 Harvard University. I mean, Harvard is now, Harvard is standing by its president, Claudine Gay, who is the president of Harvard. She is one of the three presidents of universities who did a pathetic presentation before Congress that couldn't answer simple questions, couldn't articulate a simple position with regard to speech and with regard to harassment on their campuses. One of those presidents, the president of University of Pennsylvania has been fired as a consequence of it, or she resigned as a consequence of pressure. But Harvard has stood by Claudine Gay. Now, in the process, it's been revealed that Claudine Gay, who was a professor at Harvard and a dean at Harvard, is also being accused of plagiarism that she copied and has verbatim whole passages from other authors in some of her articles that got a tenure, that even in her dissertation and that are in articles. And in the last couple of days, it's been discovered that in many more articles. She is, they don't call plagiarism. What do they call it? They call it, she uses duplicative, I can't believe this is true, they call it duplicative language, which I guess is PC for PC when the person doing it is considered a good guy. That's what plagiarism means. She uses duplicative language. So massive criticism, not only about the response to antisemitism of the university, and then the response to antisemitism that she, how she presented it in front of Congress. But now, she's getting significant criticism over her scholarship. Put aside the quality of her scholarship, which I'm pretty sure is horrible, but the idea of plagiarism. Now, we're not talking about some third-rate college somewhere. We're not talking about some anonymous university somewhere. We're talking about Harvard University. We're talking about one of the premier institutions in the world, the most prestigious university in America. And you think the president of that university would not only be a really experienced administrator, a well-established prominent academic, and with an impeccable track record of academic integrity, not at Harvard. I mean, that is true of the president before Claudine Gay, and probably the president before that and before that. That is true of the history of presidents at Harvard. But it's, I think, becoming clearer and clearer. The Claudine Gay is the president of Harvard because of her adamant advocacy for DEI, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, and because she is a DEI appointment, both a woman and she's black. The reason the president of the University of Pennsylvania, maybe you could argue, was asked to resign as she's white. Claudine Gay is black. The reason why everybody's so lenient with the gladiplagiarism is not because this is not viewed as a serious offense in academia. It is. It should be particularly at a prestigious university like Harvard, but it's because she's black. They won't fire her because they'll be accused of racism. Indeed, 80 black Harvard University professors have written a letter basically saying that. You fire her, you're racist. Claudine does not have the, I don't know, integrity to resign herself. She obviously is not the best candidate for a position like this. But the board of trustees of Harvard University is sticking by her. She is now in the process of what's it called, revising her dissertation, putting in the citations, correcting. But the reality is there's a really good essay on this by Jason Riley in today's. No, two days ago on The Wall Street Journal, which I recommend. Why Harvard can't fire Claudine Gay to admit she has performed poorly is to raise basic questions about the entire diversity enterprise. I mean, she is a DEI activist. That is her shtick. Not only does Harvard admit students, not based on ability, but based on DEI standards. But there's every reason to believe that it hires its professors. Not based on ability, but based on DEI standards. And now it's probably the case that it hired its president. Not based on DEI standards, but based on, not based on, sorry, not based on ability, but based on DEI standards. Horrible to see such a great academic institution lower itself to this position. But this is the consequence of embracing this kind of leftist, altruistic, racist ideology that is DEI that places waiting in hiring, in admittance, in every aspect of academic life on somebody's race, which should be irrelevant. Gone is the standard of colorblindness. Gone completely. And we see that in this pathetic display at Harvard. So sad, sad, while she's journalist, is updating her PhD dissertation. But the school, as of today, this morning, as of December 21st in the morning, the university is standing behind us and calls all the claims about her lack of, I don't know, academic qualifications and shoddiness of academic work and plagiarism. It claims a meritless, even though these are clearly documented and seem to be pretty clear cut. But Harvard will stand behind her. Would they stand behind her if she was a man? Would they stand behind her if she was white? I don't think so. And again, it's not an issue of hypocrisy. It's an issue of philosophy. The entire philosophy, in that sense, they have integrity, right? Integrity to their irrational philosophy. Non-integrity in their full objective sense. They're not hypocrites. They're abiding by their philosophy. And that is that the standards you apply to those who come from an oppressed history, from an oppressed context, are different. Because you have to establish equity. And the only way to establish equity is to penalize those who come from the oppressive background and to elevate, by whatever means, those who come from their oppressed background. And one of the great tragedies of this, and the great victims of all this, and this is true of affirmative action, and Ein Rand was writing about this in the 1960s, is that blacks of ability, minorities of ability, of ambition, that are truly worthy because of merit will be looked on with suspicion. Nobody will know exactly, did they have that position because of their merit, because of their achievements, because of their talents, because of their skills, or because of the color of their skin? Because of DEI.