Claudine Gay

Dear Commons Community,

Harvard University President Claudine Gay resigned yesterday after facing intense scrutiny for ambiguous testimony she gave at a congressional hearing on campus antisemitism as well as widening allegations of plagiarism in her academic work.

“It is with a heavy heart but a deep love for Harvard that I write to share that I will be stepping down as president,” Gay said in a letter to the Harvard community. “This is not a decision I came to easily. Indeed, it has been difficult beyond words because I have looked forward to working with so many of you to advance the commitment to academic excellence that has propelled this great university across centuries.”

But after consulting with the university’s board, Gay added, “it has become clear that it is in the best interests of Harvard for me to resign so that our community can navigate this moment of extraordinary challenge with a focus on the institution rather than any individual.”   As reported by NBC News.

Gay’s six-month tenure is the shortest in the university’s 388-year history, according to the Harvard Crimson student newspaper. She was the first Black person and the second woman to lead the institution.

The Harvard Corporation, the school’s highest governing body, announced that Alan M. Garber, the school’s provost and chief academic officer, would serve as interim president until a permanent successor is named. The corporation’s members said Gay will return to a faculty position.

Gay drew fierce criticism last month after she and her counterparts at the University of Pennsylvania and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology appeared to sidestep the question of whether calls for the genocide of Jews violate the school’s conduct rules. Penn President Liz Magill resigned days after the widely panned hearing.  MIT President Sally Kornbluth has so far not faced major fallout.

Gay then faced allegations of plagiarism in her political science scholarship. The Harvard Corporation ordered an investigation that “revealed a few instances of inadequate citation” but found no violation of Harvard’s standards for research misconduct.

Gay’s job appeared to be secure Dec. 12 after the Harvard Corporation, responding to growing calls for her ouster, released a statement saying its members “reaffirm our support for President Gay’s continued leadership of Harvard University.”

But the questions swirling around Gay’s position did not abate over the holidays.

Billionaire investor Bill Ackman, as well as conservative activists such as Christopher Rufo, continued to put pressure on Harvard via posts on social media. The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative publication, published an unsigned complaint Monday that referred to new allegations of plagiarism, exacerbating the crisis.

Harvard’s communications office did not have comment on the additional plagiarism accusations.

The root of the outcry

The leaders of three of the country’s most prestigious universities were called before the House Committee on Education and the Workforce on Dec. 5 to testify about how their administrations responded to the rise in antisemitism after the Oct. 7 Hamas attack in Israel,

Gay repeatedly condemned both antisemitism and Islamophobia, but critics seized on her legalistic response to a line of questioning from Harvard alumnus Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., that went viral on social media. Stefanik asked Gay whether students who call for the genocide of Jews are in violation of the campus code of conduct.

Gay did not answer directly, saying in part: “We embrace a commitment to free expression even of views that are objectionable, offensive, hateful — it’s when that speech crosses into conduct that violates our policies against bullying, harassment, intimidation.”

The answer was met with swift backlash from the White House, lawmakers in both parties and high-profile alumni. NBC’s “Saturday Night Live” parodied the hearing at the start of the Dec. 9 episode.

In an interview with the Harvard Crimson student newspaper after the hearing made national news, Gay apologized for her remarks and said in part: “I got caught up in what had become at that point, an extended, combative exchange about policies and procedures.”

“I failed to convey what is my truth,” she said.

Gay attracted more scrutiny after critics such as Ackman and Rufo highlighted instances of alleged plagiarism in her published academic work, which largely focuses on American political behavior and the role of racial identity in politics.

Harvard’s board said it first learned of the allegations in late October, carried out an “independent review” of her work and found “a few instances of inadequate citation.” The board said Gay was “proactively requesting four corrections in two articles to insert citations and quotation marks that were omitted from the original publications.”

But in the weeks to come, Gay continued to face plagiarism accusations — most recently on Monday, when the Washington Free Beacon published unsigned complaint whose author purported to have found “nearly 50 allegations, including over half a dozen examples never seen before.” NBC News has not independently verified those claims.

Gay has defended her academic work. “I stand by the integrity of my scholarship,” she said in a statement on Dec. 12. “Throughout my career, I have worked to ensure my scholarship adheres to the highest academic standards.”

Harvard history professor Alison Frank Johnson, one of more than 700 members of the faculty who had signed a letter urging administrators to resist calls to remove Gay, said in an interview that she was “flabbergasted” by the president’s exit.

“I was surprised to have this decision made so precipitously and without any proper procedures being followed,” Frank Johnson said in a Zoom interview.

Stefanik cheered the news of Gay’s departure, writing in part in a post on X: “TWO DOWN.”

Gay had to resign for her own sake, for Harvard , and for the higher education profession!

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

John Mogulescu, long-time CUNY dean and colleague of mine has just published a memoir entitled, The Dean of New Things:  Bringing Change to CUNY and New York City.  John spent almost fifty years at the City University of New York, most of which were at the central office where he served as dean in the office of academic affairs.  I have known John for almost thirty years and can say without a doubt, his contributions were unique and made a lasting impact on CUNY.  Here is my brief review.

First, the title, The Dean of New Things is perfect. It reflects the projects that he undertook which were new and exciting, and most importantly, filled a need that likely would not have been met at the colleges.  I am most familiar with his work with the School of Professional Studies, ASAP (Accelerated Study in Associate Programs,) , and Guttman Community College, all of which are singular accomplishments.  

Second, he provides keen insights into the importance (for good or bad) of various city and state influences that had a significant impact on CUNY and especially the projects with which he was involved. His cultivation of relationships with political and other external actors is a story that had to be told.

Third, his perspective as a central office  administrator comes through loud and clear. He has fine commentary on the various chancellors and vice chancellors with whom he worked.  His opinions of Matt Goldstein and other CUNY chancellors are especially illuminating.

Fourth, he is most gracious in the way he compliments his staff and others especially administrators who worked with him.  They are often overlooked in much of the higher education literature. It is a wonderful reflection in that he gave credit to many of the staff people who frequently go nameless in a book of this type.

Lastly, I found it a pleasurable read.  Very accessible and finely edited. It flows easily and I read its 330 pages in four days.

If you are at all interested in a CUNY insider’s story,  consider picking up a copy!

Tony

John Roberts.  Copyright – J. Scott Applewhite | AP

Dear Commons Community,

US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts on Sunday turned his focus to the promise, and shortcomings, of artificial intelligence in the federal courts.

Describing artificial intelligence as the “latest technological frontier,” Roberts discussed the pros and cons of computer-generated content in the legal profession. His remarks come just a few days after the latest instance of AI-generated fake legal citations making their way into official court records, in a case involving ex-Trump lawyer Michael Cohen.

“Always a bad idea,” Roberts wrote in his year-end report, noting that “any use of AI requires caution and humility.”

At the same time, though, the chief justice acknowledged that AI can make it much easier for people without much money to access the courts. “These tools have the welcome potential to smooth out any mismatch between available resources and urgent needs in our court system,” Roberts wrote.

The report came at the end of a year in which a series of stories questioned the ethical practices of the justices and the court responded to critics by adopting its first code of conduct. Many of those stories focused on Justice Clarence Thomas and his failure to disclose travel, other hospitality and additional financial ties with wealthy conservative donors including Harlan Crow and the Koch brothers. But Justices Samuel Alito and Sonia Sotomayor also have been under scrutiny.

The country also is entering an the beginning of an election year that seems likely to enmesh the court in some way in the ongoing criminal cases against Trump and efforts to keep the Republican former president off the 2024 ballot.

Along with his eight colleagues, Roberts almost never discusses cases that are before the Supreme Court or seem likely to get there. In past reports, he has advocated for enhanced security and salary increases for federal judges, praised judges and their aides for dealing with the coronavirus pandemic and highlighted other aspects of technological changes in the courts.

Roberts once famously compared judges to umpires who call balls and strikes, but don’t make the rules. In his latest report, he turned to a different sport, tennis, to make the point that technology won’t soon replace judges.

At many tennis tournaments, optical technology, rather than human line judges, now determines “whether 130 mile per hour serves are in or out. These decisions involve precision to the millimeter. And there is no discretion; the ball either did or did not hit the line. By contrast, legal determinations often involve gray areas that still require application of human judgment,” Roberts wrote.

Looking ahead warily to the growing use of artificial intelligence in the courts, Roberts wrote: “I predict that human judges will be around for a while. But with equal confidence I predict that judicial work — particularly at the trial level — will be significantly affected by AI.”

The courts and everything else!

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

I wish all a Happy, Healthy, and Peaceful New Year in 2024!

Tony