LEAKED DOCUMENTS: The President of Harvard swept fabricated data under the rug
Claudine Gay, the President of Harvard University, is testifying in front of Congress this week.
As such, I feel it is a good time to re-up this scoop I broke about her almost 2 years ago when she was still the Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Science. I had a much smaller Substack audience back then, so thousands of my new subscribers will never have seen this.
I admit I somewhat botched this scoop at the time—I wasn’t factually wrong about any details—but I was much too emotional. I wrote long-winded screed after long-winded screed about Gay’s scientific misconduct, and in retrospect, that level of bias made me easy to dismiss. I have the smoking gun internal Harvard documents, leaked to me by an anonymous source. All I needed to do was get them in front of the right eyes. Instead, I shot myself in the foot by launching into polemics. I was just starting out in media, and that was a major learning lesson.
What I will do today, then, is share the leaked internal documents and let them speak for themselves. Who knows? Maybe a congressman will see it and ask her about it. If you know any congressmen, or Harvard alumni, please share these leaked documents with them:
This leaked report was brought forward as a complaint in 2018 against Harvard professor Ryan Enos by an anonymous complainant whose identity is protected by The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).
A Harvard spokesperson has confirmed that this report sparked an internal and non-public investigation by Harvard's Committee on Professional Conduct over "research integrity concerns" relating to Enos' 2016 paper "What the demolition of public housing teaches us about the impact of racial threat on political behavior" published in the American Journal of Political Science (AJPS).
Harvard confirmed to me that their Committee on Professional Conduct "readily dismissed" this leaked document after reviewing it.
This previously suppressed document concludes that Enos' data was "mathematically impossible" and manipulated "beyond any reasonable doubt … in favor of author’s preferred theory and hypotheses." The main problem with his analysis — among several problems — is that 800+ precincts in Chicago are missing from the data, with no justification given. It is possible/probable that Enos deleted this data by hand. Many of these deleted precincts are in Republican-leaning areas, meaning Enos' conclusions about voting patterns would likely not hold if they had not been deleted.
Michael Smith was the Harvard Dean in charge of disciplining Enos in 2018. He also chaired the committee on appointments and promotions which granted Enos tenure in 2018 as well. It would have been VERY embarrassing for Smith to grant a professor tenure and then immediately find him guilty of fabricating data.
The person promoted to replace Michael Smith was Claudine Gay. She was the one who swept this under the rug, cleaning up her predecessor’s mess.
I have obtained proof of the cover-up.
Here is a partially redacted document leaked to me by an anonymous source:
The first thing you will notice about this document is that Claudine Gay’s name does not appear anywhere on it… but she saw it, and she was the one who signed off on it. As per Harvard’s Procedures for Responding to Allegations of Misconduct in Research, “The Dean shall be fully informed of the steps to be taken, and the information on which the steps are based.”
That, plus, a Harvard spokesperson acknowledged to Karlstack that Gay had seen the report. Now I finally have proof of what their official justification for dismissing it was: it “does not fall within the purview of the Standing Committee for Professional Conduct.”
Hmmm… really? It doesn’t fall within the purview? Let’s compare the Committee on Professional Conduct’s statement with Harvard’s policies on research integrity.
Harvard policies: "The Standing Committee on Professional Conduct (CPC) handles allegations of research misconduct involving FAS investigators."
Harvard CPC: "Allegations of research misconduct by FAS faculty members do not fall within the purview of the CPC."
It sure looks like it falls within the CPC’s purview.
So why did the CPC dismiss it as “not within our purview”?
To sweep it under the rug.
Almost as if they know Ryan Enos is guilty of fabricating his data, and they know that if they investigated him they would have no choice but to find him guilty.
The dagger is that upon dismissing it as “not within our purview”, the CPC never referred it to the appropriate body to investigate. The matter of Ryan Enos’ fabricated data was simply dropped.
This is a procedurally illiterate justification; in jurisprudence and legal practice, false exculpatory statements such as this are often treated as potential evidence of guilt. Pretty damning that they went with a boldfaced lie to avoid triggering an investigation. A matter of “the cover-up is worse than the crime.”
If you are connected to Harvard, whether as an alumnus, a faculty member, or in any other capacity, I encourage you to raise your voice. Question this cover-up, demand clear explanations, and seek accountability. If you have the means to influence or inquire, use them. Please share these leaked documents: