Harvard University: William James Continues Spinning in His Grave
March 15, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
William James, the brother of a novelist which caused my mind to wander just thinking about any one of his 20 novels, loved Harvard University. In a speech at Stanford University, he admitted his untoward affection. If one wanders by William’s grave in Cambridge Cemetery (daylight only, please), one can hear a sound similar to a giant sawmill blade emanating from the a modest tombstone. “What’s that horrific sound?” a by passer might ask. The answer: “William is spinning in his grave. It a bit like a perpetual motion machine now,” one elderly person says. “And it is getting louder.”
William is spinning in his grave because his beloved Harvard appears to foster making stuff up. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Working on security today or just getting printers to work?
William is amping up his RPMs. Another distinguished Harvard expert, professor, shaper of the minds of young men and women and thems has been caught fabricating data. This is not the overt synthetic data shop at Stanford University’s Artificial Intelligence Lab and the commercial outfit Snorkel. Nope. This is just a faculty member who, by golly, wanted to be respected it seems.
The Chronicle of Higher Education (the immensely popular online information service consumed by thumb typers and swipers) published “Here’s the Unsealed Report Showing How Harvard Concluded That a Dishonesty Expert Committed Misconduct.” (Registration required because, you know, information about education is sensitive and users must be monitored.) The report allegedly required 1,300 pages. I did not read it. I get the drift: Another esteemed scholar just made stuff up. In my lingo, the individual shaped reality to support her / its vision of self. Reality was not delivering honor, praise, rewards, money, and freedom from teaching horrific undergraduate classes. Why not take the Excel macro to achievement: Invent and massage information. Who is going to know?
The write up says:
the committee wrote that “she does not provide any evidence of [research assistant] error that we find persuasive in explaining the major anomalies and discrepancies.” Over all, the committee determined “by a preponderance of the evidence” that Gino “significantly departed from accepted practices of the relevant research community and committed research misconduct intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly” for five alleged instances of misconduct across the four papers. The committee’s findings were unanimous, except for in one instance. For the 2012 paper about signing a form at the top, Gino was alleged to have falsified or fabricated the results for one study by removing or altering descriptions of the study procedures from drafts of the manuscript submitted for publication, thus misrepresenting the procedures in the final version. Gino acknowledged that there could have been an honest error on her part. One committee member felt that the “burden of proof” was not met while the two other members believed that research misconduct had, in fact, been committed.
Hey, William, let’s hook you up to a power test dynamometer so we can determine exactly how fast you are spinning in your chill, dank abode. Of course, if the data don’t reveal high-RPM spinning, someone at Harvard can be enlisted to touch up the data. Everyone seems to be doing from my vantage point in rural Kentucky.
Is there a way to harness the energy of professors who may cut corners and respected but deceased scholars to do something constructive? Oh, look. There’s a protest group. Let’s go ask them for some ideas. On second thought… let’s not.
Stephen E Arnold, March 15, 2024
Comments
Got something to say?
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
