I’m sure most of you know that Claudine Gay resigned as President of Harvard University. It was a rather long, controversial process to get there. She had the support of the Harvard board, but then they had to withdraw it, because accusations kept piling up. Now, Ms. Gay herself blames personal attacks and racism for what happened. But I think the story is really one of competence and professionalism.
First of all, what is a university president supposed to do? Well, first and foremost, they are the face of the university. And President Gay, or then-President Gay, represented the university before Congress. Universally, it was view that she did a terrible job.
The second is to keep donors happy. It’s kind of funny, but the real business of Harvard University is keeping its $40 billion dollar endowment growing. That requires that alumni keep the money flowing.
Finally, she’s CEO of the university, which means managing and organizing the place in context of principles that the college has, as well as the development, both physical and intellectual, at the university.
Now, let’s start with a congressional hearing. Frankly, the nice word you could say is that she couldn’t read the room. She hemmed and hawed, refused to condemn the antisemitism that had become rampant at Harvard, dodged questions. It’s okay to dodge questions at congressional hearings, you just can’t look like [it], and I guess that’s what it was, and she looked like it. The donors became very unhappy, both with the anti-Israel protests at Harvard, which were widespread and involved intimidation of Jewish students, and with her bad performance at the congressional hearing. As CEO, she didn’t protect free expression. She let basically mobs determine what was said at Harvard.
And the nail in the coffin was widespread accusations of plagiarism. Gay did not just copy a sentence here and a sentence there. She lifted whole paragraphs from other papers, not just one paragraph, but several in a row. It is incompetence, not racism, that was the cause of Claudine Gay’s departure.
Then there’s the problem with the university itself, it has an interesting governance structure. It has a 12-member board of directors, which is self-appointed. Let’s get this clear. When someone leaves the board, the rest of the board picks the replacement. It is self-perpetuating. It has been that way since the university was founded, and it’s actually protected in the Massachusetts State Constitution. That makes it almost invulnerable to the outside world.
Now, I’m all for university independence. But most other schools have their boards elected by alumni, or at least part of the board elected by alumni. Harvard, I think, is probably unique in having nothing more than a self-perpetuating governance structure. Not only that, the university, under this board and under President Gay and her predecessor, have moved away from merit as the basis for admissions, towards what are essentially racial quotas. The quotas were so explicit that the Supreme Court found that they discriminated, and had to end the discrimination, and that suit was against Asians.
But it’s also widespread that other groups were discriminated against, in particular Jews. Jewish admission had averaged about 20%. Now it is down to 5%. The merit-based distribution in society hasn’t changed. It was just that Jews and Asians who had higher SAT scores were excluded in order to admit other, more favored groups of individuals. Not only that, the university really has no conservative professors. That wasn’t always true. In the mid-20th century, for example, some very famous and leading academics were from the conservative side of the spectrum, were prominent Harvard professors. They include Joseph Schumpeter, Harvey Mansfield, who was a history professor, and of course Henry Kissinger, who was plucked from Harvard by Richard Nixon to be Secretary of State.
Today 98% of all political contributions by members of the Harvard community go to Democrats. 98%! It’s hard to imagine that, there really is no intellectual diversity anymore at Harvard. And there used to be diversity of thought, probably the most important kind of diversity that any university can have, that supposedly is what they’re in the business of. Well, this lack of intellectual diversity, the nature of the board, and Ms. Gay’s incompetence, all combined to not only exclude her, but should suggest to Harvard that they change their ways. After all, a university is supposed to stand for intellectual merit and academic freedom. Harvard does not. This is Larry Lindsey for Straight Arrow News.
Related
Larry Lindsey
President & CEO, The Lindsey Group
View Video LibraryCommentary
Our commentary partners will help you reach your own conclusions on complex topics.
Why Putin axed Shoigu
Yesterday
Peter Zeihan
New roles for Russia, North Korea, Iran in global arms trade
Monday
Peter Zeihan
Why interest rates will be higher for longer
Friday
Peter Zeihan
‘The worst it’s ever been’: Young Americans on democracy
Thursday
Dr. Frank Luntz
Claudine Gay, Harvard have lost sight of academic values
Jan 15
By Straight Arrow News
Claudine Gay resigned from her position as Harvard University president following a congressional hearing on campus antisemitism and heavy criticism from Harvard alumni in the wake of the testimony. Gay’s resignation completed a tumultuous year for the historic university, which found itself in the center of various public debates throughout 2023, including the debate on affirmative action and race-based admissions quotas.
Straight Arrow News contributor Larry Lindsey summarizes the role of an ideal university president, and then contrasts that ideal with Gay’s actions and behaviors. Lindsey contends that Gay’s resignation was the natural result of her incompetence, and argues that Harvard itself has lost sight of its core academic values.
Not only that, the university, under this board and under President Gay and her predecessor, have moved away from merit as the basis for admissions, towards what are essentially racial quotas. The quotas were so explicit that the Supreme Court found that they discriminated, and had to end the discrimination, and that suit was against Asians.
But it’s also widespread that other groups were discriminated against, in particular Jews. Jewish admission had averaged about 20%. Now it is down to 5%. The merit-based distribution in society hasn’t changed. It was just that Jews and Asians who had higher SAT scores were excluded in order to admit other, more favored groups of individuals.
Not only that, the university really has no conservative professors. That wasn’t always true. In the mid-20th century, for example, some very famous and leading academics were from the conservative side of the spectrum, were prominent Harvard professors. They include Joseph Schumpeter, Harvey Mansfield, who was a history professor, and of course Henry Kissinger, who was plucked from Harvard by Richard Nixon to be secretary of state.
Today, 98% of all political contributions by members of the Harvard community go to Democrats. 98%! It’s hard to imagine that, there really is no intellectual diversity anymore at Harvard. And there used to be diversity of thought, probably the most important kind of diversity that any university can have, that supposedly is what they’re in the business of.
Well, this lack of intellectual diversity, the nature of the board, and Ms. Gay’s incompetence, all combined to not only exclude her, but should suggest to Harvard that they change their ways. After all, a university is supposed to stand for intellectual merit and academic freedom. Harvard does not.
I’m sure most of you know that Claudine Gay resigned as President of Harvard University. It was a rather long, controversial process to get there. She had the support of the Harvard board, but then they had to withdraw it, because accusations kept piling up. Now, Ms. Gay herself blames personal attacks and racism for what happened. But I think the story is really one of competence and professionalism.
First of all, what is a university president supposed to do? Well, first and foremost, they are the face of the university. And President Gay, or then-President Gay, represented the university before Congress. Universally, it was view that she did a terrible job.
The second is to keep donors happy. It’s kind of funny, but the real business of Harvard University is keeping its $40 billion dollar endowment growing. That requires that alumni keep the money flowing.
Finally, she’s CEO of the university, which means managing and organizing the place in context of principles that the college has, as well as the development, both physical and intellectual, at the university.
Now, let’s start with a congressional hearing. Frankly, the nice word you could say is that she couldn’t read the room. She hemmed and hawed, refused to condemn the antisemitism that had become rampant at Harvard, dodged questions. It’s okay to dodge questions at congressional hearings, you just can’t look like [it], and I guess that’s what it was, and she looked like it. The donors became very unhappy, both with the anti-Israel protests at Harvard, which were widespread and involved intimidation of Jewish students, and with her bad performance at the congressional hearing. As CEO, she didn’t protect free expression. She let basically mobs determine what was said at Harvard.
And the nail in the coffin was widespread accusations of plagiarism. Gay did not just copy a sentence here and a sentence there. She lifted whole paragraphs from other papers, not just one paragraph, but several in a row. It is incompetence, not racism, that was the cause of Claudine Gay’s departure.
Then there’s the problem with the university itself, it has an interesting governance structure. It has a 12-member board of directors, which is self-appointed. Let’s get this clear. When someone leaves the board, the rest of the board picks the replacement. It is self-perpetuating. It has been that way since the university was founded, and it’s actually protected in the Massachusetts State Constitution. That makes it almost invulnerable to the outside world.
Now, I’m all for university independence. But most other schools have their boards elected by alumni, or at least part of the board elected by alumni. Harvard, I think, is probably unique in having nothing more than a self-perpetuating governance structure. Not only that, the university, under this board and under President Gay and her predecessor, have moved away from merit as the basis for admissions, towards what are essentially racial quotas. The quotas were so explicit that the Supreme Court found that they discriminated, and had to end the discrimination, and that suit was against Asians.
But it’s also widespread that other groups were discriminated against, in particular Jews. Jewish admission had averaged about 20%. Now it is down to 5%. The merit-based distribution in society hasn’t changed. It was just that Jews and Asians who had higher SAT scores were excluded in order to admit other, more favored groups of individuals. Not only that, the university really has no conservative professors. That wasn’t always true. In the mid-20th century, for example, some very famous and leading academics were from the conservative side of the spectrum, were prominent Harvard professors. They include Joseph Schumpeter, Harvey Mansfield, who was a history professor, and of course Henry Kissinger, who was plucked from Harvard by Richard Nixon to be Secretary of State.
Today 98% of all political contributions by members of the Harvard community go to Democrats. 98%! It’s hard to imagine that, there really is no intellectual diversity anymore at Harvard. And there used to be diversity of thought, probably the most important kind of diversity that any university can have, that supposedly is what they’re in the business of. Well, this lack of intellectual diversity, the nature of the board, and Ms. Gay’s incompetence, all combined to not only exclude her, but should suggest to Harvard that they change their ways. After all, a university is supposed to stand for intellectual merit and academic freedom. Harvard does not. This is Larry Lindsey for Straight Arrow News.
Related
Polls give slight advantage to Trump in Electoral College
With the U.S. general election only six months away, leading candidates President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump appear to be engaged in a very close contest. In their 2020 race, the winner of the Electoral College was ultimately determined by a relative handful of voters in just a few swing states, even though…
Monday
College sports is big money but not everyone benefits
March Madness has wrapped up and Caitlin Clark has emerged as a household name as well as a wealthy student athlete. Earning over $3 million throughout her college career, her success stands in stark contrast to the previous notion that collegiate athletes shouldn’t earn anything beyond their scholarship. Straight Arrow News contributor Larry Lindsey examines…
Apr 29
Biden’s EV math just doesn’t add up
In March, the Biden administration issued a new directive requiring U.S. automakers to cut the average carbon emissions of their fleets by almost 50% before 2032. That order is one component of President Biden’s larger goal to cut total U.S. carbon emissions in half by 2030. A primary method for reaching these goals will involve…
Apr 22
President Biden just isn’t cool
For some Americans, politics is only about policy, while others prioritize core values, ideas, aspirations or beliefs. Still, for others, politics may be a reflection of culture, where voting serves as a symbolic act to proclaim cultural group identity. But for some Americans, who they vote for and support is more of a popularity contest,…
Apr 15
Federal Reserve policy should be more restrictive
The American economy is booming, with high GDP growth, record-low unemployment, and wage gains for median workers. Over the past few quarters, U.S. economic growth indicators have consistently outperformed official projections. But the U.S. Federal Reserve recently conceded that its policies might be too restrictive, hindering the full potential of the U.S. economy, which the…
Apr 8
Underreported stories from each side
White House: Biden will veto GOP bill on aid to Israel
13 sources | 0% from the left
Reuters
Arizona’s high court is allowing the attorney general 90 more days on her abortion ban strategy
45 sources | 10% from the right
Reuters
Latest Stories
More American workers cheating to pass workforce drug tests
Watch 2:04
11 hrs ago
Raskin opens probe into Trump’s $1 billion request to oil executives
Watch 1:52
11 hrs ago
China’s BYD launches hybrid truck in Mexico, US may target these vehicles
Watch 1:48
11 hrs ago
Potential TikTok buyer hopes to fundamentally change the app
Watch 2:35
12 hrs ago
How much sway does Fed’s interest rate policy have over residual inflation?
Watch 4:39
12 hrs ago
Popular Opinions
In addition to the facts, we believe it’s vital to hear perspectives from all sides of the political spectrum.
Biden sees Trump jail time as sole path to reelection
16 hrs ago
Newt Gingrich
Why the United States must regulate ghost guns
16 hrs ago
Adrienne Lawrence
Unfair Biden executive order favors Democrats in November
Yesterday
Ben Weingarten
US college protests test First Amendment limits
Yesterday
Ruben Navarrette