New York congressman defends former Harvard president against racism and intimidation
New York congressman Jamaal Bowman is rushing to former Harvard University president Claudine Gay’s defense, arguing that Gay’s ousting stems from “racism and intimidation,” not “plagiarism or anti-Semitism.”
Bowman in his Tuesday night social media post also labeled those who highlighted Gay’s apparent plagiarism as “fascists who bullied a brilliant & historic Black woman into resignation.” Gay became Harvard’s president in July 2023 after publishing just 17 pieces of academic work—8 of which appear to include what Harvard has described as “duplicative language” pulled from other academics—and her tenure is the shortest in the school’s history.
“This isn’t about plagiarism or anti-Semitism. This is about racism and intimidation,” Bowman said. “2024 will be a battle for truth, democracy, and our shared humanity.”
In addition to the plagiarism scandal, Gay has faced intense criticism over her disastrous December congressional testimony, which saw her contend that calling for the genocide of Jews may not constitute harassment at Harvard. “It depends on the context,” she said. Bowman’s decision to defend Gay from charges of anti-Semitism comes as the left-wing congressman faces similar criticism over his response to Hamas’s Oct. 7 terrorist assault on the Jewish state.
Bowman since the attack has blamed both sides for the violence and argued that supporting an Israeli ceasefire—which would embolden Hamas and leave the terror group’s leadership intact—is “what it actually means to be Jewish.” Those positions prompted 26 rabbis in Bowman’s district to condemn the Democrat and call on Westchester County executive George Latimer to launch a primary campaign against him. Latimer entered the race in early December.
“Inexplicably, but predictably, while congressman Bowman condemned the attacks, he put the blame on Israel for its ‘blockade of Gaza,'” the rabbis wrote in October. “He is now calling for an immediate ceasefire, effectively a position of appeasement toward Hamas’s terror regime.”
“Since being elected, Bowman has led the effort to erode support for Israel on Capitol Hill and within the Democratic Party.”
Bowman did not return a request for comment. His defense of Gay echoed the former Harvard president herself, who wrote in her resignation letter that it was “frightening to be subjected to personal attacks and threats fueled by racial animus.” Harvard similarly defended Gay on her way out of the president’s office, with the school’s board saying Gay “has acknowledged missteps and has taken responsibility for them” while showing “remarkable resilience in the face of deeply personal and sustained attacks.”
Others in the Ivy League and mainstream media came to similar conclusions following Gay’s resignation. Dartmouth professor Roopika Risam, for example, said, “they were always going to come for the leader who’s a brilliant black woman.” Bradford Vivian, a Pennsylvania State University professor and Washington Post contributor, argued that Gay’s resignation would “validate and embolden authoritarian-style attacks on diverse, inclusive, and fair education.”
“A new McCarthyism,” Vivian concluded.
Some within Harvard, however, voiced concern over the plagiarism charges leveled against Gay. A member of the school’s Honor Council, which settles cases of plagiarism and academic dishonesty, penned an op-ed in the student-run Harvard Crimson headlined, “I Vote on Plagiarism Cases at Harvard College. Gay’s Getting off Easy.”
“Omitting quotation marks, citing sources incompletely, or not citing sources at all constitutes plagiarism according to Harvard’s definitions,” the member wrote. “What is striking about the allegations of plagiarism against President Gay is that the improprieties are routine and pervasive.”
How does Bowman’s defense of Claudine Gay’s plagiarism scandal raise questions about Harvard’s vetting process?
Of Gay and his criticism of those who exposed her plagiarism is consistent with his pattern of controversial statements and positions. While it is important to address racism and intimidation wherever they occur, it is equally important to hold individuals accountable for their actions, regardless of their race or background.
The plagiarism scandal surrounding Gay is a serious issue that cannot be brushed aside. Academic integrity is a fundamental value, and any individual, regardless of their position, should be held to the same standards. It is concerning that Gay was able to become Harvard’s president despite having a record that includes instances of duplicative language in her academic work. This raises questions about the thoroughness of Harvard’s vetting process and whether other qualified candidates were overlooked.
Bowman’s assertion that the criticism of Gay is rooted in racism and intimidation is a serious accusation that should not be made lightly. It is important to differentiate between legitimate critique and personal attacks. While some individuals may have engaged in bullying behavior, it is unfair to dismiss all criticism as motivated by racism. This kind of rhetoric only serves to stifle meaningful dialogue and diminishes the severity of genuine instances of racism and intimidation.
Furthermore, Bowman’s defense of Gay against charges of anti-Semitism is problematic. Calling for the genocide of any group of people is unequivocally unacceptable and should be condemned in the strongest terms. It is deeply concerning that Gay’s testimony suggested that such actions may not constitute harassment, as this undermines the importance of combating anti-Semitism in academic spaces.
Bowman’s stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict further exacerbates the concerns about his judgment and ability to address complex geopolitical issues. Blaming both sides for the violence and implying that supporting an Israeli ceasefire is the true expression of Jewish identity oversimplifies the situation and fails to recognize the complexities of the conflict. It is vital to approach such matters with nuance, empathy, and a commitment to understanding different perspectives.
The condemnation of Bowman by rabbis in his district and the call for a primary campaign against him by Westchester County Executive George Latimer underscores the growing dissatisfaction with his positions and rhetoric. Bowman’s actions have eroded support for Israel within his own party and raise doubts about his ability to effectively represent his constituents.
In conclusion, Bowman’s defense of Claudine Gay and his dismissal of legitimate criticism as racism and intimidation is concerning. It is important to address instances of racism and intimidation, but it is equally important to hold individuals accountable for their actions, regardless of their race or background. The plagiarism scandal surrounding Gay, her problematic testimony on anti-Semitism, and Bowman’s stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict all raise significant concerns about his judgment and ability to effectively represent his constituents.
Now loading...