Here's an interesting bit of propoganda in defense of Claudine Gay.

https://x.com/jemelehill/status/1742964031441588692?s=20

First, note that the guy sets himself up as an expert on academic standards, while describing himself on Twitter as an "observational journalist." OK, Chris Rufo isn't an academic, either, but this guy doesn't appear to have even talked to any academics.

First, evidence of his ignorance is demonstrated in his explanation of the methods sections of papers. He says these are a "high level overview" of how the research was conducted. No! The methods section is the exact opposite of that - it's a detailed "in the weeds" description of the research methods. If you stick to the 30,000 foot view, the reviewers or journal editor will demand you add detail.

Second, he pretends it's not possible to plagiarize your dissertation adviser because the adviser will be aware of the use of duplicative words and approve of it. But it doesn't matter if her dissertation advisor was aware - advisors cannot okay plagiarism of their own work, because they are not the only injured party; scholars who read her work and are led to believe it's original are injured parties.

Believe it or not, there's robust debate in the academy about whether it's ok to lift words from your own previous work without proper citation, and I think the most common view is, "no, it's not": in other words, you can even illegitimately plagiarize your own words if you don't use quotation marks and proper citation to your prior work.

Third, he limits his examples to her writing of methods sections, where I agree the criticism of her is weakest, and fails to address the more egregious cases, dishonestly leaving the impression that these excusable examples are the only ones.

Notably, he ignores the complaints of Carol Swain, another black female political scientist, who is outraged by Gay's plagiarism of her work.

Finally - and I think most astoundingly - he claims that this kind of plagiarism, failing the duty to put directly quoted text in quotation marks, wasn't a thing in 1997. Holy cow! Just like Gay, I was a political science grad student in '97, and it sure as hell was a thing! In fact i know it was a thing when I was first an undergrad in the 1980s, because I remember discussing it with a prof in an independent study when I wanted to make sure I didn't plagiarize!

Of course after this string of pure bullshit, he calls the criticism of Gay bullshit and blames it purely on racism and sexism. I guess Carol Swain has a whole lot of internalized self-hatred or something.

And, note, this video was made before the latest accusations, that Gay manipulated her data and refused to share her data files with other academics so they could see if her results replicate. That is a clear no-no and suggests a guilty conscience.