By: Dr Matevž Tomšič
Recently, the resignation of Harvard University President Claudine Gay stirred significant public controversy in the United States and beyond. Leading the oldest American and, by many criteria, the most prestigious academic institution in the world is inherently highly exposed. One could even say it is a public function. Her appointment had already attracted attention as Gay was the first woman of colour to hold this position. However, her tenure was the shortest in the university’s history, lasting only six months. But the focal point here is the reasons that led to this action, revealing a significant crisis faced by the academic world (and, consequently, all of Western society).
Two moments contributed to Claudine Gay’s resignation. The first was her appearance at a congressional hearing on antisemitism in American higher education, where she failed to unequivocally answer Congresswoman Elise Stefanik’s question about whether advocating for the genocide of Jews contradicts the rules of conduct at her university. This raised accusations of tolerating or even promoting antisemitism. The second is related to allegations of plagiarism, suggesting that in her scholarly works, she often cited findings that were not the result of her research without properly attributing the real authors. Perhaps each of these moments alone would not have been sufficient for resignation, but their combination led to her lacking the necessary credibility to maintain her position.
Plagiarism is considered one of the most serious offenses in the academic world. Many individuals who were proven to have appropriated the work of other authors have had their academic titles revoked, and their careers have come to an end. However, for insights into the troubling state of the academic community, the former Harvard University president’s behaviour during the mentioned hearing is more crucial. It is closely linked to her handling of the surge in pro-Palestinian activism at her institution (and others) following Hamas attacks on southern Israel in October of last year. This activism included justifying the crimes of this terrorist organisation.
In essence, the hypocrisy of the American progressive academic elite has been laid bare. Gay was unable to clearly denounce something as blatantly unacceptable as advocating genocide, claiming it is “context-dependent” (it is unclear in what context such a stance could be acceptable). This could be somewhat understandable if she were consistent in advocating for absolute freedom of speech. However, this is not the case. While Harvard is generally regarded as one of the best universities in the United States (and the world), there is one exception. Concerning freedom of expression, it ranked last in 2023, according to the College Free Speech Ranking, among all the American higher education institutions considered. This restriction of freedom of expression is highly selective and ideologically motivated. Leftists can practically do as they please, while conservatives or those opposing the leftist mainstream are often subject to obstruction, harassment, and even sanctions. The former university president actively participated in these actions. This means her invocation of freedom of expression is deceptive.
The main problem is that the academic sphere has become a hostage of neo-leftist progressivism, which, under the guise of diversity, equality, and inclusion, effectively promotes uniformity. As noted by the renowned American lawyer and retired Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz, there are now individuals of various races and ethnicities at Harvard, but they all think the same. Similar situations exist in many other higher education institutions in the United States and elsewhere in the West. This is problematic. The focus should be on diversity of ideas, concepts, and visions, not on assigned and often imposed collective identities.