Well, this is all normal. Starting 50 years ago, I mostly worked as an executive secretary or equivalent in mostly highly-progressive non-profits with boards made up of the rich and powerful who fancied themselves defenders of the oppressed, and it's a wonder I survived the poison gas of hypocrisy. For this class of person it's all theoretical and in real life they thrive on the casual destruction of anyone who they even slightly perceive as getting out of line.
And it was most striking to me, with my HS education (barely a year's worth of college credits earned at night while I worked), discovering that their fine degrees from elite institutions didn't really mean anything more than the network that protects itself. They weren't smarter or more discerning. They just had power and didn't want to share it.
I'd say to everyone "stick with your state schools" except they've priced those out of reach too, if you add in room and board fees.. Kids might as well swing for all-inclusive scholarships at the Ivy Leagues.
But you hearten me, Chris. Proving the value of tenacity.
A close analysis of Professor Gay's papers would be a contribution to society. That would make a great project for a PhD class. MIT Economics used to have as part of the Econometrics field exam a take-home part that involved analysing a published paper. I don't recall how they chose which paper.
If the truth of a Karlstack article is inversely proportional to the number of "anonymous" and "insider" quotes (mostly written by Chris himself) on which its accusations depend, then the truth-value of this recent piece of work is approximately 0.00001.
Did Gay think she would be able to hide her retardation from the rest of us? You Harvard ninnies obviously dropped the ball, but the wider world would know instantly that she is a stupid, unqualified buffoon. Now, what are next steps?
The anonymous sources need to identify themselves. I don't automatically disbelieve them. I simply find them cowardly and thus probably liars. I'm an old conservative. Name - Anita Hand.
Forgive me- I do find your article credible in its essence. But your anonymous quotes are almost identical in style, syntax, usage, etc. Not once did your quoted accusers pluralize 'Book' into 'Books'. All of their adjectives and adverbs for CG's offenses come from a tiny pool. It's as if one person wrote all of them- and I think even cursory scrutiny will indicate that this is true on it's first face.
I buy that she's culpapble for everything shy of the JFK assassination, but those quotes are embarrassingly fake.
I'm not sure how this 2022 Substack popped up on my computer, but it's interesting to link it to Steven Pinker's new Harvard free speech faculty group. See https://sites.harvard.edu/cafh/people/. The group includes outgoing Govt. Dept. Chair Jeffrey Frieden, incoming Chair Daniel Carpenter, Gov. Professor Ryan Enos, and Clinical Law Professor Ron Sullivan.
Pardon, I have to study more aspects to this article still, but the former Dean of Social Sciences doesn't know how to apply multiplicative interaction models correctly, along with doesn't show work on a few other methodology used in some work & believes in freedom of association as it relates epstein but not as it relates weinstein? Granted A Dean of Social Sciences moving up to Dean of Faculty & than President seems to relate they used their scientific acumen to advance their career. Something can be said for not having policy on the books relating this exact circumstance, perhaps someone could write a Harvard thesis with Claudine as their case study and advance such policy.
Well, this is all normal. Starting 50 years ago, I mostly worked as an executive secretary or equivalent in mostly highly-progressive non-profits with boards made up of the rich and powerful who fancied themselves defenders of the oppressed, and it's a wonder I survived the poison gas of hypocrisy. For this class of person it's all theoretical and in real life they thrive on the casual destruction of anyone who they even slightly perceive as getting out of line.
And it was most striking to me, with my HS education (barely a year's worth of college credits earned at night while I worked), discovering that their fine degrees from elite institutions didn't really mean anything more than the network that protects itself. They weren't smarter or more discerning. They just had power and didn't want to share it.
I'd say to everyone "stick with your state schools" except they've priced those out of reach too, if you add in room and board fees.. Kids might as well swing for all-inclusive scholarships at the Ivy Leagues.
But you hearten me, Chris. Proving the value of tenacity.
A close analysis of Professor Gay's papers would be a contribution to society. That would make a great project for a PhD class. MIT Economics used to have as part of the Econometrics field exam a take-home part that involved analysing a published paper. I don't recall how they chose which paper.
If the truth of a Karlstack article is inversely proportional to the number of "anonymous" and "insider" quotes (mostly written by Chris himself) on which its accusations depend, then the truth-value of this recent piece of work is approximately 0.00001.
Keep up the great work, Champ!
Did Gay think she would be able to hide her retardation from the rest of us? You Harvard ninnies obviously dropped the ball, but the wider world would know instantly that she is a stupid, unqualified buffoon. Now, what are next steps?
Very giod, p. She has a lot more citations than me, but then again, i just sell drugs from my dorm room at the Enfield Tennis Academy.
The anonymous sources need to identify themselves. I don't automatically disbelieve them. I simply find them cowardly and thus probably liars. I'm an old conservative. Name - Anita Hand.
Classic case of failing up thru affirmative action.
She finally resigns ahem becomes to big a liability to continue. Maybe 2024 won’t be so bad after all.
Brilliantly done investigation and analysis of Stanford DEI corruption and Harvard’s Gay problem.
The Babylon Bee is having a field day with this woman. 3 or 4 different satirical articles.
Forgive me- I do find your article credible in its essence. But your anonymous quotes are almost identical in style, syntax, usage, etc. Not once did your quoted accusers pluralize 'Book' into 'Books'. All of their adjectives and adverbs for CG's offenses come from a tiny pool. It's as if one person wrote all of them- and I think even cursory scrutiny will indicate that this is true on it's first face.
I buy that she's culpapble for everything shy of the JFK assassination, but those quotes are embarrassingly fake.
For the acronym ignorant, what is " CPC"?
I'm not sure how this 2022 Substack popped up on my computer, but it's interesting to link it to Steven Pinker's new Harvard free speech faculty group. See https://sites.harvard.edu/cafh/people/. The group includes outgoing Govt. Dept. Chair Jeffrey Frieden, incoming Chair Daniel Carpenter, Gov. Professor Ryan Enos, and Clinical Law Professor Ron Sullivan.
Pardon, I have to study more aspects to this article still, but the former Dean of Social Sciences doesn't know how to apply multiplicative interaction models correctly, along with doesn't show work on a few other methodology used in some work & believes in freedom of association as it relates epstein but not as it relates weinstein? Granted A Dean of Social Sciences moving up to Dean of Faculty & than President seems to relate they used their scientific acumen to advance their career. Something can be said for not having policy on the books relating this exact circumstance, perhaps someone could write a Harvard thesis with Claudine as their case study and advance such policy.
This article has aged well - well done Christopher on being ahead of the curve.
Astounding work here. Too bad about all the anonymous citations though.