If you're concerned about it, TFA and linked materials go into the potential casual connection. I don't think you can simply dismiss this without a critical examination because all the facts aren't in yet and the story isn't finished. Usually, a whistleblower complaint is really the start of things, not the end.

Hopefully, we'll see over time how much merit this has. It certainly seems worth investigating because we'd all really want to know if/how big donations to prestigious academic institutions can buy their research.

I'm not sure what word would be better since "after" carries the same implication.

"Following" is also a very common and well-understood English word which means that one thing happened after another, which is probably why journalists use it. Implying a suspected causal relationship by talking about a temporal relationship also happens very frequently in non-journalistic speech. Nobody is trying to trick you with this headline.

It could be read that way; but it could be read as a simple temporal sequence, no? In either case, this is a press release from an organization which is advocating for the aggrieved party. I suppose any journalist who wanted to pickup this story would have to decide for themselves whether the language used in the press release goes too far or not when writing their story.

> In sending the lawful whistleblower disclosure to the President and General Counsel of Harvard University, the U.S. Department of Education, and subsequently to the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office, Dr. Donovan and Whistleblower Aid are calling for an urgent and impartial investigation into inappropriate influence at the Harvard Kennedy School.

That's literally the point here.

That’s an astute observation. Without having any insight in the matter, statements like “the most important documents in the history of the internet” have me questioning how self-assured this team have been when assessing why Harvard put up a line of defence.

Are you saying we shouldn't be suspicious of causality, here?

> "Following" is a... word

Yes, you are correct, it's a word.

> journalism... is meant to imply causality without demonstration

That's not true at all.

It's easy to make claims when you are selective about what you read, ignore context, and make up lies.

> Either make it clear you are speculating about two events being connected, or get evidence that links them.

Says the person speculating about the definition of following used in this context.