Claudine Gay- narcissism and entitlement

Claudine Gay comes from a wealthy Haitian family. She attended the best schools and Colleges.  She looks brainy, stylish, classy, and a fitting leader for an elite College. Yet she has been forced to resign because of a rebellion by major donors across the political spectrum. However, it must be said, one of them is rather right wing and is against 'Diversity, Inclusion, Equity' and other such 'wokeness'. But this sentiment has been building up for decades now. Younger politicians- like Harvard educated Elise Stefanik- see that the public mood has shifted against the liberalism of the elites. Perhaps Gay could have ridden out the storm if there hadn't been a charge of plagiarism against her (though on examination it appears pretty inconsequential). Still, the graceful thing to do would have been to resign and carry on with her academic work while joining the boards of prestigious foundations. What was maladroit was the statement she published in the NYT. It suggests she is stupid and narcissistic. 

On Tuesday, I made the wrenching but necessary decision to resign as Harvard’s president.

No 'wrenching' is involved when you do what is necessary. What she probably meant to say is that she is dedicated to Harvard and so it was a wrench to have step down from a leadership role there. But, she should add that she will continue to do all she can to help the College. 

For weeks, both I and the institution to which I’ve devoted my professional life have been under attack.

I think certain actions- concerning Harvard and its President's reaction to Hamas atrocities- have been attacked. Gay seems to think there is a personal vendetta against her. But, if so, it must be an 'inside job'. It was her own board which forced her out. 

My character and intelligence have been impugned.

On the evidence of this screed, rightly so. A smart person of good character would write in a graceful manner of the marvellous things Harvard has accomplished and will continue to accomplish under new leadership. She may hint that the charges against her are unfair but convey the impression that Harvard does not stoop to similar tactics even in self-defence. 

My commitment to fighting antisemitism has been questioned.

What has she actually done to 'fight antisemitism'? It would be worth highlighting any actions Harvard has taken under that rubric. We are left with the impression that no such actions were taken.  

My inbox has been flooded with invective, including death threats. I’ve been called the N-word more times than I care to count.

Yet, the bleeding hearts focus on Hamas's atrocities instead of the terrible suffering of the President of Harvard who is too stupid to have a spam detector which deletes emails which contain the N-word. 

My hope is that by stepping down I will deny demagogues the opportunity to further weaponize my presidency in their campaign to undermine the ideals animating Harvard since its founding: excellence, openness, independence, truth.

If such was her hope she should have got somebody else to write this for her. There is no 'excellence, openness or truth' in this screed. There is only narcissism and entitlement. What we can see is that Harvard chooses bad Presidents. It is not interested in promoting excellence or independent thinking. Gay may have been forced out but the next President will be no better. 

As I depart, I must offer a few words of warning. The campaign against me was about more than one university and one leader.

So it wasn't really a campaign against her. Why, then, is she making this about herself? The answer was supplied when she mentioned the N-word.  

This was merely a single skirmish in a broader war to unravel public faith in pillars of American society.

Harvard is a rotten pillar. They appointed a nincompoop as President just because of the 'N-word'.  

Campaigns of this kind often start with attacks on education and expertise,

Bill Gates dropped out of Harvard. He has plenty of expertise. Gay is very educated. She has none.  

because these are the tools that best equip communities to see through propaganda.

This lady couldn't see through Hamas's propaganda.  

But such campaigns don’t end there. Trusted institutions of all types — from public health agencies

the CDC turned out to be shit. No one saw that coming but COVID forced us to recognize this 

to news organizations —

like Fox News?  

will continue to fall victim to coordinated attempts to undermine their legitimacy and ruin their leaders’ credibility.

Only if they are shit. There have been coordinated attempts to undermine Trump. But to do so requires evidence which will stand up in Court. Trump is smart enough to crush his enemies with a 'mean-girl' tweet.  

For the opportunists driving cynicism about our institutions, no single victory or toppled leader exhausts their zeal.

What drove cynicism about the Harvard Econ Dept. was the fact that it fucked up Russia and then made a profit on it through insider trading. Summers should never have been appointed President. What brought him down was his suggestion that maybe women are stupid. Perhaps he was thinking of this lady. 

Yes, I made mistakes.

People who make mistakes shouldn't be sacked. They should be promoted otherwise the cynics who point out those mistakes will have won. Do we really want a society where only capable people hold leadership roles?  

In my initial response to the atrocities of Oct. 7, I should have stated more forcefully what all people of good conscience know: Hamas is a terrorist organization that seeks to eradicate the Jewish state. And at a congressional hearing last month, I fell into a well-laid trap.

A trap is something hidden. The Congressional hearing was one which this lady should have prepared herself thoroughly for. She didn't bother or else got rattled. 

Consider the following exchange- 

Congresswoman Stefanik: Dr. Gay, a Harvard student calling for the mass murder of African Americans is not protected free speech at Harvard, correct?

The right answer is 'Correct! Such a thing is wholly abhorrent, illegal, and will immediately trigger draconian punishment by the University authorities. We have zero tolerance for hate speech- more particularly calls for violence of any type.' 

President Gay: Our commitment to free speech -

Is irrelevant. She needs to say 'we punish those who promote violence'  

Congresswoman Stefanik: It’s a yes or no question. Is that correct? Is it okay for students to call for the mass murder of African Americans at Harvard? Is that protected free speech?

The answer is 'no! Murder or violence against anybody is strictly prohibited and is punished severely.'  

President Gay: Our commitment to free speech -

I am committed to buying a super-yacht. But I can't because I have no money. Harvard's commitments don't matter. Do they or don't they punish hate speech or calls for mass murder? 

Congresswoman Stefanik: It’s a yes or no question. Let me ask you this: you are president of Harvard so I assume you are familiar with the term “Intifada,” correct?

It means 'uprising'. The first intifada in 1987 was spontaneous and featured kids throwing stones at the IDF. Gay should have said so.  

President Gay: I have heard that term, yes.

When preparing for a congressional hearing, you need to have studied the conflict in question. The lady is a Professor- a 'political scientist'. Yet she has merely 'heard' the term. She should be saying something like 'the word means 'uprising'. It was first used by Communists in Iraq and separatists in Morocco. The first Palestinian intifada was spontaneous and featured stone throwing. Sadly, the second intifada became more violent while Hamas has taken a much more organized and military approach featuring horrible atrocities such as those we witnessed in October. My esteemed colleague, Professor X, is the world authority on the subject.' 

Congresswoman Stefanik: And you understand that the use of the term “intifada” in the context of the Israeli-Arab conflict is indeed a call for violent armed resistance against the State of Israel, including violence against civilians and the genocide of Jews. Are you aware of that?

Stefanik is smart. Since Gay is either ignorant or utterly stupid, Stefanik gets to define the term. She conflates the first and second intifada and the fact that some call the current war the 'third intifada'. Gay needed to differentiate the uses of the term. 

President Gay: That type of hateful speech is personally abhorrent to me.

She is not appearing in her personal capacity but as the President of Harvard. What action is Harvard taking in this matter?  

Congresswoman Stefanik: And there have been multiple marches at Harvard with student chanting “There is only one solution. Intifada revolution” and “Globalize the Intifada,” is that correct?

Stefanik scores! Gay isn't saying 'such and such scholars dispute that the organized violence of the second intifada or Hamas's actions or other 'pay-for-slay' killings could be called 'intifada'. They are terrorist operations not spontaneous uprisings.' 

President Gay: I’ve heard that thoughtless, reckless, and hateful language on our campus, yes.

So she heard it but did nothing about it. Stefanik has proved that Harvard is allowing genocide to be promoted on its campus. People use such language even in the hearing of the President! What's next? Will they start killing Jews in front of her? Will she say 'personally I find this abhorrent, but you guys just go ahead and enjoy yourselves'?  

Congresswoman Stefanik: So based upon your testimony, you understand that this call for intifada is to commit genocide against the Jewish people in Israel and globally, correct?

Stefanik must have been amazed at Gay's utter ignorance and stupidity. If you look at her first mention of intifada, we see she had left herself some wriggle room to back-track. Had Gay said 'intifada' properly so called is a spontaneous uprising and may feature stone throwing. It is wrong to use the word for meticulously planned terrorist or military strikes of the sort Hamas has repeatedly used since 2008. I find this abhorrent but as President I have to verify that the word is being used in the wrong manner promoted by Hamas. It's like the word 'Revolution'. The American Revolution aimed to create a free Society. The Bolshevik Revolution aimed to create a class-war in which millions would die. We can't jump to the conclusion that the 'Daughters of the American Revolution' are actually Bolsheviks. However, we do need to take action if there is evidence that such people are engaging in hate crimes or seeking to trigger mass bloodshed. This is a legal matter and you can be sure we have very good lawyers at Harvard who will build water-tight cases against those who promote anti-semitic or other types of murderous hate ideologies.'  

President Gay: I will say again, that type of hateful speech is personally abhorrent to me.

Gay would be rather distressed if Harvard students start raping and beheading Jews. Personally, she doesn't like that sort of thing. However, as President, she has to grin and bear it.  

Congresswoman Stefanik: Do you believe that type of hateful speech is contrary to Harvard’s Code of Conduct or is it allowed at Harvard?

Gay should quote the relevant rule and explain why it forbids such speech.  

President Gay: It is at odds with the values of Harvard.

Harvard says you should study hard. But if you can pass your exams without much studying, though it is against the values of Harvard, it is not against its Code of Conduct.  

Congresswoman Stefanik: Can you not say here that it is against the Code of Conduct at Harvard?

She could say that it violates anti-discrimination rules.  

President Gay: We embrace a commitment to free expression even of views that are objectionable, offensive, hateful - it’s when that speech crosses into conduct that violates our policies against bullying, harassment, intimidation…

So, Gay believes that anti-discrimination rules don't apply to calls for genocide. Stefanik's point is that Harvard has a double standard you can't call for violent action against coloured people but you can call for genocide against Jews.  

Congresswoman Stefanik: Does that speech not cross that barrier? Does that speech not call for the genocide of Jews and the elimination of Israel? You testified that you understand that that is the definition of “intifada.” Is that speech according to the Code of Conduct or not?

Gay genuinely thinks this is the case. She had to go. Harvard has to change its understanding of non-discrimination and punish those who call for 'global intifada'. 

President Gay: We embrace a commitment to free expression and give a wide berth to free expression even of views that are objectionable, outrageous and offensive.

Harvard embraces genocidal anti-semitism. Why on earth would wealthy donors- some of whom are Jewish- want her sacked? Surely killing Jews would be good for the economy? After all, Jews are known to be lazy, untalented and rubbish at Math.  

Congresswoman Stefanik: You and I both know that that is not the case. You are aware that Harvard ranked dead last when it came to free speech, are you not aware of that report?

Why did Harvard- which has plenty of money- not rebut that report? The answer is that it is genuinely proud of being against free speech for the politically incorrect. In Gay's case there is the additional factor that some African Americans are anti-Semitic.  

President Gay: As I’ve observed earlier, I reject that characterization of our campus.

Why not do some research and publish a rebuttal? The answer is that Gay is proud of that characterization of her campus. She just rejects the option of saying so to Congress.  

Congresswoman Stefanik: The data show’s it’s true and isn’t it true that Harvard previously rescinded multiple offers of admissions for applicants and accepted freshman for sharing offensive memes, racist statements, sometimes as young as 16-years-old.

a Jewish conservative from Israel.  

Did Harvard not rescind those offers of admission?

Yes. 

President Gay: That long predates my time as president so I can’t speak -

But she was a Dean of some faculty or other. Anyway, the thing was in the newspapers. She must know about it but she doesn't want to speak about it.  

Congresswoman Stefanik: But you understand that Harvard made that decision to rescind those offers of admission.

You do read the papers, don't you? 

President Gay: I have no reason to contradict the facts as you present them to me.

Gay is proud of the fact that Harvard is bigoted and anti-semitic. 

Congresswoman Stefanik: Correct, because it’s a fact. You’re also aware that a Winthrop House faculty dean was let go over who he chose to legally represent. Correct? That was while you were dean.

He was African American. Yet Gay didn't stand up for him.  

President Gay: That is an incorrect characterization of what transpired.

It is correct. Gay has had plenty of time to tell her side of the story. But, there is no story to tell.  

Congresswoman Stefanik: What’s the characterization?

President Gay: I’m not going to get into details about a personnel matter.

How is a Dean being removed from his position a 'personal matter' to another Dean?  Perhaps the dude sent her a dick pic. Meanly, she won't share it with the rest of us. Sad. 

Congresswoman Stefanik: Well let me ask you this: will admission offers be rescinded or any disciplinary action be taken against students or applicants who say, “from the river to the sea” or “intifada” advocating for the murder of Jews.

No. We will fast-track them to tenure. You can never have enough Jew-killers in the faculty lounge.  

President Gay: As I’ve said, that type of hateful, reckless, offensive speech is personally abhorrent to me.

But, as President, she has to put up with that sort of thing every day. We should feel sorry for her. 

Congresswoman Stefanik: No action will be taken? What action will be taken?

President Gay: When speech crosses into conduct that violates our policies, including policies against bullying, harassment and intimidation, we take action. We have robust disciplinary processes that allow us to hold individuals accountable.

But that policy currently is you can say 'kill all Jews' and that is free speech. Only once you start raping and beheading Jews on campus might some disciplinary action be taken.  

Congresswoman Stefanik: What action has been taken against students who are harassing and calling for the genocide of jews on Harvards campus?

None.  

President Gay: I can assure you, we have robust disciplinary actions.

Name one.  

Congresswoman Stefanik: What actions have been taken? I’m not asking, I’m asking what actions have been taken against those students.

X number of students, whose names I can't reveal for legal reasons, have been the subject of disciplinary action.  

President Gay: Given students rights to privacy and our obligations under FERPA. I will not say more about any specific cases other than to reiterate that processes are ongoing.

But she can say what disciplinary action has been taken against what number of students.  

Congresswoman Stefanik: Do you know what the number one hate crime in America is?

President Gay: I know that over the last couple of months there has been an alarming rise of antisemitism which I understand is the critical topic that we are here to discuss.

Why then did Gay say nothing about what Harvard was doing to tackle this specific problem? The answer is that it is doing nothing.  

Congresswoman Stefanik: That's correct. It is anti-Jewish hate crimes. And Harvard ranks the lowest when it comes to protecting Jewish students. This is why I have called for your resignation and your testimony today and not being able to answer with moral clarity speaks volumes.

Stefanik got her wish. What is surprising is that Gay gave her a walk-over. Was this because she is proud that Harvard has become a bastion for anti-Semitism? Or is she simply stupid?  Returning to her NYT article we find that she now realizes that she fucked up monumentally.  

I neglected to clearly articulate that calls for the genocide of Jewish people are abhorrent and unacceptable and that I would use every tool at my disposal to protect students from that kind of hate.

She neglected to use any tool at her disposal to actually do so.  The problem with Gay is that she thought her job was to feel bad actions were 'personally abhorrent'. She didn't get that she was being paid to respond with appropriate disciplinary action. If a policeman sees a thug raping and murdering a woman, it is his job to step in and arrest the criminal. He shouldn't content himself with a personal feeling of abhorrence or the reflection that homicidal rapists are not adhering to decent values. 

Most recently, the attacks have focused on my scholarship.

It is shit but then a lot of non-STEM stuff is shit. What we expected from this lady was gravitas and 'grace under pressure'.  

My critics found instances in my academic writings where some material duplicated other scholars’ language, without proper attribution. I believe all scholars deserve full and appropriate credit for their work. When I learned of these errors, I promptly requested corrections from the journals in which the flagged articles were published, consistent with how I have seen similar faculty cases handled at Harvard.

So, the people who went after Gay got her to do something she herself feels it is important to do. The graceful thing to do would be to express gratitude to them for their diligence in this matter. They'd end up looking bad. She'd come across as well-bred.  

College campuses in our country must remain places where students can learn, share and grow together, not spaces where proxy battles and political grandstanding take root.

This is the root of the matter. Gay should be aware that there are people like Vivek Ramaswamy who are attacking the rigid 'political correctness' and cult of 'wokeness' which flourishes on campuses. This 'cancel culture' must itself be cancelled. Issues like Racist quotas unfavourable to East Asian origin students have been raised in Court. Colleges have been slow to respond. 

Some academics feel there is an element of karmic payback in Gay's downfall. She had supported action against an African American law professor who had joined Harvey Weinstein's legal team. What goes around comes around. 

Universities must remain independent venues where courage and reason unite to advance truth, no matter what forces set against them.

Harvard has a long way to go in that department. Getting rid of Gay may seem a step in the right direction. But her replacement may be worse.