Meanwhile on the International front....

1. Sullivan was removed as dean of one of the undergraduate houses, rightly or wrongly. He's still on the Harvard Law School faculty.
2. Last I checked, Fryer is still a tenured full professor in Harvard's economics department. From what I've read, the charges weren't proven false and he admits inappropriate behavior though he disputes how serious it was and I'm open to the argument that the punishment maybe didn't fit the crime.

Yeah -- they suffered career consequences and I'm open to arguments that these consequences were unfair and disproportionate (and to the argument that in each case there's more to the story than what you're describing). But they're both still tenured full professors at Harvard -- arguably damaged but hardly "destroyed" careers.

 

LOL. Sure we did.

 

I agree in principle. But here's the problem. The question posed was not whether Harvard tolerates calls for genocide of any group. The question was whether calling for genocide of Jews constitutes a violation of the school's student code of conduct. That, by definition is a context-dependent analysis. Is it an idiot in the dorm saying "Hitler was right" to nobody in particular? Or in a late night bullshit session revealing his gross opinions to dorm-mates? Not sure anyone could argue that this would violate the code. On the other hand, is the statement made in a situation involving harassment, threats or intimidation? Is it pervasive? That's a different story. Time, place and manner does matter, and if Gay flatly said, under oath, without context, "any student calling for the genocide of any group violated the code," you'd see Stefanik turning around and claiming she perjured herself. Or, if she answered the question the way hyou say she should have (and what we all would have liked her to say), Stefanik would just turn around say, "You didn't answer my question. Does it constitute a violation of the student code of conduct?" The whole thing was a bad-faith, gotcha set-up and there was no good way to answer those questions in that regard. These were not good-faith actors, and it's very disappointing that so many people who should know better, bought the bit hook, line and sinker. And WilmerHale, which prepped her for the hearing, apparently focused on her testifying in a way that would avoid any kind of legal liability for herself or the university while freezing out the PR people who might have helped her with the political aspect of it.

As for the plagiarism, yeah, it's hard to argue that the president of Harvard should keep her post if she has past issues of academic misconduct. But one could also wonder whether it was more a case of sloppiness (technically inadequate citation) than deliberate misconduct. And it seems more the type of violation that a professor would discuss with a student and instruct them on and have them fix than one that would result in expulsion, as so many online shreikers seem to be claiming. I am surprised that her dissertation adviser didn't go line by line with her. I had to do that with my law review editor for both my student notes before they got published.

 

"I considered the project of race in America to be finished that November night in San Diego."

oof

 

I don’t know if Gay should’ve been fired, resigned, stayed or whatever. Nor do I care. She definitely handled things poorly.

I do know the coverage of the story is pretty over-the-top ridiculous. It should be covered, sure. The extent is fucking laughable.

It’s an issue that affects a minuscule portion of the population. It’s really not a lot more than hard-right Rufo agenda setting. That worked. Again.

 

I hope he sells a million copies, but the whole paragraph in that Newsweek piece gets an all-caps OOF.

I considered the project of race in America to be finished that November night in San Diego. The election of a Black U.S. president broke the psychological barrier in our minds. There is no higher office than President of the United States of America—in the entire world. For me, the questions of race were all answered. I was done with race.

 

John Fogerty says hello.

 

Meanwhile . . .

Gaza Is Starving

Last month, a United Nations report on hunger described a catastrophic situation in Gaza, where more than ninety per cent of the population has been facing “acute food insecurity,” and where “virtually all households are skipping meals every day.” Much of Gaza is at risk of famine in the next several months. Parents have been going without food to insure that their kids have at least something to eat; where food is available, moreover, prices have skyrocketed, making it inaccessible even for middle-class families. The report noted, “This is the highest share of people facing high levels of acute food insecurity” ever recorded “for any given area or country.” I recently spoke by phone with Arif Husain, the chief economist at the United Nations World Food Program, which was one of the partner organizations that compiled the report. The W.F.P. also collects data on hunger around the world and delivers food to needy people. During our conversation, which has been edited for length and clarity, we discussed what the people of Gaza are currently facing, the reasons many cannot access food, and why this crisis is so unprecedented.