Amid ongoing controversy regarding antisemitism on campus and allegations of repeated plagiarism throughout her academic career, Claudine Gay has resigned as president of Harvard University, a development her supporters on the left have rushed to decry as a metaphorical act of weaponized violence against the concept of diversity in higher education and elsewhere, as the Associated Press reports.
Stepping down from her post as Harvard president on Tuesday, Gay succumbed to the pressure that has continued to mount ever since her widely panned congressional testimony on campus antisemitism back in December and an expanding list of claims that she engaged in dozens of acts of plagiarism over the course of her professional career, many of which were reportedly well-known at the time of her hiring.
Underscoring the fact that the sort of academic integrity questions plaguing Gay are the type that regularly yield severe disciplinary consequences for students at Harvard, conservative researcher and commentator Christopher Rufo was among the most outspoken critics of the then-Ivy League president and played a pivotal role in chronicling instances of her questionable scholarly conduct.
In the wake of Gay's decision to step down, Rufo heralded the development as representing a significant blow to the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) imperatives that have dominated universities and corporate boardrooms in recent years, and which he says often elevate unqualified individuals to positions of power simply because they check the desired racial, ethnic, or gender boxes.
Writing on X following the announcement of Gay's departure, Rufo wrote, “SCALPED” in a post that added to the ire expressed by many on the left toward his involvement in the controversy.
The AP appeared to characterize the comment as an unseemly celebration, accusing Rufo of speaking “as if Gay was a trophy of violence, invoking a gruesome practice taken up by white colonists who sought to eradicate Native Americans and also used by some tribes against their enemies.”
Adding his voice to those outraged by Gay's resignation was activist Al Sharpton, who issued a defiant statement that singled out Harvard alum, hedge fund chief, and major donor Bill Ackman, who advocated for the president's ouster in recent weeks.
“President Gay's resignation is about more than a person or single incident,” Sharpton said. “This is an attack on every Black woman in this country who's put a crack in the glass ceiling.”
He went on, “This is an attack on every Black woman in this country who's put a crack in the glass ceiling. It's an assault on the health, strength, and future of diversity, equity, and inclusion -- at a time when Corporate America is trying to back out of billions of dollars in commitments.”
“Most of all, this was the result of Bill Ackman's relentless campaign against President Gay, not because of her leadership or credentials but because he felt she was a DEI hire,” Sharpton stated.
Sharpton pledged an outward show of protest over what he deemed to be Ackman's role in Gay's departure, saying that his organization, the National Action Network, would “picket outside his office so New Yorkers, his investors, and Corporate America can see Bill Ackman for who he is.”
“If [Ackman] doesn't think Black Americans belong in the C-Suite, the Ivy League, or any other hallowed halls, we'll make ourselves at home outside his office,” Sharpton vowed.
Despite attempts by the left and by mainstream media outlets to depict Gay's fate as one determined by weaponized racial animus, Ackman maintained -- in a lengthy essay posted to X -- that it is beyond time for universities and corporations to recognize that the racism comes not from those who pushed for accountability from Harvard for seemingly turning a blind eye to its president's major shortcomings, but from proponents of programs and structures that facilitated her rise.
In Ackman's words, “DEI is inherently a racist and illegal movement in its implementation even if it purports to work on behalf of the so-called oppressed,” and he added his belief that any “ideology that portrays a bicameral world of oppressors and the oppressed based principally on race or sexuality is a fundamentally racist ideology that will likely lead to more racism father than less,” and that is a view with which millions of Americans certainly agree.
