I haven’t written an article in a week or two — I’ve been sick with a bad cold, and it’s impacted my productivity! But I am better now, and I have a few longer pieces in the pipeline, one of which is a deep dive into the Neri Oxman plagiarism accusations.
Chris. If you’re a cop and you have been tasked with finding speeders, it’s pretty damn easy. Gay was doing 80 in a 35 mile per hour zone. Oxman was going 38.
IMO you will find a vast gulf between what Neri did and what Claudine did. Not even close. It’s so beyond obvious that the only salient fact is that the comparison was made. You’ll never reach those who choose to deliberately misinterpret. The rest of us are already hip to the game.
Congratulations on the recognition you so deserve. When the story broke about your documentation of CG plagiarism I went back to read your Substack from its inception. Although I don’t understand all the statistical data I was impressed with your persistence for the truth. Well done!
If you haven’t seen the X post on plagiarism and Neri Oxman by @gummibear737 it is well done, provides excellent context and I think you will find it useful .
All that I have read of her was she copied and pasted standard definitions. That isn’t plagiarism. Plagiarism is when you take ideas and work from others and don’t give credit. Writing a background definition about some basic facts and using a dictionary is NOT what plagiarism rules are for. Maybe she did more than that. But what I would not be something I would call plagiarizing anyone.
If I were writing about Neri Oxman's plagiarism, I would be completely honest and outline what she did. Be sure to note that in many cases she did cite references, but left out quotation marks, etc. That is important. Plagiarism comes in various flavors, some worse than others.
One thing I would definitely throw in is the issue of Dr. Gay having having likely fiddled with her data to get the results she wanted...compare that to Roland Fryer. Yes, I would bring those things in to the comparison. And I do wonder if the Harvard Corporation didn't move against Gay not just because of the plagiarism, but because they saw that the issue of data fraud could come to the very front. Could she then have kept her $900K per year job?
Oh, I just saw this....and please think about using it:
My advice would be to set up a clear set of principles according to which you would be arguing and stick to them. No one has a better sense of this than you do. The principle "plagiarism is bad" is not enough to go on, in my view, whereas the principle "plagiarism is the smoke under which there is certain to be a fire" is better, since it suggests that we can consider what the size of the fire is. I'm saying this metaphorically but the goal would be, as you are already very clear on, journalistic integrity. If your principles are intact and you're happy to abide by them no matter who you're looking at, you're in a good space. One of the potential pitfalls to avoid would be to reduce plagiarism to a numbers game, which is what plagiarism-detection software does with its percentages. I've seen analogies comparing Gay and Oxman that are apt only when taken as qualitative rather than as quantitative: If Gay was going 80 in a 35 mile zone while Oxman was going 38, what matters here is not the mere difference in speed but the fact that 80 suggests an alarming qualitative danger that going 38 simply doesn't. To switch metaphors, the smoke suggests a raging inferno. I mention this because one thing that struck me about some of Gay's plagiarism was that when she was quoting liberally from sources, even some of her minor adjustments suggested that she didn't properly understand what she was reading/copying. The difference in Oxman's scholarship when compared with Gay's doesn't change the badness of the plagiarism, per se, but it does suggest that she has more substance as a scholar than Gay does. You don't have to let her off the hook, of course, but you can at least note degrees of severity and the implications, too. Unlike Gay's "it depends on the context" comment in that one hearing, which had nothing do with context, context really does matter here. Meaning is only meaning in context.
Formally - there is a action - role - purpose misalignment ie Ms Oxman’s action is low level deail - she is a wife and informal community leader - her purpose is to be a thought leader. Ms Gay’s three areas noted above quintuples the intensity (seriousness)
To be blunt, I'm a lecturer and I doubt Neri Oxman's work would even be flagged by the AI plagiarism checker but what Claudine Gay did would not warrant her getting a degree.
There are better uses of your, not inconsiderable, talents than focusing on a billionaire's wife who had the choice between being a supermodel and an academic and chose being an academic.
Even if she's found to be a complete fraud - it luckily does not impact anybody else.
Claudine Gay had control over the direction of one of the most prestigious academic institutions in America, instigated McCarthyist takedowns of anyone she deemed a threat and consistently chose the imposition of a noxious ideology over the pursuit of truth.
Neri Oxman is no longer in academia, was writing in her second language and does not seem to want to hurt anyone.
It would be interesting to see how other academics at MIT's work compare to Oxman's and then see whether the label of plagiarist still applies.
(I wouldn't like to say if Bill Ackman would grudge supporting her - will she be able to afford the groceries?)
If I'm a student in one of the newly "demoted" "Prof." Gay, I am very happy. I can borrow thoughts from others without fear of a negative impact on my grade.
Get better! Also looking forward to your angle on Dr Oxman. I hope there are more people just looking for the truth, and not picking sides. Ackman should be celebrated for his business achievements, first and foremost. If the plagiarism accusations cause him and wis wife to lose credibility, so be it. He’s been supporting bad politicians and policies for a long time. Pershing Square Capital released a pro-ESG statement in December, so “woke” policies are in his business as well. People who are anti “woke” should be careful not to make Ackman their hero, but I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he will slowly change for the better.
Chris. If you’re a cop and you have been tasked with finding speeders, it’s pretty damn easy. Gay was doing 80 in a 35 mile per hour zone. Oxman was going 38.
IMO you will find a vast gulf between what Neri did and what Claudine did. Not even close. It’s so beyond obvious that the only salient fact is that the comparison was made. You’ll never reach those who choose to deliberately misinterpret. The rest of us are already hip to the game.
Congratulations on the recognition you so deserve. When the story broke about your documentation of CG plagiarism I went back to read your Substack from its inception. Although I don’t understand all the statistical data I was impressed with your persistence for the truth. Well done!
If you haven’t seen the X post on plagiarism and Neri Oxman by @gummibear737 it is well done, provides excellent context and I think you will find it useful .
All that I have read of her was she copied and pasted standard definitions. That isn’t plagiarism. Plagiarism is when you take ideas and work from others and don’t give credit. Writing a background definition about some basic facts and using a dictionary is NOT what plagiarism rules are for. Maybe she did more than that. But what I would not be something I would call plagiarizing anyone.
If I were writing about Neri Oxman's plagiarism, I would be completely honest and outline what she did. Be sure to note that in many cases she did cite references, but left out quotation marks, etc. That is important. Plagiarism comes in various flavors, some worse than others.
One thing I would definitely throw in is the issue of Dr. Gay having having likely fiddled with her data to get the results she wanted...compare that to Roland Fryer. Yes, I would bring those things in to the comparison. And I do wonder if the Harvard Corporation didn't move against Gay not just because of the plagiarism, but because they saw that the issue of data fraud could come to the very front. Could she then have kept her $900K per year job?
Oh, I just saw this....and please think about using it:
https://twitter.com/BillAckman/status/1746561324765552682
Did you see this Ackman interview?
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2024/01/13/watch-cnbcs-full-interview-with-bill-ackman-on-fighting-antisemitism-the-2024-election-and-more.html
Chris, love your work. I read everything you put out, but I'll probably skip your Neri Oxman piece. Just not interesting.
Thank you, Chris.....
Lots of journalists here w/o integrity but you are not one of them!! ❤
How To Decolonize Lacrosse - Guilty Until Proven Innocent at Duke https://yuribezmenov.substack.com/p/duke-lacrosse-scandal-nifong-msm-groupof88
My advice would be to set up a clear set of principles according to which you would be arguing and stick to them. No one has a better sense of this than you do. The principle "plagiarism is bad" is not enough to go on, in my view, whereas the principle "plagiarism is the smoke under which there is certain to be a fire" is better, since it suggests that we can consider what the size of the fire is. I'm saying this metaphorically but the goal would be, as you are already very clear on, journalistic integrity. If your principles are intact and you're happy to abide by them no matter who you're looking at, you're in a good space. One of the potential pitfalls to avoid would be to reduce plagiarism to a numbers game, which is what plagiarism-detection software does with its percentages. I've seen analogies comparing Gay and Oxman that are apt only when taken as qualitative rather than as quantitative: If Gay was going 80 in a 35 mile zone while Oxman was going 38, what matters here is not the mere difference in speed but the fact that 80 suggests an alarming qualitative danger that going 38 simply doesn't. To switch metaphors, the smoke suggests a raging inferno. I mention this because one thing that struck me about some of Gay's plagiarism was that when she was quoting liberally from sources, even some of her minor adjustments suggested that she didn't properly understand what she was reading/copying. The difference in Oxman's scholarship when compared with Gay's doesn't change the badness of the plagiarism, per se, but it does suggest that she has more substance as a scholar than Gay does. You don't have to let her off the hook, of course, but you can at least note degrees of severity and the implications, too. Unlike Gay's "it depends on the context" comment in that one hearing, which had nothing do with context, context really does matter here. Meaning is only meaning in context.
I for one am happy they went after Akman’s wife. Cuz now he’s angry. He will demolish a ton of them.
Formally - there is a action - role - purpose misalignment ie Ms Oxman’s action is low level deail - she is a wife and informal community leader - her purpose is to be a thought leader. Ms Gay’s three areas noted above quintuples the intensity (seriousness)
To be blunt, I'm a lecturer and I doubt Neri Oxman's work would even be flagged by the AI plagiarism checker but what Claudine Gay did would not warrant her getting a degree.
There are better uses of your, not inconsiderable, talents than focusing on a billionaire's wife who had the choice between being a supermodel and an academic and chose being an academic.
Even if she's found to be a complete fraud - it luckily does not impact anybody else.
Claudine Gay had control over the direction of one of the most prestigious academic institutions in America, instigated McCarthyist takedowns of anyone she deemed a threat and consistently chose the imposition of a noxious ideology over the pursuit of truth.
Neri Oxman is no longer in academia, was writing in her second language and does not seem to want to hurt anyone.
It would be interesting to see how other academics at MIT's work compare to Oxman's and then see whether the label of plagiarist still applies.
(I wouldn't like to say if Bill Ackman would grudge supporting her - will she be able to afford the groceries?)
Write an article about how we have gone full circle back to theocracy and putting people in the stocks.
Hope you get well soon.
Will be looking forward to your analysis of the Neri Oxman plagiarism charges. No one could do it better in my view.
If I'm a student in one of the newly "demoted" "Prof." Gay, I am very happy. I can borrow thoughts from others without fear of a negative impact on my grade.
Get better! Also looking forward to your angle on Dr Oxman. I hope there are more people just looking for the truth, and not picking sides. Ackman should be celebrated for his business achievements, first and foremost. If the plagiarism accusations cause him and wis wife to lose credibility, so be it. He’s been supporting bad politicians and policies for a long time. Pershing Square Capital released a pro-ESG statement in December, so “woke” policies are in his business as well. People who are anti “woke” should be careful not to make Ackman their hero, but I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he will slowly change for the better.