Opinion | The Fallout From a Resignation at Harvard

To the Editor:

Re “Gay Resigns After Charges of Plagiarism” (front page, Jan. 3):

I’m saddened by the news of Claudine Gay’s resignation as president of Harvard. Saddened not because I have any sympathy for her as a result of her terrible congressional testimony or the plagiarism accusations leveled against her. I don’t.

I’m saddened because her resignation is a stark reminder of how treacherous public life can be and how many talented and capable people are discouraged from seeking careers in public service or other highly visible positions because of the divisiveness permeating our society.

Just consider how many elected officials are voluntarily choosing not to return to Congress. And it explains in small part why no one with any real promise is challenging Donald Trump or Joe Biden as the likely nominees for the presidency. What we are headed for as Claudine Gay resigns is uniform mediocrity.

Peter C. Alkalay
Scarsdale, N.Y.

To the Editor:

Harvard has handed the culture warriors a huge win. Representative Elise Stefanik, who recently grilled Claudine Gay at a hearing and relished the resignation of another university president in the days that followed, now has the campaign ads of her dreams. And those on the other end of the spectrum who see this as an attack on a powerful Black woman have a new call to battle.

The proper response of an academic institution to allegations of plagiarism by its president is to review and evaluate them, and then to report on whether or not a problem exists. Allegations are not facts. By capitulating to the din of politically driven allegations, Harvard has allowed the fires of political rage to overtake reasoned discourse. It’s shameful, because the teaching and practice of reasoned discourse is the very purpose of a university.

Reasoned discourse is also the very purpose of our constitutional system. Harvard’s capitulation contributes to our system’s alarming deterioration.

Ron Meyers
New York

To the Editor:

Like so many, I was euphoric about the naming of Claudine Gay as the president of Harvard. I was deeply disappointed by her responses at the House hearing on antisemitism on campus, but she apologized and clarified, and I think it would have blown over without the plagiarism allegations.

But this put the university in an impossible position. As long as she was serving as president, any Harvard undergraduate disciplined for plagiarism could sue the university. Harvard’s only alternative would have been to tread lightly and try to ignore plagiarism during her tenure.

There is also a growing conversation about A.I. and plagiarism. It’s hard to imagine Dr. Gay being able to step into this national conversation, where she would ordinarily belong, and hard to imagine the participation of the university as an institution or faculty members — where they would also be needed — without the hovering awkwardness and embarrassment of a sitting president who was saddled with that academic record. This would have been unsustainable.

I supported Dr. Gay, and her needing to resign breaks my heart, but it seems that she and the university had no other feasible choice.

James Adler
Cambridge, Mass.
The writer is a Harvard Divinity School alumnus.

To the Editor:

Re “The Lesson Harvard Should Learn From Claudine Gay’s Resignation,” by Bret Stephens (column, Jan. 3):

Mr. Stephens claims that Dr. Gay owed her appointment to the presidency of Harvard to the insidious machinations of diversity, equity and inclusion policies, and that such policies have eroded public confidence in the integrity of our universities. He pines for an earlier era when people were judged solely on merit, not on demographics, at our institutions of higher learning.

As a 1985 alum of Harvard, I want to assure Mr. Stephens that merit was no more (or less) a consideration for who got into and taught at Harvard then as now. About 5 percent of the tenured faculty was female at the time, and there were almost no faculty members of color.

Is Mr. Stephens truly suggesting that nothing other than consideration of merit played into the overwhelming white, male makeup of those I had as teachers? And as for my classmates — there were more than a few whose admission to Harvard owed more to their family of origin (of the wealthy, legacy sort) than any definition of merit.

The “social engineering” that Mr. Stephens deplores is in fact a response to the centuries of de facto social engineering that determined that only certain people were worthy of admission to, and employment at, places like Harvard.

As an alum, I am deeply saddened by Dr. Gay’s resignation, and what it implies about the possibility of real change at my alma mater.

(Rabbi) Toba Spitzer
Waltham, Mass.

To the Editor:

Bret Stephens’s column is spot on about Claudine Gay and her very short tenure at Harvard. Like him I believe that diversity, equity and inclusion efforts have run amok and that Dr. Gay was appointed based mainly on her race and gender, as evidenced by her very light résumé.

D.E.I. is also negatively affecting classroom instruction and majors, and I agree that it has many Americans, young and old, rethinking the value and cost of a university education.

Anne Ippolito
Knoxville, Tenn.
The writer is a retired humanities professor who taught literature, writing and critical thinking skills.

To the Editor:

Re “600 Days of Migration Chaos in New York City” (front page, Dec. 27):

I acknowledge the huge challenge this presents, both logistical and financial. But, yes, so many opportunities were missed.

President Biden gave New York a gift when he granted temporary protected status to Venezuelans. A vast effort to identify every eligible person and process their work authorizations would allow them to take jobs going vacant in key local industries, moving them more quickly out of shelters and into the mainstream economy.

A mobile van contacting individuals before their shelter stay expires to help them consider options and plan for their futures would protect children at immediate risk of being yanked out of schools that have welcomed them, disrupting their learning and creating further trauma in their lives.

And a proposal submitted to philanthropists and the City of New York would demonstrate in 10 pilot partnerships how much more could be done to solve people’s problems, get them authorized to work and invest in building the next generation of New Yorkers, as was done for so many of our ancestors.

Ruth Messinger
New York
The writer, a social justice consultant and an immigrant center volunteer, was the Manhattan borough president from 1990 to 1997 and the Democratic nominee for mayor of New York in 1997.

To the Editor:

Re “How to Stand Up to Trump,” by Debbie Dingell (Opinion guest essay, Jan. 2):

I applaud Representative Dingell’s dignified and practical response to former President Donald Trump’s attacks on her and others he perceives as his enemies.

He transforms political opposition into personal opposition and draws convenient allies to battle with him. He knows exactly what he’s doing, but I fear that not all of his followers understand that he is playing them as pawns.

He pretends to be a victim and encourages his followers to feel victimized, too, frequently promoting violent responses to perceived attacks. His vicious approach serves only to inflame political discourse and divide our citizens — working directly against the values that truly make the United States, and other democratic societies, great.

I hope all Americans heed Ms. Dingell’s call to bravery.

Charles Meyers
Merion Station, Pa.