I see that the Left, desperate for revenge for the scalping of Harvard's president, is resurrecting this old smear piece from The New Republic that falsely claims the master's degree I earned from Harvard as a non-traditional student is somehow not a real Harvard degree.
They are free to make the argument that Harvard Extension School is not as prestigious as the other graduate programs—that’s fine. They are also free to make the argument that Harvard Extension School should not grant degrees at all—that's something they can take up with Harvard president C̶l̶a̶u̶d̶i̶n̶e̶ ̶G̶a̶y̶ Alan Garber.
But the facts are indisputable. From the HES website: "We are a fully accredited Harvard school. Our degrees and certificates are adorned with the Harvard University insignia. They carry the weight of that lineage. Our graduates walk at University Commencement and become members of the Harvard Alumni Association. As one of 12 degree-granting institutions at Harvard University, we teach to the largest and most eclectic student body."
At root, what's happening is that the people who populate the left-wing managerial class live for status and prestige. Their credentials are their whole world. They are the kind of people who ask "where did you go to college" at parties, well into middle age. They always manage to name-drop this person or that school, sizing up how useful you might be to them.
I have never been that way. I find it soulless and dishonorable. As my classmates from Georgetown went into finance, consulting, and graduate programs, I became a documentary filmmaker and traveled the world. Now I live in a small town in Washington State, amongst teachers, nurses, firefighters, tradesmen, soldiers, and homemakers. Not a single person in my immediate social circle works in journalism, academia, or the intellectual professions, which is welcome, as I get to live a normal life and my value does not depend on the whims of the left-wing press.
By contrast, the highly-credentialed people who work at places like The New Republic make fast-food wages and console themselves with status games. They cannot cope with the fact that an extension school graduate toppled the president of Harvard. It undermines their whole claim to legitimacy, status, and prestige. Imagine how frustrating it is: They have dutifully repeated the regime narrative, hoping to check the boxes and move up the ladder—and then some uncouth outsider, who attended night school, wins the game.
I've spoken about my experience with Harvard many times, including in the thread below. Besides the formal aspects of that education, it provided me a window into how my opponents operate, giving me another practical edge. My critics can say what they will, but they should understand that I operate on a different set of principles than they do; I will not be shamed by their condescension.
Ultimately, I do not measure myself by my credentials, but by my victories. And on that count, I am doing fine.
I'll add, for good measure, that The New Republic's specific claim in this piece is simply false. In fact, the photo that accompanies the article is from an event during which I discussed my experience at Harvard Extension School at length. The idea that I was somehow hiding it is laughable—debunked by The New Republic's own photo selection.
Hell, I'll say this, too: The media perception of me is infinitely amusing. To them, I'm the scary, right-wing Bond villain. But in reality, I was on the Left most of my life. I directed films for PBS. I was a vegetarian for 28 years. I studied yoga in India. Life is complex.
Community Notes settles it. The New Republic is trash.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The questions that a more intelligent person than Ben would ask are these: Why does the truth need to be "smuggled" into center-left outlets at all? Why were they not reporting on the biggest academic scandal in America already? Why did they wait so long to cover the story?
In this specific case, the New York Times, CNN, and Harvard itself have all confirmed the accuracy of my initial reporting. In journalism, as opposed to opinion management, which is what Ben does, that's called a "scoop" and it's a mark of honor—something Ben has never had.
EXCLUSIVE: @RealChrisBrunet and I have obtained documentation demonstrating that Harvard President Claudine Gay plagiarized multiple sections of her Ph.D. thesis, violating Harvard's policies on academic integrity.
This is a bombshell. 🧵
First, Gay lifts an entire paragraph nearly verbatim from a paper by Lawrence Bobo and Franklin Gilliam’s, while passing it off as her own paraphrase and language.
This is a direct violation of Harvard's policy: "When you paraphrase, your task is to distill the source’s ideas in your own words. It’s not enough to change a few words here and there and leave the rest; instead, you must completely restate the ideas in the passage in your own words. If your own language is too close to the original, then you are plagiarizing, even if you do provide a citation."
Gay repeats this violation of Harvard's policy throughout the document, again using work from Bobo and Gilliam, as well as passages from Richard Shingles, Susan Howell, and Deborah Fagan, which she reproduces nearly verbatim, without quotation marks.
Conservatives need to prepare for another riot season in 2024. The Left is restless and ready. The lesson of George Floyd is that violence pays immediate political dividends—the threat of ongoing chaos helped tip the scales for Biden. Red state leaders should get ready.
The DeSantis approach in 2020 is a model: he made the right signals and passed anti-riot legislation, raising the threat of more significant punishment. By far, the best solution is to demoralize activists, heighten disincentives, and prevent riots from happening.
If left-wing riots do break out, there are two options available: (1) The "send in the troops" option, which can suppress riots, but also bears significant public relations risks; (2) The "containment option" of letting select neighborhoods burn, while playing for public opinion, which has obvious negative real-world effects and favors the faction with a stronger media apparatus.
-Reduce the flow of federal funds to universities
-Privatize the student loan market and make colleges partially responsible for student defaults
-Abolish DEI bureaucracies
-Wind down activist pseudo-disciplines
-Reform faculty hiring to restore ideological balance
-Punish universities that discriminate on the basis of race
-Tie federal funding to upholding standards of civil discourse and debate
–Break the accreditation cartel
–Turn a limited number of state universities into classical liberal arts academies
–Set up recruiting pipelines and employment opportunities for classically-minded scholars
–Establish new academic journals outside the existing left-wing circles
–Eliminate the requirement to have a master's in education for teaching in K-12 public schools, which will gut the state graduate schools of education
–Require state universities to sign the Kalven Statement and refrain from taking political positions as a corporate entity
The Left is making a tactical blunder trying to turn "Free Palestine" into a George Floyd moment. Little upside: there is no proposed policy they can achieve. And huge downside: we can tether them to terror and start alienating affluent, high-capacity groups from their coalition.
Notice that capital is already beginning to shift: Donors are forcing changes at Ivy League universities and rerouting hundreds of millions of dollars in philanthropic support. The organized Right must accelerate this process and capture some of the largesse.
The shift among Jewish Americans is also significant: many left-leaning Jews now see that campus antisemitism is part of the grand ideological project of the Left, and that bureaucracies of "diversity and inclusion" categorize them as oppressors, not worthy of protection.
Last week, Vox's Zach Beauchamp published a spectacularly dishonest review of my book. It's worth debunking for its own sake, but also in order to expose the emptiness, manipulation, and fraud that constitutes "explanatory journalism."
Let me show you how the media lies. 🧵
Beauchamp's basic argument is that left-wing ideologies haven't conquered America's cultural institutions because there haven't been "accompanying radical shifts in policy." This is absurd: the institutionalization of CRT, BLM, DEI, and trans ideology are well-documented.
The second argument is even more ridiculous. Beauchamp claims that left-wing violence was "wiped out" after the 1980s. But this is brazenly and obviously manipulative: he completely ignores the carnage of 2020, the most destructive left-wing riots in American history!