Horrible Harvard Hiring

 I know this topic has been beaten to death but I thought I would throw my two cents in on the Claudine Gay situation. As an employment lawyer, what jumps out at me first is the fact that her situation is exactly what you would expect when your primary criteria for hiring are something other than merit or past performance. Harvard's corporate board obviously weighted Gay's race and gender, and perhaps her political philosophy, much more highly than it did prior academic performance or even job performance in previous administrative positions. She had not distinguished herself academically and in her previous administrative roles presided over several high-profile and dubious decisions by Harvard leadership. Does it come as any particular surprise that her performance in front of Congress and since has been substandard? 

What is even more interesting, again from an employment lawyer's perspective, is that Harvard has moved Gay from a position where she was likely unqualified into a position where she is almost certainly unqualified. The plagiarism examples in her past written work, apparently accompanied now by claims that she actually falsified data, may or may not indicate a lack of qualification for an administrative position at Harvard. But these examples are surely disqualifying for a full professor teaching courses to students held to a rigorous and punitive anti-plagiarism standard. How does Harvard now justify either disciplining or not hiring anyone with plagiarism or equally serious conduct in their background? The Harvard Corporation BOD has lowered the bar on standards of conduct quite a bit.