“TWO DOWN,” Republican Congresswoman Elise Stefanik posted on the social media platform X, referring to the resignation of former Harvard president Claudine Gay following that of former UPenn President Liz Magill one month prior. Gay’s appointment established her as the first Black person and second woman to lead one of the nation’s most elite universities. Harvard’s students and faculty praised the move. Harvard University was in the hands of a capable leader. Yet, Gay’s presidency completely unraveled in a matter of just a few months after controversy surrounding her response to potential cases of anti-semitism on Harvard’s campus and allegations of plagiarism forced her to resign just six months after she assumed the position. Many will see her resignation as a victory—a victory in combating widespread anti-semitism on college campuses, a victory for ensuring credibility and absolute merit among its leaders. However, the manner in which Gay was forced to resign as president marks a dark chapter in the history of this nation and opens the pathway to power-hungry political actors to ruin the sacred nature of America’s most prestigious institutions. 

When the presidents of MIT, University of Pennsylvania, and Harvard were called to testify before Congress, it was clear as to why these particular schools were selected. These universities stood not just to represent academic excellence but because they possess immense cultural importance. The brands of these institutions go far beyond their immensely selective admissions or their acclaimed faculty; they are built upon decades of honor, prestige, and class. The focus of the congressional hearing was not to better understand how to address rising anti-semitism on campus, but to launch a coordinated political attack fueled by power. 

Claudine Gay’s testimony on that day was appalling and her attempts to downplay the importance of context in regards to the calling for genocide against Jewish people shamefully ignorant. Someone as qualified as Gay should have the awareness to clearly state that advocating for genocide is strictly against university policy, not to mention any ethical or moral code. However, that hearing was flawed from the moment it was assembled, for Gay and her fellow presidents fell too easily into Stefanik’s political game, designed to trap them and score points rather than have a rational discussion about a complicated issue. Despite Gay’s apology in a Harvard Crimson interview acknowledging her mistake to outright denounce any calls of violence against the Jewish community, it did n3ot matter. The conservative movement had found their scapegoat. 

In the aftermath of her controversial comments in front of Congress, this rapidly growing movement latched onto a new approach to force her resignation: plagiarism. The allegations became published on December 10, when Christopher Rufo, a conservative activist, published accusations on X alleging that Gay had plagiarized the work of other scholars, as reported by Politico. As the Guardian noted, despite later investigations turning up nearly 50 instances of alleged plagiarism in her academic writing, Harvard’s own board conducted its own investigation and found no substantial instances that constituted a violation of Harvard’s research standards. Even Gay’s own thesis advisor backed the credibility of Gay and assured that her work met the highest academic standards. Regardless of all of the disputes over Gay’s plagiarism within the academic community as well as the general public, Gay ultimately succumbed to the pressure and resigned. 

It may seem as if what brought about the demotion of Claudine Gay was a genuine desire to enforce accountability and reinforce the vitality of merit within the nation’s higher education system. These plagiarism allegations, while possessing validity behind them, simply act as a smokescreen for the real agenda of the conservative movement, to insert themselves back into America’s most influential cultural institutions. Rufo himself admitted that Gay’s resignation was a reflection of “how [they] have to work the media, exert pressure, and sequence [their] campaigns in order to be successful.” Dozens of members of Congress calling for her resignation, wealthy donors threatening to withhold millions of dollars, journalists painting her as unfit to remain as Harvard president. Claudine Gay was a victim of a multi-pronged attack designed to create a narrative that diminished Gay’s stature in the academic community by reducing her to an individual whose actions have exposed the flaws of D.E.I. Conservatives have long voiced their distaste for the organizational principle of Diversity, Equality, and Inclusion, arguing that it eradicates merit in favor of diversity. They painted Gay’s presidency as a D.E.I appointment, not the appointment of a highly qualified, academically astute, dedicated member to a deserving leadership position. Any president of an esteemed institution such as Harvard will always be under public scrutiny; Gay being a black woman meant that level of scrutiny was far more intense. Gay is another in a line of university presidents who have been knocked down by plagiarism scandals, yet she was victimized unlike any of them. 

Claudine Gay did the right thing in the end; the only way to put an end to attacks upon her character and the institution she dedicated her professional life to was to resign. We must be wary as to what lessons we draw from her resignation and the impact it has upon the future of higher education. Claudine Gay is certainly not an innocent or particularly commendable character in the highest standards, yet she certainly did not deserve to be discredited in a manner that was utterly cynical and vindictive. Our universities are meant to celebrate intellectual diversity, promote freedom of thought, and maintain the sanctity of the world of academia. The vitriol launched against Claudine Gay had nothing to do with plagiarism and everything to do with politics. Only if society learns to see the attacks against Gay for what they really are, and the mistakes she made for what they really were, can they finally understand that it was their failure, not one person’s.