What you describe is important, and you give your argument persuasively, but would it not be more important to ensure that far-right foreign groups like AIPAC not have such an influence on our academic institutions?
I can’t say that ethics considerations should be overlooked, but this effort was very clearly made as part of a strategy for silencing criticisms of Israel, not as part of a serious concern about academic ethics.
I think this is a way in which ethics are used by the right as a cudgel to exploit the left and center, we see this trap set again and again by the right and people walk right into it every time.
At a certain point people need to use their reason to make a judgement about whether more real damage is done by these issues that the right disingenuously raises or by letting them achieve their goals so unscrupulously.
I do agree with you, to an extent. I think much of the support, or at least lack of criticism from within higher ed was precisely because they/we/I didn’t want to be lumped in with the right wing attacks or give them an inch. At the same time, that is like the stereotype of the abusive couple who form a united front against a third party.
I also know that people saying that no one really cares about the research issues also isn’t true. People in higher ed care about these things. The president of Stanford resigned recently over these sorts of issues (though the data issues there were more troubling). There were also Harvard academics recording malcontent with Dr. Gay; they just didn’t go and put it in the paper.
Ultimately, it sounds like what ultimately tipped things over for her was two fold: the latest round of accusations, coupled with submitting a plan to the board that apparently didn’t convince them all that she was responding with appropriate urgency to the widening media pr issue. Which is a very common failing in higher ed leaders who are used to going slow and resisting calls to move faster. Unfortunately, university presidents need to control the narrative by at least creating the impression of frenetic energy to fix something, even if it is intractable in the short term.
You might find this NYT article interesting (gift link).
Ultimately, I think the board and the community wanted to help her hold out against the right wing attacks, but something about her internal plan or communications and follow up led the board to wilt in the face of persuasion from those around them.
What you describe is important, and you give your argument persuasively, but would it not be more important to ensure that far-right foreign groups like AIPAC not have such an influence on our academic institutions?
I can’t say that ethics considerations should be overlooked, but this effort was very clearly made as part of a strategy for silencing criticisms of Israel, not as part of a serious concern about academic ethics.
I think this is a way in which ethics are used by the right as a cudgel to exploit the left and center, we see this trap set again and again by the right and people walk right into it every time.
At a certain point people need to use their reason to make a judgement about whether more real damage is done by these issues that the right disingenuously raises or by letting them achieve their goals so unscrupulously.
I do agree with you, to an extent. I think much of the support, or at least lack of criticism from within higher ed was precisely because they/we/I didn’t want to be lumped in with the right wing attacks or give them an inch. At the same time, that is like the stereotype of the abusive couple who form a united front against a third party.
I also know that people saying that no one really cares about the research issues also isn’t true. People in higher ed care about these things. The president of Stanford resigned recently over these sorts of issues (though the data issues there were more troubling). There were also Harvard academics recording malcontent with Dr. Gay; they just didn’t go and put it in the paper.
Ultimately, it sounds like what ultimately tipped things over for her was two fold: the latest round of accusations, coupled with submitting a plan to the board that apparently didn’t convince them all that she was responding with appropriate urgency to the widening media pr issue. Which is a very common failing in higher ed leaders who are used to going slow and resisting calls to move faster. Unfortunately, university presidents need to control the narrative by at least creating the impression of frenetic energy to fix something, even if it is intractable in the short term.
You might find this NYT article interesting (gift link).
How Harvard’s Board Broke Up With Claudine Gay https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/06/business/claudine-gay-harvard-corporation-board.html?unlocked_article_code=1.ME0.srWq.9lxOxV9UwF1g&smid=nytcore-android-share
Ultimately, I think the board and the community wanted to help her hold out against the right wing attacks, but something about her internal plan or communications and follow up led the board to wilt in the face of persuasion from those around them.