Claudine Gay was the first Black president in Harvard University’s history, and, as such, stewarded the work of the world’s most prestigious university over a six-month tenure. I’ve read dozens of opinions and no one has any illusions about the nature of working for a university like Harvard. Creating a space where intellect and fierce debate flourish while keeping funders, academics, and policymakers happy is no small feat, even less so when the leader embraces her Black heritage.
High-level jobs of this nature already look difficult without layering international conflicts, fascism, and growing social stratification across the board, but here we are.
So when Rep. Elise Stefanik interrogated three college presidents about the role of antisemitism on college campuses, it couldn’t have come at a worse time. In speaking to current Harvard students and reading posts from current Harvard students, many of them didn’t feel like Gay did enough to protect students who support Palestinian rights from doxxing, harassment, and other forms of ostracization for exercising the right to protest a mass genocide. Other students didn’t feel like she could have done more to quell the protests and the anti-Jewish provocations that spiked post-October 7th. Then, Congress compelled Claudine Gay and two other college presidents to testify about a stormy situation on campus that no one’s gotten pitch perfect.
Rep. Stefanik asked, “Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate your university’s rules or code of conduct?” University of Pennsylvania President Elizabeth Magill, MIT President Sally Kornbluth, and Gay each gave responses based on their code of conduct. Knowing how they would respond, Stefanik jumped on the moment to charge each of the presidents and their institutions with antisemitism. To critics, this moment required an answer that placated the general public, not the lawyers. It didn’t matter that Stefanik’s use of “intifada” was imprecise or that she currently supports a presidential candidate with openly anti-Jewish sentiment. It also didn’t matter that a consortium of Black Harvard alumni rejected initial calls for her ouster.
A small set of well-organized and well-funded malcontents could galvanize their coalition to oust university leadership and chip away at the credibility of higher education.
Of course, none of this helps college students, just the folks who openly plot against legitimizing a democratic plurality under the guise of plagiarism. A few months later, the day after Haitian Independence Day, Gay resigned. As a Dominican-Haitian American, I saw what she did there. People who empathized with Gay understood that her mental health and personal well-being mattered way more than this esteemed position. Yet, Black women and other women of color saw how the nonsense solidified the glass ceiling on their prospects again. Legions of conservatives and their devotees celebrated the move, but, as I scanned through those who celebrated, I didn’t see anyone who would directly benefit from her stepping down.
Well, besides a few cheerleaders whose plan had come to successful fruition. Then it hit me: too many people look for any reason to tell Black people – and so many “others” – that they’re inferior as opposed to figuring out why they don’t love themselves enough.
For instance, people have charged Gay with plagiarism, but her doctoral advisor shot the accusation down, as have most scholars who followed 1990’s editions of APA citation styling. With the advent of ChatGPT and the plethora of college essay writers and black-market test-prep companies, charging plagiarism at a moment’s notice only makes college entry harder for everyone. Amid hundreds of formulaic essays detailing prospective students’ accomplishments and sob stories, admissions offices may be more inclined to lean toward essays that don’t sound like the writer checked off the typical checkboxes.
If admissions become even more opaque for prospective students, that serves no one. But dissenters don’t care that their own people do it, just that Claudine Gay can be charged with it and enough people believe it. Billionaires worry not about the hypocrisy games, just about whether they can restrict the referees. Mainstream media shares the blame here, too.
They’ll say Black people have the lowest GPAs when matriculating in colleges and universities but rarely account for how prospective Black and Latinx students generally have higher GPAs than the average GPA just to get in. They proclaim that DEI and other identity-based initiatives have deteriorated academic expectations, but students of various backgrounds provide evidence that we’re not even close to achieving equality, much less equity, on campuses large and small. They shout how inclusivity programs including affirmative action have subverted notions of merit, but merit has always been a subjective measure and affirmative action programs were an effective corrective measure.
They’ll say professors fear cancel culture, but the only “canceling” we’re seeing is the work of people that a select few have deemed as “the other.” Because the same folks who took advantage of diversifying neighborhoods have retrofitted this narrative to college campuses they deem too inclusive.
After Gay’s resignation, Gay still sought to uphold Harvard’s values. Time and again in American history, the people least likely to get the largesse of what America has to offer continue to hold this country accountable to its purported values. Ivy Leagues shouldn’t have so much power over how we discuss college, but they do. In this light, universities of all statuses should take a real stance about the movement to delegitimize the pluralism so many people have fought to attain. The motives for using academic tools against someone matter just as much as the purported offense.
I also know exclusivity and prestige are part of the game, but hear me out. Rather than placate white supremacists who wish to narrow curricula, college and university presidents should look for more ways to advance a truly shared humanity where we can better redefine and characterize education. With all the intellectual and societal resources that these institutions have, colleges can also build coalitions that set better expectations for everyone’s prospects. Taking a page from K-12 teachers and communities, we need to open up more of the works happening in the ivory towers and commission more professors to do public-facing work.
Placating fascists only makes that movement grow.
Oh, and institutions of higher education should prepare to defend themselves and each other. Because dictatorships usually come for the intellects of their most marginalized, then everyone else. We’re seeing it now.
Jose, who cites as many sources as possible, though not APA style for his blog
The post Who and What Will Colleges Defend? (On Claudine Gay and The Rest Of Us) appeared first on The Jose Vilson.
