1ºHere we go, democratic liberals, trying to justify the accusations against the Harvard president that shouldn’t have been president was on qualified to be president of Harvard was only picked because of the color of your skin, which is absolutely disgusting  and wrong people should not be chosen based off of the color of their skin they should be chosen for if they’re the best candidate and best fit for the position
 You know she was chosen because she was black and radical and they knew that people would be afraid to call her out on anything because then they would use the race card is very simple. How radicals work in the game that they’re playing in this country today and it’s absolutely disgusting and shame on anybody that race Baits
 It’s really a slap in the face to real Americans that lived so long ago that dreamed  open a miracle like we have today, but we know why democratic liberals play the game it’s all about dividing people for their own benefit
2ºTom DeGraffenreid Like I said, I have not reviewed the dissertation which should be published. Second, it is acceptable to use others words as long as you reference it. Multiple ways to do this. This is not a big a deal as the media is making it out and using it against people in detrimental ways. The average person who do not hold either a masters or doctoral degree who have not done a dissertation do not understand. I have two doctoral degrees, my youngest son two, and my youngest son a masters degree, all requiring publishable work. This is nothing but trying to destroy anyone with a higher degree for political reasons without a clear understanding of the process. There are thousands of PhDs alone awarded by hundreds of institutions per year. Errors or misquotes are not that uncommon. Remember, not only does the doctoral committee review but if published the peer-reviewers. Again, people just do not understand.
3ºPersonally I would have to review the dissertation. I do this for a living. As long as content is appropriately referenced then it will not be flagged. Here is the problem. A thousand people have probably said, “I conclude in my research that the dog was red”. Identical to 1,000 other published statements? Yes. Stick in any other wording. Saying the same thing does not make it plagiarizing others work. You have to look at it within the context of the statement. You can run software all day long but that is not sufficient to declare the statement plagiarized. That remains with the advisor and committee who make final decision. Sorry, the story doesn’t justify the conclusion and could get you sued for defamation!
4ºNancy Dimas You are absolutely right. In news posts about mrs Gray on CNN I have reacted that criticism is not anti-semitism, moreover that Semites live in the wider middle east, like Somalia, Eritrea, Yemen, Palestine, Jordan… And I have also given my opinion over mr Ackman and his donorship.
This article about his wife is about only plagiarism, whereas the opinion is not substantiated, like the televised examples of mrs Gray’s work were about a paragraph which described numerical movement, increase vs decrease etc. That is not plagiarism esp when she must have named that publicized research of mr Voss cs in a separate summary. One does also not create new graphics and curves.
So I see more than you suppose .
5ºLynda.. yeah, that’s not cool. Some were omissions of proper quotations, still, an infraction is an infraction. Sounded like some were inline with Harvard’s standards. I’m surely not in a position to judge.. not having written a research paper for almost 50 years now, but I do remember that back then it was imperative to cite everything, everyone, making sure one used a lot of resources. It can get tangled up at times, esp before computers, using a typewriter, white out, long hours at the library. Maybe it’s harder now with the internet? Less books and actual library time.
Am still wondering why the people who read her papers first didn’t catch anything?
Also.. am not ok with politicians lying to us over and over and getting away with it. One is on record for over 30,000 in about four years. My frame of reference is a bit different, or maybe it’s merely my expectations?
Take care!
6ºI appreciate college professionals being honest and forthright in their academic papers, following all rules, which probably should have been caught by whomever reads dissertations, etc., but we are human and mistakes happen.
My concern is that we are holding college presidents and professors to a much higher standard than US presidents, senators, representatives, justices, etc.
Some of them are huge role models, some of them make huge errors, aka lies, and still keep their jobs, still rake in donations… or is it perhaps that we all have higher expectations of women because we know they’ll work harder, and men often aren’t up to doing their best? Just wondering…. There is a difference in what we’ll accept from men vs women.
7ºAljamaal Jones as I always tell my students, I'd rather you over-cite than under-cite. Accidental plagiarism is still plagiarism. If they have to ask, "Should I cite this...?" the answer is usually going to be, "Cite it anyway, just in case." Close paraphrasing requires a citation. And what we deem "common knowledge," even in our chosen fields of study, is such a gray area. Most often, the kind of plagiarism that's making news these days is, essentially, lazy plagiarism, where scholars just don't take the time to determine what does and doesn't require citation. If it's a direct quote, that clearly requires citation. Everything else takes time and effort to get correct, with regard to citing sources and giving credit where it's due. Research is rushed. Writing is rushed. Review is rushed. The goal is to get through it all as fast as possible and walk away with a degree. True academic honesty and the attention to detail it requires takes a backseat to accuracy, which is unfortunate.
8ºTheresa Ener and that’s all well and great. But do you understand that citing individuals for information that had been distributed, written, rehashed, revised, regenerated etc just so some person (in most cases) that is deceased can garner credit that holds no bearing on anything, is ridiculous. We are holding on to old ways that have no real relevance in today’s dichotomy. I believe we put way too much energy into things that don’t matter. As I said to someone before no one sells a Honda and in the commercial gives credit to another manufacturer or Karl Benz as the originator of the automobile. Now if the person says or argues “those are my words, I made them up” in my opinion, that’s another story. But this crusade of egotism and “who said what first” is asinine. Get the information, apply, and go.
9ºHans Feekes And yet you fail to see the implications of this article. Or are you blind to the fact that it was Ackman who started all this. IT is ok for his wife to plagiarize, but not ok for Ms Gay? So tell me what is the difference? Plain and simple Gay did not support Israel GENOCIDE. That is not antisemitic. Now if anti means against and semitic refers to people of the Jewish faith, then why does it not apply to Arabs,. You see the definition of semitic is not religion but languages, mainly Arabic and Hebrew. Do you need to speak Hebrew to be semitic? Norman Finklestein is a prime example of what the Zionist do to anyone that has recognition and speaks out against the Israeli govt. He is a Jew who lost most of his family in the Holocaust. He is an expert on the 2 state solution. He has written many books against Israel. He lost his tenure at NYU because of it. He has been labeled an antisemitic Jew. Assassination of character is their forte, always playing the victim.
10ºCatherine Freudenberg It seems like Republicans were expecting to muzzle free speech. Speech does have its limits. But the question asked by the representative to get TV coverage wasn't a yes/no question. Free speech limits means that I cannot threaten a specific person. That also could cross over into criminal territory. But I can state out loud as part of free speech that I wish that all the billionnaires who made their money exploiting the poor were put on a rocket to Mars one way. It is free speech if a Palestinian or a Jew states out loud that they wish the other wasn't in the territory. The limit on free speech comes if a Palestinian or a Jew threatens a member of the other side or small group of specific people with violence. Palestinians chanting "From the River to the Sea" is the same as the Israeli minister who said that all Palestinians should be deported to other countries.