Meanwhile on the International front....

Harvard clearly wasn't going to give in to the pressure regarding her idiotic testimony before Congress, but the plagiarism accusations and evidence were too much to ignore.

 

Forgive me if I don't think his opinion on DEI is prompted by the post Oct. 7 protests.

 

There is a little ... there are only so many ways you can write certain things that commonly appear in work such as Gay's ... but not that much. She is ... "was" actually, because she hasn't published scholarly work in quite awhile ... a plagiarist who should long ago have been shown the door. And while Harvard will bear the brunt of the embarrassment, Stanford's got some 'splainin' to do, too.

 

Thanks.

I'm curious how much scrutiny the work of academic administrators usually gets, and how thorough.

 

Usually not much, and only when they've stepped in it some other way (c.f. Ward Churchill). But the vast majority were faculty ... tenure-seeking/-earning faculty ... at the start of their careers. (Why the president of, e.g. Harvard, must have been a productive scholar at some point is an interesting side question.) So to the degree that their administrative authority is grounded in their scholarly credibility, arguably more scrutiny across the board is warranted.

 

That it took so long for Gay's plagiarism to surface speaks to me of how little academic research gets read even by other academics.

 

Hey now! My piece on the non-unidimensionality of [CONCEPT] flew off the shelves!

 

I'm not familiar with the journals in political science, but if I'd published "only" twice* in, say, the Academy of Management Journal, that would put me at about the 95th percentile. Her "only" 11 might be one helluva run, although I doubt it.

*I likely would have gotten one in had the Academy not started a methods-only journal a year earlier ... that's ultimately where I published that piece.