www.mindingthecampus.org Open in urlscan Pro
188.114.96.3  Public Scan

Form analysis
3 forms found in the DOM

GET https://www.mindingthecampus.org/

<form role="search" method="get" class="search-form" action="https://www.mindingthecampus.org/">
  <label>
    <span class="screen-reader-text">Search for:</span>
    <input type="search" class="search-field" placeholder="Search …" value="" name="s">
  </label>
  <input type="submit" class="search-submit" value="Search">
</form>

POST https://www.mindingthecampus.org/wp-comments-post.php

<form action="https://www.mindingthecampus.org/wp-comments-post.php" method="post" id="commentform" class="comment-form" novalidate="">
  <p class="comment-notes"><span id="email-notes">Your email address will not be published.</span> <span class="required-field-message">Required fields are marked <span class="required">*</span></span></p>
  <p class="comment-form-comment"><label for="comment">Comment <span class="required">*</span></label> <textarea id="comment" name="comment" cols="45" rows="8" maxlength="65525" required=""></textarea></p>
  <p class="comment-form-author"><label for="author">Name <span class="required">*</span></label> <input id="author" name="author" type="text" value="" size="30" maxlength="245" autocomplete="name" required=""></p>
  <p class="comment-form-email"><label for="email">Email <span class="required">*</span></label> <input id="email" name="email" type="email" value="" size="30" maxlength="100" aria-describedby="email-notes" autocomplete="email" required=""></p>
  <p class="comment-form-url"><label for="url">Website</label> <input id="url" name="url" type="url" value="" size="30" maxlength="200" autocomplete="url"></p>
  <p class="form-submit"><input name="submit" type="submit" id="submit" class="submit" value="Post Comment"> <input type="hidden" name="comment_post_ID" value="24583" id="comment_post_ID">
    <input type="hidden" name="comment_parent" id="comment_parent" value="0">
  </p>
  <p style="display: none;"><input type="hidden" id="akismet_comment_nonce" name="akismet_comment_nonce" value="f0e826b47e"></p>
  <p style="display: none !important;" class="akismet-fields-container" data-prefix="ak_"><label>Δ<textarea name="ak_hp_textarea" cols="45" rows="8" maxlength="100"></textarea></label><input type="hidden" id="ak_js_1" name="ak_js"
      value="1708020203110">
    <script>
      document.getElementById("ak_js_1").setAttribute("value", (new Date()).getTime());
    </script>
  </p>
</form>

POST /2024/02/06/harvards-plagiarism-review-process-is-a-joke/#gf_5

<form method="post" enctype="multipart/form-data" target="gform_ajax_frame_5" id="gform_5" action="/2024/02/06/harvards-plagiarism-review-process-is-a-joke/#gf_5" data-formid="5" novalidate="">
  <div class="gform-body gform_body">
    <div id="gform_fields_5" class="gform_fields top_label form_sublabel_below description_below">
      <fieldset id="field_5_1" class="gfield gfield--type-name gfield_contains_required field_sublabel_hidden_label gfield--no-description field_description_below hidden_label gfield_visibility_visible" data-js-reload="field_5_1">
        <legend class="gfield_label gform-field-label gfield_label_before_complex">Name<span class="gfield_required"><span class="gfield_required gfield_required_text">(Required)</span></span></legend>
        <div class="ginput_complex ginput_container ginput_container--name no_prefix has_first_name no_middle_name has_last_name no_suffix gf_name_has_2 ginput_container_name gform-grid-row" id="input_5_1">
          <span id="input_5_1_3_container" class="name_first gform-grid-col gform-grid-col--size-auto">
            <input type="text" name="input_1.3" id="input_5_1_3" value="" aria-required="true" placeholder="First Name">
            <label for="input_5_1_3" class="gform-field-label gform-field-label--type-sub hidden_sub_label screen-reader-text">First</label>
          </span>
          <span id="input_5_1_6_container" class="name_last gform-grid-col gform-grid-col--size-auto">
            <input type="text" name="input_1.6" id="input_5_1_6" value="" aria-required="true" placeholder="Last Name">
            <label for="input_5_1_6" class="gform-field-label gform-field-label--type-sub hidden_sub_label screen-reader-text">Last</label>
          </span>
        </div>
      </fieldset>
      <div id="field_5_2" class="gfield gfield--type-email gfield--width-full gfield_contains_required field_sublabel_below gfield--no-description field_description_below hidden_label gfield_visibility_visible" data-js-reload="field_5_2"><label
          class="gfield_label gform-field-label" for="input_5_2">Email<span class="gfield_required"><span class="gfield_required gfield_required_text">(Required)</span></span></label>
        <div class="ginput_container ginput_container_email">
          <input name="input_2" id="input_5_2" type="email" value="" class="large" placeholder="Email" aria-required="true" aria-invalid="false">
        </div>
      </div>
    </div>
  </div>
  <div class="gform_footer top_label"> <input type="submit" id="gform_submit_button_5" class="gform_button button" value="Subscribe"
      onclick="if(window[&quot;gf_submitting_5&quot;]){return false;}  if( !jQuery(&quot;#gform_5&quot;)[0].checkValidity || jQuery(&quot;#gform_5&quot;)[0].checkValidity()){window[&quot;gf_submitting_5&quot;]=true;}  "
      onkeypress="if( event.keyCode == 13 ){ if(window[&quot;gf_submitting_5&quot;]){return false;} if( !jQuery(&quot;#gform_5&quot;)[0].checkValidity || jQuery(&quot;#gform_5&quot;)[0].checkValidity()){window[&quot;gf_submitting_5&quot;]=true;}  jQuery(&quot;#gform_5&quot;).trigger(&quot;submit&quot;,[true]); }">
    <input type="hidden" name="gform_ajax" value="form_id=5&amp;title=&amp;description=&amp;tabindex=0&amp;theme=data-form-theme='gravity-theme'">
    <input type="hidden" class="gform_hidden" name="is_submit_5" value="1">
    <input type="hidden" class="gform_hidden" name="gform_submit" value="5">
    <input type="hidden" class="gform_hidden" name="gform_unique_id" value="">
    <input type="hidden" class="gform_hidden" name="state_5" value="WyJbXSIsImY2ZjNlNGVkNjQ3MTI4MjhhNWRhZjkxMmM4YmU2YWIwIl0=">
    <input type="hidden" class="gform_hidden" name="gform_target_page_number_5" id="gform_target_page_number_5" value="0">
    <input type="hidden" class="gform_hidden" name="gform_source_page_number_5" id="gform_source_page_number_5" value="1">
    <input type="hidden" name="gform_field_values" value="">
  </div>
  <p style="display: none !important;" class="akismet-fields-container" data-prefix="ak_"><label>Δ<textarea name="ak_hp_textarea" cols="45" rows="8" maxlength="100"></textarea></label><input type="hidden" id="ak_js_2" name="ak_js"
      value="1708020203285">
    <script>
      document.getElementById("ak_js_2").setAttribute("value", (new Date()).getTime());
    </script>
  </p>
</form>

Text Content

Search for:
 * 
 * 
 * 


Toggle navigation
 * Home
 * Articles
 * About Us
 * Write for Us
 * Donate

Home » Articles » Harvard’s Plagiarism Review Process is a Joke


HARVARD’S PLAGIARISM REVIEW PROCESS IS A JOKE

 * By Ozlam Fisek
 * February 6, 2024
 * one comment

Shares





Harvard recently submitted an obfuscated and unsigned summary of its plagiarism
“review process” to Representative Virginia Foxx’s congressional committee,
Committee for Education and the Workforce. The document is a mishmash of the
terms: “investigation,” “inquiry,” and “assessment.”

Harvard had previously circulated a draft of an interim policy on research
misconduct. There is no indication of when the draft might be adopted, or via
what procedure. The draft interim policy appears to limit itself to the Faculty
of Arts and Sciences (FAS) rather than apply to the entire institution.

At other universities, such a policy would require endorsement by the full
faculty—through a faculty senate—as a demonstration of “shared governance.” But
not at Harvard, which has no faculty senate. Former Harvard president Drew G.
Faust, in 2015, defended the absence of a faculty senate saying, “I don’t
personally think that it’s particularly well-suited for Harvard.” However, the
American Association of University Professors (AAUP) published in its “Statement
on Government of Colleges and Universities:”

An agency should exist for the presentation of the views of the whole faculty …
Faculty representatives should be selected by the faculty according to
procedures determined by the faculty.

Harvard does not even appear on the list of AAUP chapters in Massachusetts.
Without a faculty senate ratifying the policies regarding faculty misconduct,
the status of the draft interim policy appears to be in limbo, in which case
Harvard is free to pursue whatever course it wants regarding faculty plagiarism.

Under Harvard’s draft interim policy—emphasis added:

These policies and procedures do not apply to authorship or collaboration
disputes and apply only to allegations of research misconduct that occurred
within six years of the date FAS … received the allegation.

Harvard president Claudine Gay was accused of plagiarism, namely, that she was
not the original author of sentences and phrases she published under her own
name. But that is fundamentally an “authorship” issue, which Harvard’s draft
interim policy specifically excludes from investigation. Accusation dismissed.

The six-year window for examining misconduct is nuanced—the plagiarized paper
may have been published yesterday, but for all we know, the plagiarized bits
were written seven years ago in an early draft, outside the window. Accusation
dismissed.

Moreover, the accusation might not be received by FAS itself. If you submitted a
complaint to Harvard’s “research integrity officer” (RIO) rather than the
“Faculty of Arts and Sciences” (FAS), the assessment process need not even
commence. Alternatively, the RIO can simply sit on it until the six-year window
closes before forwarding it to FAS. At that point, an assessment would be moot.
Process aborted.

Harvard’s draft interim policy defines “complainant” as “a person who in good
faith makes an allegation of research misconduct.” During an initial
“assessment,” the administration may simply decide that a complainant has not
proved himself or herself to be a person making a good-faith disclosure. The
draft interim policy does not explain how an anonymous reporter can
affirmatively demonstrate the necessary qualifications required to be a “person”
reporting “in good faith.”

How would you, as an anonymous complainant, prove to Harvard that you are a
person acting in good faith? Would you appear in person before a tribunal,
present a birth certificate, argue that your motives are pure, that you are not
racist or sexist or conservative or anti-elite-academia, and that you are not AI
software? If the complainant happens to be white, the doctrine of structural and
systemic racism obviates the complaint— a white complainant is, per force,
racist. Complaint dismissed.

Under the draft interim policy, “plagiarism” is not “misconduct” unless it
is—emphasis added:

a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research
community; the respondent committed the research misconduct intentionally,
knowingly, or recklessly; and the allegation be proven by preponderance of the
evidence.

But Claudine Gay’s community manifestly accepts her practices because her
community reviewed and published her papers. Harvard’s inquiry committee will
certainly note that the complaint did not even attempt to prove Gay’s plagiarism
was intentional, knowing, or reckless. Assessment ended; no inquiry needed.

Harvard’s honor code does not carve out such exemptions for students whereby
plagiarism is not misconduct. Instead, its honor code states that:

plagiarizing or misrepresenting the ideas or language of someone else as one’s
own, falsifying data, or any other instance of academic dishonesty violates the
standards of our community, as well as the standards of the wider world of
learning and affairs.

Even if the author plagiarized recently, and did so intentionally, knowingly,
and recklessly, and even if the complainant was a non-conservative person of
color acting in good faith—perhaps the complainant failed to furnish proof all
the required elements of “misconduct.”—complaint dismissed.

Harvard’s draft interim document contains sections VI. PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF
ALLEGATIONS and VIII. THE INQUIRY, which explain that “an investigation is
warranted if … there is a reasonable basis for concluding that the allegation
falls within the definition of research misconduct.” But the “inquiry” itself
does not even begin unless an initial “assessment” recommends an “inquiry.”

It is noteworthy that Harvard’s draft policy on research misconduct is copied
from the U.S. Public Health Services policy, which is perhaps the most lenient
standard among federal agencies. This standard could arguably be applied to
Harvard’s medical school, which receives substantial funding from the National
Institutes of Health (NIH), but the standard is much lower than what Harvard
imposes on its very own students:

If you copy language word for word from another source and use that language in
your paper, you are plagiarizing verbatim. Even if you write down your own ideas
in your own words and place them around text that you’ve drawn directly from a
source, you must give credit to the author of the source material, either by
placing the source material in quotation marks and providing a clear citation,
or by paraphrasing the source material and providing a clear citation.

Harvard’s student handbook—page 36—further elaborates:

Quotations must be placed properly within quotation marks and must be cited
fully. In addition, all paraphrased material must be acknowledged completely.
Whenever ideas or facts are derived from a student’s reading and research or
from a student’s own writings, the sources must be indicated (see also
“Submission of the Same Work to More Than One Course”).

This standard is considerably higher than the one promulgated by NIH—and copied
by Harvard’s draft interim policy. NIH permits authors to recycle their work
without citation—also called “duplicate publication” or “self-plagiarism.”
Although Harvard’s students shouldn’t submit a single work in multiple courses,
its faculty can publish a single work in multiple journals, thereby collecting
multiple publication credits for a single result. Outside of Harvard—and even
within Harvard’s student body—it is considered fraud to receive credit for a
contribution and then later to receive credit again as though it were still
novel.

Harvard’s students must “affirm” their awareness of the honor code. This
affirmation provides prima facie evidence, whenever needed by Harvard
prosecutors, that a student’s later violations are knowing and/or reckless.
Faculty and administrators, however, do not sign this affirmation.

Harvard’s draft interim policy does not even contemplate that a complainant
would wish to appeal an “assessment” or “inquiry” that fails to initiate an
“investigation.” At no point does the draft interim policy require Harvard to
notify the complainant of the results of the “assessment” or “inquiry” or
“investigation,” nor does it provide for the complainant to receive a copy of
written reports at these phases. The complainant is out of the loop.

Such lack of transparency at odds with the guidelines and flowcharts published
by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). COPE’s flowchart not only
requires notifying a complainant of an outcome, it emphasizes this final step in
all caps. Moreover, COPE does not even disparage “the person who originally
raised the concern” with the word “complainant.” After all, if you see a burning
building and dial 911, you are not “complaining” or “alleging,” you are simply
making a report concerning what you observed.

> If there is an outcome to your investigation, such as a correction or
> retraction, inform the person who originally raised the concern.

As a point of comparison, the blare of a fire alarm will summon emergency
responders, even though it is not not a person or a “complainant.” More than
14,000 publishers, journals, and universities have joined as COPE members. But
not Harvard.

It is important, of course, for Harvard to avoid any “investigation” whatsoever
of research misconduct. According to the draft interim policy, section IX. THE
INVESTIGATION, Harvard’s RIO will “transmit to the applicable funding agency a
copy of the final investigation report with all attachments.” By aborting an
investigation altogether, Harvard avoids notifying federal funding agencies and
making records of misconduct.

Concealment of misconduct is good for everyone involved—the author, the
university, the publisher, and the funding agency. Concealment is also good for
the wider community of stakeholders, including alumni. Dismissing reports of
research misconduct is a win-win-win-win strategy for Harvard and for every
university with a policy like Harvard’s.

It is noteworthy that Harvard did not submit statistics to Rep. Foxx’s
committee, such as how many reports of plagiarism it received in each of the
past ten years; how many assessments it performed; how many inquiries it then
performed; how many investigations it then performed; and how many findings of
misconduct resulted. Such statistics would demonstrate where most of the leaks
can be found in the misconduct-examination pipeline.

Obviously, if you are the RIO and you receive 1000 reports of plagiarism per
year, you would be wise to assess that none of them deserve an assessment. But
even if you did decide to assess 100 of the 1000 reports, you would be wise to
conclude that none deserves an inquiry. But even if you did decide to inquire
into 10 of them, you would be wise to conclude that none of them deserve
investigation. After all, there is no oversight and no appeal process in the
event of arbitrary and capricious dismissals of complaints. This ensures
research integrity at your elite institution, even if Rep. Foxx’s committee is
not convinced.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Photo by Vitezslav Vylicil — Adobe Stock — Asset ID#: 274376116

Shares






AUTHOR

 * Ozlam Fisek
   
   Ozlam Fisek is an independent analyst in Florida, with an interest in
   documenting trends in academic publishing and an avid fan of PubPeer.
   
   View all posts


ONE THOUGHT ON “HARVARD’S PLAGIARISM REVIEW PROCESS IS A JOKE”

 1. Dr. Ed says:
    February 6, 2024 at 5:53 pm
    
    “Whenever ideas or facts are derived from a student’s reading and research
    or from a
    student’s own writings, the sources must be indicated (see also “Submission
    of the Same Work to More Than One Course”).
    
    I have always had problems with this for three reasons:
    
    First, plagiarism is theft — you are stealing the work of another and
    claiming it as your own. I look at it along the lines of copyright law where
    one has ownership rights to one’s work and can use it for whatever one damn
    well pleases. One may hand out as many non-exclusive licenses as one wishes.
    And as to submitting to multiple publications, how is that different from
    holding a press conference to announce your findings, with various media
    outlets aware of the possibility of being “scooped” by competitors?
    
    Or both Walmart and Target both being able to sell Taylor Swift CDs?
    
    The purpose of publication is to share knowledge with the world, or at least
    as large a portion of the world as possible. In the 21st Century there is no
    justification for a relatively few journal publishers to hold the monopoly
    powers which they do — not only charging exorbitant prices to academic
    libraries for access to content that they aren’t even paying their authors
    royalties for, and then preventing their (few) competitors from publishing
    it until they decide they don”t want to. They largely aren’t even incurring
    the cost of physically printing and distributing a paper journal anymore —
    and then look at what they are charging!!!
    
    That isn’t what the Sherman Anti-Trust Act was intended to prevent?
    
    And as to students, isn’t the goal being their understanding the content of
    a course well enough to be apply it elsewhere? Hence notwithstanding the
    additional issues I mention below, what is the harm of students not citing
    their own prior academic work? Call me a realist, but this is where the kid
    actually (at some point) *did* the work — we now have a pandemic of
    plagiarism and I’m more concerned with cases where the kid *didn’t*.
    
    Imagine if Taylor Swift wasn’t permitted to self-plagiarize and instead had
    to have a completely new roster of songs for each concert — she wouldn’t
    have very many concerts. They also wouldn’t be well attended — people are
    paying to hear her sing songs that they have largely already heard before,
    that she’s already sung in a dozen different cities before this performance
    and will sing in a dozen more before the tour ends. Beyond that is the fact
    that no two live concerts are identical — there will always be nuances of
    difference starting with the acoustics of the building. So it’s a unique
    product.
    
    I argue that self-plagiarism is similar. If I am citing the work of another,
    those words are fixed in concrete. But even if I quote a paragraph from a
    paper that I wrote five years ago, I’ve changed and very likely do not mean
    exactly what I meant back then. Do that to another and it’s called “quoting
    out of context”, do it to yourself and it’s called “editing.”
    
    Take Taylor Swift — if she learns that she is mispronouncing a word in one
    of her songs, she is going to learn how to pronounce it correctly. It’s
    still the same identical song — but it isn’t. A better example would be Dire
    Straits removing a whole verse from Money for Nothing because it contained
    the word “faggot.”
    
    This leads to my second point — Big Pharma routinely changes a drug slightly
    so as to extend the time before it goes generic and can be manufactured by
    others. They are able to “reset the clock” because they technically have a
    brand new drug.
    
    What prevents one so inclined from doing the exact same thing today?
    
    So you cite your prior research — big deal if someone doesn’t have it in
    front of them (and possibly hasn’t ever read it) — the purpose of citations
    is to refer the reader to the source of the information which is you. I’d
    much rather see self-plagiarism and previously published data republished in
    the current paper than to see a vague promise that I will find it in some
    archival document (and not always find it there).
    
    Remember that this is supposed to be about conveying knowledge, not getting
    promoted — and if someone has essentially republished the same paper five
    times, that is something that the search committee (or search firm) ought to
    catch, regardless of if the author self-cited or not.
    
    Personally, I have always considered self-citation to be both pompous and
    arrogant. OK, you got some journal to publish your prior paper — but so did
    Alan Sokal. And as to the CV, the real issue is how many other scholars have
    cited the work listed, if any.
    
    But my third and biggest concern involves fairness to the scholar. We’re all
    using word processors now, removing entire paragraphs with a keystroke, and
    how many of us remember exactly which sentences we left in and which ones we
    took out? And if you are describing something you know well, it is
    inevitable that you are going to use a lot of the same words and even
    sentences to do so — not because you are plagiarizing your past work but
    because you are using the same words again.
    
    Writing style and word usage is like a fingerprint — but your fingerprint is
    going to be your fingerprint. It’s going to sound like something you wrote —
    because you did…
    
    And as to ideas and facts in general, you are the original source and a
    requirement that one keep track of when one developed every idea or learned
    every fact is — quite frankly — asinine. I’ve been saying that higher
    education is dying for thirty years now although I have developed this over
    the years, it’s not the same idea that I had as a first-year graduate
    student — it wasn’t until 15 years ago that we learned how few babies were
    born in 2008 (which will be impacting higher ed in 2016). It wasn’t until
    Donald Trump’s Presidency that we saw the extent of the divide between
    academia and the middle class, etc. Conversely there are things I never
    anticipated, such as the use of facial identification technology to identify
    students after the fact.
    
    The only purpose of citations is to provide a reference back to the original
    source — me. I know what I am thinking today in 2024 and why I think it —
    and that I was thinking along the same general terms in 1994, but exactly
    what I was thinking then, exactly what I was thinking in 2004 and how it
    differed from what I was thinking in 2014 — how am I supposed to make a
    defensible determination?!?
    
    And when one realizes that all reports must be made “in good faith”, this
    will become nothing more than an extension of the double standard that
    already exists in higher ed. The Claudine Gays will continue to get away
    with the flagrant plagiarism of others, while nebulous concepts of
    self-plagiarism will be used to crucify conservative students and white
    heterosexual males in general.
    
    This is already happening — the facial recognization technology isn’t used
    to identify all the students present at a disturbance — it somehow is only
    able to identify the conservative ones, and they are the only ones being
    expelled. I think that fact alone is enough to fear self-plagiarism.
    
    Reply
    


LEAVE A REPLY CANCEL REPLY

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comment *

Name *

Email *

Website





Δ


INTRODUCING MINDING THE SCIENCES

Let's face it: science has gone woke. What used to be an ideological virus
afflicting the arts and humanities has now spread through the entire university,
STEMM fields included. That's why Minding the Campus is renewing our focus on
the sciences through a new, ongoing article series called Minding the Sciences.
Here, we'll cover wokeism in STEMM, scientific integrity, research funding,
climate science, scientific associations, and much more. Click here to read the
series.


SUPPORTING MTC

Minding the Campus needs your help. Even a small donation makes a big
difference. Click here to donate now.


SIGN UP FOR OUR WEEKLY NEWSLETTER, “TOP OF MIND”

Name(Required)
First Last
Email(Required)



Δ


WRITE FOR MTC

Calling all professors, students, and concerned citizens who believe in
diversity of thought. Minding the Campus aims to expose the intellectual
conformity at today’s universities and find solutions to the academic
totalitarianism that silences dissenters. If you're interested in joining the
conversation, click here to read more.


EDUCATION ROUNDUP

“On paper, teens are thriving. In reality, they’re not” — The Hechinger Report,
2/15/24

“Endowment returns averaged 7.7% in fiscal 2023” — Higher Ed Dive, 2/15/24

“Why Is the College-Completion Rate Stagnating?” — The James G. Martin Center
for Academic Renewal, 2/15/24

“Indiana teachers call attorney general’s ‘Eyes on Education’ portal dangerous”
— The Guardian, 2/15/24

“New Study: Two-Thirds of Teachers Censor Themselves Even When They Don’t Have
To” — The 74, 2/15/24

“Four states that are leading the charge for conservative education” — The Hill,
2/14/24 

“Permission slip controversy in Florida school highlights debate on race
education” — ABC News, 2/14/24

“Charlottesville and Trump: Will the Big Lie Finally Die?” — American Greatness,
2/12/24

“Stick a Fork in Carnegie’s New Education Initiative” — Real Clear Education,
2/09/24

“A Politician Vying for a Florida Presidency Complained About the Search. Hours
Later, It Was Suspended.” — Chronicle of Higher Education, 2/09/24

“The Dark Allure of the ‘Jewish Question’” — Law & Liberty, 2/09/24

“A Fumble for American Democracy” — Law & Liberty, 2/09/24

“Athletics in the Small-College Marketplace” — The James G. Martin Center for
Academic Renewal, 2/09/24

“So Much Noise” — City Journal, 2/09/24

“Multiple ‘Drag Queens’ in the News This Week For Appalling Sex Crimes Against
Children” — American Greatness, 2/08/24

“Study Reveals Only 16% of Faculty is Ready for GenAI in Higher Education” —
Diverse, 2/08/24

“For-profit owner agrees to dismiss CEO, CFO as part of Education Department
settlement” — Higher Ed Dive, 2/08/24

“University of California and Cal State push back May 1 commitment deadline” —
Higher Ed Dive, 2/08/24

“Greeks' Opinion of Islam Falls with Influx of Muslim Migrants” — Middle East
Forum, 2/07/24

“From panic to potential: How SchoolAI is aiming to change the classroom game” —
Deseret News, 2/07/24

“UPenn submits documents to Congress in antisemitism investigation” — CNN,
2/07/24

“Teaching Evaluations Are Broken. Can They Be Fixed?” — Chronicle of Higher
Education, 2/06/24

“The Super Bowl Will Again Feature Two ‘National Anthems’” — American Greatness,
2/07/24

“Toby Keith, R.I.P.” — National Review, 2/06/24

“When a Threat Becomes an Excuse to Muzzle” — Chronicle of Higher Education,
2/06/24

“Disney’s Disastrous Directors” — American Greatness, 2/05/24

“Can Career Learning Bring America’s Young People Back to School?” — Real Clear
Education, 2/05/24

“The Right-Wing Conspiracy Theory That Makes QAnon Look Sane” — American
Greatness, 2/02/24

“This Is Where New Ph.D.s Find Jobs” — Chronicle of Higher Education, 2/02/24

“Can a President Have Friends on the Campus?” — Chronicle of Higher Education,
2/02/24

“The Unintended Consequences of Immortality” — Law & Liberty, 2/02/24


 


ARTICLE ARCHIVES

Article Archives Select Month February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November
2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April
2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October
2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March
2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021
September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021
February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September
2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February
2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August
2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January
2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July
2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018
December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017
June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December
2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016
May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November
2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April
2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October
2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March
2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013
September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013
February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September
2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February
2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August
2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January
2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July
2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010
December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009
June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December
2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008
May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November
2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007


MTC

 * About Us
 * Donate
 * Privacy Policy
 * Terms of Service
 * Writing for Minding the Campus

Sponsored by the National Association of Scholars
Copyright © 2024 Minding the Campus, Inc.
Powered by Beck & Stone, Inc.


Notifications