Speaker 1: Welcome.
Speaker 2: It is Verdict with Senator Ted Cruz Ben Ferguson with you,
Speaker 2: and Senator let's start with the big breaking news, something
Speaker 2: you've been calling for for quite some time, and that
Speaker 2: is for the Harvard president to be ousted from that position.
Speaker 2: President Gay has resigned after her what the media is
Speaker 2: calling her rocky testimony and these new plagiarism allegations, and
Speaker 2: I think we should be honest with a verdict. Listener,
Speaker 2: do not be banboozled by the mainstream media here trying
Speaker 2: to claim this has anything to do with her anti
Speaker 2: Semitic testimony before Congress. They were more than happy to
Speaker 2: protect her. Harvard was with everything that she said before Congress.
Speaker 2: This is separate about the plagiarism allegations that have come out.
Speaker 3: Well, yesterday's news that Claudie and Gay resigned as president
Speaker 3: of Harvard is a big, big deal. The president of
Speaker 3: Harvard is the premier academic position, arguably in the United States,
Speaker 3: very possible in the world. And Claudine Gay was the
Speaker 3: embodiment of the moral rot and corruption at the heart
Speaker 3: of our elite academic institutions. Her resigning is a major
Speaker 3: step forward, and it was not done willingly. It was
Speaker 3: not done voluntarily, it was not done easily. It was
Speaker 3: I believe inevitable. And this is something you and I
Speaker 3: have been talking about on this podcast for two months
Speaker 3: now that it was clear, especially ever since her testimony
Speaker 3: before Congress, that she needed to resign, and that I
Speaker 3: believed she would resign. Now, this goes back. She has
Speaker 3: only been in the position for six months and two days,
Speaker 3: she says, the shortest tenure of any president of Harvard
Speaker 3: in the history of the institution centuries long. This goes
Speaker 3: back to October seventh, to the horrific attacks that occurred
Speaker 3: in Israel. And you'll recall in the days that follow
Speaker 3: those attacks, the Harvard administration was silent. It could not
Speaker 3: bring itself to condemn the atrocities carried out by Hamas
Speaker 3: thirty five student groups at the Harvard campus put out
Speaker 3: a statement blaming Israel for all of those atrocities, blaming
Speaker 3: Israel for every murder, for every woman and girl who
Speaker 3: was raped, for every infant that was slaughtered, saying all
Speaker 3: of them are one hundred percent Israel's fault. And even
Speaker 3: in the face of that, Claudingey could not bring herself
Speaker 3: to forcibly and unequivocally condemn Hamas and anti Semitism. But
Speaker 3: that was the beginning of this scandal that took her down.
Speaker 3: From there. We saw rising anti semitism on every campus,
Speaker 3: especially the elite campuses across the country, and we saw
Speaker 3: it Harvard, in particular, Jewish students being harassed, being actively
Speaker 3: and aggressively harassed by pro Palestinian and pro Hamas protesters,
Speaker 3: and the administration unwilling and unable to do anything. That's
Speaker 3: why Kung had the hearing with the presidents of Harvard,
Speaker 3: PEN and MIT, because the incidences of anti Semitism, of
Speaker 3: extreme Prohamas protests on university campuses had skyrocketed. That's what
Speaker 3: teed up the hearing, But even at that point, Harvard
Speaker 3: was not willing to terminate her position. Then she gave
Speaker 3: her testimony, testimony that is universally regarded as disastrous. She
Speaker 3: and the president of PENN and the president of MIT
Speaker 3: all gave testimony in which they refused to clearly and
Speaker 3: unequivocally condemn ant to Semitism. They were unable to answer
Speaker 3: the question of whether calling for the genocide of the
Speaker 3: Jewish people violated their university's code of conduct. All three
Speaker 3: of them said, well, it depends on the context, you know,
Speaker 3: implying in some instances genocide. Actively advocating the murder of
Speaker 3: your fellow students. In some instances that might be acceptable
Speaker 3: when you're political ideology presumably encourages if it is a
Speaker 3: group that is a disfavored group, then calling for their
Speaker 3: murder maybe okay, is what they essentially implied. Now, the
Speaker 3: point you just made a second ago, Ben is really important.
Speaker 3: She wasn't fired. Then within days of that testimony, the
Speaker 3: president of Penn, Liz McGill, she resigned, and she resigned
Speaker 3: because of enormous pressure from the board, enormous pressure from donors,
Speaker 3: and she was the first to go.
Speaker 2: But and that was to be clear, that was not
Speaker 2: because they wanted to do the right thing. That was
Speaker 2: because there was too many dollars that were pledged to
Speaker 2: the university that were at stake, and you had multi
Speaker 2: multimillionaires saying we will not give you our money, and
Speaker 2: that it was just it was a simple dollars and
Speaker 2: sense equation. They couldn't continue to stand by her because
Speaker 2: of the financial loss that they would have taken. Which
Speaker 2: again I say that because I want to put an
Speaker 2: asterisk by that that's not doing the right thing morally,
Speaker 2: that's not standing up for the people of Israel or
Speaker 2: any Jewish student on campus. That was simply, we don't
Speaker 2: have enough money to walk away from this money. So
Speaker 2: we're gonna have to make the right financial decision here.
Speaker 2: Not because we believe that the people, the Jewish students
Speaker 2: or the people of Israel Isra have a right to exist.
Speaker 1: It was just financial.
Speaker 3: Well, let me modify that a little bit. You also
Speaker 3: had some leadership at Penn. So, for example, the chairman
Speaker 3: of the board of Trustees of the Wharton Schools, a
Speaker 3: guy named Mark Rowan great point, who is who is
Speaker 3: a very successful New York businessman, who spoke out unequivocally
Speaker 3: and demanded that she be fired and demanded that the
Speaker 3: chair of the board of trustees of PEN be fired
Speaker 3: as well because of their response to anti Semitism. And
Speaker 3: I got to say, because you had his leadership, and
Speaker 3: you had the leadership, as you noted, of numerous donors,
Speaker 3: people like Ronald Lauder, people like the Huntsman family who
Speaker 3: said they were going to cut off their contributions to
Speaker 3: PEN that nation Pen was the most vulnerable to the
Speaker 3: pressure and Penn did the right thing.
Speaker 1: But it was a combination.
Speaker 3: You had some leadership within Pen at least in a
Speaker 3: formal position of authority, and you had the the thread
Speaker 3: of donors cutting off cash.
Speaker 1: Now at Harvard, it's.
Speaker 3: Been widely reported that there was upwards of one billion
Speaker 3: dollars of future commitments that were canceled or threatened to
Speaker 3: be canceled in light of of Harvard's terrible record on
Speaker 3: anti Semitism. And yet even even so, Harvard didn't blink.
Speaker 3: The Harvard Corporation, which is the governing body of Harvard University,
Speaker 3: put out a statement unanimously standing with Claudine Gay and
Speaker 3: and by the way, it's also been reported that Barack
Speaker 3: Obama was personally lobbying. The chairman of that board is
Speaker 3: Penny Pritzker. She was the Commerce secretary under Barack Obama.
Speaker 3: And it's been reported that Barack Obama was personally lobbying
Speaker 3: the members of the Harvard Corporation. And so their view
Speaker 3: was a horrible record on anti Semitism is okay, horrible
Speaker 3: testimony before Congress in which you cannot bring yourself to
Speaker 3: condemn people calling for the genocide of the Jewish people.
Speaker 3: That's okay, and refusing to create it an environment on
Speaker 3: campus where Jewish students are safe looking the other way
Speaker 3: at threats against your Jewish students. All of that was okay,
Speaker 3: not just okay, unanimously okay. There was not a single
Speaker 3: board member that could find even a single vertebrae in
Speaker 3: a backbone to stand up and say enough is enough.
Speaker 3: They all universally circled ranks. And then, as you noted,
Speaker 3: the plagiarism allegations began coming out. And first it was one,
Speaker 3: and then it was another, and then it was another,
Speaker 3: and then it was another, and it became nearly fifty
Speaker 3: separate allegations of plagiarism.
Speaker 1: All right, quickly, let me just say this.
Speaker 2: We're in a new year and you probably have a
Speaker 2: new year's resolution, and if you are a guy, I've
Speaker 2: got a resolution for you that you're going to love.
Speaker 2: That is getting rid of your weakness and complacency by
Speaker 2: boosting your testosterone levels up to twenty percent over ninety days. Now, look,
Speaker 2: there is a massive problem with low t historically. Right now,
Speaker 2: it is off a cliff, not just in this country,
Speaker 2: but all over the world. It is an all time low. Thankfully,
Speaker 2: the Patriot to Chalk are helping real American men just
Speaker 2: like you, take back your right to proudly maximize your
Speaker 2: masculinity by boosting. As I said a moment ago, your
Speaker 2: testosterone levels up to twenty percent over ninety days.
Speaker 1: Now.
Speaker 2: I've been taking the Male Vitality Stack from Chalk and
Speaker 2: I've been doing it for months.
Speaker 1: It works.
Speaker 2: I'm not going to stop taking it because it works.
Speaker 2: So if you've got a New Year's resolution that is, hey,
Speaker 2: I want to feel better, I want to get in
Speaker 2: better shape, and start with boosting your testostrom levels, get
Speaker 2: rid of that weakness and complacency and get you back
Speaker 2: your strength and vitality. It really helps when it comes
Speaker 2: to working out. My friends, you're going to love it.
Speaker 2: It's manufactured right here in the US of A. Chalk's
Speaker 2: natural herbal supplements are clinically proven to have game changing
Speaker 2: effects and I can tell you personally on your energy,
Speaker 2: on your focus, on your mood. So check out Chalk
Speaker 2: choq dot com and if you use a promo code Ben,
Speaker 2: You're gonna get thirty five percent off your Chalk subscription
Speaker 2: for life at c h oq dot com. Choq dot com.
Speaker 2: Use a promo code ben thirty five percent off and
Speaker 2: your Chalk subscription will show up monthly for you, so
Speaker 2: you don't have to worry about running out choq dot com.
Speaker 1: Let's tech take it.
Speaker 2: By the way, how these how these these claims came
Speaker 2: out because it also I think this is one of
Speaker 2: those moments that we should highlight here, the less back
Speaker 2: of journalistic integrity among the mainstream media that did no
Speaker 2: research and did not do anything even after some of
Speaker 2: the first allegations of plagiarism came out against the Harvard
Speaker 2: president clotting Gay. It was the incredible reporting of those
Speaker 2: that are conservatives and those that were trying to grab
Speaker 2: these documents, and hard work of the Washington Free Beacon,
Speaker 2: for example, where they went in and did the hard
Speaker 2: work to compare the words of the Harvard president against
Speaker 2: those that she stole from. And yet still the media
Speaker 2: is not really reporting on this, and they certainly didn't
Speaker 2: go and actually investigate any of this.
Speaker 3: Well, look, that's exactly right. And I have to say
Speaker 3: there was no one who played a bigger role in
Speaker 3: clouding Gay's resignation the Christopher Rufo. Christopher Rufo we've had
Speaker 3: as a guest on Verdict. He has been doing an
Speaker 3: extraordinary job for years exposing critical race theory. Christopher Rufo
Speaker 3: as someone I talk about in considerable length in my
Speaker 3: new book, Unwoke. But the job that Chris did exposing this,
Speaker 3: pushing the plagiarism, giving specific examples, because the New York Times,
Speaker 3: the Washington Post, they all wanted to whitewash it. And
Speaker 3: even after she resigned, Listen to this. Listen to CNN
Speaker 3: talking about her resignation and trying to give this word
Speaker 3: salid convoluted justification for her plagiarism.
Speaker 4: Give a listen these plagiarism allegations where Clauding Gay has
Speaker 4: had to issue corrections, multiple corrections. Now we should note
Speaker 4: that cluding Gay has not been.
Speaker 5: Accused of stealing anyone's ideas in any of her writings.
Speaker 5: She's been accused of sort of more like copying other
Speaker 5: people's writings without attribution. So it's been more sloppy attribution
Speaker 5: than stealing anyone's ideas.
Speaker 4: But nonetheless, you put all that together, I mean, you
Speaker 4: hear them.
Speaker 2: They're saying allegations. It's more than fifty. They have the
Speaker 2: words side by side in this reporting from her dissertation
Speaker 2: and other documents are the things that have been published,
Speaker 2: and let's go back to Harvard and hold them accountable here.
Speaker 2: The Harvard Corporation, the school's governing body, said earlier this
Speaker 2: month that it had quote initiated an independent review of Gay's
Speaker 2: work in October and found quote no violation of Harvard's
Speaker 2: standards for research misconduct. That investigation only focused on three papers,
Speaker 2: and then what we understand is that was pretty much like, Yep,
Speaker 2: we're good, We're going to move on. Harvard's official policy states,
Speaker 2: by the way, that all allegations of faculty plagiarism must
Speaker 2: be reviewed by the school's Research Integrity Officer, and that
Speaker 2: if the allegations are the incredible, they must be sent
Speaker 2: to a further probe. Any faculty member found guilty of
Speaker 2: plagiarism can end up suspended, having their rank reduced, or
Speaker 2: even terminated. Notably, the university said it considers whether the
Speaker 2: misconduct was quote an is sight event or a or
Speaker 2: part of a pattern while deciding the appropriate level of punishment.
Speaker 2: So sintr they gave her a clean be of health.
Speaker 2: Earlier this month. They didn't want to dig into this.
Speaker 2: I think they probably knew what they were going to find.
Speaker 2: That's why they only looked at three papers and said
Speaker 2: they were going to update some of them.
Speaker 1: They were covering this up for their president.
Speaker 3: Well, that's exactly right, and it's worth noting, like what
Speaker 3: CNN when we just played there, that's utterly gobbledygooks. CNN's
Speaker 3: attempted justification is, well, she wasn't guilty of stealing other
Speaker 3: people's ideas. She just took the words they wrote and
Speaker 3: claimed they were her own. No, that's that's what plagiarism is.
Speaker 3: And by the way, if as a student at Harvard
Speaker 3: you do this once, you'll be expelled. That's how seriously
Speaker 3: the institution takes it for a student. And in her instances.
Speaker 3: All right, let me give you some examples. And like,
Speaker 3: part of what took her down was the drip, drip,
Speaker 3: drip every day. It was another allegation. It was another allegation,
Speaker 3: was so screamingly obvious that it was a double standard
Speaker 3: that Harvard's public reputation began to just be absurd. But
Speaker 3: look on January first, just a couple of days ago,
Speaker 3: an article appeared in the Washington Freebeacon entitled Harvard president
Speaker 3: Claudine Gay hit with six new charges of plagiarism. That
Speaker 3: was just a couple of days ago. And to give
Speaker 3: you a sense of it, all right, here's the first
Speaker 3: example they use. There's a professor named David Cannon who
Speaker 3: wrote a book in nineteen ninety nine entitled Race, Redistricting
Speaker 3: and Representation, The Unintended Consequences of Black Majority Districts. And
Speaker 3: David Cannon wrote, as follows the VRA, which is the
Speaker 3: Voting Rights Act. The VRA is often cited as one
Speaker 3: of the most significant pieces of civil rights legislation passed
Speaker 3: in our nation's history. Here's what Claude in Gay wrote.
Speaker 3: The Voting Rights Act of nineteen sixty five is often
Speaker 3: cited as one of the most significant pieces of civil
Speaker 3: rights legislation passed in our nation's history. That's word for
Speaker 3: word identical, other than she spelled out Voting Rights Act
Speaker 3: instead of saying VRA. And she added of nineteen sixty five.
Speaker 3: So congratulations, Claudine, you found the year it was passed.
Speaker 3: That's those are the only new words in the quote.
Speaker 3: All right, here's another section. This is from David Cannon.
Speaker 3: The central parts of the VRA are Section two. In
Speaker 3: Section five, the forum prohibits any state or political subdivision
Speaker 3: from imposing a voting practice that will deny or abridge
Speaker 3: the right of any citizen of the United States to
Speaker 3: vote on account of race or color. The latter imposed
Speaker 3: was imposed on only on covered jurisdictions with a history
Speaker 3: of past discrimination, which must submit changes in any electoral
Speaker 3: process or mechanism to the federal government for approval. Here's
Speaker 3: what Claudine Gay wrote. The central part of the measures
Speaker 3: are section two and section five. Section two reiterates the
Speaker 3: guarantees of the fifteenth Amendment, prohibiting any state or political
Speaker 3: subdivision from adopting voting practices that deny or abridge the
Speaker 3: right of any citizen of the United States to voter
Speaker 3: an account of race or color. Section five, imposed only
Speaker 3: on cover jurisdictions with a history of discrimination, requires Justice
Speaker 3: Department preclearances of changes in any electoral process or mechanism.
Speaker 3: The vast majority of those words are identical. All right,
Speaker 3: let me give you another example. And this is an
Speaker 3: example from her dissertation, and she lifted a sentence from
Speaker 3: her thesis advisor from Gary King, who is describing a
Speaker 3: mathematical bottle. Here's what Gary King wrote. The posterior distribution
Speaker 3: of each of the precinct parameters within the bounds indicated
Speaker 3: by its tomography line is derived by the slice. It
Speaker 3: cuts out of the bivariate distribution of all lines. Here's
Speaker 3: what Claudine Gay wrote. The posterior distribution of each of
Speaker 3: the precinct parameters for the precinct is derived by the slice.
Speaker 3: It's tomography line cuts out of this bivariate distribution. Now,
Speaker 3: I got to admit that some of that is academic gobbledegook.
Speaker 3: But the fact that she just copied it, and by
Speaker 3: the way the way plagiarism works, she could copy that
Speaker 3: if she put a quote mark in the fraudic quote
Speaker 3: mark in the back and she cited Gary King who
Speaker 3: wrote it. You're allowed to quote people. You're allowed to
Speaker 3: quote people, but the way you do it so you
Speaker 3: do not steal their words is you put it in
Speaker 3: quotation marks and you cite the person who you're quoting.
Speaker 3: What she did over and over and over again is
Speaker 3: just typed it in. And by the way, much of
Speaker 3: this was done before word processors were used. That means
Speaker 3: it was done on a typewriter. I get to say,
Speaker 3: it is much harder to accidentally plagiarize, particularly in the
Speaker 3: era of typewriters. You have some instances where say, a
Speaker 3: researcher is taking notes and they cut and paste from
Speaker 3: a cut and paste from a principal source, and they
Speaker 3: put it in their notes and they forget that it
Speaker 3: was cut and paste and they end up cutting and
Speaker 3: pasting it into their work. That's bad, that's plagiarism. And
Speaker 3: by the way, Harvard will expel you for doing that.
Speaker 3: But it is more possible for someone to do so
Speaker 3: inadvertently with word processors and cut and paste. Many of
Speaker 3: these instances, Claudine Gay, she had to type on a
Speaker 3: typewriter the words, presumably from the original source, and so
Speaker 3: she knew exactly what she was doing.
Speaker 2: When you talk about all that, let's go back to
Speaker 2: the core point here that we were mentioning earlier, and
Speaker 2: that is it is not what happened in front of Congress.
Speaker 2: And I think it's kind that we remind people of
Speaker 2: how egregious because there's three points. I want to make
Speaker 2: sure that we're clear here on verdict for everybody listening.
Speaker 2: No one has lost their job yet due to the testament.
Speaker 2: I'm talking about actually being fired, being unemployed, not getting
Speaker 2: a paycheck.
Speaker 3: Clauding Gay is still employed, Liz McGill is still employed.
Speaker 3: Their faculty members are continuing to draw their pay, and
Speaker 3: in fact, the New York Post is reporting Claudine Gay
Speaker 3: will still receive her roughly one million dollar a year salary.
Speaker 3: She just moves to a different office at Harvard and
Speaker 3: they keep paying her. And understand, I want us to
Speaker 3: play our testimony again to remember what she said, but
Speaker 3: understand this point, it's critically important. Clauding Gay has not apologized.
Speaker 3: Harvard has not apologized. They have not changed their conduct.
Speaker 3: Her resignation letter is defiant. Her resignation letter doesn't say
Speaker 3: she did anything wrong. Her resignation letter doesn't express remorse
Speaker 3: for being an apologist for those calling for the genocide
Speaker 3: of the Jewish people. It says nothing about creating an
Speaker 3: atmosphere where Jewish students are afraid for their safety. It
Speaker 3: says nothing about the repeated instances that have been pointed
Speaker 3: out of plagiarism. Instead, it blames it all on racism.
Speaker 3: And it is defiant, non apologetic, and understand Harvard Corporation likewise,
Speaker 3: their statement again was not apologetic, didn't say she done
Speaker 3: anything wrong. Instead, they blame the fact that she's resigning
Speaker 3: again on racism. This is going to be their talking point,
Speaker 3: and they're not taking accountability for their actions, and so
Speaker 3: Harvard is not. That is a critical point to remember
Speaker 3: if they're going to fix this problem. Her resignation doesn't
Speaker 3: solve it. It's a step in the right direction, but
Speaker 3: it's not a very good step when she's defiantly refusing
Speaker 3: to acknowledge anything she did wrong in the university is as.
Speaker 2: Well before we play her testimony, let's also talk about
Speaker 2: the racial aspect of this. In clutting Gay's resignation letter,
Speaker 2: she actually called out her critics as being racist. And
Speaker 2: not only that, you then had Al Sharpton saying the
Speaker 2: Harvard presence resignation quote as an attack on every black
Speaker 2: woman in America. So you can be an anti semi
Speaker 2: you can testify before Congress that calling for the extermination
Speaker 2: genocide of Jews and not denouncing it and not saying
Speaker 2: that that is a violation of the rules at Harvard.
Speaker 2: That's totally fine. You can be that person. But if
Speaker 2: you criticize clouting Gay, you are then a racist. And
Speaker 2: she and her resignation letter, when she's resigning, she made
Speaker 2: it very very clear she believes this is all because
Speaker 2: she is a black woman.
Speaker 3: Well, and let me quoting from a resignation letter. Let
Speaker 3: me tell you the operative language quote. And by the way,
Speaker 3: this is what one does to avoid plagiarism. I'm quoting her,
Speaker 3: so I'm telling you it's a quotation. These are not
Speaker 3: my words, these are hers quote. It has been distressing
Speaker 3: to have doubt cast on my commitments to confronting hate
Speaker 3: and upholding scholarly vigor, two bedrock values that are hunt
Speaker 3: fundamental to who I am and frightening to be subjected
Speaker 3: to personal attacks and threats fueled by racial animus. That's
Speaker 3: what she's blaming this on, is that the only people
Speaker 3: who had criticisms about her apparently are racist. Like if
Speaker 3: you believe that Harvard's willingness to tolerate the harassment of
Speaker 3: Jewish students, to tolerate anti semitism and in fact in
Speaker 3: many ways to it, if you believe that's problematic, If
Speaker 3: you believe, actually the president of Harvard should be a
Speaker 3: scholar who complies with principles of academic integrity, that means,
Speaker 3: in her worldview, you must be a racist. And I'll
Speaker 3: tell you even worse than that. It's the end of
Speaker 3: her letter is there's a sentence that I found really galling.
Speaker 3: Here's what she writes at the end of her letter, quote,
Speaker 3: when my brief presidency is remembered, I hope it will
Speaker 3: be seen as a moment of reawakening to the importance
Speaker 3: of striving to find our common humanity and of not
Speaker 3: allowing rancor and vituperation to undermine the vital process of education. Now,
Speaker 3: let me ask you something. For the Jewish students at
Speaker 3: Harvard right now, who are facing harassment, who are fearing
Speaker 3: for their safety. In what universe can she say that
Speaker 3: her leadership, her brief presidency was a moment of reawakening
Speaker 3: to the importance of striving to find our common humanity.
Speaker 3: Mind you, she could not bring herself to unequivocally condemn
Speaker 3: calling for the genocide of the Jewish people, and yet
Speaker 3: she wants to be reawakening the common humanity. It is
Speaker 3: utterly defiant and refusing to acknowledge what led to this resignation.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and al Sharpton coming out, as you know, Barack Obama,
Speaker 2: as you mentioned earlier, behind the scenes, was working hard
Speaker 2: to protect her. Sharpton condemned Gay's critics as racists for
Speaker 2: questioning the integrity of a black woman, a woman that
Speaker 2: no pun intended in.
Speaker 1: Black and white.
Speaker 2: Her words show that she lifted other people's words and
Speaker 2: used them as her own, saying this quote, present days
Speaker 2: resignation is about more than a person or a single incident.
Speaker 2: And he's right, it wasn't a single incidence. Now we've
Speaker 2: been told more than fifty instance of plagiarism.
Speaker 1: He goes on to say, this.
Speaker 2: Is an attack on every black woman in this country
Speaker 2: who puts a crack in the glass ceiling. Is it
Speaker 2: really that sender or is it just the fact that
Speaker 2: she cheated? And even they at Harvard couldn't get over that.
Speaker 3: Well, it was ultimately this was hurting Harvard. Harvard was
Speaker 3: becoming a laughing stock when when and look, if you
Speaker 3: look at at at her academic record, she had published
Speaker 3: very little for a professor. You expect the president of
Speaker 3: Harvard to be a serious scholar, to be a world
Speaker 3: class scholar. And clotting Gay's entire career, what was built
Speaker 3: pushing the ideology of DEI was she was an African
Speaker 3: American studies professor. She had published relatively little. What she
Speaker 3: did publish, there now serious questions about the academic integrity
Speaker 3: of it. And and there is no person on planet
Speaker 3: Earth what it stands for.
Speaker 2: Again, just because there's maybe people that are new, yes,
Speaker 2: don't exactly know what DEI stands for.
Speaker 1: And this is something that the woke left is obsessed.
Speaker 3: With, diversity, equity, and conclusion, and it is the premise
Speaker 3: of their anti racism. It is the premise of critical
Speaker 3: race theory. It is the premise of the cultural Marxist
Speaker 3: on the left who advocate that we should affirmatively discriminate
Speaker 3: and discriminate against so called oppressors and in favor of
Speaker 3: so called victims. It's why the radical left is just
Speaker 3: fine with Jewish people being demonized, being threatened, because to
Speaker 3: the cultural Marxist Jewish people are oppressors. It's why cultural
Speaker 3: Marxists are okay with whatever Hamas terrorists do, because they
Speaker 3: are the victims. And that same reasoning. Look, I'll give
Speaker 3: you an example Ibram X. Kendy, who's one of the
Speaker 3: godfathers of critical race theory, who has pushed this so
Speaker 3: called anti racism, which we've talked about at length in
Speaker 3: this podcast. It has an Orwellian name because what he
Speaker 3: means by anti racism is aggressively discriminating against the so
Speaker 3: called oppressors on behalf of the so called victims. Here's
Speaker 3: what he had to say about Claudine Gay resigning.
Speaker 1: Quote.
Speaker 3: Racist mobs won't stop until they topple all black people
Speaker 3: from positions of power and influence who are not reinforcing
Speaker 3: the structure of racism. What these racist mobs are doing
Speaker 3: should be obvious to any reporter who cares about truth
Speaker 3: or justice as opposed to conflicts and clicks. That is
Speaker 3: going to be their talking point. If you dare stand
Speaker 3: against their radical ideology, you are by definition a racist.
Speaker 3: And and and they that they still see nothing that
Speaker 3: she did or said that was wrong.
Speaker 2: I want to I want to play for everybody to
Speaker 2: remind them of exactly where all this started and to
Speaker 2: put it back into context of of the demise of
Speaker 2: this Harvard president is not for what she said that
Speaker 2: was anti Israel, anti Semitic.
Speaker 1: It was the plagiarism.
Speaker 2: And do not be duped by the mainstream media acting
Speaker 2: like she's being held accountable for these words. These words
Speaker 2: that she said before Congress to representive Stephanic are words
Speaker 2: that Harvard was willing to stand by her no matter
Speaker 2: what here is that? Flashback to December the fifth, and
Speaker 2: what was said.
Speaker 6: We're student calling for the mass murder of African Americans
Speaker 6: is not protected free speech at Harvard?
Speaker 7: Correct?
Speaker 8: Our commitment?
Speaker 7: It's a yes or no question? Is that corrected?
Speaker 6: Is that okay for students to call for the mass
Speaker 6: murder of African Americans at Harvard?
Speaker 7: Is that protected free speech?
Speaker 8: Our commitment to free school?
Speaker 7: It's a yes or no question. Let me ask you this.
Speaker 6: You are president of Harvard, so I assume you're familiar
Speaker 6: with the term into fota.
Speaker 7: Correct.
Speaker 8: I've heard that term?
Speaker 6: Yes, and you understand that the use of the term
Speaker 6: into fada in the context of the Israeli Arab conflict
Speaker 6: is indeed a call for violent arm resistance against the
Speaker 6: state of Israel, including violence against civilians and the genocide
Speaker 6: of Jews.
Speaker 9: Are you aware of that that type of hateful speech
Speaker 9: is personally abhorrent to me?
Speaker 6: And there have been multiple marches at Harvard with students chanting, quote,
Speaker 6: there is only one solution into fada, revolution and quote
Speaker 6: globalize the intofada.
Speaker 7: Is that correct?
Speaker 9: I've heard that thoughtless, reckless and hateful language on our campus.
Speaker 8: Yes.
Speaker 6: So, based upon your testimony, you understand that this call
Speaker 6: for intofada is to commit genocide against the Jewish people
Speaker 6: in Israel and globally correct.
Speaker 9: I will say again that type of hateful speech is
Speaker 9: personally abhorrent to me.
Speaker 6: Do you believe that type of hateful speech is contrary
Speaker 6: to Harvard's code of conduct?
Speaker 7: Or is it allowed at Harvard?
Speaker 8: It is at odds with the values of Harvard.
Speaker 7: Can you not.
Speaker 6: Say that it is against the code of conduct at Harvard?
Speaker 9: We embrace a commitment to free expression, even of views
Speaker 9: that are objectionable, offensive, hateful. It's when that speech crosses
Speaker 9: into conduct that violates our policies against bullying.
Speaker 7: Does that speech not cost that barrier?
Speaker 6: Does that speech not call for the genocide of Jews
Speaker 6: and the elimination of Israel? When you testify that you
Speaker 6: understand that is the definition of intofada? Is that speech
Speaker 6: according to the code of conduct or not.
Speaker 9: We embrace a commitment to free expression and give a
Speaker 9: wide berth to free expression, even of views that are objectionable.
Speaker 7: You and I both know that's not the case.
Speaker 6: You are aware that Harvard ranked dead last when it
Speaker 6: came to free speech.
Speaker 7: Are you not aware of that report?
Speaker 9: As I observed earlier, I reject that characterization.
Speaker 7: It's the data shows it's true.
Speaker 6: And isn't it true that Harvard previously rescinded multiple offers
Speaker 6: of admissions for applicants and accepted freshmen for sharing offensive memes,
Speaker 6: racist statements, sometimes as young as sixteen years old. Did
Speaker 6: Harvard not rescind those offers of admission?
Speaker 8: That long predates my time as present.
Speaker 6: But you understand that Harvard made that decision to restin
Speaker 6: those offers of admission.
Speaker 8: I have no reason to contradict the facts as you
Speaker 8: present them.
Speaker 7: Correct because it's a fact.
Speaker 6: You're also aware that a Winthrop House faculty dean was
Speaker 6: let go over who he chose.
Speaker 7: To legally represent. Correct, that was while you were dean.
Speaker 8: That is an incorrect characterization. Avoid transfer.
Speaker 7: What's the characterization.
Speaker 9: I'm not going to get into details about a personnel matter.
Speaker 6: Well, let me ask you this, Will admissions offers be
Speaker 6: rescinded or any disciplinary action be taken against students or
Speaker 6: applicants who say from the River to the Sea or
Speaker 6: into five advocating for the murder of Jews?
Speaker 9: As I've said, that type of hateful, reckless, offensive speech
Speaker 9: is personally abhorrent to.
Speaker 7: Me and today that no action will be taken. What
Speaker 7: action will be taken?
Speaker 9: When speech crosses into conduct that violates our policies, including
Speaker 9: policies against fullying, harassment, or intimidation, We take action, and
Speaker 9: we have robust disciplinary processes that allow us to hold
Speaker 9: individuals accountable.
Speaker 6: What action has been taken against students who are harassing
Speaker 6: and calling for the genocide of Jews on Harvard's campus.
Speaker 8: I can assure you we have robust.
Speaker 7: What actions have been taken?
Speaker 8: I'm not askingations underway?
Speaker 6: I'm asking what actions have been taken again and students.
Speaker 9: Given students' rights to privacy and our obligations under FURPA,
Speaker 9: I will not say more about any specific cases other
Speaker 9: than to reiterate that process are ongoing.
Speaker 7: Do you know what the number one hate crime in
Speaker 7: America is?
Speaker 9: I know that over the last couple of months there
Speaker 9: has been an alarming rise of anti Semitism, which I
Speaker 9: understand is the critical topic that we are here to discuss.
Speaker 7: That's correct.
Speaker 6: It is anti Jewish hate crimes, and Harvard ranks the
Speaker 6: lowest when it comes to protecting Jewish students.
Speaker 7: This is why I've called for your resignation.
Speaker 6: And your testimony today, not being able to answer with
Speaker 6: moral charity speaks volumes.
Speaker 1: I yield back, Senator, you hear that.
Speaker 2: And the part that I think galls me the most
Speaker 2: is the fact that she's still employed. She's still going
Speaker 2: to be paid about a million dollars a year. She's
Speaker 2: just had a title change. That's it.
Speaker 3: Well, and Harvard doesn't intend to change its conduct. They
Speaker 3: certainly have made no expression that they intend to do differently.
Speaker 3: That they were forced after over a billion dollars in
Speaker 3: commitments to contributions, were called out, after academically their president
Speaker 3: became a laughing stock, after you began to have students
Speaker 3: who I would note had to anonymously call for her
Speaker 3: to resign because they were afraid of retaliation, after you
Speaker 3: had d editorials in the New York Times and the
Speaker 3: Washington Post, bastions of the left, both calling not from
Speaker 3: the papers but from people submitting op eds calling for
Speaker 3: her resignation. After all of that, it became intolerable. And
Speaker 3: yet they dug in, and they dug in, and they
Speaker 3: dug in, and and it's really quite ironic. You look
Speaker 3: at her testimony, and she she is defending free speech,
Speaker 3: and it would be one thing. If she was saying,
Speaker 3: you know, Harvard's a place where anyone can say anything,
Speaker 3: and we protect free speech for everyone. That's laughably false.
Speaker 3: They protect free speech for anti semits and leftists and
Speaker 3: at the same time, so there's an organization called Fire
Speaker 3: and Fire is actively involved in fighting to defend free
Speaker 3: speech and examining censorship and suppression of free speech on campus.
Speaker 3: And they do an elaborate survey every year at an analysis
Speaker 3: of universities across the country. So Harvard is consistently ranked
Speaker 3: one of the worst in the country. In twenty twenty,
Speaker 3: Harvard ranked number forty six out of fifty five schools
Speaker 3: in terms of protecting free speech. In twenty twenty one,
Speaker 3: it ranked one hundred and thirty out of one hundred
Speaker 3: and fifty four schools. In twenty twenty two, it ranked
Speaker 3: one hundred and seventy out of two hundred and three schools,
Speaker 3: and this past year, in two thousand and three, Harvard
Speaker 3: was dead last, and out of a possible score from
Speaker 3: zero to one hundred, Harvard's score was actually a negative
Speaker 3: ten point six y nine, so it was dead last.
Speaker 3: It was six standard deviations below the average and more
Speaker 3: than two standard deviations below the second to last school
Speaker 3: in the rankings, and the second to last school was
Speaker 3: the University of Pennsylvania, penn And so when she is
Speaker 3: is saying, well, anti Semites are allowed and apparently encouraged
Speaker 3: because of free speech, that is a policy that is
Speaker 3: applied very selectively, and Harvard's expressed no willingness, no desire
Speaker 3: to correct that. And I think it is imperative that
Speaker 3: this become a moment to try to address and try
Speaker 3: to fix the profound ideological corruption. By the way, if
Speaker 3: you look at the Harvard Corporation board, every single one
Speaker 3: of its board members is an hardcore partisan, ideological democrat.
Speaker 3: There is no one right of center allowed anywhere near
Speaker 3: that board. And you see in the policies why they
Speaker 3: universally circled the wagons around Claudine Gay and it was
Speaker 3: only when dragged, kicking and screaming that they allowed her
Speaker 3: to resign. It is critically important to underscore that the
Speaker 3: central issue at these schools is not free speech. It's
Speaker 3: not what people are saying. It is harassment and abuse.
Speaker 3: Jewish students are being subjected to threats of violence, to
Speaker 3: active harassment, and no student has a right to harass
Speaker 3: another student. You can't go up to an African American
Speaker 3: student and harass that student and scream and holler and
Speaker 3: threaten that student. Because a race. You can't go up
Speaker 3: to a white student, you can't go up to a woman.
Speaker 3: You can't and shouldn't be able to go go up
Speaker 3: to a Jewish student, or a Muslim student, or any student.
Speaker 3: No student has the right to harass or threaten another student.
Speaker 3: And Harvard and many of these schools are doing a
Speaker 3: terrible job protecting the safety of their students. I have
Speaker 3: a lot of good friends who have kids in college
Speaker 3: right now and who are Jewish, and almost to a person,
Speaker 3: they're telling me their children are reporting, who are college
Speaker 3: students now, that they were afraid for their safety. And
Speaker 3: that's what Harvard and these administrators are refusing to recognize
Speaker 3: and fix the next step. And I want to say
Speaker 3: something three times, Mit MIT, MIT. There were three presidents
Speaker 3: who testified Penn, Harvard, and MIT. All three of the
Speaker 3: testimonies were abysmal. The president of MIT is Sally Cornbluth.
Speaker 3: We have talked about on Verdict how at MIT Jewish
Speaker 3: students were actively prevented from going to class because of
Speaker 3: threats of violence from pro Haamas protesters who were threatening
Speaker 3: to physically harm them, and then the MIT administration shamefully
Speaker 3: said they would not discipline the students who were threatening
Speaker 3: the Jewish students. Why because many of them were foreigners.
Speaker 3: They were foreign students from foreign countries, and if they
Speaker 3: were expelled from MIT, they'd lose their student visas, and
Speaker 3: so therefore MIT would not respond. In many ways, MIT's
Speaker 3: behavior has been the most disgraceful of the three. And
Speaker 3: I do want to give a shout out to Bill Ackman.
Speaker 3: Bill Ackman has been incredibly important. Acman is a Harvard alum,
Speaker 3: He's a billionaire, he's the founder of Pershing Square Capital Management,
Speaker 3: and he has been incredibly vocal calling out these schools,
Speaker 3: putting pressure. He put enormous pressure on Penn, he put
Speaker 3: enormous pressure on Harvard. And I will say, right after
Speaker 3: clotting Gay resigned, Ackman posted on Twitter at to Sally
Speaker 3: a call out to Sally Cornbluth that MIT should be next.
Speaker 3: I believe she will resign. But MIT's view is exactly
Speaker 3: what Harvard's view was. Before the plagiarism forced their hand.
Speaker 3: They were willing to just bury their heads in their
Speaker 3: sand and ignore the pattern of anti semetrism and harassment
Speaker 3: of Jewish students, and so the exposing with sunlight what
Speaker 3: they're doing is critical. And once that happens, we need
Speaker 3: to make sure these institutions change. It's not enough for
Speaker 3: them to put in a new leftist who continues the
Speaker 3: identical pattern as presidents. We need to change the culture
Speaker 3: and attitude so that all students are protected on campus
Speaker 3: rather than these positions being abused.
Speaker 1: Amen to that. Don't forget.
Speaker 2: We did a show Monday, Wednesday, Friday, and a week
Speaker 2: in recap on Saturdays. Hit that follow button, especially if
Speaker 2: you're on Apple, as they've changed the way that you
Speaker 2: can download in your algorithm. Make sure that if you're
Speaker 2: listening on Apple right now, that you hit that follow button,
Speaker 2: and you need to check it every so often to
Speaker 2: make sure that you're still downloading the show. Also, don't
Speaker 2: forget you can follow the Center on all the social
Speaker 2: media platforms, and make sure that you listen to my podcast,
Speaker 2: the Ben Ferguson Podcasts. In those in between days. I'll
Speaker 2: keep you update on the latest breaking news. Happy New Year,
Speaker 2: and we'll see you back here in a couple of days.