Claudine Gay, president of Harvard University, is testifying before Congress this week.
As such, I think it's a good time to bring back this scoop I did about her almost 2 years ago when she was still the dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences. I had a much smaller Substack audience then, so thousands of my new subscribers will never have seen it.
I'll admit that I got this scoop a bit wrong at the time (I wasn't factually wrong about any details), but I was too emotional. I wrote long script after long script about Gay's scientific misconduct, and in retrospect, that level of bias made it easy for me to dismiss. I have the smoking gun internal Harvard documents, leaked by an anonymous source. All I had to do was put them in front of the right eyes. Instead, I shot myself in the foot by jumping into controversies. I was starting out in the media, and this was an important learning lesson.
So what I'm going to do today is share the leaked internal documents and let them speak for themselves. Who knows? Maybe a congressman will see it and ask him about it. If you know any Harvard congressmen or alumni, please share these leaked documents with them:
This leaked report was filed as a complaint in 2018 against Harvard professor Ryan Enos by an anonymous whistleblower whose identity is protected by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).
A Harvard spokesperson has confirmed that this report prompted an internal, non-public investigation by Harvard's Committee on Professional Conduct into “research integrity concerns” related to Enos' 2016 paper “What the demolition of public housing on the impact of racial threat on political behavior” published in the American Journal of Political Science (AJPS).
Harvard confirmed to me that its Committee on Professional Conduct “easily dismissed“This document was leaked after it was reviewed.
This previously deleted document concludes that the Enos data were “mathematically impossible” and manipulated “beyond a reasonable doubt … in favor of the author's preferred theory and hypotheses.” The main problem with their analysis, among several problems, is that more than 800 Chicago precincts are missing from the data, with no justification given. It is possible/probable that Enos removed this data by hand. Many of these deleted precincts are in Republican-leaning areas, meaning that Enos' findings about voting patterns likely wouldn't hold if they hadn't been deleted.
Michael Smith was the Harvard dean responsible for disciplining Enos in 2018. He also chaired the appointments and promotions committee that also awarded the position to Enos in 2018. It would have been VERY embarrassing for Smith to grant a professorship and then declare immediately guilty of fabricating data.
The person promoted to replace Michael Smith was Claudine Gay. She was the one who swept this under the rug, cleaning up her predecessor's mess.
I have obtained proof of the cover-up.
Here is a partially redacted document leaked to me by an anonymous source:
The first thing you'll notice about this document is that Claudine Gay's name is nowhere on it…but she saw it and was the one who signed it. According to Harvard Procedures for responding to allegations of research misconduct“The dean must be fully informed of the steps to be taken and the information on which the steps are based.”
That, in addition, a Harvard spokesman acknowledged to Karlstack that Gay had seen the report. Now I finally have proof of what their official justification was for dismissing it: “it is not the competence of the Permanent Commission of Professional Conduct“.
Hmmm…really? Not within your scope? We compare the Professional Conduct Committee's statement with Harvard's policies on research integrity.
Harvard Policies: “The Standing Committee on Professional Conduct (CPC) handles allegations of research misconduct involving FAS researchers.”
Harvard CPC: “Allegations of research misconduct by FAS faculty are not the purview of the CPC.”
It sure looks like it belongs in the CPC domain.
So why did the CPC dismiss it as “not within our scope”?
To sweep it under the rug.
Almost as if they know Ryan Enos is guilty of fabricating their data, and know that if they investigated him they would have no choice but to find him guilty.
The catch is that by dismissing it as “not within our reach,” the CPC never referred it to the competent body to investigate. The issue of Ryan Enos' fabricated data was simply dropped.
This is a procedurally illiterate justification; in jurisprudence and legal practice, false exculpatory statements like this are often treated as potential evidence of guilt. It's pretty damning that they went with a bold face lie to avoid starting an investigation. A matter of “the cover-up is worse than the crime”.
If you are connected to Harvard, whether as a student, faculty member, or in any other capacity, I encourage you to speak up. Question this cover-up, demand clear explanations and seek accountability. If you have the means to influence or research, use them. Share these leaked documents:
English 
Español de Venezuela 