RADIO

Is THIS why Harvard PROTECTED President Gay from plagiarism scandal?

The Harvard board has promised to let Harvard president Claudine Gay keep her job, despite multiple scandals. On one hand, she has been criticized for failing to say that calls for Jewish genocide violate Harvard's policies. And then, there's her plagiarism scandal. But is this just a random attack dug up by conservatives trying to take her down? Washington Free Beacon staff writer Aaron Sibarium joins Glenn to explain why this is not the case at all. Harvard has known about President Gay's plagiarism scandal for months — and even hired "the best defamation law firm in the country" to try and shut the media's reporting efforts down. But why go through all this trouble to protect her? Aaron explains his theory and also breaks down why these alleged instances of plagiarism are so serious.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: There's a couple of things going on with -- with a woman that runs Harv

And one of them is, hey. I have to have a room with -- with color crayons. And comic books, so you can read a comic book, and then, you know, color a happy tree. Because you feel like you're being, you know -- you have microaggressions all around you.

Stopping free speech everywhere, unless you're calling for, you know, the death of Jews.

Then, I guess, hey.

You know, free speech.

It's crazy!

But there's something else that has now been brought up, that I think people knew about in the Harvard world.

But didn't say anything.

And that is the fact that its president Claudine Gay, broke Harvard's own code of conduct on plagiarism.

And it's a pretty significant amount of plagiarism.

Including her doctoral dissertation.

Parts of it were wholly plagiarized.

And she never credited anybody.

Now, here's why this matters: You plagiarize something. I don't really care.

You plagiarize something in a book. And claim it's yours.

Okay. I care. Because that's stealing from somebody else. You plagiarize in a university. Well, you're setting the standards, and trying to hold those standards of academic excellence and honesty. And if the person who is at the top is known to have plagiarized. How do you tell the students, we're going to kick you out?

This has nothing to do with her testimony, but it has everything to do with how corrupt our -- our universities are. How morally corrupt they are.

We have Aaron Sibarium on with us now.

He wrote a great piece for the Washington free beacon. And we wanted to talk to him about this.

You went to Yale. And you were the editor of the Yale Daily News. So you know something about Ivy League, and plagiarism.

Not really celebrated, is it?

AARON: No, Glenn. It is not. It is not celebrated. And, in fact, I would say that generally, at you all of these standards to get a lecture thing, it doesn't matter how small. It doesn't matter if it's unintentional. Even if you do it with the best intentions, it's still a serious problem. You should double-check your work to make sure absolutely nothing is plagiarized. That is what Harvard tells the students in a very long document that outlines its policy very clearly. It's no fewer than five times indicates that intent is irrelevant. Any language or even just ideas or content from someone else, and don't cite them, it's plagiarism. And according to the letter of the Harvard plagiarism policies, A, they clearly violated them.

GLENN: Yeah, and like significant.

I mean, you in your article go threw it. We don't have to go threw it here. But it's significant. Why does this matter?

AARON: Well, look, people do make mistakes.

And if this were -- if this was what we found out of a corpus of, say, a hundred or 200 peer-reviewed papers, one of which had won a noble prize. He might say, okay. A few paragraphs here or a there. It's the overall content. It's not such a big deal.

I think it's worth emphasizing that she had published in total, 11 peer-reviewed articles. Eleven in the past two decades. That is a really, really small number for any academic I think at a prestigious university. But especially for the academic that the university chooses to elevate to its position.

So you're not talking about a few instances of maybe perilous citations or plagiarism. How to have 100 papers. You're talking about it out of 11 papers. Right?

So we found -- so there have been, you know, 11 peer-reviewed articles. Two of them. We found examples of plagiarism.

Then a dissertation. Then another thing that she wrote. That is in another peer-reviewed journal.

So this starts to amount to a pretty substantial percentage of her academic output. That contained at least some plagiarized material.

So as a percentage thing, I think it's not actually the best way to look at it.

It's not just a couple mistakes here or there. It seems to be a pattern. And a pattern that is fairly consistent throughout two decades of relatively meager scholarly output. Meager scholarly output.

GLENN: So this is not anything new. It's my understanding it's kind of been known and kicked around for a while, but just kept quiet and didn't matter. Is that true?

AARON: Well, yeah, it appears to be true. Because just last night, the New York Post reported that they had many of these examples, confronted Harvard with them. All the way back in October. And Harvard claimed, oh, we addressed this promptly. As soon as it was brought to our attention, we initiated the review. And Dr. Gay requested corrections.

Well, what the Harvard corporation didn't mention is that apparently, they intimidated and maybe even threatened to sue the New York Post for defamation after the New York Post reached out for comment.

So Harvard apparently took this seriously enough, that they thought it was worth hiring the best defamation law firm in the country. God knows how much they were paying them, to send a 15-page intimidation letter. To journalists who were coming to them. For examples of plagiarism.

Clearly, they thought it was worth pulling out the big bucks.

Shelling out a lot of money.

To shut this down. And that was all the way back in October.

GLENN: So why would they do this? To protect -- I mean, why?


AARON: I think that Claudine Gay is an emblematic of the -- of the kind of DEI ideology that is -- that is at Harvard.

You know, some people have focused on her race and gender. And I'm sure, they don't want the -- of firing, yeah, of course.

But I actually think it's more than that. It's that she -- she kind of represents the ideology they already subscribe to, and they don't want the ideology discredited.

And also, I think they haven't gotten as much attention.

She was a very shrewd political operator before she became president. She was sort at the center of a lot of cancellations, right? She helped engineer the bureaucratic administration of votes. The Israeli famous (inaudible) at Harvard. And she helped also strip Ronald Sullivan, Harvard law professor from the administrative post, after Sullivan meets the decision to serve on Harvey Weinstein's defense team. He can't defend the unpopular. That's no longer allowed.

So she -- you know, I think had a -- had a pattern of rewarding friends and punishing enemies. And sort of maneuvered the administration and bureaucratic apparatus, Harvard, around her.

Very strictly. That's a part of how she became president.

And I think that that background may be part of why they're so unwilling to let her go.

The whole kind of institution having some sense been mobilized around her. Kind of put all the places in place.

GLENN: Right. Does it play any role, that her first cousin is Roxanne Gay. Who is a feminist author and New York Times writer, who is absolutely -- absolutely a terrible human being.

AARON: Yeah, honestly, I don't know if that really -- I think they would view this with just about anyone in her position, anyone in her position, anyone with her ideology.

GLENN: Position.

AARON: I mean, and I would say, too, right? They've obviously been under pressure from donors. But they're also under pressure from their own faculty and students. And, you know, you mentioned the -- the testimony she gave where she put in forthrightly -- condemned calls for the genocide of Jews. I think part of the issue is that she couldn't really go up there and say, yeah. We support free speech in all cases. And, in fact, yes, even if you want to call for the genocide of other groups, we will protect that. Because we're so principled.

A, because it wouldn't be true. I mean, we all know it's not true.

And, B, if she would have said that, student activists would have come and tried to burn her house down.

GLENN: Right.

AARON: So they really -- to be fair to her, she is kind of in a rock and a hard place. And no matter what she does, or what Harvard does, some constituency is going to throw a fit.

GLENN: Well, I have to tell you, I do not want to see harm come to anybody. But, gee, if you get nailed by your own policies and your life is tough because you shoveled this poison, and now that poison is coming back to haunt you, you know, I have a hard time. Again, with nobody being hurt, I have a really hard time giving any sympathy to her at all.

AARON: Yeah.

GLENN: Thank you so much. One last question, is this an issue outside of her?

Should this be an issue outside of her testimony?

In other words, is this just being brought up, because there's a mob brought up on the other side, that is saying, hey, she should be fired for this.

Is this a real issue, beyond the anti-Semitism stuff?

AARON: Obviously, anti-Semitism stuff increased scrutiny on her. It would be silly to deny that. But I'm thinking what would be an issue, you know, this -- the plagiarism, isn't quite as severe as -- it's not like data fraud.

Right? There's a guy at Stanford, right? Stepped down amid allegations of data fraud. And that was really curious, right? On its own terms.

I think this would be a scandal on its own. The anti-Semitism stuff, obviously amplifies it and makes it worse.

But, again, I think the real context here is them meager, scholarly record. Right?

Again, I really don't think people would care. I wouldn't care all that much if we had found this and it was in the context of like 200 brilliant peer-reviewed papers. That's not the context.

And I think what it underscores, this woman was clearly not chosen for her scholarly manner.

If that was the criterion, they had a lot of other candidates at Harvard, would have been better.

GLENN: Thank you so much. I appreciate it. Appreciate all your work and all your writing. God bless.

AARON: Thank you.
TV

The ONLY Trump/Epstein Files Theories That Make Sense | Glenn TV | Ep 445

Is the case closed on Jeffrey Epstein and Russiagate? Maybe not. Glenn Beck pulls the thread on the story and its far-reaching implications that could expose a web of scandals and lead to a complete implosion of trust. Glenn lays out five theories that could explain Trump’s frustration over the Epstein files and why Glenn may never talk about the Epstein case again. Plus, Glenn connects the dots between the Russiagate hoax, the Hunter Biden laptop cover-up, and the Steele dossier related to the FBI’s new “grand conspiracy” probe. It all leads to one James Bond-like villain: former CIA Director John Brennan. Then, Bryan Dean Wright, former CIA operations officer, tells Glenn why he believes his former boss Brennan belongs in prison and what must happen to prevent a full-blown trust implosion in American institutions.

RADIO

Rumors explained: Is Fed Chair Jerome Powell OUT?!

After rumors spread that President Trump would soon fire Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, Trump has said that he's "not planning" on it right now. But is it possible for Trump to fire him? Will he resign? And how is the Fed Chair even chosen in the first place? Glenn and his head researcher Jason Buttrill explain ...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Well, last night, I was rapidly looking the lie some of these rumors, on X.

Pretty incredible people on what's going on with Jerome Powell and the fed.

What the heck?

I was actually popping popcorn and watching this. It was so crazy.

GLENN: So it's just the rumors, that he is going to be stepping down?

JASON: Well, yeah.

Yeah. Anna Paulina Luna. Congresswoman. She was saying, it was almost imminent, that he was about to be fired. Actually fired.

There were other rumors saying, well, we're not sure about fired.

But he's considering resigning.

GLENN: Yeah. You know why.

JASON: We were like, what the heck is going on?

GLENN: So do you know why?

Do you know why he's resigning? Any guesses? I mean, you had popcorn out. I would love to hear what you have come up with.

JASON: So there was the CPI stuff coming out. The interest rates going up.

We know that the President wants interest rates to come down. I'm assuming that is what the deal is, and there's some sort of internal battle going on.

GLENN: Well, and the president can't fire the Fed chief. Okay?

So the Fed chief is the one that nominated. The federal reserve is the biggest crock of bullcrap I've ever seen in my life.

It's nothing, but the five biggest banks. Okay? And you know which ones they are. They're the ones that keep getting bigger. And everybody else is falling to the wayside.

So the Federal Reserve is the arm of those five banks.

Okay?

And they suggest, who the president can select from.

So the president can't say, I don't want any of these guys. I want this guy. Can't do it.

He has to take a look at the list that all the banks have put together. Is. Say, pick from this list, Mr. President.

Did you know that?

JASON: It's kind of how Iran chooses their next president.

GLENN: It's exactly. It's exactly that way. Except, this religion is all about the almighty dollar.

Okay. So he can't -- he can't pick on his own. But the president has a right to pick one, you know, every term. If it comes up in his term.

The president wants this guy out. And I think he's been really, really bad.

Because he's been wrong on almost -- on almost everything. But show me the -- show me the Fed, you know, the guy who the Fed was right ever.

So he can't fire him. But he wants him out. Because he wants interest rates dropped.

And, you know, the jobs are coming back. Things are coming back.

But interest rates keep coming up.

And the -- and the interest rates, if we keep our interest rates high, we have a harder time borrowing money for our debt.

And it just gets more and more expensive for everybody all along. So the president wants him to back off interest rates. But the Fed chief believes that that could cause more inflation.

Which I think he's right on that one. And I hate to say he was right on anything.

Because I don't think he was ever right.

Makes me question myself. When he's like, well, I think he might have a point on that one. But the president is like, no. He can handle it.

I want them down. I want cheap money again.

He refuses. So what has the president done?

The president can only fire him, with cause!

So what do you do when you can only fire somebody with cause, and you want them out.

You find a cause, and this one is easy.

So the Fed has been the one leading the way saying, we can't keep borrowing money.

We've got to have some fiscal sanity. Right?

This is going to kill us. We have to keep these interest rates high, because you are borrowing too much money. And maybe this is the only way to stop you.

So we got to keep it high, because you've borrowed too much money. And how many times has he testified in front of Congress? We've got to cut. We've got to cut. You can't keep spending like this.

Okay? Well, did you know that the Federal Reserve, with our tax dollars, the five biggest banks, a/k/a the Federal Reserve, is redoing their offices. To the tune of two billion dollars!

Now, I don't know what kind of wallpaper they need there.

But that seems like a pretty hefty renovation, especially when everybody is looking at cutting things. And you're lecturing me about spending money. So they get money from the government, okay? They're telling us, stop spending.
Stop borrowing.

Except, okay. What you've borrowed. I need $2 billion of that, to redo our offices in Washington, DC.

Excuse me?

Why don't you do that yourself. Okay. I think banks maybe have some money.

So they're borrowing that money, and there's $700 million over.

So it's $2 billion. $700 million over budget. And they're still not finished.

And the problem is: They're putting in water features.

They have a rooftop garden they're building.

JASON: Okay.

GLENN: I mean, it is -- it's insane. The president now knows, really? You want to play this game with me. I will sit your ass down in front of Congress, and you answer to the American people, how you're lecturing us about spending. And you're putting in a rooftop garden and a water feature in your office. No! No.

So the president is now threatening, I'll fire you for this. You want to quit, now would be the time to quit.

Otherwise, I'm dragging your butt in front of Congress.

You answer to the American people for this. And they will beg me to fire you.

That's what's happening.

JASON: I looked at that a lot.

Because I was like. There's got to be some leverage that the president had, because they can't get rid of.

But that is a pretty big cut. That sounds like a Babylon Bee article. $2 billion.

GLENN: It does. It does. $2 billion, 700 million over budget.

JASON: Oh, my gosh.

GLENN: I mean, and these are the responsible bankers. No, I don't think so.

It just shows, they don't mean what they say. They'll just keep doing it for themselves. You know, if you really believed that America was really on that financial cliff, why would you do that?

You would lead the way and say, guys, we are going to be the only responsible ones here.

We will lead by example.

No renovation. You know what, go to IKEA?

You need a new desk. Go to IKEA, and get a new desk. Well, we have to keep up our image. We're not going to have a country.

So what do you say, we go to IKEA?

Our image should be, we are going to lead the way out of this madness!

That's what a leader would do.

JASON: So, Glenn, I still don't think I get this disconnect between Trump and Powell on -- we know Trump wants to lower interest rates.

Powell is standing back and saying, basically, he doesn't want to do it.

Is he trying to undermine President Trump on this?

GLENN: President Trump thinks so. President Trump thinks so.

I think so, to some degree.

I mean, I'm worried about inflation.

Look, you know what happened. Do you know what's happening with yap?

JASON: What's happening with Japan?

GLENN: So what's happening with Japan, is Japan has always had this really amazing image of, we're solid. We're absolutely solid.

This is target to crack. The foundation.

1989.

Let me go back to 1989.

This was the crown jury trial of the global economy.

Back in 1989, you probably aren't old enough to remember.

All of a sudden, Japan owned everything in America. We were just becoming Japanese, and everything was being purchased by Japan. Kind of like it feels a little bit like China now.

JASON: They even owned Nakatomi Plaza, Glenn, that Bruce Willis had to save -- they owned everything in every '80s movie!

GLENN: Oh, yeah, they owned absolutely everything.

Okay? And the -- things were so insane in Japan. The grounds of the imperial palace, in Tokyo, on paper was worth more than the entire value of the state of California.


JASON: Wow!

GLENN: Okay?

So their land. Everything just shot up. And so they had all of -- they were flush with all this cash.

And people believed that Japan had suddenly, you know, cracked the formula for, you know, eternal prosperity.

That's the problem. Then it all started to fall apart. And the asset prices. That they had mortgaged against.

Okay?

They had borrowed. Well, the imperial palace was worth more than California.

That doesn't make any sense. You wouldn't mortgage it like that. At least long-term. I will do this real quick, and pay it off.

You would never, ever mortgage, because you know that's inane. Well, nobody ever wanted -- and it seems in governments, nobody ever wants to believe that this is just a fluke. Okay?

So the asset prices collapse. The stock markets plunged. And for three decades, they have gone into this very polite political coma.

Okay? Economic coma. And so the central bank did something radical. They were the first ones to set your interest rate at zero. They lowered the interest rate. They made money so cheap, it was nearly free. Zero percent interest. Sometimes, they would pay you to take out money.

So the -- they had negative interest rates. Can you imagine that? Now, you're not fixing the problem. You're just printing wallpaper to cover the mold. All right?

So they've done this for decades.

Now their debt is I think 260. Or 280 percent of their GDP.

I think, what is ours?

100?

80 percent.

Something crazy. 120. You never believe back.

The death threshold is usually 120, 140.

They're 260 percent of their entire economy is debt.

That's not a crack. That's a fault line.

So this week. Or was it last week? Things started to creek and grown in Japan.

And the government bonds, which are like our treasuries. Is this getting too complex.

Are you following this still?

JASON: Yeah.

GLENN: Okay. So their government bonds.

They were the safest investments on earth.

One of them. Okay?

It's us. Japan, Germany.

They started to fall.

Hard. And when bond prices fall, interest rates were the easily go up.

All right?

So they borrow all this money.

260 percent of their GDP is borrowed. Okay?

So they borrowed all of that money. And they had it at like 3 percent interest. Whatever.

2 percent interest.

And they were paying people.

2 percent.

Well, all of a sudden, the cracks started to appear. And people were like, I'm not sure this is stable at all.

And then the belief of the system started to -- to go away. So people started selling their Japanese bonds.

Once they do that, now the yields have to go up.

What happens when yields go up?

What happens when interest rates go up? For a government. You have to pay more interest on your debt!

Okay?

You add two or three points.

Just imagine, you have an adjustable rate. Okay?

This is a government having an adjustable rate. Except, they have 260 percent of everything they make, in debt!

And it's all leveraged.

And now, their adjustable goes up two, three, four points.

You're not able to afford that anymore, okay?

So massive problem.

Because what it really means is. People don't believe in Japan.

They know the con game is now over.

And investors are saying, you know, I want a whole lot more in return.

Because I just don't believe you anymore.

And it's not just Japan's problem. This is not a neighbor's house on fair.

This is -- imagine we're all living under the same roof. This is the neighbor's apartment, on fire.

We're all under the same roof. We all have the same foundation. And so when this happens to Japan, you should pay attention. And I'll show you the ripple effects in just a second.

First, let me tell you about Relief Factor. There comes a point where the pain in your life goes from being something that is just irritating to something you have to deal with every single day.

Maybe it starts small. A tweak in your back. A sore knee. A little stiffness in the morning. But, you know, those things happen. But over time, the playbook starts to make decisions for you. It changes how you move. How we sleep. What you say yes to. And what we have to start saying no to.

It steals moments from your life. Moments you just can't get back. Relief Factor is designed to help you take those moments back. It's 100 percent drug-free solution. Specifically formulated to fight the inflammation that's causing your pain. For thousands and thousands of people. It's helped reduce and eliminate the daily struggle. So they can get back to living the life they want, not the life their pain dictates. Pain may have changed your life, but it doesn't to have define it.

Get their three-week Quick Start. Give it a try now for 19.95. ReliefFactor.com. 800-4-Relief. 800-4-Relief. It's ReliefFactor.com. Ten-second station ID. We're back to the show.
(music)

GLENN: Okay. So now if Japan -- that means there's a stampede out of Japan.

And people are starting to look and reprice the risk of their money.

Now they're like, wait a minute.

The most stable. You know, if you're driving a car and it is the safest car in the world and all of a sudden, they just start blowing up on the highway.

You're like, I don't think that's the most -- that's the safest car on the highway.

And if that's the safest car, what does it mean for the car I'm in?

You know what I mean? So now, this is going to push US interest rates going up.

Which makes our mortgage rates go can up. And our car loans more expensive. And the national debt. Which is already costing us $1.2 trillion a year, just in interest.

Now, they can't sell their treasuries. People are skittish on treasuries. Maybe they come to the United States, but they're not so far.

They're getting out of the Japanese interest. Or the bonds there.

Japan has to pay their bills.

What do you do when you have to pay a bill?

And you don't have any money coming in.

You don't have enough money coming in. What do you do?

You sell something. Right? You sell your car. You sell something that you have of value.

Well, what do they have? What do they hold of value? US Treasuries.

So now, we are trying to sell our bonds, for our new debt, they hold our old debt.

They're saying, hey. Anybody want to buy this debt? Because I have to sell it. Fire sale. What do you give me for it?

Okay?

Which makes that debt more attractive, because they can get a better deal there.

Which means, if we want to have new debt, we have to raise our interest rates. Which means, we pay more for interest for our mortgages and everything else.

And it floods the market with bonds, crushing the prices, skyrocketing the costs for us.
And causing even more trouble, in other countries, that have US bonds. Because they start to look and go, nobody is buying these bonds.

Well, of course not. You have two countries. The two stablest countries besides Germany.

You have the two stablest countries now selling US Treasury bonds.

Okay? Really, really bad.

Now, let me add this on.

Germany is now having to pay for their own army.

And so they said, they're going to borrow money.

To build the army.

And they're going to lower their interest rate. So they can borrow more money. All right?

And now, the German bund, which is -- you know, like our Treasury. That's now starting to fall apart.

Well, Germany has some assets, they can sell.

What do you think that asset might be that they want to sell?

US treasuries.

We have been playing an extraordinarily horrible game.

This is why I believe the president wants somebody else in charge of the Fed, because the Fed can say, we're lowering the interest rates.

Because he's got to get more money into the system. So people can spend money, can start businesses. Borrow money.

Get things moving, so we can increase the amount of taxes that we collect.

The more people money -- the more people make, the more taxes we collect.

So he's like, we've got to grow the economy. And the only way we can grow the economy is to lower the interest rates.

But at the same time, interest rates around the world because of what's happening with the bonds is going through the roof.

We are in a very -- we've never been in this position before.

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

Why the Term "Conspiracy Theory" is CIA-Created Weapon for Control

Conspiracies are of course real and occur every single day. But yet, many in the media and elite political circles attempt to use the term "conspiracy theory" to smear and discredit those who are skeptical of conventional narratives. Where did this term come from and how should we understand it? Journalist Alex Newman joins Glenn Beck to break this down and how it impacts the world as we see it today.

Watch Glenn Beck's FULL Interview with Journalist Alex Newman HERE

TV

Chalkboard Breakdown: How George Soros & the 'Deep State' funnel YOUR money to radical groups

Where do these massive left-wing radical groups get all their money from? Much of it is effectively a scam that occurs using your tax dollars to fund these groups that you would never support on your own. Glenn Beck heads to the chalkboard to expose the connections so you can visualize exactly how someone like George Soros manipulates the system.

Watch the FULL Episode HERE: Deep State ON NOTICE: New Tech Traces the USAID, Globalist Money Trail