Welcome.
It is Verdict with Senator Ted Cruz Ben Ferguson with you, and Senator let's start with the big breaking news, something you've been calling for for quite some time, and that is for the Harvard president to be ousted from that position. President Gay has resigned after her what the media is calling her rocky testimony and these new plagiarism allegations, and
I think we should be honest with a verdict. Listener, do not be banboozled by the mainstream media here trying to claim this has anything to do with her anti Semitic testimony before Congress. They were more than happy to protect her. Harvard was with everything that she said before Congress. This is separate about the plagiarism allegations that have come out.
Well, yesterday's news that Claudie and Gay resigned as president of Harvard is a big, big deal. The president of Harvard is the premier academic position, arguably in the United States, very possible in the world. And Claudine Gay was the embodiment of the moral rot and corruption at the heart of our elite academic institutions. Her resigning is a major step forward, and it was not done willingly. It was not done voluntarily, it was not done easily. It was
I believe inevitable. And this is something you and I have been talking about on this podcast for two months now that it was clear, especially ever since her testimony before Congress, that she needed to resign, and that I believed she would resign. Now, this goes back. She has only been in the position for six months and two days, she says, the shortest tenure of any president of Harvard
in the history of the institution centuries long. This goes back to October seventh, to the horrific attacks that occurred in Israel. And you'll recall in the days that follow
those attacks, the Harvard administration was silent. It could not bring itself to condemn the atrocities carried out by Hamas thirty five student groups at the Harvard campus put out a statement blaming Israel for all of those atrocities, blaming Israel for every murder, for every woman and girl who was raped, for every infant that was slaughtered, saying all of them are one hundred percent Israel's fault. And even in the face of that, Claudingey could not bring herself
to forcibly and unequivocally condemn Hamas and anti Semitism. But that was the beginning of this scandal that took her down. From there. We saw rising anti semitism on every campus, especially the elite campuses across the country, and we saw it Harvard, in particular, Jewish students being harassed, being actively and aggressively harassed by pro Palestinian and pro Hamas protesters,
and the administration unwilling and unable to do anything. That's why Kung had the hearing with the presidents of Harvard, PEN and MIT, because the incidences of anti Semitism, of extreme Prohamas protests on university campuses had skyrocketed. That's what teed up the hearing, But even at that point, Harvard was not willing to terminate her position. Then she gave
her testimony, testimony that is universally regarded as disastrous. She and the president of PENN and the president of MIT all gave testimony in which they refused to clearly and unequivocally condemn ant to Semitism. They were unable to answer the question of whether calling for the genocide of the Jewish people violated their university's code of conduct. All three of them said, well, it depends on the context, you know, implying in some instances genocide. Actively advocating the murder of
your fellow students. In some instances that might be acceptable when you're political ideology presumably encourages if it is a group that is a disfavored group, then calling for their murder maybe okay, is what they essentially implied. Now, the point you just made a second ago, Ben is really important.
She wasn't fired. Then within days of that testimony, the president of Penn, Liz McGill, she resigned, and she resigned because of enormous pressure from the board, enormous pressure from donors, and she was the first to go.
But and that was to be clear, that was not because they wanted to do the right thing. That was because there was too many dollars that were pledged to the university that were at stake, and you had multi multimillionaires saying we will not give you our money, and that it was just it was a simple dollars and sense equation. They couldn't continue to stand by her because
of the financial loss that they would have taken. Which again I say that because I want to put an asterisk by that that's not doing the right thing morally, that's not standing up for the people of Israel or any Jewish student on campus. That was simply, we don't have enough money to walk away from this money. So we're gonna have to make the right financial decision here. Not because we believe that the people, the Jewish students or the people of Israel Isra have a right to exist.
It was just financial.
Well, let me modify that a little bit. You also had some leadership at Penn. So, for example, the chairman of the board of Trustees of the Wharton Schools, a guy named Mark Rowan great point, who is who is a very successful New York businessman, who spoke out unequivocally and demanded that she be fired and demanded that the chair of the board of trustees of PEN be fired
as well because of their response to anti Semitism. And I got to say, because you had his leadership, and you had the leadership, as you noted, of numerous donors, people like Ronald Lauder, people like the Huntsman family who said they were going to cut off their contributions to PEN that nation Pen was the most vulnerable to the pressure and Penn did the right thing.
But it was a combination.
You had some leadership within Pen at least in a formal position of authority, and you had the the thread of donors cutting off cash.
Now at Harvard, it's.
Been widely reported that there was upwards of one billion dollars of future commitments that were canceled or threatened to be canceled in light of of Harvard's terrible record on anti Semitism. And yet even even so, Harvard didn't blink. The Harvard Corporation, which is the governing body of Harvard University, put out a statement unanimously standing with Claudine Gay and and by the way, it's also been reported that Barack Obama was personally lobbying. The chairman of that board is
Penny Pritzker. She was the Commerce secretary under Barack Obama. And it's been reported that Barack Obama was personally lobbying the members of the Harvard Corporation. And so their view was a horrible record on anti Semitism is okay, horrible testimony before Congress in which you cannot bring yourself to condemn people calling for the genocide of the Jewish people. That's okay, and refusing to create it an environment on campus where Jewish students are safe looking the other way
at threats against your Jewish students. All of that was okay, not just okay, unanimously okay. There was not a single board member that could find even a single vertebrae in a backbone to stand up and say enough is enough. They all universally circled ranks. And then, as you noted, the plagiarism allegations began coming out. And first it was one, and then it was another, and then it was another, and then it was another, and it became nearly fifty separate allegations of plagiarism.
All right, quickly, let me just say this.
We're in a new year and you probably have a new year's resolution, and if you are a guy, I've got a resolution for you that you're going to love. That is getting rid of your weakness and complacency by boosting your testosterone levels up to twenty percent over ninety days. Now, look, there is a massive problem with low t historically. Right now, it is off a cliff, not just in this country,
but all over the world. It is an all time low. Thankfully, the Patriot to Chalk are helping real American men just like you, take back your right to proudly maximize your masculinity by boosting. As I said a moment ago, your testosterone levels up to twenty percent over ninety days.
Now.
I've been taking the Male Vitality Stack from Chalk and I've been doing it for months.
It works.
I'm not going to stop taking it because it works. So if you've got a New Year's resolution that is, hey, I want to feel better, I want to get in better shape, and start with boosting your testostrom levels, get rid of that weakness and complacency and get you back your strength and vitality. It really helps when it comes to working out. My friends, you're going to love it.
It's manufactured right here in the US of A. Chalk's natural herbal supplements are clinically proven to have game changing effects and I can tell you personally on your energy, on your focus, on your mood. So check out Chalk choq dot com and if you use a promo code Ben, You're gonna get thirty five percent off your Chalk subscription for life at c h oq dot com. Choq dot com.
Use a promo code ben thirty five percent off and your Chalk subscription will show up monthly for you, so you don't have to worry about running out choq dot com.
Let's tech take it.
By the way, how these how these these claims came out because it also I think this is one of those moments that we should highlight here, the less back of journalistic integrity among the mainstream media that did no research and did not do anything even after some of the first allegations of plagiarism came out against the Harvard
president clotting Gay. It was the incredible reporting of those that are conservatives and those that were trying to grab these documents, and hard work of the Washington Free Beacon, for example, where they went in and did the hard work to compare the words of the Harvard president against those that she stole from. And yet still the media is not really reporting on this, and they certainly didn't go and actually investigate any of this.
Well, look, that's exactly right. And I have to say there was no one who played a bigger role in clouding Gay's resignation the Christopher Rufo. Christopher Rufo we've had as a guest on Verdict. He has been doing an extraordinary job for years exposing critical race theory. Christopher Rufo as someone I talk about in considerable length in my new book, Unwoke. But the job that Chris did exposing this, pushing the plagiarism, giving specific examples, because the New York Times,
the Washington Post, they all wanted to whitewash it. And even after she resigned, Listen to this. Listen to CNN talking about her resignation and trying to give this word salid convoluted justification for her plagiarism.
Give a listen these plagiarism allegations where Clauding Gay has had to issue corrections, multiple corrections. Now we should note that cluding Gay has not been.
Accused of stealing anyone's ideas in any of her writings. She's been accused of sort of more like copying other people's writings without attribution. So it's been more sloppy attribution than stealing anyone's ideas.
But nonetheless, you put all that together, I mean, you hear them.
They're saying allegations. It's more than fifty. They have the words side by side in this reporting from her dissertation and other documents are the things that have been published, and let's go back to Harvard and hold them accountable here. The Harvard Corporation, the school's governing body, said earlier this month that it had quote initiated an independent review of Gay's work in October and found quote no violation of Harvard's
standards for research misconduct. That investigation only focused on three papers, and then what we understand is that was pretty much like, Yep, we're good, We're going to move on. Harvard's official policy states, by the way, that all allegations of faculty plagiarism must be reviewed by the school's Research Integrity Officer, and that if the allegations are the incredible, they must be sent
to a further probe. Any faculty member found guilty of plagiarism can end up suspended, having their rank reduced, or even terminated. Notably, the university said it considers whether the misconduct was quote an is sight event or a or part of a pattern while deciding the appropriate level of punishment. So sintr they gave her a clean be of health. Earlier this month. They didn't want to dig into this. I think they probably knew what they were going to find.
That's why they only looked at three papers and said they were going to update some of them.
They were covering this up for their president.
Well, that's exactly right, and it's worth noting, like what CNN when we just played there, that's utterly gobbledygooks. CNN's attempted justification is, well, she wasn't guilty of stealing other people's ideas. She just took the words they wrote and claimed they were her own. No, that's that's what plagiarism is. And by the way, if as a student at Harvard you do this once, you'll be expelled. That's how seriously the institution takes it for a student. And in her instances.
All right, let me give you some examples. And like, part of what took her down was the drip, drip, drip every day. It was another allegation. It was another allegation, was so screamingly obvious that it was a double standard that Harvard's public reputation began to just be absurd. But look on January first, just a couple of days ago, an article appeared in the Washington Freebeacon entitled Harvard president Claudine Gay hit with six new charges of plagiarism. That
was just a couple of days ago. And to give you a sense of it, all right, here's the first example they use. There's a professor named David Cannon who wrote a book in nineteen ninety nine entitled Race, Redistricting and Representation, The Unintended Consequences of Black Majority Districts. And David Cannon wrote, as follows the VRA, which is the Voting Rights Act. The VRA is often cited as one of the most significant pieces of civil rights legislation passed
in our nation's history. Here's what Claude in Gay wrote. The Voting Rights Act of nineteen sixty five is often cited as one of the most significant pieces of civil rights legislation passed in our nation's history. That's word for word identical, other than she spelled out Voting Rights Act instead of saying VRA. And she added of nineteen sixty five. So congratulations, Claudine, you found the year it was passed. That's those are the only new words in the quote.
All right, here's another section. This is from David Cannon. The central parts of the VRA are Section two. In Section five, the forum prohibits any state or political subdivision from imposing a voting practice that will deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color. The latter imposed was imposed on only on covered jurisdictions with a history of past discrimination, which must submit changes in any electoral
process or mechanism to the federal government for approval. Here's what Claudine Gay wrote. The central part of the measures are section two and section five. Section two reiterates the guarantees of the fifteenth Amendment, prohibiting any state or political subdivision from adopting voting practices that deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to voter
an account of race or color. Section five, imposed only on cover jurisdictions with a history of discrimination, requires Justice Department preclearances of changes in any electoral process or mechanism. The vast majority of those words are identical. All right, let me give you another example. And this is an example from her dissertation, and she lifted a sentence from her thesis advisor from Gary King, who is describing a
mathematical bottle. Here's what Gary King wrote. The posterior distribution of each of the precinct parameters within the bounds indicated by its tomography line is derived by the slice. It cuts out of the bivariate distribution of all lines. Here's what Claudine Gay wrote. The posterior distribution of each of the precinct parameters for the precinct is derived by the slice.
It's tomography line cuts out of this bivariate distribution. Now, I got to admit that some of that is academic gobbledegook. But the fact that she just copied it, and by the way the way plagiarism works, she could copy that if she put a quote mark in the fraudic quote mark in the back and she cited Gary King who
wrote it. You're allowed to quote people. You're allowed to quote people, but the way you do it so you do not steal their words is you put it in quotation marks and you cite the person who you're quoting. What she did over and over and over again is just typed it in. And by the way, much of this was done before word processors were used. That means it was done on a typewriter. I get to say, it is much harder to accidentally plagiarize, particularly in the
era of typewriters. You have some instances where say, a researcher is taking notes and they cut and paste from a cut and paste from a principal source, and they put it in their notes and they forget that it was cut and paste and they end up cutting and pasting it into their work. That's bad, that's plagiarism. And by the way, Harvard will expel you for doing that. But it is more possible for someone to do so
inadvertently with word processors and cut and paste. Many of these instances, Claudine Gay, she had to type on a typewriter the words, presumably from the original source, and so she knew exactly what she was doing.
When you talk about all that, let's go back to the core point here that we were mentioning earlier, and that is it is not what happened in front of Congress. And I think it's kind that we remind people of how egregious because there's three points. I want to make sure that we're clear here on verdict for everybody listening. No one has lost their job yet due to the testament. I'm talking about actually being fired, being unemployed, not getting a paycheck.
Clauding Gay is still employed, Liz McGill is still employed. Their faculty members are continuing to draw their pay, and in fact, the New York Post is reporting Claudine Gay will still receive her roughly one million dollar a year salary. She just moves to a different office at Harvard and they keep paying her. And understand, I want us to play our testimony again to remember what she said, but understand this point, it's critically important. Clauding Gay has not apologized.
Harvard has not apologized. They have not changed their conduct. Her resignation letter is defiant. Her resignation letter doesn't say she did anything wrong. Her resignation letter doesn't express remorse for being an apologist for those calling for the genocide of the Jewish people. It says nothing about creating an atmosphere where Jewish students are afraid for their safety. It says nothing about the repeated instances that have been pointed
out of plagiarism. Instead, it blames it all on racism. And it is defiant, non apologetic, and understand Harvard Corporation likewise, their statement again was not apologetic, didn't say she done anything wrong. Instead, they blame the fact that she's resigning again on racism. This is going to be their talking point, and they're not taking accountability for their actions, and so Harvard is not. That is a critical point to remember if they're going to fix this problem. Her resignation doesn't
solve it. It's a step in the right direction, but it's not a very good step when she's defiantly refusing to acknowledge anything she did wrong in the university is as.
Well before we play her testimony, let's also talk about the racial aspect of this. In clutting Gay's resignation letter, she actually called out her critics as being racist. And not only that, you then had Al Sharpton saying the Harvard presence resignation quote as an attack on every black
woman in America. So you can be an anti semi you can testify before Congress that calling for the extermination genocide of Jews and not denouncing it and not saying that that is a violation of the rules at Harvard. That's totally fine. You can be that person. But if you criticize clouting Gay, you are then a racist. And she and her resignation letter, when she's resigning, she made it very very clear she believes this is all because she is a black woman.
Well, and let me quoting from a resignation letter. Let me tell you the operative language quote. And by the way, this is what one does to avoid plagiarism. I'm quoting her, so I'm telling you it's a quotation. These are not my words, these are hers quote. It has been distressing to have doubt cast on my commitments to confronting hate and upholding scholarly vigor, two bedrock values that are hunt fundamental to who I am and frightening to be subjected
to personal attacks and threats fueled by racial animus. That's what she's blaming this on, is that the only people who had criticisms about her apparently are racist. Like if you believe that Harvard's willingness to tolerate the harassment of Jewish students, to tolerate anti semitism and in fact in many ways to it, if you believe that's problematic, If you believe, actually the president of Harvard should be a scholar who complies with principles of academic integrity, that means,
in her worldview, you must be a racist. And I'll tell you even worse than that. It's the end of her letter is there's a sentence that I found really galling. Here's what she writes at the end of her letter, quote, when my brief presidency is remembered, I hope it will be seen as a moment of reawakening to the importance of striving to find our common humanity and of not allowing rancor and vituperation to undermine the vital process of education. Now,
let me ask you something. For the Jewish students at Harvard right now, who are facing harassment, who are fearing for their safety. In what universe can she say that her leadership, her brief presidency was a moment of reawakening to the importance of striving to find our common humanity. Mind you, she could not bring herself to unequivocally condemn calling for the genocide of the Jewish people, and yet
she wants to be reawakening the common humanity. It is utterly defiant and refusing to acknowledge what led to this resignation.
Yeah, and al Sharpton coming out, as you know, Barack Obama, as you mentioned earlier, behind the scenes, was working hard to protect her. Sharpton condemned Gay's critics as racists for questioning the integrity of a black woman, a woman that no pun intended in.
Black and white.
Her words show that she lifted other people's words and used them as her own, saying this quote, present days resignation is about more than a person or a single incident. And he's right, it wasn't a single incidence. Now we've been told more than fifty instance of plagiarism.
He goes on to say, this.
Is an attack on every black woman in this country who puts a crack in the glass ceiling. Is it really that sender or is it just the fact that she cheated? And even they at Harvard couldn't get over that.
Well, it was ultimately this was hurting Harvard. Harvard was becoming a laughing stock when when and look, if you look at at at her academic record, she had published very little for a professor. You expect the president of Harvard to be a serious scholar, to be a world class scholar. And clotting Gay's entire career, what was built pushing the ideology of DEI was she was an African
American studies professor. She had published relatively little. What she did publish, there now serious questions about the academic integrity of it. And and there is no person on planet Earth what it stands for.
Again, just because there's maybe people that are new, yes, don't exactly know what DEI stands for.
And this is something that the woke left is obsessed.
With, diversity, equity, and conclusion, and it is the premise of their anti racism. It is the premise of critical race theory. It is the premise of the cultural Marxist on the left who advocate that we should affirmatively discriminate and discriminate against so called oppressors and in favor of so called victims. It's why the radical left is just fine with Jewish people being demonized, being threatened, because to
the cultural Marxist Jewish people are oppressors. It's why cultural Marxists are okay with whatever Hamas terrorists do, because they are the victims. And that same reasoning. Look, I'll give you an example Ibram X. Kendy, who's one of the godfathers of critical race theory, who has pushed this so called anti racism, which we've talked about at length in this podcast. It has an Orwellian name because what he means by anti racism is aggressively discriminating against the so
called oppressors on behalf of the so called victims. Here's what he had to say about Claudine Gay resigning.
Quote.
Racist mobs won't stop until they topple all black people from positions of power and influence who are not reinforcing the structure of racism. What these racist mobs are doing should be obvious to any reporter who cares about truth or justice as opposed to conflicts and clicks. That is going to be their talking point. If you dare stand against their radical ideology, you are by definition a racist. And and and they that they still see nothing that she did or said that was wrong.
I want to I want to play for everybody to remind them of exactly where all this started and to put it back into context of of the demise of this Harvard president is not for what she said that was anti Israel, anti Semitic.
It was the plagiarism.
And do not be duped by the mainstream media acting like she's being held accountable for these words. These words that she said before Congress to representive Stephanic are words that Harvard was willing to stand by her no matter what here is that? Flashback to December the fifth, and what was said.
We're student calling for the mass murder of African Americans is not protected free speech at Harvard?
Correct?
Our commitment?
It's a yes or no question? Is that corrected?
Is that okay for students to call for the mass murder of African Americans at Harvard?
Is that protected free speech?
Our commitment to free school?
It's a yes or no question. Let me ask you this.
You are president of Harvard, so I assume you're familiar with the term into fota.
Correct.
I've heard that term?
Yes, and you understand that the use of the term into fada in the context of the Israeli Arab conflict is indeed a call for violent arm resistance against the state of Israel, including violence against civilians and the genocide of Jews.
Are you aware of that that type of hateful speech is personally abhorrent to me?
And there have been multiple marches at Harvard with students chanting, quote, there is only one solution into fada, revolution and quote globalize the intofada.
Is that correct?
I've heard that thoughtless, reckless and hateful language on our campus.
Yes.
So, based upon your testimony, you understand that this call for intofada is to commit genocide against the Jewish people in Israel and globally correct.
I will say again that type of hateful speech is personally abhorrent to me.
Do you believe that type of hateful speech is contrary to Harvard's code of conduct?
Or is it allowed at Harvard?
It is at odds with the values of Harvard.
Can you not.
Say that it is against the code of conduct at Harvard?
We embrace a commitment to free expression, even of views that are objectionable, offensive, hateful. It's when that speech crosses into conduct that violates our policies against bullying.
Does that speech not cost that barrier?
Does that speech not call for the genocide of Jews and the elimination of Israel? When you testify that you understand that is the definition of intofada? Is that speech according to the code of conduct or not.
We embrace a commitment to free expression and give a wide berth to free expression, even of views that are objectionable.
You and I both know that's not the case.
You are aware that Harvard ranked dead last when it came to free speech.
Are you not aware of that report?
As I observed earlier, I reject that characterization.
It's the data shows it's true.
And isn't it true that Harvard previously rescinded multiple offers of admissions for applicants and accepted freshmen for sharing offensive memes, racist statements, sometimes as young as sixteen years old. Did Harvard not rescind those offers of admission?
That long predates my time as present.
But you understand that Harvard made that decision to restin those offers of admission.
I have no reason to contradict the facts as you present them.
Correct because it's a fact.
You're also aware that a Winthrop House faculty dean was let go over who he chose.
To legally represent. Correct, that was while you were dean.
That is an incorrect characterization. Avoid transfer.
What's the characterization.
I'm not going to get into details about a personnel matter.
Well, let me ask you this, Will admissions offers be rescinded or any disciplinary action be taken against students or applicants who say from the River to the Sea or into five advocating for the murder of Jews?
As I've said, that type of hateful, reckless, offensive speech is personally abhorrent to.
Me and today that no action will be taken. What action will be taken?
When speech crosses into conduct that violates our policies, including policies against fullying, harassment, or intimidation, We take action, and we have robust disciplinary processes that allow us to hold individuals accountable.
What action has been taken against students who are harassing and calling for the genocide of Jews on Harvard's campus.
I can assure you we have robust.
What actions have been taken?
I'm not askingations underway?
I'm asking what actions have been taken again and students.
Given students' rights to privacy and our obligations under FURPA, I will not say more about any specific cases other than to reiterate that process are ongoing.
Do you know what the number one hate crime in America is?
I know that over the last couple of months there has been an alarming rise of anti Semitism, which I understand is the critical topic that we are here to discuss.
That's correct.
It is anti Jewish hate crimes, and Harvard ranks the lowest when it comes to protecting Jewish students.
This is why I've called for your resignation.
And your testimony today, not being able to answer with moral charity speaks volumes.
I yield back, Senator, you hear that.
And the part that I think galls me the most is the fact that she's still employed. She's still going to be paid about a million dollars a year. She's just had a title change. That's it.
Well, and Harvard doesn't intend to change its conduct. They certainly have made no expression that they intend to do differently.
That they were forced after over a billion dollars in commitments to contributions, were called out, after academically their president became a laughing stock, after you began to have students who I would note had to anonymously call for her to resign because they were afraid of retaliation, after you had d editorials in the New York Times and the Washington Post, bastions of the left, both calling not from the papers but from people submitting op eds calling for
her resignation. After all of that, it became intolerable. And yet they dug in, and they dug in, and they dug in, and and it's really quite ironic. You look at her testimony, and she she is defending free speech, and it would be one thing. If she was saying, you know, Harvard's a place where anyone can say anything, and we protect free speech for everyone. That's laughably false.
They protect free speech for anti semits and leftists and at the same time, so there's an organization called Fire and Fire is actively involved in fighting to defend free speech and examining censorship and suppression of free speech on campus. And they do an elaborate survey every year at an analysis of universities across the country. So Harvard is consistently ranked one of the worst in the country. In twenty twenty, Harvard ranked number forty six out of fifty five schools
in terms of protecting free speech. In twenty twenty one, it ranked one hundred and thirty out of one hundred and fifty four schools. In twenty twenty two, it ranked one hundred and seventy out of two hundred and three schools, and this past year, in two thousand and three, Harvard was dead last, and out of a possible score from zero to one hundred, Harvard's score was actually a negative ten point six y nine, so it was dead last.
It was six standard deviations below the average and more than two standard deviations below the second to last school in the rankings, and the second to last school was the University of Pennsylvania, penn And so when she is is saying, well, anti Semites are allowed and apparently encouraged because of free speech, that is a policy that is applied very selectively, and Harvard's expressed no willingness, no desire
to correct that. And I think it is imperative that this become a moment to try to address and try to fix the profound ideological corruption. By the way, if you look at the Harvard Corporation board, every single one of its board members is an hardcore partisan, ideological democrat. There is no one right of center allowed anywhere near
that board. And you see in the policies why they universally circled the wagons around Claudine Gay and it was only when dragged, kicking and screaming that they allowed her to resign. It is critically important to underscore that the central issue at these schools is not free speech. It's not what people are saying. It is harassment and abuse. Jewish students are being subjected to threats of violence, to active harassment, and no student has a right to harass
another student. You can't go up to an African American student and harass that student and scream and holler and threaten that student. Because a race. You can't go up to a white student, you can't go up to a woman. You can't and shouldn't be able to go go up to a Jewish student, or a Muslim student, or any student. No student has the right to harass or threaten another student. And Harvard and many of these schools are doing a
terrible job protecting the safety of their students. I have a lot of good friends who have kids in college right now and who are Jewish, and almost to a person, they're telling me their children are reporting, who are college students now, that they were afraid for their safety. And that's what Harvard and these administrators are refusing to recognize and fix the next step. And I want to say something three times, Mit MIT, MIT. There were three presidents
who testified Penn, Harvard, and MIT. All three of the testimonies were abysmal. The president of MIT is Sally Cornbluth. We have talked about on Verdict how at MIT Jewish students were actively prevented from going to class because of threats of violence from pro Haamas protesters who were threatening to physically harm them, and then the MIT administration shamefully said they would not discipline the students who were threatening the Jewish students. Why because many of them were foreigners.
They were foreign students from foreign countries, and if they were expelled from MIT, they'd lose their student visas, and so therefore MIT would not respond. In many ways, MIT's behavior has been the most disgraceful of the three. And I do want to give a shout out to Bill Ackman. Bill Ackman has been incredibly important. Acman is a Harvard alum, He's a billionaire, he's the founder of Pershing Square Capital Management, and he has been incredibly vocal calling out these schools,
putting pressure. He put enormous pressure on Penn, he put enormous pressure on Harvard. And I will say, right after clotting Gay resigned, Ackman posted on Twitter at to Sally a call out to Sally Cornbluth that MIT should be next. I believe she will resign. But MIT's view is exactly what Harvard's view was. Before the plagiarism forced their hand.
They were willing to just bury their heads in their sand and ignore the pattern of anti semetrism and harassment of Jewish students, and so the exposing with sunlight what they're doing is critical. And once that happens, we need to make sure these institutions change. It's not enough for them to put in a new leftist who continues the identical pattern as presidents. We need to change the culture and attitude so that all students are protected on campus rather than these positions being abused.
Amen to that. Don't forget.
We did a show Monday, Wednesday, Friday, and a week in recap on Saturdays. Hit that follow button, especially if you're on Apple, as they've changed the way that you can download in your algorithm. Make sure that if you're listening on Apple right now, that you hit that follow button, and you need to check it every so often to
make sure that you're still downloading the show. Also, don't forget you can follow the Center on all the social media platforms, and make sure that you listen to my podcast, the Ben Ferguson Podcasts. In those in between days. I'll keep you update on the latest breaking news. Happy New Year, and we'll see you back here in a couple of days.