RADIODecember 13, 2023

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.

Why Glenn Beck Predicts America Has Reached PEAK WOKENESS

Woke progressivism has taken over much of America, from our schools to our corporations, and of course, many aspects of our government. But Glenn is optimistic that the pendulum may be starting to swing back. As Americans wake up to how wokeness has destroyed the country, they are standing up and pushing back. So, have we already reached "peak wokeness?" And can we change course without going too far in the opposite direction? Glenn and Stu give their predictions.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: our problems are so easy to fix. You could go into any coffee shop in America. And you could grab, you just the five -- people who are paying attention. Out of everybody. There are five people here who could name the president. And the three branches of government. Can you come on over to my table. We would be able to fix this. If you were put this charge, you would be able to fix this. A lot of this stuff is so common sense.

STU: That's interesting. Because I think if applied. If applied, common sense would solve a lot of these problems.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: But think about that in the real world. In this world that we live in. How? Even if you convinced the medical establishment. Which I think is a real goal here. And I think it is, something that is potentially achievable. The medical establishment. Look, what you guys have done over the past 15 years. With all this gender stuff, and all this is bad.

We're seeing it happen in foreign countries. Right? The reversing path.

GLENN: France. Sweden.

STU: Yeah. The UK.

But we're seeing progress in that world.

To get back to some sort of rational view here. But even if you were to accomplish that, there are so many people, with so many goals, that are at odds with that approach. You think the mainstream media will abandon this. Because the medical establishment changes? I doubt it.

Think about all the sites and bloggers and influencers. And all the people, that people actually get their news from. That would continue down this road anyway. And would still -- would still create people, like the person who seems to be in this case today. What we know of them. Those many examples.

GLENN: Those people existed before. They just didn't have positions of power. So the first thing that has to be done. Is you fire a lot of people. I'm sorry. You know, here's -- here's the problem. Common sense. Common sense should always rule with rare exception. You know, there are times, that you are like, okay. I know that makes sense. However, this time, cut the white wire. You know what I mean? You know. No. It should be the green wire. No. No, no, no. Usually red and green. But this time, don't cut the green wire. But the problem is: Everything is so over Ivy Leagued, that the average person goes, well, I don't know. You know what I mean? Because they'll be like...

STU: Right.

GLENN: You're like, what?

STU: Well, we saw this with the Claudine gay situation. Everybody knows, when you steal other people's work, you will get fired as an academic. And yet every institution went to bat for this woman, to explain why what she -- how what she did was not actually bad. And it was actually racism. And you guys don't understand the systemic racism that pushed her to have to do this. And why we should ignore.

GLENN: Right.

STU: And everybody is like, all right. I just don't want to get involved in that.

GLENN: And the thing is. Most people will back away from it. Because they will feel stupid. I don't know. Who am I to argue against Harvard.

STU: Fewer and fewer.

I think that's going away.

GLENN: Oh, yeah.

Because we used to have. You know, there's balance in all things.

Balance in all things.

There's somebody to be pushed and pull. If you don't have that. There is no growth.

So what happened is, we had common sense.

And then common sense was looked down upon from an Ivy League. Isn't that cute? Well, I have uncommon knowledge.

And everybody was like, well, he must know something, that I don't know.

No. Really. Really, the only thing that you may know, that he doesn't know, is humility. And the one thing that he may know, that you don't know is arrogance. You know, I know.

Me and my people. We know. You need to be taken care of.

STU: Are you concerned that the balance is not something we're finding right now?

GLENN: No. Because I think it's coming.

STU: Is it coming. And is it closer to what you've talked about for a long time. More of a pendulum effect.

I'm worried, it had seem at times, that we're getting to a place where we're completely ignoring experts. I don't think that's the answer either, right?

GLENN: No. It's not. Until the experts are held by other experts.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: Until the medical community can say, you know what, enough is enough.

This COVID thing, it was good here, here, and here. It was really bad here, here, and here.

And we have to stop, you know, just saying that, oh, no.

Now science knows. Because that's happened throughout all of mankind.

And then science learns. And they're like, oh. Well, now we know. As soon as it's cleaned out by its own people, you know. God will clean out his own house first. That's in Isaiah. I will clean out my own house first. And he will. And that's what needs to happen in all of the institutions. In media. It's got to be cleaned up.

Now, it's going to probably take outsiders to do it, or a new generation.

But look, it's already happening. It's already happening.

It's just that there's so much money involved, at the establishment level, and they're just holding on by their fingernails.

And they'll -- I mean, they'll pull all of us down, to stop from drowning themselves.

STU: Are you optimistic about the path here?

Are you optimistic that the pushback that has come from, I think, common sense.

I would argue, that usually equals a lot of conservative-type values.

But like, there has been a pushback in the media. There has been a pushback, when it comes to our institutions.

From more constitutional, common sense type thinking.

Will that result in something that is positive in the end? Are you comfortable with that?

GLENN: We are at the wire. We are coming around the fourth turn. And we're all dead even, as we're coming towards the wire. Who is going to win. And it will be won by a nose. And I think it will happen this year. But what is encouraging is we're seeing things that we haven't seen before. I think we're at peak wokeness.

You know, I had been talking about that pendulum theory that Stu has been saying. I've been saying for a while. 2020 -- what did I say? 2024. 2025. Is where we hit the peak. And then it starts going the opposite way.

I've said that for -- forever. Now, this means, it's going to take just as long, as it did to get here. But we will -- the dog returns to its vomit. We will go back to being a very selfish, me, me, me, you know, forget the collective culture. It will take us 40 years. But we will get right back to where we were. The key is, don't destroy yourself at any of the peaks. Because it's the middle where we really flourish. It's the balance of, no. The individual is really important. But so is the collective. We have to balance that. Right now, we're just not balancing. The individual just doesn't matter anymore. It doesn't matter. But I see this coming back, from really important people.

I think Elon Musk has been a turning point on that. You look at what Bill Ackman said this week, or Mark Cuban. What a difference. What a difference.

STU: Well, the Mark Cuban thing, it was bizarre. We should go through that.

GLENN: No.

STU: I don't even know if he knows what the word mean.

GLENN: He doesn't. He doesn't. He doesn't.

STU: It's weird.

GLENN: Again. It's the arrogance of people thinking they know. That's what Bill Ackman said. He said, I went to talk to the students.

And you realized, what I thought they were saying, is not what they're saying.

I didn't understand it.

Mark Cuban just hasn't gone through that. But he will. Because it's happening. It is happening.

But keep running flat out. Because it's going to be won by a nose.

The 6 BASIC STEPS to Prepping For a Disaster OR WORSE

Getting prepared for a disaster may seem outright overwhelming. But Glenn breaks it down step-by-step: “It’s actually really easy and inexpensive. You just have to take it one bite at a time.” Glenn heads to the chalkboard to lay out the “6 basic steps to prepping,” as well as everything you’ll need to pack a bug-out bag.

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

Why Are So Many Kids Identifying as Trans? | Miriam Grossman, M.D. | The Glenn Beck Podcast | Ep 220

“We are creating a generation of young people who are sterile,” says Miriam Grossman, M.D., a psychiatrist who has refused to submit to what she describes as the “religion” of gender ideology. “They will be consumers of pharmaceuticals the rest of their life.” Many of Miriam’s clients fell down the rabbit hole of transgenderism during the COVID-19 lockdowns. They were “online 24/7.” When these young people turned to self-harm, the parents were afraid to hospitalize them, believing as Dr. Grossman does that “the adolescent psychiatric units in our hospitals are creating transgender children.” After revealing the role the American Psychological Association played in removing “disorder” from “gender-identity disorder," Glenn and Miriam discuss the now-discredited World Professional Association for Transgender Health and whether or not using someone’s preferred pronouns after “social transition” is as compassionate as everyone says. After all the unethical “therapy” hoisted on kids, the parents are left traumatized, after realizing, as Glenn says, “Our doctors are not to be trusted.”

What This FLAMETHROWING Robot Dog Means for the Future

Flamethrower company Throwflame has released what could possibly be the coolest and most terrifying product of the year: A flamethrowing robot dog named “Thermonator.” And perhaps just as surprising is its price tag: just over $9,000! Glenn, Stu, and Jason discuss whether this is “the ultimate home security device,” despite being made for things like forest fire control. “You walk up and you’re like, ‘Terminator! Terminator!’” The future is here…and it’s got a flamethrower on its back!

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Yeah. So I want to show you, I think this is the ultimate home security device, okay? It's a little pricey.

But watch this.
(music)

This is the new robot flame throwing dog.
(laughter)

STU: No.

GLENN: Yeah. So it's a -- it's a robot that just walking around, is enough to scare the hell out of them.

STU: Laser sight.

GLENN: Laser sights. It can prowl the property at night. And it's made for like forest fighting.

Or, you know, war. But it also has a flamethrower strapped to its back.

STU: What the heck?

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: There's fires all around it. Did this thing start the fires?

GLENN: No. No. No. This will cause a back burn for forest fires.

STU: Oh, okay.

GLENN: So they sent it out. And they sent it out. And they're watching on their -- watch this.

VOICE: The destroyer of worlds.

GLENN: Okay. That's a little spooky. Look at that thing. Just throwing flames.

STU: That's awesome. Oh, my gosh.

JASON: And that's not even very imaginative. Imagine Hope Hicks.

GLENN: You put that control into the hands of some hope hicks, and they are --

STU: It just jumped.

GLENN: It jump ed. It is an amazing --

STU: How much did this thing cost?

GLENN: You ready? How much did you think? How much did you think?

STU: $100,000.

PAT: I was going to say 20.

GLENN: Nine. Nine grand for a flame-throwing robot dog.

STU: Oh.

GLENN: I want one.

STU: We can finance that. Right?

Go to your bank. I need some financing for a flame-throwing dog.

GLENN: Can you imagine if you had, one of those, like a little box in your yard. And someone comes up to the door you don't like. And just the box opens up. And this dog and this robot dog stands up and puts a laser on you.

I don't think you knock on the door.

STU: I think you knock and you leave.

GLENN: You leave quickly. For nine grand, guys. You could have a robot, flame-throwing dog.

STU: It just seems like there isn't a better purchase on the market.

GLENN: No. Our wives might disagree with us.

STU: You think?

GLENN: Maybe. Maybe. I know mine would.

STU: Well, remember, if you get a normal dog, you have to feed it.

This thing you don't have to feed. You're saving money there.

How long until it pays for itself?

GLENN: You wanted a dog. You wanted a dog.

STU: What about --

GLENN: Your motorcycle is 50 grand. You can have a flame-throwing robot dog for nine.

STU: Or for 59, you can have a flame-throwing dog on the back of your motorcycle.

That's the way to do it.

GLENN: Oh, really? Really? Mr. Biker, you have a problem with me.

Take it up with the robot dog, with the flamethrower.

JASON: I can have ten of those, actually. Now, imagine that. Motorcycle or ten of those robot dogs.

STU: You're not great at math.

GLENN: No. Yeah. That would be 90 who can't understand.

STU: Less than six. You definitely get five. You get five.

Maybe they have a six pack discount.

JASON: Six pack. Imagine like a pack of those bad boys, showing up.

STU: Seriously, how terrifying that would be, if you came around the corner of a parking lot, and six of those walked up to you?

GLENN: Take the flamethrower off. Take the flamethrower off.

Just the dog would freak you out.

STU: Honestly you could get -- I wonder if you could get one without the flame-thrower for five grand. Then put a fake one on the back.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: Get two.

GLENN: Or get two of them.

STU: Imagine being surrounded by those things.

JASON: Oh, my gosh.

GLENN: That scared. My German Shepherd is terrifying. Terrifying.

STU: But you can't be talked into -- in the back of your mind. Some dogs are nice. Right?

I've been around your dog. Your dog is very nice to me.

I don't know if it will be nice to an intruder. My guess is no.

One of those things. There's never been an indication that any of those are nice. Boston-style dog walking up to you, you don't start petting it.

GLENN: Terminator. Terminator.

JASON: That is the future. That's where it's going.

GLENN: It is. The war will be using that.

S.W.A.T. teams will be using that. You won't see a cop. Honestly, I mean, you think cops eat doughnuts now. Wait until they have robots.

JASON: Have you seen combat footage in Ukraine? That shows where it's going. You see troops on the ground, doing normal troop stuff.

But then all of a sudden, you'll hear. It's the drones coming in, chasing people.

STU: Those are tanks in Ukraine. They are getting rid of them. Because they're all getting taken out by drones.

GLENN: Have you seen the fastest drone yet.

This thing -- you look it up on YouTube. This thing is just like. You just barely see it.

JASON: That's incredible.

GLENN: It's like, 200 some miles an hour.

It's crazy.

STU: I don't mean to the emperor arguing in favor of the clone wars. Isn't this probably maybe a good thing?

The fact that maybe humans aren't on the battlefield killing each other. And it's a bunch of robots killing each other instead?

GLENN: It may make war likely to happen.

STU: That's true too.

GLENN: Because you could go in. If you're a bad country, and you don't care how many people are killed on the other side. Your people aren't being killed, look out. Get the robot dog.