Welcome to the new (and now only) Fora!
Started by Langue_doc, December 21, 2023, 07:36:32 AM
QuoteHarvard Finds More Instances of 'Duplicative Language' in President's WorkClaudine Gay has faced growing criticism of not only her response to antisemitism on campus but also her scholarship.
QuoteExcerpts From Dr. Claudine Gay's WorkHere are five examples of work by President Claudine Gay of Harvard that have been spotlighted by critics who have accused her of plagiarism.
QuoteWhy Claudine Gay Should Go
Quote from: Langue_doc on December 22, 2023, 06:10:04 AMI agree that the politicians should stay out of this. Gay does have a rather unimpressive list of publications; in addition, the instances of improper citations are exactly those that are covered in Freshman Comp classes, so there is absolutely no excuse for such errors in half or more than half of her very small list of publications. Op-ed by John McWhorter on why she should resign:QuoteWhy Claudine Gay Should Go
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on December 22, 2023, 08:06:07 AMHer record is thin on if we're counting the number of articles, but three APSRs, an AJPS, and a JOP - all solo - is impressive in political science from a quality standpoint.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on December 21, 2023, 08:23:06 AMBut it's definitely not appropriate for Congress to be looking into it. What the fuck?
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on December 22, 2023, 11:48:00 AMQuote from: Sun_Worshiper on December 22, 2023, 08:06:07 AMHer record is thin on if we're counting the number of articles, but three APSRs, an AJPS, and a JOP - all solo - is impressive in political science from a quality standpoint. I wouldn't say 'only', since her PhD is from 1997. So yeah, top-tier solo pubs, but not many to show for an 18-year academic career at fancy institutions with plenty of resources and little teaching (before she became an administrator).But she's from a different academic generation. The publication pressure on young academics twenty-six years ago just doesn't compare to the arms race today. This is true in my adjacent field, too; if I look at the CVs of people hired in my field at Stanford and the Ivies thirty years ago, I've already outstripped most of them despite having graduated only six years ago. Hell, I've outstripped most of the faculty at my PhD-granting institution! But they came up at a time when it was normal and expected for you to take your time publishing and focus on just a few high-quality pieces, and it was normal for you to slow down even more/stop after tenure. That's not how things are today, but it is how it was until maybe fifteen years ago. (Indeed, I know for a fact that Stanford still discourages its PhD students from publishing!) So, yeah, I wouldn't put too much stress on the number.I do think that the 'sloppiness' should disqualify her from a leadership position such as President, Provost, or Dean, however. I'd hesitate to say it should lead to loss of a faculty position, but it seems incompatible with leading an institution whose members all know better and teach their students better. Like, it's a pretty important norm that she violated, over and over. Having done some editing for some privileged people in political science, however, I have to say that I'm not at all surprised. This kind of sloppiness seems fairly common at a certain level. I remember one paper that came to me, as copy editor for an edited collection, chock full of quotes and allusions to the work of others, but without either a single reference or even a list of works cited. I sent it back to the editor despite the tight deadline, because it's sure as hell not my job to play research assistant to some asshole who can't be bothered. It was by a very well-known figure in the discipline, too. (Also, shame on the editors, who should not have passed it along.)