Claudine Gay finds Harvard as a ‘safety’ school during challenging times

Now that one president has been ousted, there are no more to go.

The decision by Harvard leaders to retain Claudine Gay was expected but still disappointing.

It dampens the calls for a comprehensive examination of how the far left has taken over American higher education and transformed campuses into political indoctrination centers plagued by antisemitism.

Even worse, the choice to keep Gay despite a vigorous campaign to have her fired will likely be seen by other colleges as a signal that they can go back to business as usual.

Once again, moral clarity is prohibited at what used to be considered learning citadels.

Why no dismissal?

It was always unlikely that the same Harvard board that hired Gay in July would fire her now.

Letting her go would reflect poorly on them and their judgment, so she and they had a mutual interest in keeping her employed.

Race also must have been a factor, as it was crucial in her initial hiring. She became Harvard’s first black president, a move that was celebrated in some circles just before the Supreme Court invalidated the school’s use of racial preferences in student admissions.

Firing her so quickly would lead to legal troubles if she filed a discrimination lawsuit. This possibility was implied in a letter signed by 80 black faculty members that denounced attacks on Gay as “baseless and politically motivated.”

Yet, despite this affirmation of the status quo, Harvard’s decision to retain Gay was hardly a strong endorsement of her leadership. It was more of a public reprimand that criticized both her initial response to the Hamas terror attack and her problematic congressional testimony in which she demonstrated a distressing tolerance for antisemitism as long as it wasn’t violent.

Furthermore, in addressing for the first time the plagiarism allegations against Gay, the board found her to be at fault in several instances, although it deemed the infractions to be minor and not violating Harvard’s standards.

The end result is a weakened, wounded president who will have strained relationships with nearly everyone, especially her critics.

Additionally, the donor revolt that followed her actions and cost Harvard an estimated $1 billion is unlikely to be reversed and might even expand. Some major donors, such as hedge funder Bill Ackman, may never come back, while others will want to see evidence that Gay is capable of making the necessary changes outlined in the board statement.

Misleading model

Gay’s reprieve at Harvard will likely serve as a misleading model for other schools facing calls for new leadership.

They now have a blueprint for admitting mistakes, denouncing antisemitism, and then moving on as if they have solved the problem.

In that case, Liz Magill, removed from her position as president of Penn for conduct not much different from Gay’s, may be the only leader to pay the ultimate price.

Sally Kornbluth, the president of MIT, and the third member of the panel that embarrassed itself before Congress, has already received a vote of confidence from her trustees.

The lack of consequences for two out of the three is disheartening because their evasive testimonies revealed the depravity of the woke culture on their campuses and their unwillingness to challenge it.

… (Content continues)

Parents used to do that, and so did colleges and employers.

But since most adults are afraid to say no these days, lest they get lectured or beat up, society itself is changing to accommodate the most entitled generation.

The lone consolation is that it will never be confused with the greatest generation.

Breaking up a party

With an impending House vote to formalize the GOP impeachment inquiry of President Biden, it’s worth reviewing recent cases to see how Democrats and Republicans score on party allegiance.

On the measure to expel GOP Rep. George Santos, 105 Republicans joined 206 Dems in voting yes, making Santos only the sixth member ever to get the boot.

On the measure to censure Dem Rep. Jamaal Bowman for falsely pulling a fire alarm, just three Dems joined 211 Republicans in voting yes.

The crossover differences reflect a pattern worth remembering: Democrats stick together, while Republicans stick it to each other.