When
Dr. Claudine Gay was named the first Black
President of Harvard University,
and only the second women, I was pleased.
Familiar with her record as Dean of the
Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences, and
aware of the rigorous process that narrowed
more than 600 applicants or nominees to Dr.
Gay, I felt that Harvard could not have
selected someone more qualified. Still, I was
aware of the pitfall possibilities that Dr.
Gay faced. Even before she assumed the Harvard
Presidency, rabid racists questioned
everything about her, from her research
record, to her attitude. Following her
inauguration closely, I was buoyed by her wide
smile. Despite the racist invective, she was
enjoying her job!
That
didn’t last long. The witch hunt that had
three female college presidents squirming
under the hostile questioning of Dr. Gay’s disastrous testimony
to Congress attracted even
more criticism.
And as the criticism reached
a crescendo,
Dr. Gay
succumbed
to the inevitable and resigned.
Would
she have been able to do anything else? Her
detractors had trashed her reputation.
How could she possibly raise
funds under
those circumstances. Many talk of
“presidential leadership” in the higher
education context, but college presidents are
also judged by their fundraising acumen. Many
get a great boost in their first year when
their support is greatest and enthusiasm for
them is high. By year two, they will be judged
for what they’ve done “lately”. She didn’t get
a clear first year, not even a clear few
months. The attacks on her started as soon as
she was selected and accusations of
“antisemitism” were simply fodder in the
culture wars.
The
Presidents of Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania,
and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
(MIT) could have handled Congressional
questions more deftly.
Or could they have? With the rabidly hostile
Congresswoman Elise Stefanik (R-NY) bellowing
“yes or no” at people accustomed to nuance, it
seems that rising above
the multisyllabic would have too complex for
Stefanik, chasing TV instead of answers, to
comprehend.
Of course, Gay
should have begun her testimony by condemning
the Hamas action of October 7. For the likes
of Stefanik it is irrelevant that more than
25,000 Palestinians have been murdered,
including as many as 8000 children. Israelis
are celebrating the fact that a major Hamas
leader is among the victims. Netanyahu and his
cronies say they will eliminate Hamas by
whatever means necessary, no matter how many
civilians are killed, starved, or displaced.
Their lack of humanity, with their random
airstrikes, is astounding.
Dr.
Gay defended student free speech, even when it
includes terms like “from the river to the
sea”, which does not mean the elimination of
Israel, but rather freedom for Palestine. It
does not exclude the two-state solution, as
Netanyahu has. Failing to condemn Palestinian
free speech is not antisemitic.
Criticizing Israel is not antisemitic.
Because she stood
up for her students, her prior academic work
was scrutinized and while Harvard found only
“minor” errors in citations, the conservative
press has chosen to blow them into academic
malfeasance. Dr. Gay is guilty of nothing
other than attempting to balance an
uncomfortable tightrope that has less to do
with so-called plagiarism than so-called
antisemitism. It’s really about racism.
The campaign to
topple Gay was led by Christopher Rufo, an
anti-affirmative action, anti-critical race
theory, anti-Black activist. He was joined by
Bill Ackman, a billionaire hedge fund manager,
and Harvard graduate and congresswoman Elise
Stefanik. Ackman described Claudine Gay as “a
diversity hire”, a stigma that too many Black
men and women face when they are selected from
a large pool.
Ironically,
Ackman’s wife, former MIT Professor Neri Oxman,
is accused of plagiarism, charges far more
serious than anything Dr. Gay did. Oxman
lifted whole paragraphs from Wikipedia. Gay
didn’t lift anyone’s work, she improperly cited
some work. The Harvard investigation charged
her with “academic malfeasance”, not quite
grounds for sanctions. Lifting someone’s words
is far more serious, and grounds for sanctions
or more. Oxman should be viewed askance,
especially given her husband’s stance against
Dr. Gay, whose transgressions Dr. Gay
acknowledges. But Oxman is under the
protection of her billionaire husband. The
media has not gone after her with the same
vitriol with which they’ve gone after Dr. Gay.
The
attacks on Dr. Gay make me want to surround
her with support, to fight the injustice of
everything, including racial invective, that
she has experienced. This is not about
Claudine Gay or about Harvard. It’s about the
culture wars and about anti-Blackness. Malcolm
X once said “The
most disrespected person in America is the
Black woman. The
most unprotected person in America is the
Black woman. The
most neglected person in America is the Black
woman.”
Malcolm
made this statement in the 1960s. Fifty years
later, little has changed. Perhaps Dr. Gay had
to leave her presidency, but she didn’t have
to have the racist invective hurled at her.
And she didn’t have to be attacked with
hostility. Dr. Gay’s ouster is
personal to me and to many other Black women
who experienced joy at her appointment, then
horror and sorrow at the way she was treated.
