Harvard president to remain after anger over testimony on antisemitism

The cites are up and available.

No surprise that the Harvard paper is defending her.

The Crimson has helpfully provided images.

In the first image, one thing that piques my curiosity is that while many words are identical, the meaning of the first sentence is actually reversed: "increase" was replaced with "decrease". But all of the identical phrases in the first image are very dry statistical language, almost like "copying" a mathematical formula. It would be more concerning if interpretations were borrowed, but copying the phrase "a linear form would be unlikely in a simple scatter plot" just doesn't cross my threshold of serious business. To me, the most concerning thing about the image is that the meaning of the cited sentence seems to have been reversed!

In the second image, again we have a few little phrases and pairs of words. Two things are "copied" but actually in the opposite order of the original. In neither the second nor the third image is an entire sentence copied, but there are some identical clauses. In the third image, I think that the phrases "influences black ... orientation" and "politics and ... affairs" should have been quoted, because of the florid language in the original, but this is not a serious violation of academic integrity.

In the fourth image, we are again treated to a dry recitation of statistics as though it were some kind of stolen insight.

In the fifth image, the comparison to Swain is disparate, and consists of the phrases being defined and small fragments of the definitions of those phrases, while the punctuation and much intervening text differs. It would be necessary to demonstrate that the definition is originally Swain's (which I rather doubt) in order to even convince me that Gay actually read Swain and this isn't a case of "common knowledge to those skilled in the art".

In the Andrews pictures, the first shows a few identical short phrases in largely different context; the second shows a long predicate used in a similar sentence. Not citing Andrews in the second case is a fault. But it's not clear that she didn't cite Andrews. Quotation marks would be good. It's disappointing that the accusers seem to focus on the volume of colored text rather than whether it actually says anything.

In the Covin pictures, we have a few fragmented phrases and a list. The list is long, but it is, fundamentally, a list. If I say that cookies are made with butter, sugar, flour, eggs and vanilla, copying that list isn't really plagiarism. It's not substantial or insightful, i.e. it's not academic work. In fact, one of the items in the list is missing!

The Schwartz picture is a joke, right? This has to be a joke. There are only so many ways of saying you replaced all the incentives. And Schwartz was cited, as is necessary.

The Freedman and Owens picture is, again, a definition, and a general one at that. A county-level measure of incentives. This isn't stolen creativity.

Only two of eleven accusations in this hack job have even a whiff of impropriety. Taken in context, this is madness.

Seemed to me they wanted her fired for not stifling speech enough when it comes antisemitism. But you're saying it's really because she has a history of clamping down on other calls for violence and conservatives want her to allow those calls to violence as well as the ones against Jewish people?