Hot Take: Corporate Media Warps Definition of Plagiarism to Defend Harvard President

Ready for the latest “conservatives pounce” cycle by the legacy media? It involves Harvard, its now-former president, and a plagiarized dissertation.

Harvard President Claudine Gay resigned a month after testifying in front of Congress following the October attack by Hamas on Israel, in which she would not state that calls for genocide of Jews on campus violated the school’s code of conduct.

But it wasn’t that which took her down. It was journalism – you know, the good old fashioned, research oriented kind that unearths wrongdoing by those who receive hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars. 

City Journal writer Chris Rufo, who actively works to root out woke ideology in academia, wrote a December 11 post, unveiling “exclusive documentation” that Gay had plagiarized portions of her 1997 dissertation titled, “Taking Charge: Black Electoral Success and the Redefinition of American Politics.”

But how did legacy media respond to these accusations leveled against a liberal university president who did the very thing that could lead to a Harvard student’s forced withdrawal if done by them? They instantly went into defense mode of course! 

The Guardian wrote: “No doubt, a top administrator accused of being a chronic cut-and-paster is a bad look for the nation’s foremost institution of higher education. But is what Gay did beyond the pale? Experts concede it’s a complicated issue.”

“Cut-and-paster”? Has that reporter ever before called someone who blatantly plagiarized, a mere “cut-and-paster”? And no, dear “experts,” it’s not a “complicated issue.” It’s pretty straightforward actually.

It doesn’t stop there.

A New Yorker writer interviewed a University of Kentucky professor whose work was lifted by Gay for her dissertation, who said, “From my perspective, what she did was trivial—wholly inconsequential. That’s the reason I’ve so actively tried to defend her.”

A CNN reporter said, “Now, we should note that Claudine Gay has not been accused of stealing anyone’s ideas in any of her writings. She’s been accused of, sort of, more like copying other people’s writings without attribution. … So it’s been more sloppy attribution than stealing anyone’s ideas, but nonetheless, you put all that together and you throw on top the political pressure and also the pressure from donors.”

Again, with the semantics! “Copying,” not “plagiarizing.” Why the wordsmithing here? That’s a rhetorical question actually. We all know why. It’s to make this liberal professor’s sins seem less… sinful. 

The Associated Press (AP) wrapped the whole ordeal up in a neat little bow with an article titled, “Plagiarism charges downed Harvard’s president. A conservative attack helped to fan the outrage.”

It said further, “In Gay’s case, many academics were troubled with how the plagiarism came to light: as part of a coordinated campaign to discredit Gay and force her from office, in part because of her involvement in efforts for racial justice on campus.”

Those pesky conservatives and their pouncing! 

Maybe, just maybe, the person to blame for this is the one guilty of plagiarism — at least as defined until five minutes ago.

You’d think these left wing reporters and their editors would be embarrassed by their blatant activism, but I suppose it helps their partisan readers parrot their talking points…which is their whole aim. Activist reporting supersede factual reporting these days. Corporate media running interference for the political left supersedes journalistic integrity. It’s the same old song and dance.

The Texan swims against that current, informing our readers of news of the day without pushing narratives and acting as de facto political action committees. Join us in this fight against this insanely corrupt media!