To the editor: Reading your article about Claudine Gay’s resignation as president of Harvard raised the specter of plagiarism.
The accusations regarding his thesis were apparently not considered misconduct (i.e. plagiarism), but only “a few cases of improper citation.” The article noted that additional cases of “duplicated language without proper attribution” had been brought to light.
It seems like Harvard was trying to acknowledge plagiarism without having to say it out loud.
Thinking that maybe I was missing something, I looked up the definition of plagiarism in the dictionary. Gay’s alleged plagiarism cases would seem to fit the definition exactly, despite the Harvard board’s verbal routine.
I also reviewed online summaries of Harvard’s undergraduate and graduate policies regarding plagiarism. For college students, a single instance might not result in expulsion, but expulsion was not out of the question. For graduate students, the bar is high, and plagiarism typically results in expulsion.
His article implied that Gay’s resignation was simply the result of a conservative witch hunt, and I didn’t get the sense that this tenured professor was going to get anything more than a light slap on the wrist.
Gerald Swanson, Long Beach
..
To the editor: That’s why leaders of the anti-cancel culture movement are rejoicing over the Harvard president’s resignation because her responses to a congressional committee weren’t “woke” enough.
What will happen to the presidential candidate who does not know how to say “slavery”?
Lorena Priceman, Woodland Hills
..
To the editor: The treatment Gay received during his appearance before a Congressional panel was abhorrent. He was totally political and went far beyond any sense of common decency.
Representative Elise Stefanik (RN.Y.) demanded simple answers to her rather complicated and loaded questions. She also interrupted Gay several times during the process. This also shows contempt for the person you are talking to. Gay’s appearance at the hearing was a courtesy, not a requirement.
Is this the new reality: Anyone called to appear before Congress can expect to be dispassionately questioned? Will future “witnesses” speak only to armies of lawyers advising every word, gesture, snort, throat clearing, blinking, whatever?
How does this help democracy in the United States?
Patrick Sullivan, Reseda
..
To the editor: It is people like Gay and his apologists and defenders who cause otherwise decent citizens to turn to politicians like Donald Trump.
Fletcher Goldin, Orange
