Claudine Gay stepped down this week as Harvard
University's president amid growing accusations of plagiarism and backlash over
her response to
anti-Semitism on campus. But the ousted academic isn't going quietly
with Gay talk,
taking to the opinion pages of the New York Times
Wednesday to blame others for her downfall,
saying that she is a victim
of a well laid trap at last month's now infamous
congressional hearing in claiming that her ouster was quote about
more than one university and one leader.
This is merely a single skirmish in a broader war
to unravel public faith in pillars of American Society.
Campaigns of this kind often start with attacks on education
and expertise,
but such campaigns don't end there.
We're back with Dan Henninger,
Kim Strassel and Bill Mcgurn.
So, Bill, why do you think she felt compelled to
resign?
It was only two or three,
three weeks ago that the Harvard corporation said she was
the right person for the job at the right moment,
right. I think the plagiarism on top of the other
charges made the difference because as
I hit the two, I never knew plagiarism was a
conservative standard.
I thought it was standard for all vaccine
and they just couldn't get out of that one and
kind of gave them an excuse for the reason to
get rid of her.
You know, the problem is when you play the game
of identity politics,
it becomes incredibly difficult for anyone to be fired.
Because when you're firing them,
you seem to be not only firing the individual,
but an indictment against the whole
DEI arrangement. You know, if they hired someone like Dan,
they would have a much better job,
He'd probably do a great job.
And if they want to fire him a lot easier
because he's
a white male, be easier to fire.
So that's where my vote You're out of here.
Well, Dan, what do you make of her defense in
the New York Times?
Because the bill brought up on Andy Pollack,
That's what she played. She said basically that this was
about about race and about
ideology, claiming it was it was all political.
What do you make of that defense?
I think the defense was strategic.
She has lost her job.
She's not going to get it back.
But this is the way the
progressives and the left play politics in this country,
which is to go on counter offensive.
She's claiming the moral high ground.
She's claiming self righteousness. She knows a lot of the
media will go along with that and I think she's
sending a message to the Harvard board.
Don't think about replacing me with someone more moderate or
right of center.
You're going to have to continue down the road.
We were on and given the makeup of the Harvard
board,
the she has reason to think that will work.
But behind that you have donors at places like Harvard,
Penn, Columbia who are extremely upset.
Let's not forget this was not about identity politics.
This was about the anti-Semitism
protests that were taking place on Harvard's campus.
That was the original problem and her failure to speak
out against it.
And as long as the donors and alumni keep that
in front of people,
I think gays attempt to try to change the subject
probably will fail
Kim. What about the her point that there this is
not just about her and Harvard but there's a little
broader
debate here going on. Is that is that is that
right And what are those larger stakes here in the
in in in her
resignation as symbolic of something bigger.
Yeah. And by the way first of all I wouldn't
fire Henniger.
I just want that for the record.
But yeah no there she she is right there.
There is a there is a a bigger debate here.
She just gets the wrong end of the stick obviously.
Look this actually precedes even October 7th and
anti-Semitism. We're having a big debate about
DEI as part of our culture,
whether it's in academia or in the workplace or in
government.
And the question of whether or not this country is
going to return to race based standards in hiring and
firing and in the makeup of departments,
something I think is terrible that the Supreme Court is
getting involved in.
She's obviously throwing her weight on the side of arguing
that's a good thing and we need to continue down
that road.
But I think people ought to read her op-ed as
a warning that this is not going to be easy
to fix.
It's become somewhat intractable in society at the moment.
And if the activists who are now looking at her
scalp that they got as it were and thinking they
have victory,
they're very wrong. This is something that's going to take
years to dismantle.
And the real test is going to be who does
Harvard name next?
Do classes change? Do they invite more professors in of
different ideologies?
Do they embrace more enlightened discussion and civic course on
campus?
Those are going to be the real standards of who's
winning in this battle bill.
The universities like Harvard and others have
widespread respect as institutions of higher learning when they focus
on that,
when they focus on free inquiry and debate.
But it's the political indoctrination,
I think, that exists on so many campuses.
That and the political conformity and the enforcement of that
conformity that I frustrate so many Americans and I think
has led to
significant decline in public respect.
Yeah. If you look at how universities used to be
portrayed,
like in movies and even in small town,
they would look to the university as a voice of
reason,
someone who rises above the passions to give a reason
to.
I think no one sees that anymore.
When they look underneath, it's like
picking up a piece of wood and dirt and almost
underneath there's all these worms and stuff running around.
People don't know what's going on there.
And I think they've lost that standing in America,
in in a certain part of the world,
in a lot of elite society,
it is a ticket to success,
especially at the elite universities.
And now we'll remain and they also have huge endowment,
so they can, you know,
basically tell people to go stop themselves.