Reresignation of Dr. Gay.

In Response to Mr. Scotts Op/Ed in the NYT, January 3, 2024

The key word is not “context.” It is "plagiarism." 

I can understand Dr. Gay's reluctance to answer the question of anti Semitism more bluntly. What I understand, all too well, is the fact that she was guilty of plagiarism in her doctoral dissertation and in some of her published articles. 

The counterargument to what I am saying would be that Gay's opponents spent furious energy in examining her writings and in publicizing their findings.

But that will not do. I welcome anyone who wants to analyze my published writings or my dissertation. I know with great certainty that they would find not a single instance of plagiarism there. And I am pretty sure that this would be true of the writings of the hundred or so academics I came to know during my career. The possibility of plagiarism is something a good honest scholar is extremely  careful about avoiding. 

And it is punishable even at the undergraduate level. I have heard students argue, ineffectually, that they didn't understand what plagiarism was. Once in a while, I might have cut one or two of them a break. But they were kids, first-years usually, not Harvard Ph.Ds. who had served as deans and then become university presidents. 

For some the resignation of Dr. Gay is about race, and for some it is about not coming up with a better answer when questioned by Congress. 

For me it is very simple. She plagiarized. If there is an excuse for that, I would like to hear it.