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.
Claudine Gay is also responsible for what happened to Roland Fryer, who had the audacity of pointing out the data that Black men were no more likely to be shot by the police than White men. This was a “heresy” to the intersectionality Woke Progressivists trying to tear down civilization, so they cancelled him.
Toxic Feminist women like Gay destroy their adversaries through false accusation, rumor, innuendo and gossip.
Claudine Gay is in the position she is in for two reasons, she wears the correct costume (Black and female), and she spews the correct language and ideology (Progressivism, Marxism). These are the only interests that “Elite” academic institutions care about, they are the opposite of their stated mission which should be the pursuit of knowledge and truth through rigorous scientific inquiry, and who better to tear down truth and scientific inquiry than Mean Girl wearing a costume of “diversity?” Harvard is a ruse, but they all are at this point?!
The most relevant thing I see in that document is evidence of data falsification and research fraud. Those things are generally unacceptable even at Harvard (see Francesca Gino). The heavy data manipulation is also fraud, but has become universally acceptable in the soft sciences at all major research universities in a race to churn out seemingly relevant headlines for the universities' communication offices.
So for them not to go after the apparent fraud does appear quite fishy. But perhaps not surprising given Claudine Gay's exceptionally weak academic background.
Underlying all these revelations is the reality that many objective observers long ago ceased having blind credulity for anything "Harvard"....or Ivy League for that matter. I appreciate the obvious hard work the author has invested into this matter, however, the corrupt will continue to corrupt w/o fear o consequence. Welcome to America.
Most politicians have websites these days where they can be contacted. Send this article to one or two of them that sit on the commitee that is questioning Gay
I'm willing to be schooled on this, but in this case it's not clear to me why an anonymous report to his employers is better than publishing a paper that says "his findings cannot be replicated if you include the entire data set, and there is no justification given in his paper for the parts of the data he excludes" and then inviting him to explain the exclusion (which it sounds like he would be unlikely to be able to do).
This doesn't seem like the Edererer et al case where they maybe broke the law and definitely broke human subjects research rules. It sounds more like "normal" scholarly shenanigans, which, while not at all admirable, are best disciplined by withering critique from other scholars rather than by an appeal to administrative authority.
I guess I worry about scholarly back and forth being trumped by appeals to administrators to mete out punishments. It's a tactic of the "other side" which I think has some features of the One Ring, if you know what I mean.
It fascinates that anyone can think that a black woman might be held accountable for malfeasance decades into affirmative action entitlement, joined with feminism and the new & improved AA we call DIE. Facts don’t matter when in opposition to 1619 ideology.
The only course of action for adults is to not accept a black doctor, teacher, lawyer, etc., particularly if that person also is female.
As an alum, I appreciate you bringing this troublesome information to light.
Claudine Gay is also responsible for what happened to Roland Fryer, who had the audacity of pointing out the data that Black men were no more likely to be shot by the police than White men. This was a “heresy” to the intersectionality Woke Progressivists trying to tear down civilization, so they cancelled him.
Toxic Feminist women like Gay destroy their adversaries through false accusation, rumor, innuendo and gossip.
Claudine Gay is in the position she is in for two reasons, she wears the correct costume (Black and female), and she spews the correct language and ideology (Progressivism, Marxism). These are the only interests that “Elite” academic institutions care about, they are the opposite of their stated mission which should be the pursuit of knowledge and truth through rigorous scientific inquiry, and who better to tear down truth and scientific inquiry than Mean Girl wearing a costume of “diversity?” Harvard is a ruse, but they all are at this point?!
The most relevant thing I see in that document is evidence of data falsification and research fraud. Those things are generally unacceptable even at Harvard (see Francesca Gino). The heavy data manipulation is also fraud, but has become universally acceptable in the soft sciences at all major research universities in a race to churn out seemingly relevant headlines for the universities' communication offices.
So for them not to go after the apparent fraud does appear quite fishy. But perhaps not surprising given Claudine Gay's exceptionally weak academic background.
Underlying all these revelations is the reality that many objective observers long ago ceased having blind credulity for anything "Harvard"....or Ivy League for that matter. I appreciate the obvious hard work the author has invested into this matter, however, the corrupt will continue to corrupt w/o fear o consequence. Welcome to America.
Most politicians have websites these days where they can be contacted. Send this article to one or two of them that sit on the commitee that is questioning Gay
Very well done, Chris! Thank you for revisiting this story.
This blew me away -- not that it’s true, but that you managed to get the proof and lay out so clearly. Bravo.
I'm willing to be schooled on this, but in this case it's not clear to me why an anonymous report to his employers is better than publishing a paper that says "his findings cannot be replicated if you include the entire data set, and there is no justification given in his paper for the parts of the data he excludes" and then inviting him to explain the exclusion (which it sounds like he would be unlikely to be able to do).
This doesn't seem like the Edererer et al case where they maybe broke the law and definitely broke human subjects research rules. It sounds more like "normal" scholarly shenanigans, which, while not at all admirable, are best disciplined by withering critique from other scholars rather than by an appeal to administrative authority.
I guess I worry about scholarly back and forth being trumped by appeals to administrators to mete out punishments. It's a tactic of the "other side" which I think has some features of the One Ring, if you know what I mean.
It fascinates that anyone can think that a black woman might be held accountable for malfeasance decades into affirmative action entitlement, joined with feminism and the new & improved AA we call DIE. Facts don’t matter when in opposition to 1619 ideology.
The only course of action for adults is to not accept a black doctor, teacher, lawyer, etc., particularly if that person also is female.
Share this to Alan Dershowitz
https://rumble.com/user/Sav_says