A February 8th editorial in the Harvard Crimson authored by the Crimson Editorial Board looks at the plagiarism situation involving two black, female administrators, former University President Claudine Gay and Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officer Sherri A. Charleston.
While the editorial admits that plagiarism is a problem and that candidates for positions at Harvard must be vetted for it and other issues before hiring takes place, it states that in this case bringing up plagiarism is a method of attacking DEI itself, engaging in war against higher education and right-wing activists' campaign against the entire academic project.
For an alumnus, a diploma from a respected and expensive university is a huge investment in time and money. It is in the interest of the graduate that the reputation for excellence of the institution be upheld or increased by its future management and the failure to do so will naturally result in criticism. That was the case in the Gay argument, which was initiated by a Harvard alum and large financial donor. As a product of Harvard he has every right to defend the integrity of the school and hardly represents an anti-education right-wing campaign.
Harvard, and the other elite universities in the US and Canada, have problems of their own making. Perhaps they should look into them and attempt to represent and enlighten a bigger share of society.
No comments:
Post a Comment