Worst-Timed Fundraising Appeal Of The Decade…

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

The Crimson independently reviewed the published allegations. Though some are minor — consisting of passages that are similar or identical to Gay’s sources, lacking quotation marks but including citations — others are more substantial, including some paragraphs and sentences nearly identical to other work and lacking citations.

Some appear to violate Harvard’s current policies around plagiarism and academic integrity.

Continue reading →

Some semi-alert Harvard fundraiser decided to tweak this letter to emphasize supporting students rather than the institution itself. I rule that deceitful, but it’s such an obvious and pathetic ploy that the chances of it fooling anyone with an IQ above 80—most, though not all, Harvard alums probably can top 100— are slim.

This year-end fundraising appeal arrives in my mailbox the same week that the school’s leadership unanimously supported a president who embarrassed herself, the school and its alumni in a public forum. It comes after Harvard gave tacit approval to students threatening the welfare and educational opportunities of Jewish students by refusing to take any action against other students extolling terrorism targeting Jews, and espousing intafada and genocide. While a lesser Ivy League institution, UPenn, correctly dismissed its president who made almost exactly the same tone-deaf and cowardly statements before Congress that Harvard’s Claudine Gay did, saying that whether calls for the death of Jews constitutes harassment and a violation of the school’s conduct code depends on their “context,” Harvard’s governing body submitted an absurd-on-its-face endorsement of Gay, stating “Our extensive deliberations affirm our confidence that President Gay is the right leader to help our community heal and to address the very serious societal issues we are facing.”

Yes, the most prestigious university in the U.S., among all its scholars and graduates, can’t find a better leader than one unable to explain the limits of free speech on campus, or do better under questioning than to repeat verbatim the canned answers provided by lawyers as if she were reciting “The Wreck of the Hesperus.”

Who believes that? What informed graduate not yet in the throes of senility doesn’t comprehend that the vote of confidence means, “We chose this woman because she was black and a DEI hun, and not having black alums and woke faculty rebel is more important to us than showing that we reject anti-Semitism and care sufficiently about maintaining Harvard’s reputation. “

If there was doubt that President Gay could do anything short of running naked with a bloody machete through Harvard Square and keep her job, she was also permitted to pilot “Back to the Future’s” Delorean and remove plagiarized sections of her nearly 30 year-old PhD dissertation, though it was in its illicit form when the document won her the doctorate. Although the Harvard Crimson has supported Gay (on the theory that Harvard should never do anything demanded by evil, racist Republicans) it also concluded in an investigation…

The Crimson independently reviewed the published allegations. Though some are minor — consisting of passages that are similar or identical to Gay’s sources, lacking quotation marks but including citations — others are more substantial, including some paragraphs and sentences nearly identical to other work and lacking citations.

Some appear to violate Harvard’s current policies around plagiarism and academic integrity.

Continue reading →

‘Fund Raising Appeals I Stopped Reading After Two Paragraphs’ Dept.: No, ProPublica, I’m Not Giving Money To Your Brand Of “Independent Journalism”

/ Jack Marshall / 1 Comment

I subscribe to ProPublica because the group often does valuable investigative reporting, just as I subscribed to Glenn Greenwald this year even after he took my substack subscription money and then produced nothing for months because he was sick or something. (Not again, Glenn, Sorry.) However, I will not give money to organizations who lie to me. This is how the year-end appeal I just received from ProPublica begins:

It’s no secret that American democracy is in peril. The 2020 elections were unlike anything our country has seen before — election deniers, an insurrection and bad actors sowing disinformation shed a harsh light on the fragile state of our democracy. As a ProPublica reader, I know you’ve been aware of these growing threats for some time now.

ProPublica is no bystander when it comes to ensuring a transparent government, regardless of who is in power. As a nonprofit, nonpartisan newsroom, we believe that investigative journalism is one of the most powerful tools we have to ensure a healthy democracy…

Continue reading →

See, This Is GOOD Discrimination. Got It?

/ Jack Marshall / 16 Comments

Honestly, how do these people look at themselves in the mirror without retching? Isn’t there some level of toxic hypocrisy that is physically disabling, or does one build up resistance over time?

An aide to Boston’s Asian-American mayor Michelle Wu was supposed to send that invitation for the Mayor’s “Electeds of Color Holiday Party” (Catchy name!) to, you know, only elected officials who aren’t white because, after all, who wants them at a party? Oopsie! Poor Denise DosSantos, soon to be ringing a bell by a red pot on a corner, accidentally sent the invitations for the secret racist and exclusive event to everyone. This prompted criticism, and this resulting “apology” from the aide: “I wanted to apologize for my previous email regarding a Holiday Party for tomorrow. I did send that to everyone by accident, and I apologize if my email may have offended or came across as so. Sorry for any confusion this may have caused.”

Continue reading →

What A Surprise! Unethical Ex-Trump Lawyer Michael Cohen Has An Unethical Lawyer

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

I guess that should be “another unethical lawyer,” since Trump’s disbarred fixer was previously represented by Lanny Davis, who previously spun for the Clintons.

This, however, is funny: Cohen’s current lawyer, in arguing to a judge that court supervision of his client should be terminated now thatCohen is out of prison, included three imaginary cases in his filing last month.

“As far as the court can tell,” Manhattan federal judge Jesse M. Furman, wrote yesterday, “none of these cases exist.”

Given that Cohen is Cohen and among the most unethical people with a law degree in the country, suspicion immediately was sparked that he was behind his lawyer’s fantasies. But this is the era of nascent SkyNet, and unwitting lawyers and paralegals have already been caught using chatbots for legal research, to their sorrow. Last June, for example, a federal judge fined two lawyers $5,000 for putting their names on a legal brief containing made-up cases and citations concocted by aspiring lawyer ChatGPT. The fines were widely derided as insufficient, but judges traditionally are sympathetic when lawyers misuse technology that the judges don’t understand….at least the first time around.

So maybe Cohen’s lawyer was fooled by a bot. Another possibility is that Cohen’s lawyer, Cohen-like, just cheated. I have been told by many litigators over the years that they routinely find fake cases in their adversaries’ briefs, memos and motions.

Furman has ordered Cohen’s attorney to provide copies of the three mystery decisions within a week, or provide a sworn declaration explaining “how the motion came to cite cases that do not exist and what role, if any, Mr. Cohen played in drafting or reviewing the motion before it was filed.”

Given the client, this story is as perfect a candidate for a Nelson as I could imagine.

Confirmation Bias Test: The Rasmussen 2020 Voter Fraud Survey

/ Jack Marshall / 12 Comments

Trump’s reaction aside, what is a fair, rational, measured way to evaluate the results of the just-relased Rasmussen survey about voter fraud in the 2020 election?

The headline is “One-in-Five Mail-In Voters Admit They Cheated in 2020 Election.” The findings, in brief:

1. “More than 20% of voters who used mail-in ballots in 2020 admit they participated in at least one form of election fraud.”

2. “21% of Likely U.S. voters who voted by absentee or mail-in ballot in the 2020 election say they filled out a ballot, in part or in full, on behalf of a friend or family member, such as a spouse or child, while 78% say they didn’t.”

Continue reading →

Comment Of The Day: “Romanian Flag Ethics, or ‘Who Cares About Chad?’”

/ Jack Marshall / 13 Comments

“Unhinged” is a Russell Crowe horror movie about a woman in a bad mood one morning who honks angrily at the driver of a car in front of her when a light turns green at an intersection. Unfortunately for her, she finds out that she has triggered a lunatic who decides to ruin her life as revenge for her impulsive honk. In the background to this Very Special Comment of the Day, I am the equivalent of the woman, and the author, “Stacey’s Friend Chad” is Russell Crowe, if the Russell Crowe character waited over six years to decide to go on his rampage.

Welcome to my world. I woke up this morning to not one but six posts scattered around Ethics Alarms by a commenter whose first comment had him banned from Ethics Alarms on this post, a tongue-in-cheek bit of fluff that I wrote in 2017 after reading about a flag dispute between Romania and Chad. Two commenters didn’t appreciate my whimsy (out of over 40 comments—I’ll take that ratio any day), one of whom was writing from Romania to defend his country, and another who launched into diatribe about my “dishonesty.”

Normally such a comment wouldn’t get out of moderation, but I was in a bad mood that day for some reason, and posted the comment just so I could abuse the jerk for all to see. That was stupid and unethical. I’ve done it a couple of times, and even warn commenters about my occasional outbursts in the Comment Policies above, but still, reading what I wrote in 2017 is embarrassing. This is my penance: that banned commenter returned with a vengeance this morning, and it is all my fault. Thus for the second time I’m posting one of his attack comments instead of sending it to spam hell immediately (which is where the other five comments are now.)

I’m hoping I remember this episode the next time I’m tempted to call a commenter a “butt-head.” Here you go…

Continue reading →

Ethics Quiz: Section 16

/ Jack Marshall / 20 Comments

Here is a controversy that I was completely ignorant of, and I am embarrassed to admit it.

One more bi-product of the George Floyd Freakout, ‘The Great Stupid’ that has washed over the land like the Great Molasses Flood of 1919, and the Stalin-esque attempt to airbrush American history, including the toppling of statues honoring certain distinguished Americans who were not sufficiently psychic to absorb the lessons and accumulated ethics wisdom of those with the advantage of a century or more additional history and human experience, was the Naming Commission, established by the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act in the throes of all of the above malign influences. It’s official mission is to recommend removal of “all names, symbols, displays, monuments, and paraphernalia that honor or commemorate the Confederate States of America.” The Commission extended its reach to the Reconciliation Monument at Arlington National Cemetery, which is located in the special section known as Section 16. The monument, which you see above, is scheduled to come down.

Of all the many times I have visited Arlington—my father and mother are buried there, also my grandfather, and Dad loved to take me on tours of the place as he checked out his future residence, especially when he was taking part in the annual Battle of the Bulge veterans ceremonies—I never saw this section. It has a fascinating history.

Arlington was established as a burial ground for the Union military dead. Indeed, Montgomery Meigs, the Quartermaster General of the U.S. Army who was responsible for the burial of soldiers, ordered Robert E. Lee’s Arlington estate to be turned into a cemetery so Lee could never return there. Meigs had his son, an early casualty of the war, buried literally on the Confederate leader’s doorstep as a statement of contempt and defiance. No Rebel combatants were permitted on the sacred grounds.

However President William McKinley, himself a Medal of Honor recipient for his heroism at the Battle of Antietam, announced that the U.S. government would commit to honoring the Confederate dead, saying in a speech in Atlanta that “sectional feelings no longer holds back the love we feel for each other. The old flag waves over us in peace with new glories.” Congress authorized Confederate remains to be buried at Arlington National Cemetery in 1900, and in 1906, the construction of a monument was commissioned to represent the nation’s acceptance of the Confederacy back into the nation, healing of the deep wounds of civil war. 1903 saw President Theodore Roosevelt send a floral arrangement to the Section 16 to commemorate Confederate Memorial Day, and began a tradition that has been regularly observed since, with President Obama expanding the practice to laying two floral wreaths, one at the Confederate Memorial, the other at Washington, D.C.’s African American Civil War Memorial.

This week the Republican Congress has sent a letter of protest to the Defense Department, demanding that preparations to remove the monument cease, and pointing out that the purpose of the memorial is not to honor the Confederacy, but to stand for national unity, reconciliation, and peace.

Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day is…

Should the Reconciliation Memorial be removed along with the remains of the Confederate soldiers buried in Section 16?

Continue reading →

Fire The Teacher And School Board, Pull Out All The Students, Raze The Building And Sow The Grounds With Salt…But First, GET OUT!

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

Ugh. Here is another one of those “conservative stories” that so far the progressive media has ignored. I can’t find any non-conservative reports, but it appear to be real. A tenth-grade teacher of “Ethnic Studies World History” at Chief Sealth International High School (Could there be a description that screams “Woke mania!” any more shrilly?) failed a student on a class quiz called “Understanding Gender vs. Sex” because he wrote that only women can become pregnant as an answer to one question and and that only men have penises on another.

According to local radio 770 KTTH, some of the questions on the quiz focused involved personal pronoun use (“When someone uses ‘they/them’ pronouns, what does that mean about their gender identity?”) and stereotypes. (“True/false: Transgender people are gay”). Question 4 asked for a true or false response to the statement, “All men have penises.” The student chose “true” because 99.9% of the time it is true. The teacher marked it incorrect. Question 7 was another true or false question, “Only women can get pregnant.” Again, The same student marked this statement “true” as well. The teacher believes that men can get pregnant, though 99.999999999999999999999+ men throughout history and currently could not and can not.

The child’s mother is perplexed, reportedly telling the Jason Rantz Show on the radio station that her complaints have gone unanswered, and that her son says he has been called “fucked and racist” and “a product of the patriarchy” by teachers in the school.

Continue reading →

The Harvard President’s New Scandal: Now The Only Way Gay Can Prove She’s Fit To Lead The University Is To Leave It [Expanded & Updated]

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

City-Journal, arguably the best of the conservative websites, has extensive coverage of the plagiarism allegations against Claudine Gay, whose presidency of Harvard was already on shaky ground following her awful testimony before Congress regarding the burgeoning anti-Semitism on campus. It is too detailed for me to summarize correctly, and if I cut and paste sufficient amounts of the piece I’ll be plagiarizing, so you should read all about it here. (You may have to register, but access is free.)

Disgustingly, the New York Times and the Washington Post have not reported this yet. That’s outrageous, and one more screaming example of how the Left circles its wagons any time an ally seriously screws up. Harvard is to progressive indoctrination in education what the Times is to progressive propaganda in journalism, but the last thing the mainstream media needs now is another Hunter Biden laptop fiasco. Harvard is very much in the news already for it’s ugly role in the Hamas-Israel Ethics Train Wreck; Gay is now a central figure, and for the plagiarism development to be given the “nothing to see here” treatment by the news media is spectacularly foolish as well as unethical. [Update: This afternoon, after Harvard mentioned the plagiarism issue, both the Times and the Post finally reported on it its digital editions.]

But I digress…I had initially assumed that the accusations that Gay had violated Harvard’s own policies on citations, credit to other scholars and plagiarism were like past attacks on controversial authors like Ann Coulter, technical but non substantive, the sort that could be dug up on many published public figures by those seeking to damage their reputations. I was mistaken, however. Gay’s violations are substantive and substantial. Moreover, Gay appears to have appropriated material from one of the most significant scholars in the field of racial issues in American, now retired Vanderbilt professor and author Carol Swain.

Continue reading →

Good Ethics News, But Not Much More Than That

/ Jack Marshall / 19 Comments

I take some solace from the Wall Street Journal poll that shows Nicky Haley clobbering Joe Biden in a hypothetical 2024 election. It is the strong evidence I have been searching for that a healthy majority of the public recognize what an epic disaster the Biden administration has been.

Seeing the accumulating polls elsewhere showing Biden trailing Trump by a couple of percentage points here and four or so there, I felt like Hillary, in one of her many pathetic 2016 campaign ploys, asking how it was possible that she wasn’t far ahead of Donald Trump, given the undeniable fact that he was, well, you know, Donald Trump. The WSJ poll (which gives Trump just a 4-point advantage over Biden, 47-43) restores a bit of my faith in the civic competence of the American people. Haley isn’t a particular impressive alternative, but she has executive experience, can put a coherent sentence together, is well short of retirement age, and appears capable of learning. All of this makes her infinitely preferable to Biden or Trump. She is, as I have pointed out before, a weasel whose integrity is dubious at best, and has not displayed enough of the kind of character traits that I believe a trustworthy leader must have in abundance, but if it’s her, Biden or Trump, the choice should be easy. A substantial number of my fellow Americans agree.

This is good. The American public, those with a firm grip on reality and some sense of self-preservation, apparently know that electing either Biden or Trump for another four years is a blind leap into the abyss, hoping to land on a ledge or find a branch to hang onto. Unfortunately, the poll is a) just a poll and b) doesn’t matter as long as Republicans, who get to choose the nominee, are dominated by Trump cultists impermeable to common sense.

Moreover if, by some amazing confluence of good luck and random events along with a butterfly flapping its wings in the Amazon rainforest, Haley were to prevail over Trump, it is nearly guaranteed that this destructive narcissist would run a third party campaign emulating the 1912 Teddy Roosevelt tantrum that gave the nation its most destructive POTUS since George mapped out a workable template. Trump would throw the election to Biden out of spite. Do you doubt that? Does anyone?

He’s the Once and Future Asshole.

Well, who knows—chaos theory and the fickle finger of fate (Cultural reference pop-quiz!) may have surprises in store. At least the poll provides evidence that most of the public realize how awful the Democratic reign has been. They also realize just how unpleasant—I’m choosing my words carefully—another four years of Trump will be, especially after progressives have been programed to believe he’ll be emulating Pol Pot.

It’s a good news/bad news joke. Not a particularly funny one, though.