it's incorrect and I'm going to tell you why.
First, let's get the plagiarism out of the way. That is an entirely different subject and to be entirely honest, much of lefty "academia" is nonsense to begin with. Much of it is not reproducible and much of the assumptions underlying them are unfalsifiable. That one of them would plagiarize on top of all that doesn't surprise me in the least bit. But even IF that is the case, she would STILL not be an AA case.
The best and brightest are rarely the best able to manage large organizations. The best and brightest are usually very, VERY skilled in a particular field and are poor managers.
What does a president of a university really have to do?
Are they actually scholars?
No.
Are they rocket scientists or those finding cures for cancer?
No.
Therefore, being the "best and brightest" is NOT the qualification for president of a university. A university president is the big picture person.
When Trump ran for office, my support of him was not because I thought he was the best and brightest or most experienced. Clearly if that was the criteria, I would have supported Clinton. No, Trump had the right ideas and I thought he was bright enough to surround himself with the people with the expertise (best and brightest) to advise him and execute the vision. He failed on that front on many issues except SCOTUS.
Similarly Gay's job was to provide or execute the Harvard Vision. What is the current Harvard Mission?
WOKE nonsense.
Gay was and is supremely qualified to direct that vision. As a matter of fact, as far as I have read she has executed on that front quite well. When the challenge came, Gay was supported by the board AND faculty 100%. As someone who has been in education for over 2 decades, I can tell you that you rarely get faculty on board to that extent on "controversial" issues.
This means that the problem is not Gay. The focus on Gay is a distraction from the cesspool that Harvard and other institutions of higher propagandizing have become. Gay would not have her job if Harvard had an actual academic vision.
So no, Gay is not an Affirmative Action case. She is supremely qualified for the job that Harvard advertised. So are the other presidents similarly situated. It is a mistake to concentrate on her just so a "scalp" can be had. The entire organization is the problem. Until then, even if Gay is removed, the real issue will persist.
