After the past week's Congressional hearings, the presidents of Harvard University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the University of Pennsylvania are being exposed to an amount of publicity and scrutiny they're not used to and likely wish would go away. As we reported, the trio claimed that calls for genocide against Jews needed to be placed into context before deciding whether they violated student codes of conduct.

The backlash was swift, and so was the backpedaling. //

Hallen
2 minutes ago
...indicating that Gay might have plagiarized...

There is no 'might have'. She did. 100%, no doubt, blatant plagiarizing.

It's even more egregious because Swain, the brilliant woman Gay plagiarized, is also a black woman. It's even more funny because Swain is conservative and rational. She has done a lot of work debunking the whole 'Democrat to Republican migration in the south' canard. You can see her on Prager U talking about it. Brilliant woman.

It's dastardly that Gay stole so blatantly from Swain and the fact that the Harvard PhD committee didn't even notice. Talk about the bigotry of low expectations. Harvard so wanted a black female PhD that they willingly (I'm betting) ignored the plagiarism in order to credential here. And then they made her president as soon as they could even though she lacked any form of credible academic achievement or publishing. //

anon-t26i
4 hours ago
What we have is an infatuation with higher education. Once upon a time a PhD was granted to, not persons of continuing education, but to persons who contributed new, not re-hashed, not unusual view points on an already known idea, but new, original ideas to the corpus of knowledge in the discipline. There is no evidence that the number of PhD's we currently have, and paid for, and continue to pay for have contributed that number of new ideas. In any discipline much less than a "studies" program, which is no discipline at all.