SANITYChristopher Rufo makes sure 2024 gets off to a great start: Sets up a bounty system for catching plaigarism and other academic fraud in university leadership. This might make a lot of diversity-hires crap their pants

submitted by ClassroomPast6178 from x.com

all 33 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]jet199 7 insightful - 4 fun7 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 4 fun -  (3 children)

There's been a lot of push back against holding her to account for plagiarism.

For the conspiracy minded, they could be worried that Rufo will now expose a whole international network of grifters who have used plagiarism and DEI to take over at Universities.

We've all been buying the idea that wokeness just arose naturally out of academics being generally left wing, removed and elitist when, in fact, it could have been planned and implanted.

Gay is very much in with the Obamas. She isn't unconnected, she was part of the establishment before she got the job.

[–]JulienMayfair 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Rufo will now expose a whole international network of grifters

Rufo hardly needs to "expose" any of these people. James Lindsay and his cohorts have been doing it for years. The problem is not so much plagiarism as shoddy scholarship and a system of hiring professors whereby existing faculty will ONLY hire people who check the right boxes and who already agree with them. The takeover of academia by the woke was not so much planned as a conspiracy as it was a natural consequence of the way the tenure-track professor hiring process works. At this point, at most universities, if you don't explicitly endorse woke principles, you'd have to be very good at hiding it until you get tenure, or you might as well burn your CV.

[–]jet199 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

The difference is that shoddy scholarship can be written off as a matter of opinion or style.

Plagiarism is specifically not allowed in university rules.

[–]JulienMayfair 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Also, Gay is said to have been one of the people behind the cancellation of Roland Fryer, another black professor at Harvard whose research debunked some of the Defund the Police narrative.

[–]xoenix 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (23 children)

He seems quite proud of himself. His strategy seems to be to tell everyone what his strategy is before going ahead and doing it.

[–]LordoftheFliesAmeri-kin 2.0. Pronouns: MegaWhite/SuperStraight/UltraPatriarchy 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

Hold up, was she the one encouraging pro-Hamas (or anti-Israel, can't quite recall) nonsense from the student protests and then crying about those same students losing career opportunities in return?

[–]jet199 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

She refused to apply the rules equally because some groups are poor helpless victims while some are evil privileged oppressors.

She has a rich white husband like all her kind.

[–]hfxB0oyADon't piss on my head & tell me it's raining. 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Putting off higher rent Saira Rao vibes.

[–]jet199 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Such women are a type.

https://i.imgur.com/pIpgaun.jpeg

[–]Q-Continuum-kin 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

Well it was framed that way but that isn't what happened. The congressperson was grandstanding for clicks by misrepresenting a phrase.

The trio declined to give a definitive "yes" or "no" answer to Republican Representative Elise Stefanik's question as to whether calling for the genocide of Jews would violate their schools' codes of conduct regarding bullying and harassment, saying they had to balance it against free speech protections.

The reason none of them would give an answer is because Stefanik was making up a situation which didn't exist. There were protests calling for ceasefire and some of the students were doing the "river to the sea " chant. These fucking idiots in Congress kept saying the students were calling for genocide of Jews because of that phrase. It's like the old tactic of asking "why did you beat your wife?"

So they kept asking "why won't you say X violates your code of conduct?" But the context was that they were trying to lie and claim the students were calling for a genocide by asking this other question.

On top of that, their answer is correct. More free speech is better and some random students should be allowed to chant whatever.

These are the same people who have been going nuts claiming that "the left" are all snowflakes and violating the free speech rights of "the right". Then as soon as some students start chanting for equal rights for Palestinians "from the river to the sea" Congress is hauling university presidents in to demand they shut down free speech.

Now, the reason they dug into her past is obvious... But the criticism is legitimate when the students are expected to cite papers correctly. It's just annoying how this narrative got spun that she was "pro Hamas" because of some insane Israeli lobby propaganda and everyone is just going with it like it's true.

[–]JulienMayfair 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Congress is hauling university presidents in to demand they shut down free speech.

More broadly, it's become a tit-for-tat game. It was leftist academics who started calling for safe spaces and speech codes in the 1990s. (I know because I was in graduate school with them.) What's become rather glaringly obvious is that speech codes and their applications have become extremely biased in favor of some groups and against others. The point behind Stefanik's questioning was really that the decision has been made that Jews aren't the right kind of minority they would need to be to qualify for the same protections as "BIPOC" and TQ+.

The best outcome would be for universities to have a reset back to the less restrictive campus speech rules of the 1980s, and that's where the university presidents fell into the trap set for them. They were deliberately placed in a position where they couldn't both defend freedom of expression and defend restrictive campus speech codes. And we could all seem them trapped and stuttering, unable to articulate principled, coherent answers.

From what I've seen, Gay's failure to cite some sources is probably minor, so they got her on technicalities. The bigger problem is how campuses privilege the sensitivities of some students over others in an attempt to perform social justice while stifling freedom of speech.

[–]Q-Continuum-kin 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I largely agree with you but I'll also add that the Kent state massacre happened and this is the government attacking students because they went against the war machine. The government doesn't care about safe spaces but you protest foreign policy and you get your school officials hauled in front of Congress.

[–]JulienMayfair 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

protest foreign policy

Yeah, but college students have been protesting U.S. foreign policy for decades with minimal reaction from the government. And if those college presidents had been able to defend their actions on principle instead of giving non-answers to direct questions, it wouldn't have gone so badly for them. Everyone watching could tell that they were being evasive. They embarrassed themselves by being so clumsy about it, and we expect better from presidents of prestigious universities.

[–]Q-Continuum-kin 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The MIT president gave a better response. I heard a good take today from Ryan Grim that some people get into majors as "busy work" in order to reach some other position in life... For example you want to be in a "leadership" role but a prerequisite is having a PhD in a related field. So the person pushes through the degree and doesn't really care about the research. They just want the piece of paper so they can apply for other positions. The Harvard president seems like she might have fit that description.

[–]OuroborosTheory 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

interestingly that's part of my thesis on how "SJWism" became so big in the 10s: there weren't any protests about foreign policy under Obama (and that was only partly because he was The First Black President): no marches for the hundreds of TWOC (triple Progressive Stack score!) murdered by narco-police in Honduras, not a damn thing against Libya, Syria, Yemen

of course college is where everyone's told they're the generation that'll set things right, that now is the time when they have the time and certitude to protest SOMETHING: but instead we got shit like "those privileged janitors on campus hanging the TP underhand is ABLEIST" blasts air horn at anyone asking why

[–]OuroborosTheory 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

it all sort of throws a high relief on the whole "someone crapped on me a hundred years ago, now I, who have never endured this, have full license to chimp out on people unrelated to the said crappage nowadays"; it's no different from the rich undergrad screaming in Christakis's face 2016 vs. the latte chick tearfully begging the bored safety officer because she felt her life was in danger from a protest across the quad, it's just that one was given a literal award and the other mocked

[–]jet199 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Please explain how "from the river to the sea" calls for "equal rights"?

[–]Alienhunter糞大名 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That's the interpretation of that where people believe the Palestinians are 2nd class apartheid citizens in Israel and need to be granted "equal rights".

The actual situation is fairly complicated and honestly I don't really believe that you can grant equal rights to a group of people who will just use those rights to kill you, but I'll digress on that for now, and focus on this phrase specifically

Depending on how you interpret that phrase it is either a call to genocide, a call for the Israelis to leave Palestine and give it back to the Palestinians. A call for a two state solution. There's very little important information attached to such slogans and they are just useful political tools by which you can apply your own interpretation onto the opposition, they are essentially just Orwellian language games.

My interpretation is generally since most people chanting the slogans are dumb activists who likely can't even say which river and which sea they are referring to which betrays their lack of understanding on the topic they are protesting, it's pretty much a bad faith argument to attest to them genocidal ideations when instead simple idiocy is a far more likely motivation. Of course useful idiots are an important component in any genocide.

I suggest instead we simply co-opt the entire movement by making a far more catchy slogan for some totally inconsequential issue. "Up the road or down the chain, zombies wanna eat your brains".

[–]Q-Continuum-kin 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Alternatively you could describe how that phrase is in any way close to what AIPAC claims.

There are many ways to show it calling for equal rights. One issue at this point is that many people believe Israel has taken too much land at this point so there can't be 2 states anymore even if they agreed to it so the path of least harm is to form 1 state including all of the current Israel and Palestine boarders giving all people there equal rights with full citizenship. As it stands now Israel does not want to move in that direction because it would give non-Jews a significant voting block in the combined government. That would dilute the ethnostate so they push really hard to stop that outcome.

Even in the case of a 2 state solution it would mean kicking settlers out of the west bank in order to give Palestinians some sort of contiguous boarder & Israel would need to recognize their rights to own land in the west bank and gaza. That option isn't really viable but people can still call for it and they are in good faith calling for equal rights by saying it.

[–]alladd 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Dumb question but what's preventing Israel from just hijacking the voting process and limiting it somehow? It's obviously not easy and obviously immoral but as far as political choke points go, "voter registration" seems much more manageable than "border".

[–]Q-Continuum-kin 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I think they are still trying to present themselves as a full democracy and doing what you suggest would be like a living example of pre civil war US or south Africa. People are already making direct 1 to 1 comparisons of Israel to apartheid south Africa to which Israel gets really performatively offended over. Today people treat Nelson Mandela like a saint but there was active terrorism going on leading up to the end of the apartheid which people today look back on and say was justified. Israeli politicians keep referencing genocidal passages from the bible like they actually believe they have the right to just kill everyone in Palestine but are only holding back to keep the US on their side.

[–]alladd 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Right, sure, but in the actively shifting Overton Window that is the current conflict, seems like people already kinda hate them, so something like that wouldn't even make much of an impression.

It would escalate to other issues in the future but at least they'd be matters of political red tape and speechmaking and protesting and small incremental change instead of, you know, bombing hospitals.

[–]LordoftheFliesAmeri-kin 2.0. Pronouns: MegaWhite/SuperStraight/UltraPatriarchy 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

These are the same people who have been going nuts claiming that "the left" are all snowflakes and violating the free speech rights of "the right". Then as soon as some students start chanting for equal rights for Palestinians "from the river to the sea" Congress is hauling university presidents in to demand they shut down free speech.

I mean, it's still just as wrong regardless of which side is doing it, but I'm pretty sure it was the left that started the "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" push to begin with. So is it really any kind of surprise when the other side takes the play and uses it themselves when the opportunity appears?

[–]Q-Continuum-kin 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

So is it really any kind of surprise when the other side takes the play and uses it themselves when the opportunity appears?

I'm not surprised because i knew they were never serious about being in favor of free speech but people shouldn't encourage the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT trying to shut down free speech. The entire point of the first amendment is to restrict the federal government from shutting down speech but I keep seeing people cheering this on because it attacks what is perceived as "the other side". There's a huge difference between students trying to restrict speech of other students and the federal government trying to bully the students into shutting up because they are going against neocon foreign policy.

[–]alladd 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Very well said. The plagiarism is clearly just the "Capone tax evasion" inroad they used to go after her and the larger issue is using the government to strong arm colleges into optics compliance with foreign policy (as though it fucking makes a difference).

[–]Q-Continuum-kin 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Well it kind of does make a difference now because journalism and government beaurocracy is together a white collar industry with college degree requirements. If they can convince colleges to expel troublemakers then it's pretty convenient for keeping the pipeline clean.

[–]alladd 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

He seems like a fucking retard and probably a grifter

[–]xoenix 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Seems like an autistic activist is working for the other side for a change.

[–]Adventurous_Ad6212 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I was hoping it would be a bounty system to track down mentally ill trannies and put them in psychwards before they hurt themselves or others

[–]alladd 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

You guys are delusional if you think this weenie hut jr. is gonna accomplish anything, or is really intending to do anything but take some people's money. You think $10k is gonna do anything to a college? What's that afford you, a few hours with a legal team that tells you you're fucked?

[–]ClassroomPast6178[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

He’s not getting lawyers, he’s encouraging people to read and fact check academic works of university leaders looking specifically for fraud and plagiarism. It’s obvious that it is more rampant than thought judging by the reaction and reporting of the Gay/Havard scandal and how defensive about it a lot of people have become.

Again, getting hold of journal articles and dissertations is not expensive but it is time consuming, so utilising the techniques that the tech companies use to find bugs, bounties, makes a lot of sense.

[–]jet199 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

It costs pennies to find where someone has copied someone else's work and post it online for everyone else to see.

It just takes time.

[–]ClassroomPast6178[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

ANNOUNCEMENT: I am contributing an initial $10,000 to a "plagiarism hunting" fund. We will expose the rot in the Ivy League and restore truth, rather than racialist ideology, as the highest principle in academic life.