[Pants-of-dog]

Actually, it shows exactly the opposite in this case, since Harvard was aware of donor opposition and yet it still chose to stand by Gay.

We're talking about the firing of Claudine Gay, stay on topic.

Ignoring the example of a university president who was fired for saying the same things Ms. Gay said at the same media spectacle is a clear example of cherry picking.

The donors, yes. I am simply repeating what they have said.

Under their own standard, they have not "won".

Sure. All they did, instead, was get Ms. Gay fired.

You can criticize those donors all you want, it does not change the fact that Claudine Gay committed plagiarism and was fired for it and not because of those donors.

Pointing out they had clearly communicated their motive for getting Ms. Gay fired (i.e. a perceived antisemitism on campus) is not criticism. You even lauded them for it.

[wat0n]

Ignoring the example of a university president who was fired for saying the same things Ms. Gay said at the same media spectacle is a clear example of cherry picking.

Yet the President of Penn was never supported by Penn's board, unlike Claudine Gay or Sally Kornbluth.

If anything, the one who's cherry picking here is you, since you are choosing to focus on affairs at another school and ignore the public and Harvard's public support for Claudine Gay.

Sure. All they did, instead, was get Ms. Gay fired.

So, they haven't gotten what they want and indeed Harvard is unlikely to change.

Pointing out they had clearly communicated their motive for getting Ms. Gay fired (i.e. a perceived antisemitism on campus) is not criticism. You even lauded them for it.

This still does not change the fact that Harvard did not listen to them, that Harvard initially stood by Claudine Gay and only fired her after new plagiarism allegations became public.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yet the President of Penn was never supported by Penn's board, unlike Claudine Gay or Sally Kornbluth.

If anything, the one who's cherry picking here is you, since you are choosing to focus on affairs at another school and ignore the public and Harvard's public support for Claudine Gay.

Thanks for agreeing that this was enough to get a president fired.

Now, that makes it quite plausible that Ms, Gay was fired for the same reason.

So, they haven't gotten what they want and indeed Harvard is unlikely to change.

There is an easy way to find out.

Are they still withholding funds?

This still does not change the fact that Harvard did not listen to them, that Harvard initially stood by Claudine Gay and only fired her after new plagiarism allegations became public.

No, they investigated the charges and found no cases of plagiarism.

And Harvard did listen to them since Ms. Gay was fired.

Twitter is full of these rich donors claiming they did this because of “antisemitism”. Can you name one other than Ackman that even mentioned plagiarism?

[QatzelOk]

The reputation of American universities has been falling off a cliff in the latest years, even among Democrats.

I wonder if firing presidents who refust to endorse the favorite genocides of rich sponsors... will improve this reputation.

I sense that it will not.

[wat0n]

Thanks for agreeing that this was enough to get a president fired.

Now, that makes it quite plausible that Ms, Gay was fired for the same reason.

I can tell you are still ignoring that Harvard stood by Claudine Gay after her testimony in Congress.

There is an easy way to find out.

Are they still withholding funds?

Yes, because they haven't gotten what they want.

No, they investigated the charges and found no cases of plagiarism.

And Harvard did listen to them since Ms. Gay was fired.

Twitter is full of these rich donors claiming they did this because of “antisemitism”. Can you name one other than Ackman that even mentioned plagiarism?

We already went through this. No, the independent panel did not investigate all accusations of plagiarism by Claudine Gay.

I don't know of other donors who've been public on Twitter. It also doesn't matter, plagiarism can and indeed is a concern for Harvard for reasons beyond just donors. Ever heard of this office?

I wonder if firing presidents who refust to endorse the favorite genocides of rich sponsors... will improve this reputation.

I sense that it will not.

It likely will, actually, since it shows Harvard is showing it does not support plagiarism and, maybe, calling for genocide.

[ingliz]

@wat0n

"maybe, calling for genocide"

So, now showing your true colours, you think that calling for the genocide of Palestinians will make Harvard more popular.

With whom?

The donors?

[wat0n]

@wat0n

"maybe, calling for genocide"

So, now showing your true colours, you think that calling for the genocide of Palestinians will make Harvard more popular.

With whom?

The donors?

How exactly did you infer that from my post?

[ingliz]

@wat0n

One can always read your comments in the Gaza threads.

You appear to be very comfortable with the indiscriminate killing of innocent Palestinians.

[wat0n]

@wat0n

One can always read your comments in the Gaza threads.

You appear to be very comfortable with the indiscriminate killing of innocent Palestinians.

Again, how did you infer that from my post?

If anything I said Harvard's reputation will improve because maybe it doesn't support calling for genocide.

[ingliz]

@wat0n

"Harvard is showing it does not support plagiarism and, maybe, calling for genocide."

— wat0n

I read it as written.

[wat0n]

@wat0n

"Harvard is showing it does not support plagiarism and, maybe, calling for genocide."

— wat0n

I read it as written.

Sure. It does not support plagiarism and, maybe, it also doesn't support calling for genocide.

Not sure how else would it be understood.

Also, allow me to remind you the question Claudine Gay failed to properly answer in her Congressional testimony was about on-campus calls for genocide of Jews.

[Pants-of-dog]

I can tell you are still ignoring that Harvard stood by Claudine Gay after her testimony in Congress.

I have replied to this so many times that I am worried I will be spamming this thread by replying yet again.

Yes, because they haven't gotten what they want.

What do they want?

We already went through this. No, the independent panel did not investigate all accusations of plagiarism by Claudine Gay.

Yes, Harvard stood by her by investigating the accusation and finding nothing. And then publicly said so in order to convey that Harvard still had confidence in her in an academic setting.

I don't know of other donors who've been public on Twitter. It also doesn't matter, plagiarism can and indeed is a concern for Harvard for reasons beyond just donors. Ever heard of this office?

The thread is about Ms. Gay’s firing.

The richest donor who withheld funds for antisemitism is some guy named Blavatnik, I think. He never mentioned plagiarism.

[wat0n]

I have replied to this so many times that I am worried I will be spamming this thread by replying yet again.

We can keep at it all day long, although you admitted Claudine Gay committed plagiarism. Now it's time for you to admit this is wrong and that Harvard was right to choose not to have a plagiarist President.

We're making progress.

What do they want?

We already went through this, too.

Yes, Harvard stood by her by investigating the accusation and finding nothing. And then publicly said so in order to convey that Harvard still had confidence in her in an academic setting.

And we also went through this, particularly that Harvard's independent panel did not analyze all plagiarism claims and that Harvard itself was unaware of them since they were made public after the its board met to discuss Claudine Gay's issues.

The thread is about Ms. Gay’s firing.

The richest donor who withheld funds for antisemitism is some guy named Blavatnik, I think. He never mentioned plagiarism.

It is about Claudine Gay's plagiarism indeed, and it is important for Harvard because there's a federal office in charge of punishing academic misconduct in doing research funded by the government.

Standing by a plagiarist President would lead to suspicions about Harvard as an institution and threaten one of its core purposes.

[QatzelOk]

@wat0n

"maybe, calling for genocide"

So, now showing your true colours, you think that calling for the genocide of Palestinians will make Harvard more popular.

With whom?

The donors?

Not only is wat0n doing all he can to help the Israelis genocide the Palestinians, but he's willing to destroy academic freedom and freedom of speech... to help them out.

Perhaps wat0n would suggest "cutting out the tongues" of those who support the rights of Palestinians on campus. For a good cause, as far as he's concerned.

That this nonsense about plagiarism is just a pretext to eliminate someone who refused to swear loyalty to the genocide of Palestinians.... is dishonest and will create stupidity on campus.

Those rich, genocide-supporting sponsors are NOT as scholarly or well-informed as the people they are trying to control with their blood money.

Mafia goons are showing how little respect they have for higher education or wisdom.
And wat0n has their back.

[Pants-of-dog]

We already went through this, too.

You do not know what the donors want.

And we also went through this, particularly that Harvard's independent panel did not analyze all plagiarism claims and that Harvard itself was unaware of them since they were made public after the its board met to discuss Claudine Gay's issues.

You misread. All plagiarism claims were analyzed, Maybe not to the level you want.

There is still a contradiction between Harvard supposedly pressuring the investigation to find nothing and also firing Ms. Gay to make it look like they are hard in plagiarism.

These are opposing agendas.

There is nothing inconsistent about Harvard’s performance related to campus antisemitism.

They initially stood by her. That did not work.

They got her to apologize. That did not work.

They got her to retract her statements. That did not work.

It is ….. core purposes.

Is Musk a donor?

He called for Ms. Gay to be fired over antisemitism.

I already mentioned Blavatnik.

The federal government itself is also obviously critical of Harvard over perceived antisemitism, and they are also capable of cutting funding.

[wat0n]

You do not know what the donors want.

I am basing myself on what they have said.

Even under your hypothesis, they have not gotten what they want.

You misread. All plagiarism claims were analyzed, Maybe not to the level you want.

No, the independent panel did not analyze all claims since the most damning ones were made public after they finished their report. Also, I don't care about what a committee that is liable to be influenced by Claudine Gay thinks.

There is still a contradiction between Harvard supposedly pressuring the investigation to find nothing and also firing Ms. Gay to make it look like they are hard in plagiarism.

These are opposing agendas.

No, they are not if you stop gaslighting and accept the independent panel did not analyze all claims.

There is nothing inconsistent about Harvard’s performance related to campus antisemitism.

They initially stood by her. That did not work.

They got her to apologize. That did not work.

They got her to retract her statements. That did not work.

It is inconsistent with Harvard firing Gay over her testimony in Congress.

Is Musk a donor?

He called for Ms. Gay to be fired over antisemitism.

I already mentioned Blavatnik.

The federal government itself is also obviously critical of Harvard over perceived antisemitism, and they are also capable of cutting funding.

This is a red herring and does not address the fact that the federal government does not stand by academic misconduct in federally-funded projects.

It also does not address the argument that allowing a plagiarist President remain as if nothing happened would make it a lot more likely that federal scrutiny of Harvard would increase once the federal government reasonably perceives Harvard is not doing enough to punish misconduct.

It is also why Stanford did not hesitate to fire its President last year for heading a lab that made up scientific findings, even though he was not personally involved in that.

Not only is wat0n doing all he can to help the Israelis genocide the Palestinians, but he's willing to destroy academic freedom and freedom of speech... to help them out.

Perhaps wat0n would suggest "cutting out the tongues" of those who support the rights of Palestinians on campus. For a good cause, as far as he's concerned.

That this nonsense about plagiarism is just a pretext to eliminate someone who refused to swear loyalty to the genocide of Palestinians.... is dishonest and will create stupidity on campus.

Those rich, genocide-supporting sponsors are NOT as scholarly or well-informed as the people they are trying to control with their blood money.

Mafia goons are showing how little respect they have for higher education or wisdom.
And wat0n has their back.

It's odd to see you, of all people, say this. You reject scholarly opinions after all.

And he was just trolling, but it's not surprising since you are both just projecting.

[Pants-of-dog]

I am basing myself on what they have said.

Even under your hypothesis, they have not gotten what they want.

You said you do not know what they said, so it is implausible that you now know what they said.

At this point, the former is more plausible.

No, the independent panel did not analyze all claims since the most damning ones were made public after they finished their report. Also, I don't care about what a committee that is liable to be influenced by Claudine Gay thinks.

No, they are not if you stop gaslighting and accept the independent panel did not analyze all claims.

And now the personal attacks, as always. No doubt you think they are justified and will now explain why I am an immoral person who deserves insults

It is inconsistent with Harvard firing Gay over her testimony in Congress.

Why?

Blavatnik and his 270 million reasons for convincing Harvard did not pressure Harvard until after that.

And you are now deliberately ignoring evidence showing that donors care about perceived antisemitism.

[wat0n]

You said you do not know what they said, so it is implausible that you now know what they said.

At this point, the former is more plausible.

No, what I don't know is if other donors besides Ackman have been on Twitter opining on Harvard's antisemitism problem.

And now the personal attacks, as always. No doubt you think they are justified and will now explain why I am an immoral person who deserves insults

It is not a personal attack to say you are gaslighting here.

Why?

Blavatnik and his 270 million reasons for convincing Harvard did not pressure Harvard until after that.

And you are now deliberately ignoring evidence showing that donors care about perceived antisemitism.

Donors care about antisemitism, sure, yet that does not mean Harvard fired Claudine Gay because of them.

I'm pretty sure Harvard can replace Blavatnik's donations if it wants to. I doubt Harvard will do anything about donor complaints.

A much more reasonable explanation, one that takes into account Harvard's behavior, is that the plagiarism claims against Claudine Gay and particularly the fact that some blatant examples were shared and deemed as such in the media pushed Harvard to seek a new President.

[Pants-of-dog]

No, what I don't know is if other donors besides Ackman have been on Twitter opining on Harvard's antisemitism problem.

Then stop claiming that you know what they are saying.

Donors care about antisemitism, sure, yet that does not mean Harvard fired Claudine Gay because of them.

Boavatnik gave 270 million reasons why Harvard should listen to him.

I'm pretty sure Harvard can replace Blavatnik's donations if it wants to. I doubt Harvard will do anything about donor complaints.

No, I addressed this.

While Harvard could avoid bankruptcy, it would have to significantly cut many programs.

[QatzelOk]

You said you do not know what they said, so it is implausible that you now know what they said.
...
And you are now deliberately ignoring evidence showing that donors care about perceived antisemitism.

He is a troll and you are feeding him lots of really bland prompts.

You two might as well have posted pictures of dogs for the last 20 pages since neither of you (and perhaps no one at all) have the capacity to attack or analyze "actual political power and the atrocities it can accomplish with its money."

People with blood money want Claudine Gay fired for not swearing loyalty to Israel hard enough while Israel kills off a few thousand of its Palestinian torture-slaves.

Gate Keepers: "How can we kill discussion about this subject with spam?"

Gate Keepers: "Eureka! I've got it! We can talk about all the details of plagiarism and the minutes of her trial and the people who participated in it! All the boring details, sometimes rehashed four or five times."