I think Harvard should fire Claudine Gay. But not for the reasons her critics are emphasizing, including Congressional testimony, public statements after October 7, and charges of plagiarism. Come on now, you don’t really think she’s a wonderful president doing a fantastic job, and it’s too bad we have to fire her over copied and pasted sentences in her thesis.
Great Essay, John. Of Course Harvard, and Stanford, and Penn, and MIT, and ... are not going to change their ways voluntarily or internally. There are too many people, too much money, and too much power for them to want to change or to be able to change.
Take away their tax exemptions. Take away their research contracts. Take away their admissions polices. Make them have honest, public accounting and disclosure of what they do with their money. Make their trustees personally liable for their discriminatory behavior.
Speaking as a Harvard alum, I believe the issues with Gay are just the tip of the iceburg.
A recent comment by another Harvard alum stated, "I graduated earlier this year, and my former classmates (progressive, liberal, or moderate) are uniformly against [Gay]." Notice the problem with the quote? This statement's glaring omission highlights a significant issue at Harvard: the absence of conservative or Republican viewpoints. My own experience reflected this puritanical patisanship. During my time there, I felt the University was, essentially, a Leftist Echo Chamber. Any viewpoint slightly right of liberal was pejoratively branded "Right-wing"; those holding a non-liberal position were disparagingly called "despicable Trumpers" or "deplorable Conservatives." I think this insularity and sectarianism has now come back to bite us: the perception of Harvard is now that it's an out-of-touch ivory tower, populated by smug, coastal, liberal elitists who think they're superior to the rest of society.
This is particularly concerning in a country almost evenly split between left and right ideologies. Yet, at Harvard, according to a report by the Crimson, a staggering 98.5% of our faculty lean left or ultra-left (assuming 'moderate' implies center-left, or 80+% left-leaning otherwise). This lack of ideological balance is clearly untenable. Similarly, The Crimson's editorial board is, to the best of my knowledge, entirely liberal, which is equally unacceptable. The same can be said for the HAA Executive Committee's composition, which is also entirely liberal. Again, unacceptable.
During my time at Harvard, I observed this ideological homogeneity everywhere I looked; nearly every student I interacted with leaned left. The few conservatives I met kept a low profile; some remarked that they were fearful of judgement. This lack of political diversity and hostility toward those with differing ideologies in an institution that should be committed to neutrality and liberal education is, frankly, detestable.
How can Harvard claim national leadership when it shows such political narrow-mindedness? The university is at risk of facing severe reprisals unless it rectifies this imbalance. The almost complete absence of political diversity at Harvard is not merely concerning; it is, unequivocally, unacceptable.
It positions the University as antagonistic to at least half of the country and demonstrates a failure to represent a broad spectrum of Americans. As conservatives move to cut funding and special privileges (including federally funded student loans and non-profit status), it seems the Harvard Board may think these issues will dissipate. However, the University's current predicament will only escalate, with increasing lawsuits and congressional scrutiny. Can Harvard reform from within? The Board's repeated failures do not inspire much confidence.
Spot on, if Harvard wants to save itself. We've seen this scenario before: Do we want to save the ship or, in the interest of self-righteousness, go down with ship? I am not sanguine. Sometimes the hardest pill to swallow comes from a prescription you created.
Would you consider this a market failure? Prospective students and corporate recruiters have numerous options where to devote their purchasing power and resources. And yet they seemingly prize these institutions. If so, what can this market failure teach us about markets more broadly?
I believe all Federal aid and loan guarantees (student loans, etc) should be ended for colleges. Let Democrats fund their own brainwashing.
60-70% of college education now is just WOKE garbage or just pure job avoidance. $2 Trillion of unpaid student loans of MAL-investment. A professional Sports league NCAA funded by tax payers that rewards a tiny portion of its output. These Point to a VERY broken system.
End Federal Aid and Tax Protection for colleges, cities, states along with Non-profits where anyone gets $100k+ in benefit. We have massive malinvestment.
I would like to add I was recently at a top small liberal college in NY....where the President explicitly said they were going to continue to admit based on RACE, not just qualification...and ignore the Supreme Court Ruling. Basically BREAK THE LAW!
So like I said previously time to END all Federal Aid to colleges and if anyone gets $100k of benefit...they should PAY all Taxes as well...which will FORCE them to realize the economics of what they are doing. People want to pay for a BAD education out of their pockets, fine....Just NO massive taxpayer CASH COW! Defund the Democrat Mind Virus.
If you look at the board of Harvard corp you see that almost all of them are Obama administration cronies. They hired her because it suits their purposes and let's them retain control of the "organs of power"
Of course, they knew exactly whom they were hiring & why.
There is no market for corporate control in Nonprofit Land, no mechanic to change governance, and every incentive ($ endowment) not to. Nor are there any effective enforcement mechanics to ensure loyalty to charter or donor intent. Better to dig in, fortify the walls and extend the ideological control.
As you point out, it is not just Harvard. It is virtually all elite institutions, like Stanford where Professor Cochrane is now, and our alma mater of Chicago though Chicago does a slightly better job than others though that's like saying you had an umbrella with many holes in it during a rainstorm so you didn't get as wet. It's also the US Public Teacher's unions who have embraced "woke" vs radical objective inquiry. It is also at the Chicago school my children attended that now costs over $40k per year with very wealthy parents.
This is epidemic and there are very few academics like Mr. Cochrane. Let's hope many wake up and grow in number for even the ones who embraced wokeness are smart, and realize what they are doing.
"Gay is exactly what Harvard wanted, and a look-alike is exactly what it will get unless it wants something different."
Indeed. The takeover of higher education by the social justice mission is the real problem, and firing Claudine Gay will not solve it. Maybe something like a multi-institution blue-ribbon commission could get Harvard and other schools to choose the better mission of intellectual integrity, but only if students and faculty can be persuaded to follow the recommendations of such a commission.
Do you have secret service protection? Actually that might expose you to arkancide. Do you have Elon Musk’s security team on speed dial?
Au contraire, I hope she stays in her job long enough to burn down the institutional prestige
Great Essay, John. Of Course Harvard, and Stanford, and Penn, and MIT, and ... are not going to change their ways voluntarily or internally. There are too many people, too much money, and too much power for them to want to change or to be able to change.
Take away their tax exemptions. Take away their research contracts. Take away their admissions polices. Make them have honest, public accounting and disclosure of what they do with their money. Make their trustees personally liable for their discriminatory behavior.
Speaking as a Harvard alum, I believe the issues with Gay are just the tip of the iceburg.
A recent comment by another Harvard alum stated, "I graduated earlier this year, and my former classmates (progressive, liberal, or moderate) are uniformly against [Gay]." Notice the problem with the quote? This statement's glaring omission highlights a significant issue at Harvard: the absence of conservative or Republican viewpoints. My own experience reflected this puritanical patisanship. During my time there, I felt the University was, essentially, a Leftist Echo Chamber. Any viewpoint slightly right of liberal was pejoratively branded "Right-wing"; those holding a non-liberal position were disparagingly called "despicable Trumpers" or "deplorable Conservatives." I think this insularity and sectarianism has now come back to bite us: the perception of Harvard is now that it's an out-of-touch ivory tower, populated by smug, coastal, liberal elitists who think they're superior to the rest of society.
This is particularly concerning in a country almost evenly split between left and right ideologies. Yet, at Harvard, according to a report by the Crimson, a staggering 98.5% of our faculty lean left or ultra-left (assuming 'moderate' implies center-left, or 80+% left-leaning otherwise). This lack of ideological balance is clearly untenable. Similarly, The Crimson's editorial board is, to the best of my knowledge, entirely liberal, which is equally unacceptable. The same can be said for the HAA Executive Committee's composition, which is also entirely liberal. Again, unacceptable.
During my time at Harvard, I observed this ideological homogeneity everywhere I looked; nearly every student I interacted with leaned left. The few conservatives I met kept a low profile; some remarked that they were fearful of judgement. This lack of political diversity and hostility toward those with differing ideologies in an institution that should be committed to neutrality and liberal education is, frankly, detestable.
How can Harvard claim national leadership when it shows such political narrow-mindedness? The university is at risk of facing severe reprisals unless it rectifies this imbalance. The almost complete absence of political diversity at Harvard is not merely concerning; it is, unequivocally, unacceptable.
It positions the University as antagonistic to at least half of the country and demonstrates a failure to represent a broad spectrum of Americans. As conservatives move to cut funding and special privileges (including federally funded student loans and non-profit status), it seems the Harvard Board may think these issues will dissipate. However, the University's current predicament will only escalate, with increasing lawsuits and congressional scrutiny. Can Harvard reform from within? The Board's repeated failures do not inspire much confidence.
Dead center on the subject; John has used research, logic and facts to show the classic bureaucrat.
She and Harvard are out of touch with the country, with the world, and with each other.
"Note to self if ever testifying before a hostile committee. Just lie. Over and over bigger and bigger."
Congressman: Prof Cochrane can you comment on the relationship between debt, real surpluses and the price level please?
JC: I can't really speak to any specifics on that subject.
Congressman: I have here a copy of your most recent book, can I direct your attention to the very first chapter please?
JC: I am not familiar with the content of the first chapter. I wrote that book, I never actually read it.
Great point I think Gay would have had much bigger consequences if she took money from Epstein like professors did at MIT after his conviction. https://www.axios.com/2019/09/14/joi-jeffrey-epstein-ties-mit-media-lab-professor
Spot on, if Harvard wants to save itself. We've seen this scenario before: Do we want to save the ship or, in the interest of self-righteousness, go down with ship? I am not sanguine. Sometimes the hardest pill to swallow comes from a prescription you created.
Would you consider this a market failure? Prospective students and corporate recruiters have numerous options where to devote their purchasing power and resources. And yet they seemingly prize these institutions. If so, what can this market failure teach us about markets more broadly?
I believe all Federal aid and loan guarantees (student loans, etc) should be ended for colleges. Let Democrats fund their own brainwashing.
60-70% of college education now is just WOKE garbage or just pure job avoidance. $2 Trillion of unpaid student loans of MAL-investment. A professional Sports league NCAA funded by tax payers that rewards a tiny portion of its output. These Point to a VERY broken system.
End Federal Aid and Tax Protection for colleges, cities, states along with Non-profits where anyone gets $100k+ in benefit. We have massive malinvestment.
I would like to add I was recently at a top small liberal college in NY....where the President explicitly said they were going to continue to admit based on RACE, not just qualification...and ignore the Supreme Court Ruling. Basically BREAK THE LAW!
So like I said previously time to END all Federal Aid to colleges and if anyone gets $100k of benefit...they should PAY all Taxes as well...which will FORCE them to realize the economics of what they are doing. People want to pay for a BAD education out of their pockets, fine....Just NO massive taxpayer CASH COW! Defund the Democrat Mind Virus.
If you look at the board of Harvard corp you see that almost all of them are Obama administration cronies. They hired her because it suits their purposes and let's them retain control of the "organs of power"
Add to this the sad “firing” of Larry Summers for asking serious questions.
Of course, they knew exactly whom they were hiring & why.
There is no market for corporate control in Nonprofit Land, no mechanic to change governance, and every incentive ($ endowment) not to. Nor are there any effective enforcement mechanics to ensure loyalty to charter or donor intent. Better to dig in, fortify the walls and extend the ideological control.
Gramsci wins.
As you point out, it is not just Harvard. It is virtually all elite institutions, like Stanford where Professor Cochrane is now, and our alma mater of Chicago though Chicago does a slightly better job than others though that's like saying you had an umbrella with many holes in it during a rainstorm so you didn't get as wet. It's also the US Public Teacher's unions who have embraced "woke" vs radical objective inquiry. It is also at the Chicago school my children attended that now costs over $40k per year with very wealthy parents.
This is epidemic and there are very few academics like Mr. Cochrane. Let's hope many wake up and grow in number for even the ones who embraced wokeness are smart, and realize what they are doing.
"Gay is exactly what Harvard wanted, and a look-alike is exactly what it will get unless it wants something different."
Indeed. The takeover of higher education by the social justice mission is the real problem, and firing Claudine Gay will not solve it. Maybe something like a multi-institution blue-ribbon commission could get Harvard and other schools to choose the better mission of intellectual integrity, but only if students and faculty can be persuaded to follow the recommendations of such a commission.