I’m sorry, but I have to disagree with you guys concerning the college Presidents. Stefanik didn’t ask “Do you think antisemitism is bad?” Or, “Is calling for genocide offensive?” She asked “Is calling for genocide a violation of the school’s codes of conduct?” These are different questions, the last more legalistic than moral; also, the formal codes were not available to them for reference at the time.
Now, the Presidents could have offered better answers, maybe even pushed back a bit, but, given their positions, they felt the need to hedge. (Maybe that was cowardly, and if you think so, that’s OK.) Stefanik was trying — successfully — to ambush them into a trap. It was a “gotcha” question. They were stuck with either criticizing free speech, or criticizing antisemitism. They could not win.
It seemed to me, with their “it depends” responses, that they were trying to avoid condemning speech that, while offensive, may still fall under the category of “free speech”. Stefanik offered them this broad, vague assertion, rather than asking about specific cases, which could be judged whether or not they violated the codes.
Their insistence on talking about “speech” vs. “conduct” was trying to make a distinction between somebody standing on the street corner, saying, “I hate Jews”, and somebody saying, “Let’s go down and torch the synagogue”. The former is speech. Offensive, yes, but not, like the latter, conduct. Deserving of some kind of sanction? Maybe so; let’s look at the code of conduct, because (sorry) it depends. (Maybe it was satire.)
The kind of citation errors that Gay made (the citations for comments that she neglected to put quotes around were still attributed in footnotes and other citations) are not, I understand, that uncommon, and not, strictly speaking (and IMO), plagiarism. It seems to me that they were simple errors, lacking the intent to plagiarize. She was pushed to resign not because of those, but because she had become an embarrassment to Harvard.
I’m sorry, but I have to disagree with you guys concerning the college Presidents. Stefanik didn’t ask “Do you think antisemitism is bad?” Or, “Is calling for genocide offensive?” She asked “Is calling for genocide a violation of the school’s codes of conduct?” These are different questions, the last more legalistic than moral; also, the formal codes were not available to them for reference at the time.
Now, the Presidents could have offered better answers, maybe even pushed back a bit, but, given their positions, they felt the need to hedge. (Maybe that was cowardly, and if you think so, that’s OK.) Stefanik was trying — successfully — to ambush them into a trap. It was a “gotcha” question. They were stuck with either criticizing free speech, or criticizing antisemitism. They could not win.
It seemed to me, with their “it depends” responses, that they were trying to avoid condemning speech that, while offensive, may still fall under the category of “free speech”. Stefanik offered them this broad, vague assertion, rather than asking about specific cases, which could be judged whether or not they violated the codes.
Their insistence on talking about “speech” vs. “conduct” was trying to make a distinction between somebody standing on the street corner, saying, “I hate Jews”, and somebody saying, “Let’s go down and torch the synagogue”. The former is speech. Offensive, yes, but not, like the latter, conduct. Deserving of some kind of sanction? Maybe so; let’s look at the code of conduct, because (sorry) it depends. (Maybe it was satire.)
The kind of citation errors that Gay made (the citations for comments that she neglected to put quotes around were still attributed in footnotes and other citations) are not, I understand, that uncommon, and not, strictly speaking (and IMO), plagiarism. It seems to me that they were simple errors, lacking the intent to plagiarize. She was pushed to resign not because of those, but because she had become an embarrassment to Harvard.
That’s my take on it, anyway.🤔😉😊