The Nitwit Brigade On Parade

By Rich Kozlovich

 

On January 7 Monica Showalter published this good article with a bad title, Harvard professor spews contempt for Chris Rufo who brought down Claudine Gay, brings up his Harvard night school degree as proof saying:

 

Now that Claudine Gay is out as Harvard's president on evidence that she plagiarized research and failed to counter antisemitism on campus, Harvard's elites are steaming with fury. They had, after all, signed a letter urging that the university keep her and her wokester policies on board. But that wasn't the worst of it. The biggest indignity was in the knowledge of who took her down: 

 

Not a top Harvard scholar but a lowly Harvard night school student with the equivalent of a master's degree named Christopher Rufo, writing on his humble Substack. He was the one who found the plagiarism. And here's a Harvard professor who let the cat out of the bag:..............somehow, the traditional students are not just 'better,' they are also more believable......

It turns out Rufo has a degree from Harvard, a night school degree, but according to this nitwit professor, "they are not the same as what we normally think of as Harvard graduate students".  Really?   In some way this contemptible academic thinks denigrating these hard working "night students'.....a blanket condemnation mind you..... is an acceptable and intelligent tactic in defense of an incompetent, corrupt academic.  Another over educated, over pampered, over catered to, and under smart Ph.D.  How stupid can she be?  And that opens up a can of worms.   We'll come back to that.

These nitwits are consistent though.  Logical fallacies, lies of commission, lies of omission, and projection are their stock in trade.  If they decided the sun shines at night, no amout of evidence will shake that view.   

It still comes down to this, and the author brings it up: Who cares what Rufo's education was?   There's only one thing that's important is his reporting. Was it accurate?  And it was!

All that other clabber is nothing but a red herring fallacy.  It's totally immaterial to the fact that Gay's plagiarisms were very real, very extensive, and could have easily been discovered long before she was even hired at Harvard, let alone given tenure.   And the same applies to Stanford, which is further proof of the depth of corruption at these "elite" universities. 

Over the years as an exterminator I've written extensively in defense of my industry, and the use of pesticides, and I will state openly over the course of my career I've found entirely too many people with advanced degrees aren't the brightest pebbles in the brook, and government grant money has made scientific integrity an oxymoron. 

But these comments bring up a serious side bar.  What if she's right?  What if these night students really "are not the same as what we normally think of as Harvard graduate students".   Because that statement leaves one of two conclusions: She's lying, or Harvard is committing fraud. 

Because if she's not lying, that means Harvard is peddling fraudulent degrees and knowingly offering less quality education?  If that's true, then isn't that deliberate fraud, and the last time I looked, fraud is a crime?   And if that kind of thing is prevalent throughout the world of academia, perhaps a RICO investigation is in order.  

Monica ends her article with this sentence:  Any questions as to what's wrecking Harvard and why that school needs a good hosing out?