Harvard President Claudine Gay is under attack! All destroyers, make smoke! Not enough smoke! More smoke! She’s an extremely distinguished scholar with a sterling academic record, THOUGH MAYBE YOU CAN’T SEE THAT THROUGH YOUR KLAN HOOD!!!!!!!! So let’s check. Start here:
If "Diversity" means hiring people based on their race does this mean we're NOT supposed to mention that they're hired based on their race?
So before the hiring/accepting commences the job/college acceptance must consider race as a crucial factor, but after the hiring is done it's gauche and racist to mention that the person was hired because of their race?
It's almost as if being treated as sacred cows by white liberals does black people a disservice by turning them into symbols instead of people, by turning their historical oppression into a credential and moral chit, and by not preparing them for life outside the victim-worshipping hothouse of upscale academia, where they may be asked to stand on their own two feet.
And yet the Harvard Corporation stands behind her and claims she is the best one to lead Harvard. What is her appeal? Gender and skin color. That tells you the most important information about Harvard. Harvard, where Asians can’t be admitted because they are too accomplished; Jewish students are threatened with call for genocide or even physical violence; lawyers who defend odious clients are fired from their teaching position; and where misgendering a transgender is an offense worthy of expulsion.
In the Soviet Union the top administrators were selected based upon their Communist Party membership cards and how well they played the internal party politics and how loyal to the party, its agenda they were. And preferably not too intelligent that they might think for themselves.
Sames. We have arrived. One good thing, a system that's built on slack-jawed fealty to itself untethered from excellence, or even just competence inevitably falls in on itself. The only questions are when, not if, and how much collateral damage it causes. The 'when' question is directly tied to the amount of force it is capable of imposing on the people it governs and the will of those atop the system to use the full might they possess to do so; how sociopathic are they and what is their appetite for democide? If the past four years are any indication I'd say they have a voracious appetite.
My research paper, if necessary to keep my grossly overpaid position, would be titled: “Con Artists in Higher Education and the Dummies who support them.”
In a recent interview, Erik Prince (founder of Blackwater) noted that at the time of our nation’s founding the entrance exam for Harvard required candidates to translate the Book of John from Greek into Latin. Today, Claudine Gay is considered a “distinguished scholar” and is being defended by the people calling the shots at that same university. Yet another reminder that our institutions are rotten to the core. Is there any hope that our country pulls out of this?
Dec 14, 2023·edited Dec 15, 2023Liked by Chris Bray
Based on the Wikipedia timelines of her academic career and publication history, in 2000 she was hired by Stanford as a tenure-track Assistant Professor having published just a single [coauthored] journal article.
By 2006, she had been awarded tenure and promoted to Associate Professor--again, at Stanford!--with a grand total of 5 articles to her name, all in low-tier journals. No book, of course.
In 2006 her 6th journal article was published, in the year that Harvard hired her as full Professor, capping her meteoric rise as an academic with a scholarship record so comically weak that it boggles the mind. Another 4 articles trickled out over the next 8 years, at which point she became an administrator with zero publications since then.
“Distinguished scholar”--what a joke. If that’s considered “distinguished” at Stanford and Harvard, I’d like to see what their merely average professors are like. They must have no publications at all!
Black women are the biggest pawns in the leftist world. I hope the white men who elevated bigot Oprah to prominence are burning in Hell. Like most black women in positions of power, they are extremely biased because they are at the bottom of hierarchy. They are irrational dopes who think they are gaining an upper hand on the white man and a step over white women but they are really just pathetic hacks, like Gay.
So the accusation is that Gay has been admitted to and hired by a bunch of elite educational institutions on her way to the top without having actually accomplished anything … and Keith Boykin’s defense of her is to list those institutions.
As impressive as Summers' CV is, (cultivated by a lifetime of wealthy networking and powerful contacts), I would rather have Claudine Gay in the office, than him. He is a crook of massive proportions.
Come on, man, look at those glasses! They remind me of Alan Greenspan's glasses, so she has to be brilliant. Plus, I saw somewhere that the analysis in just one of her 11 published papers proved beyond doubt that blacks living in cities with black mayors have more interest in government than blacks in other cities. Game changer!
Chris, I love reading all your articles because of your unique writing voice and style, but I believe this is one of your best. I’ve re-read it many times and have forwarded it to several friends. Thank you for the deep dive into the credentials of this fraudster. Fine work, sir.
Chistopher Brunet of Karlstack had Claudine Gay's number way back in 2022 (https://www.karlstack.com/p/exclusive-leaked-document-proves?utm_source=%2Fsearch%2Fclaudine%2520gray&utm_medium=reader2), before she was the president of Harvard. But . . . nobody cared. So why do we care so much now? She's not changed. She is who she always was. What was her mortal sin that someone should notice her inadequacy I wonder? What thing did she do that she could not go just bumbling merrily along? In other words, whom was the mediocre Claudine Gay finally stupid enough to offend out of all the people she's probably offended in her life and got away with?
The thing that angers me more than the Claudine Gay's of the world is the reason why suddenly they're being noticed. They've done a lot of damage in their careers, gutted some of the most well-respected institutions in this country to bring them down to their own level of ineptitude, but they've just been allowed to scamper along. But now . . . now they're noticed. I wonder what changed?
If "Diversity" means hiring people based on their race does this mean we're NOT supposed to mention that they're hired based on their race?
So before the hiring/accepting commences the job/college acceptance must consider race as a crucial factor, but after the hiring is done it's gauche and racist to mention that the person was hired because of their race?
It's almost as if being treated as sacred cows by white liberals does black people a disservice by turning them into symbols instead of people, by turning their historical oppression into a credential and moral chit, and by not preparing them for life outside the victim-worshipping hothouse of upscale academia, where they may be asked to stand on their own two feet.
I would be happy to do her job for only $900,000 per year, but then I'm only a humble cyclotron physicist.
And yet the Harvard Corporation stands behind her and claims she is the best one to lead Harvard. What is her appeal? Gender and skin color. That tells you the most important information about Harvard. Harvard, where Asians can’t be admitted because they are too accomplished; Jewish students are threatened with call for genocide or even physical violence; lawyers who defend odious clients are fired from their teaching position; and where misgendering a transgender is an offense worthy of expulsion.
Chris,
Lori Lightfoot and Jacinda Arden both work at Harvard now. The bar is high my friend.
https://youtu.be/4F4qzPbcFiA
In the Soviet Union the top administrators were selected based upon their Communist Party membership cards and how well they played the internal party politics and how loyal to the party, its agenda they were. And preferably not too intelligent that they might think for themselves.
Sames. We have arrived. One good thing, a system that's built on slack-jawed fealty to itself untethered from excellence, or even just competence inevitably falls in on itself. The only questions are when, not if, and how much collateral damage it causes. The 'when' question is directly tied to the amount of force it is capable of imposing on the people it governs and the will of those atop the system to use the full might they possess to do so; how sociopathic are they and what is their appetite for democide? If the past four years are any indication I'd say they have a voracious appetite.
My research paper, if necessary to keep my grossly overpaid position, would be titled: “Con Artists in Higher Education and the Dummies who support them.”
In a recent interview, Erik Prince (founder of Blackwater) noted that at the time of our nation’s founding the entrance exam for Harvard required candidates to translate the Book of John from Greek into Latin. Today, Claudine Gay is considered a “distinguished scholar” and is being defended by the people calling the shots at that same university. Yet another reminder that our institutions are rotten to the core. Is there any hope that our country pulls out of this?
Based on the Wikipedia timelines of her academic career and publication history, in 2000 she was hired by Stanford as a tenure-track Assistant Professor having published just a single [coauthored] journal article.
By 2006, she had been awarded tenure and promoted to Associate Professor--again, at Stanford!--with a grand total of 5 articles to her name, all in low-tier journals. No book, of course.
In 2006 her 6th journal article was published, in the year that Harvard hired her as full Professor, capping her meteoric rise as an academic with a scholarship record so comically weak that it boggles the mind. Another 4 articles trickled out over the next 8 years, at which point she became an administrator with zero publications since then.
“Distinguished scholar”--what a joke. If that’s considered “distinguished” at Stanford and Harvard, I’d like to see what their merely average professors are like. They must have no publications at all!
Black women are the biggest pawns in the leftist world. I hope the white men who elevated bigot Oprah to prominence are burning in Hell. Like most black women in positions of power, they are extremely biased because they are at the bottom of hierarchy. They are irrational dopes who think they are gaining an upper hand on the white man and a step over white women but they are really just pathetic hacks, like Gay.
So the accusation is that Gay has been admitted to and hired by a bunch of elite educational institutions on her way to the top without having actually accomplished anything … and Keith Boykin’s defense of her is to list those institutions.
Now that, that’s a smart guy.
Someone on the selection committee noticed her last name and said, "Hey. That's worth some points, right?"
As impressive as Summers' CV is, (cultivated by a lifetime of wealthy networking and powerful contacts), I would rather have Claudine Gay in the office, than him. He is a crook of massive proportions.
Come on, man, look at those glasses! They remind me of Alan Greenspan's glasses, so she has to be brilliant. Plus, I saw somewhere that the analysis in just one of her 11 published papers proved beyond doubt that blacks living in cities with black mayors have more interest in government than blacks in other cities. Game changer!
Replace her with Dr. Carol Swain.
Chris, I love reading all your articles because of your unique writing voice and style, but I believe this is one of your best. I’ve re-read it many times and have forwarded it to several friends. Thank you for the deep dive into the credentials of this fraudster. Fine work, sir.
Chistopher Brunet of Karlstack had Claudine Gay's number way back in 2022 (https://www.karlstack.com/p/exclusive-leaked-document-proves?utm_source=%2Fsearch%2Fclaudine%2520gray&utm_medium=reader2), before she was the president of Harvard. But . . . nobody cared. So why do we care so much now? She's not changed. She is who she always was. What was her mortal sin that someone should notice her inadequacy I wonder? What thing did she do that she could not go just bumbling merrily along? In other words, whom was the mediocre Claudine Gay finally stupid enough to offend out of all the people she's probably offended in her life and got away with?
The thing that angers me more than the Claudine Gay's of the world is the reason why suddenly they're being noticed. They've done a lot of damage in their careers, gutted some of the most well-respected institutions in this country to bring them down to their own level of ineptitude, but they've just been allowed to scamper along. But now . . . now they're noticed. I wonder what changed?