Harvard

Harvard Grade Inflation Ethics and the DEI Train Wreck, Part II: Harvard’s Retort

/ Jack Marshall / 2 Comments

Back in 2015, in an earlier grade- and recognition-inflation post, I wrote in horror about the growing tendency of high schools to name up to a third of the graduating class “valedictorians.” I observed in part,

“…this atrocious practice is obviously catching on. Integrity is such a chore. Excellence, superiority, achievement…they are all chores too. As for the genuinely superior students, they are out of luck: this is the high school equivalent of all the gladiators standing up and crying “I’m Spartacus!,” except now it’s “I’m the smartest one in the class!” This Maoist denial of the fact that some of us earn more success than others and that there is nothing wrong with doing so is all the rage…”

Clearly, this destructive concept was allowed to expand and flourish in the next decade, resulting in the indignant squeals of indignation from minority students at Harvard as the school resolves to stop lying to them and the world about their diligence, abilities and achievements.

In a cover essay in the current issue of Harvard Magazine, Lindsay Mitchell writes about “The True Cost of Grade Inflation,” focuses not on the costs of deceiving employers and flooding the job market with young sufferers of the Dunning-Kruger syndrome, but on student self-esteem and stress. The former Harvard instructor writes in part,

“…As Amanda Claybaugh, the dean of undergraduate education who authored the October grade inflation report, told me, “One might expect that a world where everyone got A’s would be a very relaxed world, but actually, it’s the most stressed-out world of all.”…The psychology driving this grade-frenzied atmosphere stems from the way A’s flooding the marketplace changes their value as a currency, rendering them both essential and trash at the same time. When you feel that everybody’s got an A, then you must get one, too—every time—or you have failed to keep up with the mainstream. Yet all the A’s in the world will still do zilch to get you ahead…

“…the swelling fear of not keeping up with the perfectly graded masses discourages students from taking academic risks. On campus, stories abound of introductory classes populated by enrollees who don’t need them—many have already taken a version of the same class in high school—but who are willing to repeat the material to have their A outcome in the bag. In those classes, if there’s a curve set by the highest or median score, students taking the class to actually learn the material are often left to claim the lower grades.

“And instead of picking courses that might prove challenging or just exploratory, many students aggressively seek out “gems,” the new Harvard slang for “guts”: easy classes without rigorous grading schemes. Meanwhile, the number of students taking classes pass-fail drifts upward, as students cower before intimidating subjects and elect the route that obviates grading altogether…terrified students would often email me their revised drafts repeatedly to get me to say they were “okay” before I graded them. On occasion, someone emailed me every couple of hours when I didn’t respond immediately. With one abject soul, I was able to track her miserable night by looking at the string of messages she dispatched through the wee hours, while I was sleeping. She had sent me her thesis statement over and over—with each successive iteration showing an almost imperceptible tweak—pleading with me to tell her if it sounded like an A thesis…When students become this obsessed with grades, the student-teacher interaction is reframed in crudely transactional terms…I, as the instructor, acted merely as a giver of A’s, and my willingness (or lack thereof) to grant them in turn defined the value of the student, who would go out into the world and make money or attain status in proportion to her graded value. With this mindset, my students mostly received solid A’s with an attitude of relief rather than joy. Any grade below that, on the other hand, landed as deflating or even ruinous, depending on how GPA-dependent that student’s future plans were…

“In my own classes, I frequently encountered reading comprehension issues serious enough to hamper the putative goal of a writing class—and even seemed to witness students’ reading skills degrading in real time. In my early Expos days, I liked to bring an old Lampoon parody of a Harvard student essay into class to read aloud together—with each person taking the next sentence round robin at the seminar table—as a lighthearted way to kick off a discussion of my students’ own papers. After several years, though, I noticed more and more students seemed unfamiliar with the vocabulary in the parody, with many now stumbling over words like “penchant,” “motif,” and “preponderance.” I finally stopped bringing the Lampoon piece to class, since by then the laughs had turned scarce and the faces had turned red with embarrassment…These students were not puffed up with unjustified praise, like the entitled Harvardian of the grade inflation think pieces. They showed awareness that they were not performing as well as they should…Many students feel the inflated grades they’ve received compose a smooth edifice that surrounds them and could crumble at any moment to reveal the pockmarked reality of their performance. For some, this can become a source of shame, because their inflated A’s suggest their faults are unspeakable and must be hidden, whereas, for all they know, other students’ A’s are entirely deserved. Grade inflation then becomes a dimension of imposter syndrome that reflects other aspects of this generation’s coming-of-age experience. It is similar to looking repeatedly at a friend’s social media posts portraying her life as perfect, while knowing that your own posts were curated to obscure a multitude of flaws…

“Most of the students I talked to about the grade inflation report, even while admitting grades are too high, took a defensive stance. They were already being worked to the point of exhaustion—and now Harvard was talking about making things harder yet? These conversations confirmed how entrenched grade inflation is in the modern educational landscape. To reinstate strict academic standards, Harvard will need to help students see how a world with fewer A’s could be a better one for all involved…”

Pages: 1 2

Harvard Grade Inflation Ethics and the DEI Train Wreck, Part I: A Depressing Protest From Students “Of Color”

/ Jack Marshall / 12 Comments

[This is a long post, but I urge you to read it all the way through. I cannot imagine a more powerful rebuttal to the advocates of “diversity, equity and inclusion.”]

Last October, in “Harvard’s Self-Indicting Grade Inflation Report,” I wrote about the school’s embarrassing report that revealed that 60% of the grades handed out at the supposedly elite college (my alma matter, and my sister’s, and my father’s, where my mother was Dean of Housing once-upon-a-time) are now As, making Harvard resemble Garrisons Keilor’s imaginary Minnesota community where “all the children” seem to be are “above average” even though that’s impossible.

In a prescient comment (as is often the case), AM Golden wrote in part, taking off from a Dean Amanda Claybaugh’s statement that it was desirable to “ produce a broader distribution of grades,”

That’s the problem. They don’t want to admit they accept unqualified applicants because many of those applicants will be disproportionately minorities. Returning standards to what an elite institution should have will mess with the faculty push for D.E.I. The standards have to stay low if the experiment is to be prioritized over pure academics. They have set too many precedents to easily back away now…

They have created bubbles where remote learning, mask wearing, protesting for the correct causes and making equal outcomes are virtues valued over a solid education. Backing up now will cause mass revolt on campuses. Like the news media, the colleges will be accused of caving to Trump. The asylum has been run by people who should have been inmates for so long that the actual inmates can’t be helped.

Sometimes I think Ethics Alarms is the only online community where clear-eyed vision dependably resides. For right on cue, as Harvard announced a long term effort to start grading seriously again, a coalition of “of color” Harvard students sent this open letter to the campus:

Pages: 1 2

Stop Making Me Defend Harvard’s Ex-Trump Deranged “Dean”!

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

In addition to its leftist bias , its throbbing arrogance, and its incompetence as the supposed role model for American higher education, Harvard also lacks courage. The latest example is that the school recently removed Gregory K. Davis as Dunster House “resident dean” and sent him packing “immediately.”

Why? Trump Deranged, hysterically woke and anti-white tweets from the George Floyd freak-out and before, that’s why.

“It has been the greatest honor of my life to serve as the Resident Dean for Dunster,” Davis wrote. “I will miss my work with students and staff immensely.” Davis was appointed to the role in 2024 when Harvard’s DEI mania, exemplified by its disastrous selection of black, female Claudine Gay as its president despite her slim qualifications (besides being “historic.”) Dean Davis was plunged into controversy in October 2025 when Yardreport, a new anti-Harvard news aggregator, dug up old social media posts in which Davis advocated violence and looting at protests while making inflammatory statements about police and President Donald Trump.

In a 2020 thread on X, for example, Davis wrote that he would not fault individuals who wished harm upon Trump and attached a meme that stated, “If he dies, he dies.” In other posts, Davis characterized “rioting and looting” as part of a democratic process and called police officers “racist and evil.” Yardreport concluded that Davis was biased against “white people, police, Republicans, and President Trump” and called on Harvard to fire him immediately.

So Harvard did.

That decision reinforces everything I, conservatives and Donald Trump have been saying about Harvard and elite universities for years. Too frequently, all that mattered (matters?) to these schools is whether an administrator is marginally qualified, sufficiently progressive, and checks the right demographic boxes. As with Gay, other qualities that Harvard should have been concerned about in the vetting process were exposed to public scrutiny, and the school had no defense at all. It then defaulted to “Oopsie! Never mind!”

In saying that I’m defending Davis, then, I do not question that Harvard was foolish, irresponsible and lazy to appoint him in the first place. Maybe a better description is that I feel sorry for Davis. Now his character and reputation is being scarred because he will carry around the stigma of being summarily fired by Harvard from a rocking chair position for having the same attitudes that helped get him the job in the first place. I read Harvard’s alumni magazine, and for months it has been trying to get contributions by posing as a brave, defiant champion of academic freedom that refuses to “bend a knee” to the fascist dictator, then it does this. Davis is such a marginal figure that even the President wouldn’t waste time attacking him.

I bet that a disturbing proportion of Harvard’s faculty, administration and woke-programmed students agreed with Davis’s dumb tweets when he made them and do now.

Continue reading →

Gee, I Wonder Why People Don’t Think College Is Worth the Time and Money Any More?

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

Maybe the President’s assault on partisan colleges and universities is having the desired (and necessary) effect.

A new NBC News poll claims that only 33% of American agree that a four-year college degree is “worth the cost.” 63% believe that it’s “not worth the cost” because “people often graduate without specific job skills and with a large amount of debt to pay off.”

Four per cent don’t know what college is, are too dumb to compose any answer, or answered “Fish!” or something.

Continue reading →

Harvard’s Self-Indicting Grade Inflation Report

/ Jack Marshall / 16 Comments

Harvard College’s Office of Undergraduate Education issued a 25- page report sent to faculty and Harvard College students this week. Incredibly, it revealed that more 60% of the grades awarded to Harvard undergraduates are A’s, which, of course, means that the school’s standards of performance are elusive at best. The report concluded that Harvard’s current grading system is “damaging the academic culture of the College.” Ya think? It is more than that. Such low standards of excellence mean that a Harvard diploma, which the world accepts as powerful evidence of merit and superior intellectual skills, is a fraud.

The report drew on years of data on student grades and course evaluations, as well as surveys of faculty and student leaders. A faculty committee found earlier this year that undergraduates often prioritize other interests over classwork…you know, like protesting in favor of terrorists and against Jews. Still, the report found that the amount of time students say they spend on coursework outside of class each week has remained stable over the past two decades.

Continue reading →

Here Is How Arrogant and Delusional Harvard Is: It Really Thinks It Can Prevail In Public Opinion Over The President of the United States…

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

The Harvard Alumni Magazine arrived yesterday. Above is the cover and the illustration for its feature section about the University’s “resistance” to President Trump’s completely reasonable, responsible and justifiable demands that the most visible, influential, prestigious and wealthy university in the United States stop dedicating itself to undermining American values, indoctrinating students in anti-American biases, provide intellectual diversity on its faculty, cease discriminating against whites, males and Asians, and stop enabling flagrant Jew hatred on campus.

To Harvard’s credit, the alumni magazine makes a pass at even-handedness, even highlighting an alumnus who writes that “no private institution has a right to demand that taxpayers fund discrimination, exclusion and intolerance.” But most of the issue is devoted to familiar anti-Trump victim-mongering, including an essay extolling the work of a non-binary (or something) professor “whose data shows how—and when—authoritarians fall.”

“Authoritarianism” has joined “sexism,” “racism,” “violence,” “insurrection” and other rhetorical weapons of the Left as infinitely flexible accusations steeped in double standards. A President who uses his constitutional powers to pursue policies the Left opposes is an “authoritarian.” A President who weaponizes the legal system to imprison and persecute his political opposition is not—as long as he is a Democrat.

I mean, just to pull a fantastic hypothetical out of the air…

Continue reading →

Harvard Tries To Save Face; the Problem Is That It Is the Ethics Villain Here, Not the Trump Administration

/ Jack Marshall / 1 Comment

We are learning that in spite of its grandstanding and feigned defiance of the Trump demands that it stop engaging in left-wing indoctrination, allowing an anti-Jewish environment to fester on campus, and engaging in viewpoint discrimination in hiring (along with other unethical conduct), Harvard is quietly (it hopes) negotiating some level of reform along the lines of the Trump Administration’s letter of April 11.

Quietly, because Harvard’s overwhelmingly leftist, totalitarian-tilting, progressive activist faculty wants to have their campus advance only one world view, the “right” one, and because of the sinister influence of that faculty, its student body overwhelmingly believes likewise. In the Trump Deranged world where most academics, scholars, journalists, lawyers and, of course, Democrats dwell, publicly deriding and defying the President of the United States is simply opposing fascism and the forces of darkness, even if the least intellectually crippled of them recognize deep down that President Trump is on the correct side of an issue. He is on the right side of this one.

Continue reading →

“Harvard Derangement Syndrome?”

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments

Steven Pinker, a professor of psychology at Harvard University and a conservative, which at Harvard is like being a Stegosaurus in the National Zoo, rose to defend his employers and colleagues with an op ed in the Times with the title above as its headline (but without the question mark). The theory is that since he’s not a typical campus leftist, his arguments should carry more weight when he takes the side of the people who issue his paycheck rather than the President who called the school “an Anti-Semitic, Far Left Institution,” a “Liberal mess” and a “threat to Democracy,” which has been “hiring almost all woke, Radical Left, idiots and ‘birdbrains’ who are only capable of teaching FAILURE to students and so-called future leaders.”

Actually, the op-ed is pretty funny. (That’s another gift link.) It brought to my mind two quotes: “Hitler did some good things too!” (From “Judgement at Nuremberg”) and “With friends like these, who needs enemies?” (Attributed to comedian Joey Adams.) Pinker lists a lot of the same problems (but far from all) at Harvard that I described and condemned long before Trump went after the school. Tellingly, he somehow neglects to mention the whole Claudine Gay fiasco, when Harvard selected a DEI-obsessed dean who had risen to a tenured place on the Harvard faculty with the help of academic plagiarism, then embarrassed the school testifying before Congress, and was initially defended by the Harvard brass even when it was revealed that her scholarly publications were so tainted that the equivalents would have gotten any student expelled. Funny how all that would slip his mind.

Pinker still makes a damning case against Harvard. He writes,

Continue reading →

Hey Look! Harvard Did the Right Thing For Once….

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

Of course, they didn’t have a lot of choice in the matter.

Francesca Gino is one of Harvard Business School’s best known professors. The behavioral scientist authored “Rebel Talent,” a 2018 book with the subtitle “Why It Pays to Break the Rules at Work and in Life.” Well, the expert on lying, cheating and dishonesty lied and cheated. She took administrative leave from the “B-School” after evidence surfaced that she had falsified her data…on cheating. Ironic, no? And stupid.

Gino, whose work has been widely cited, has been a professor of business administration at Harvard since 2014. She was first accused of fabricating data by the blog Data Colada in July of 2021 when the bloggers approached Harvard Business School with their allegations. The Dean negotiated a secret agreement with Data Colada to delay posting about their allegations until the Business School thoroughly investigated their claims.

An 18-month-long investigation by a three-person committee of former and current professors eventually concluded that the professor had indeed engaged in research misconduct. Gino insists that she is innocent and is suing for $25 million: she might as well, since an ethics professor and author of books about cheating caught cheating doesn’t exactly have a promising future. Of course, the ethical thing for an ethics expert to do in such a dilemma is to confess and apologize. But if she were an ethical ethics expert, she wouldn’t be in this mess.

In an article called “A Weird Research-Misconduct Scandal About Dishonesty Just Got Weirder,” the Chronicle of Higher Education reported that Harvard’s inquiry had found that one of Gino’s studies contained even more fraudulent data than had been alleged. Then Data Colada weighed in with a four-part series examining data in four separate studies co-authored by Gino. The blog authors wrote, “We believe that many more Gino-authored papers contain fake data. Perhaps dozens.”

This week, Harvard University stripped Professor Gino of her tenure at Harvard Business School. Her dismissal seems imminent.

Harvard might have tried to finesse the Gino affair were it not already shaken by the recent Claudine Gay scandal, when the university’s first black president had to resign because of scholarship plagiarism shortly after being appointed. In addition, the school is already on shaky ground in the terrain of public opinion, claiming financial distress as a defense against the Trump Administration’s assault despite Harvard having an endowment some nations would love to have as their their nest egg.

Professor Gino definitely picked the wrong time to embarrass Old Ivy.

The Latest Evidence That However Much Contempt You Have For Harvard, It’s Not Enough….

/ Jack Marshall / 1 Comment

The conservative Washington Free Beacon launched a thorough investigation into the ways Harvard University has deliberately sought ways to defy the Supreme Court’s ruling that affirmative action policies at colleges and universities are illegal and unconstitutional. (You didn’t expect the Axis media to do that, did you?) Last week, the project resulted in a damning report of how the Harvard Law Review engaged in—is engaging in—outright racial discrimination in selecting staff, authors and articles:

The law review states on its website that it considers race only in the context of an applicant’s personal statement. But according to dozens of documents obtained by the Free Beacon—including lists of every new policy adopted by the law review since 2021—race plays a far larger role in the selection of both editors and articles than the journal has publicly acknowledged.

Just over half of journal members, for example, are admitted solely based on academic performance. The rest are chosen by a “holistic review committee” that has made the inclusion of “underrepresented groups”—defined to include race, gender identity, and sexual orientation—its “first priority,” according to resolution passed in 2021.

The law review has also incorporated race into nearly every stage of its article selection process, which as a matter of policy considers “both substantive and DEI factors.” Editors routinely kill or advance pieces based in part on the race of the author, according to eight different memos reviewed by the Free Beacon, with one editor even referring to an author’s race as a “negative” when recommending that his article be cut from consideration.

“This author is not from an underrepresented background,” the editor wrote in the “negatives” section of a 2024 memo. The piece, which concerned criminal procedure and police reform, did not make it into the issue.

Such policies have had a major effect on the demographics of published scholars. Since 2018, according to data compiled by the journal, only one white author, Harvard’s Michael Klarman, has been chosen to write the foreword to the law review’s Supreme Court issue, arguably the most prestigious honor in legal academia. The rest—with the exception of Jamal Greene, who is black—have been minority women.

Nice. What does the race of an author have to do with the quality of legal analysis, which is what law review articles are supposed to be? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Continue reading →