to request “corrections” for “omitted” “citations and quotation marks.”
Perhaps there is a way to achieve the wide-scale unintentional theft of others’ words via some bizarre practice of secretarial slovenliness, but personally I can’t imagine how that would happen. In truth, most academic plagiarism seems to arise from one of two motives.
Type 1 plagiarism reflects an anxiety about the project of composing competent prose and an inability to command the tone and terminology that journals and dissertation evaluators expect. I guess that if you are so intellectually under-equipped that you can’t differentiate between what is standard terminology and what are the original words of your peers, you could accidentally plagiarise, but being this incompetent is hardly an exoneration. This is why intent doesn’t matter.
Gay definitely seems guilty of Type 1 plagiarism. Consider this instance from the original article by Rufo and Brunet:
Gay is unable to use her own words to summarise her source. We can tell this is not an instance of forgotten quotation marks, because she has lightly retouched the passage, in one case switching out “blacks” for the more fashionable “African Americans” and in a second case changing “to” to “towards.” (More syllables means more scholarly for somebody like Gay.) You would not do this if your intent was merely to quote somebody else. How are you supposed to de-plagiarise this borrowing? Like this:
“Using 1987… survey data,” Bobo and Gilliam found that African-Americans “in high black-empowerment areas — as indicated by control of the Mayor’s office — are more active than either” African-Americans “in low empowerment areas or their white counterparts of comparable socioeconomic status.” “Empowerment,” they conclude, “influences black participation by contributing to a more trusting and efficacious orientation” towards “politics and by greatly increasing black attentiveness to political affairs.”
To be clear: Gay cites Bobo and Gilliam and is not overtly deceptive in this instance. Especially in light of the relaxed standards to which the Diverse are subject, she would not go down for this. Here, however, we’re merely attempting a diagnosis, and it’s clear that Gay doesn’t have either the energy or the ability to compose an independent summary of her source.
This Free Beacon revelation is much worse:
Palmquist and Voss are commenting on data in which “the average turnout rate” decreases. Gay is commenting on different data in which “the average turnout rate” increases. Nevertheless, she has appropriated the entire phraseology of Palmquist and Voss for her own totally different discussion. There is no way that this can be a mistake; on no planet is it appropriate to repurpose a statement in elucidation of one thing in service of elucidating a separate thing. Gay simply doesn’t command the elementary statistical vocabulary to discuss these ideas, so she has taken it from other people who do. This is a Harvard University President.
Because Type 1 plagiarism is very easy to find via word-searches, it is the most commonly uncovered. Type 2 plagiarism, which consists not of petty word theft but of the broader appropriation of others’ theses and ideas, is much more insidious. To identify it, you generally have to be well-versed in the literature of the field and its various debates. I am not about to spend the next six months reading books and articles on black political representation to convict Gay of Type 2 violations, but happily, it seems that is unnecessary. Rufo has just published an interview with Carol Swain, against whom Gay has committed various Type 1 offences. There, we find that Swain has this to say:
What is bothering me is not just that there’s passages she didn’t put in quotation marks. When I look at her work, I feel like her whole research agenda, her whole career, was based on my work. It bothers me because I know that my work was a big deal in the early 1990s. And I started falling out of favour in 1995 when I started criticising race-based affirmative action. I thought affirmative action should be means-tested and race-neutral. When I started putting those ideas out, that’s when I started falling out of favour and getting labelled as a conservative, even while I was a Democrat, and blacks started attacking me, calling me a “sellout”. [emphasis added]
In other words: Swain’s work fell into obscurity after she went politically off-message. As people stopped reading her books and papers, Gay swooped in to appropriate her “whole research agenda” and make it her own. This is how you’d expect an untalented unoriginal Type 2 plagiarist, bereft of all originality and ideas, to proceed.
Gay is an obvious, blatant incompetent, and anybody who defends this is either a malign actor or a snivelling craven academic loser. If she wants to stay in education, she should resign and find a job teaching in obscurity at an elementary school somewhere.
This piece originally appeared on Eugyppius’s Substack newsletter. You can subscribe here.
Stop Press: Peter Wood, President of the National Association of Scholars, has written a piece about the Claudine Gay plagiarism scandal in which he argues she has ‘woke immunity’. Well worth a read.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
And should never have been promoted in the way that they were, all over the world. Certainly, in the UK, there has been an awful lot of blatant lying about the safety and efficacy of the product on offer.
I agree that it has exposed the nature of the political and industrial organisations behind it. It will be a long haul to rearrange that so as to benefit mankind.
And this brief statement by Malhotra is still live on 13/1/21: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2M6Q5nStRQ&list=WL&index=3
There was a lengthy document issued by the WHO on how to combat vax hesitancy. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/352029/WHO-EURO-2022-3471-43230-60590-eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Must have cost a fortune.
Haven’t read it and I don’t particularly care to (though appreciate the link), but I’d wager there’s nothing in there that encourages transparency in the whole pharmaceutical medical / media complex (obvious conflicts of interest by those disseminating the advice, let alone the regulators’ own income stream) – if they weren’t so flippant and disingenuous over people’s genuine concerns by simultaneously running a gaslighting campaign of misinfo (yes, misinformation) to misdirect and obfuscate the clear and provable signal of vaccine harm, even death.
Is it no wonder there’s “vaccine hesitancy”? Besides, what’s wrong with being hesitant over an admitted novel medicine of which has never been widely distributed until now – essentially a final phase of an experimental trial. Given what we now know, the risk vs reward was neither calculated correctly nor explained in any detail, only because of our irrational fear over a virus with a 99.9% survival rate made this ‘intervention’ appear justified.
And this rearrangement will never happen. As an example the UK public inquiry will find that there was nothing else we could have done, no individual was culpable in any way but lessons will be learnt.
I wish Johan and his peers well in this endeavour. But I do wonder if any of them used any common sense from the beginning of all this horror…
Better late than never. At the end of the day if more doctors, scientists and other professionals with clout don’t find it in themselves to speak out then we can never expect change. Everybody’s individual red-pill experience is different, but I think when people see that others are speaking out then it will encourage them to do so and they’ll find the courage. Especially if they know that there’s people who will have their backs. A year ago being a dissenter was a lonely place to be, which made you more vulnerable and easier to ignore, but I take heart that there seems to be more and more joining the ranks now.
Absolutely, Mogs. Couldn’t agree more. And you’re right to point out that it stings the lonely amateurs with no “relevant credentials” who have been pointing this out for years already… years.
Mogwai, being a dissenter nearly three years ago was a very, very lonely place to be…
Back in March 2020, The BMJ published my rapid response challenging ‘future fast-tracked vaccine products’…but I didn’t notice many members of the medical and scientific establishment questioning the ‘vaccine solution’ – why not? Why weren’t these people equipped to call out this proposed mass population medical intervention against a disease it was known wasn’t a serious threat to most people? Why is the Church of Vaccination a no go area for questioning?
FYI, here’s my rapid response published in March 2020:
Amen. Even the GBD and PANDA at first partially took the blue pill for the first two doses in regards to the most vulnerable folks (but no one else).
I recently watched a documentary on the rise to power of the Bolsheviks in Russia.
They were a very small group of people but they managed to take control of Russia through a combination of opportunism, taking control of key places, ruthless elimination of opposition and the very quick build up of a network of soviets throughout Russia.
One thing that stood out was the incredible speed with which they acted, changing laws and taking over key elements of society.
What struck me is how much it reminded of me of the blitz that we were subjected to at the beginning of 2020 and for the next 3 years – like a deliberate, well planned revolution.
The first few years of the Bolshevik take over involved a civil war as a result of a reactionary push back from “white” Russians. The push back failed as we all know. The Bolsheviks had advanced too far too quickly.
I really hope we have better luck pushing back the global bio-security revolution of 2020.
It doesn’t look good. Who is rallying behind Andrew Bridgen? Which official institutions are backing up these groups of doctors sounding the alarm?
My sense tells me that whilst ordinary people are broadly sceptical now of much of this bio-security, the major state institutions and its leaders are so all completely up to their necks, participating in this revolution and the crimes associated with it, that there are simply not enough levers of power left to fight back with.
It’s why many people refer to it as a Plandemic. It was clearly carefully planned and coordinated at a Global Level.
Definitely. 20 years in planning. G20 coordination was so obvious that only the truly oblivious missed it. Endless money into propaganda and paying the various institutions to support the new totalitarianism. A ‘virus’ – unseen, ghostly, small, fast, deadly supposedly – is the perfect ‘enemy’ and excuse isn’t it, to establish a bio security Fascist state. 2025 ‘contagion plandemic’ is already in planning by Kill Gates et al. No doubt smirking and snarking at the febrililty and cowardice of the sheeple.
When you dig out the foundations of the tower in time it will collapse.
We must keep digging.
I think this is great and am very encouraged that people are banding together, searching their consciences, following the actual science and finding the courage to speak out in opposition to this blatant madness that cannot be allowed to go on for yet another year.
As an aside, this is very interesting. And I note the part where they state that both Ivermectin and HDQ were identified as curative against SARS-CoV-2 back in April 2020. No wonder they went mental suppressing the evidence that they were effective and censoring doctors who were trying to share this information. No raking in of mega-bucks by the billion if the masses had gotten wind of the truth, plus there would have been a massive outcry if it were found out these treatments were being deliberately withheld whilst people were forced to wait months for the ineffective and unsafe gene therapies instead.
https://docbrown77.substack.com/p/project-veritas-blew-the-first-whistle
+ no emergency measures would have been passed to allow the Jabs to be dished out if there was an alternative treatment !!
Yes. That’s why they denied the existence of alternative methods. By normal standards, Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of a novel product would only be valid if there was no alternative.
Wow – that is dynamite. Thanks for posting.
On a similar vein, I have only just seen the attached 20 min video (10 months old) of Tess Lawrie’s zoom call with Dr Andrew Hill in January 2021 regarding a research paper on ivermectin, which effectively killed off ivermectin’s use in western countries as a treatment for Covid.
A Letter to Dr Andrew Hill | Dr Tess Lawrie | Oracle Films (rumble.com)
Yes I saw that too. She gives him short shrift doesn’t she? And he quite rightly looks pretty uncomfortable. What a double-crossing, unscrupulous swine! How so many people can sleep at night after being complicit in this entire debacle is anyone’s guess.
Can you feel it in your water?.. there’s a change coming (“winters commin”), it will start verrrry slowly, odd politicians will start climbing quietly off the covid bandwagon followed by a few tentative scientists, oh so quietly, they’ll get as much distance from it as they can before the full force of the truth is released.
When this happens there’ll be a mass scramble for the “I said this all along” door and the “I warned them,but no one listened”door, by this time the mass media will be baying for blood having been on the anti-vaxers side all along! The axles on the wagon will snap under the full weight of all the evacuees clamoring for the innocence bandwagon that they all wanted to be on in the first place but, where ordered by… someone else not to! “wasn’t me gov, he made me say it gov”.
Just a matter of time now!
Yes but unfortunately for the nasty little reverse-ferreting scumbags the internet keeps receipts and no way will these individuals be able to scurry away into the shadows until everything dies down and they slink out, imagining themselves reinvented and that we’ve all forgotten their heinous behaviour and spiteful words and lies. No wriggling off the hook for these spineless maggots. Just let them try and do a 180.
Just look at Laurence Fox going to town on that sleaze bag Hancock, who’s also trying to reinvent himself as somebody relevant and with morals. He should have been left in the jungle eating worms. We don’t have amnesia Mr Hancock! Shame Laurence doesn’t mention the word ”midazolam”;
https://twitter.com/LozzaFox/status/1613222990736461849?s=20&t=yAX9XMT-5PJVWrsFoMGQEQ
Fox needs to keep an eye on Ofcom when working for GBN, on some of their programmes. Anyway, wasn’t Hancock an estate agent? Not the best man for the job leading a health campaign.
Wancock is the best example of how corrupt humans can get when their pockets are being filled with Gold ! ( in his case by Klaus )
Don’t count on it. I hope you are right but I used to think similarly about the so called global warming consensus. In the last 15 years it has just become worse. Stewart’s comments are wise.
I think the truth will come out, but also that TPTB will have a plan for what to do when it does. I have heard Robert Malone talking about “The Big Reveal”, whereby TPTB come clean on what has happened both because it is inevitable that the truth will emerge and in order to cause further despair and discord amongst the masses. I am not entirely clear on the theory, but I think the idea is to break the system and people’s spirit in order that they will more readily embrace “the solution” offered.
The dyke the Globalists so carefully constructed is starting to crumble.
Brilliant piece that’s left me with a question, Who is the Swedish Minister for health ? Official data puts Sweden at top of list for country least affected by covid mania ,it’s doctors are now speaking out to end the Jab insanity but this minister just doubled down with the tired old vaccine that’s not a vaccine rhetoric !!…
The harms which the mRNA tec jabs cause has been known for a long time :-
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027869152200206X
Paras. !0 and 14 particularly relevant to CVS problems. It isn’t just a case of zero harm or death though. There are the huge harms caused by micro clots to be considered. We are aware of deaths amongst athletes, but has anyone noticed the huge increase in muscle injuries eg pulled/torn hamstrings, sustained by pro. footballers in particular. Endothelial cells in capillaries being attacked?
That said, the future delights in the form of a huge increase in all autoimmune disease are yet to come – solely as a result of the immune system being trashed.
All this was known by some and should have been known by all proponents of the jab.
It is by some distance the biggest crime against humanity, ever.
After a quick scan through it, I thought it was worth emphasising the last sentence in the Conclusions: “Furthermore, we encourage all individuals to make their own health care decisions with this information as a contributing factor in those decisions.” Some of us already have taken a precautionary approach to it, right from the start – but many haven’t, unfortunately.
More sound words and fantastic support for our Andrew B from the Jewish community;
“Note that his statement does not make light of the Holocaust in any way. It does not even say whether this crime is equal to or greater than the Holocaust. It simply states that the covid vaccine administration is the greatest crime to have occurred after the Holocaust.
I will go on the record to declare that anyone who is calling MP Andrew Bridgen or his claims racist or anti-Semitic is not speaking for the benefit of the Jewish people.
So, what self-serving nonsense for the anti-science covid shot proponents to cry “anti Semitism.” They are the anti-Semites.
My Rabbi, who lost four siblings to the Holocaust, wrote this to me:
https://truth613.substack.com/p/as-a-jewish-woman-i-support-mp-andrew
I have been absolutely stunned by the way these vaccines have been promoted.
No vaccine has ever been 100% safe and effective.
Having established that statement, the next step is looking who would benefit from vaccination with a ‘vaccine’ under emergency use authorisation with an unknown safety record.
Initially one could argue that the very elderly and vulnerable might have a case
for vaccination should they want to. That was the initial stance of the U.K. government.
But why extend the vaccines to the younger age groups (below 65 years old) with minimal absolute risk reduction and the risk of side-effects?
We now know more. Vaccines are not effective and there are over 500,000 Yellow card reports, which is the tip of the iceberg.
in a previous life these vaccinations would have been stopped a long time ago.
Why does the U.K. government not use this sacrosanct precautionary principle which they have followed to the extreme in all other areas of the pandemic control?
Some other countries have halted the vaccines, so why not the U.K.?
I can only think it must be wilful ignorance.
Admitting there is a problem now would be a huge problem.
However in my book, wilful ignorance to try and save face whilst these vaccines continue to risk harming people is negligent.
I think the most plausible explanation for pushing the jab on younger age groups is a) to try to eliminate the control group and b) $$$$. However, others think it is part of a depopulation agenda. I don’t dismiss this but it’s not a theory I get behind.
I see that Lisa Marie Presley has just died of a cardiac arrest aged 54. I wonder if this will assist with the removal of the log jam.
More outpourings of support for Bridgen in Substack Land, this time from the excellent ( and Jewish ) Igor Chudov;
“We need compassion for all people who die due to hate, reckless experimentation, ethnic cleansing, eugenics, plunder, attempts to depopulate any groups or even the entire humanity, and more. The Holocaust instructs us to be vigilant about ALL future attempts at such malfeasance and protect all people unfairly targeted by evil interests.
Andrew Bridgen, in making his statement, was not expressing any ethnic antipathy. Quite to the contrary, he was trying to save lives affected by “Covid vaccines.” Thus, his invocation of the Holocaust reflected his good intention to prevent a current tragedy from continuing.”
https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/anti-vaccine-mp-andrew-bridgen-is
It was known from the beginning that most people weren’t at risk of ‘Covid-19’…so why was a ‘vaccine solution’ initiated and pressed upon the entire global population?
It seems Neil Ferguson et al’s Imperial College Report 9 bedded in the idea that the virus had to be suppressed “until a vaccine becomes available” – who knew at the time Ferguson was funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, arguably the world’s biggest promoter of vaccine products?
Why wasn’t this massive conflict of interest disclosed in Ferguson et al’s Report 9?
Why did Ferguson et al compare the Covid situation to the 1918 influenza pandemic, which reportedly resulted in 50 million, or 100 million deaths…give or take 50 million?
Why didn’t they compare the Covid situation to the Swine Flu pandemic in 2009…which fizzled out…
While Ferguson and co were beating up the threat in Report 9, published on 16 March 2020, on 19 March 2020 Public Health England reported “As of 19 March 2020, COVID-19 is no longer considered to be a high consequence infectious disease (HCID) in the UK.”
I wrote to Neil Ferguson on this matter in August 2021, noting that:
I didn’t receive a response from Neil Ferguson.
See my August 2021 email to Neil Ferguson, titled: Neil Ferguson and Andrew Pollard sharing a taxi…?
I subsequently discovered it was John Edmunds in the taxi with Andrew Pollard…the plot thickens…
The jabs (both mRNA and adenovirus vector) need to be halted yesterday. Scratch that, they literally need to be halted two years ago!
Jakob Forssman is the Swedish health minister, only had the job since last October , suprise !! NOT
Problem? This article is dated Jan 13th 2023, but in Toby’s Update (and the Update itself) is dated Sept 7th 2020. Typo?
So people already immunocompromised were advised to get vaxed and boosted. Given the evidence that immunity is compromised further by the multiple boosters, are these people even more vulnerable now to disease? Would seem they would have to be.