Harvard University recently covered up a high-level investigation into whether its controversial president, Claudine Gay, was a plagiarist.
So now it’s one president down, no more to go.
The decision by Harvard pooh-bahs to keep Claudine Gay was predictable but still disappointing.
It sucks some of the air out of calls for a thorough review of how the far left has hijacked American higher education and turned campuses into political indoctrination factories rife with antisemitism.
Worse, the decision to retain Gay in the face of a boisterous campaign to get her fired will be interpreted by other colleges as a sign it’s safe to return to business as usual.
So once again, moral clarity is banned at what used to be called citadels of learning. Why no boot?
The odds were always slim that the same Harvard board that gave Gay the job in July would give her the boot now.
Showing her the door would reflect badly on them and their judgment, so she and they had a mutual interest in saving her.
Race also had to be a factor, which was important in her getting the job in the first place.
She became Harvard’s first black president, a much-celebrated move in some quarters that came just before the Supreme Court rejected the school’s use of racial preferences in student admissions.
Dumping her so quickly would create problems if she filed a lawsuit claiming discrimination.
That possibility was implicit in the letter signed by 80 black faculty members that called attacks on Gay “specious and politically motivated.”
And yet, for all its status quo affirmation, the Tuesday statement announcing Harvard’s decision was hardly a ringing endorsement of her leadership.
It amounted to a public scolding that faulted both her initial reaction to the Hamas terror attack and her disastrous congressional testimony at which she revealed a sickening tolerance for antisemitism as long as it wasn’t violent.
Moreover, in addressing for the first time the plagiarism charges against Gay, the board found her guilty in several instances, albeit of transgressions it said were minor and did not violate Harvard’s standards.
The result leaves a weak, wounded president who will be on thin ice with just about everyone, especially critics.
And the donor revolt that followed her conduct and cost Harvard an estimated $1 billion so far is not likely to be reversed and might even spread.
