Harvard’s student newspaper recently reported that the university revoked the tenure of Harvard Business School (HBS) professor Francesca Gino. Gino was accused of tampering with data. But Harvard previously excused the plagiarism of its former president, Claudine Gay.
On March 12, 2024, U.S. District Judge Myong J. Joun ordered that Exhibit 5 be unsealed in the case Gino vs. Harvard. The Exhibit is online, and it shows how three of Gino’s colleagues judged her guilty of falsifying and fabricating data.
Harvard first appointed a two-person “Inquiry Committee,” then added a third person to create a three-person “Investigation Committee.” That is, two-thirds of the Tribunal had already decided Gino’s guilt when acting as Inquiry judges. For example, Professor Teresa Amabile, as Inquiry judge, declared to Professor Teresa Amabile, as Investigation judge: “allegations 1, 2, 3, 4a, and 4b fall within the definition of research misconduct.” She reported this conclusion to herself. Her mind was made up before her Investigation began.
The members of the tribunal were paid by Harvard. It is a financial conflict of interest when a plaintiff pays the tribunal, as it appears to be a bribe. However, the core requirements of procedural due process include a hearing before an impartial tribunal.
The trio of business professors played “detective,” interviewing witnesses. They played the role of “prosecutor,” interrogating defendant Professor Gino. They played “attorney,” arguing about the application of rules to facts. They solemnly discussed the “standard of review,” “findings of fact,” a “forensic report,” and testimony from “witnesses.” Their final report contained 41 “exhibits,” some of which were produced by two of the three members of the Tribunal itself. Their report doesn’t merely apply Harvard’s policy; it even cites the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). These business professors were interpreting federal regulations as applied to their colleague! But under Massachusetts law, “No individual, other than a member, in good standing, of the bar of this commonwealth shall practice law.”
The tribunal didn’t know which policy to apply. Harvard’s Vice Provost for Research published an “Interim Policy” on research misconduct, which states: “This Policy will apply in the absence of School or Unit-specific policies and procedures for responding to allegations of research misconduct.” However, HBS has a school-specific policy, as outlined in Exhibit 1 of Gino v. Harvard. In addition, HBS has an “interim” policy, dated August 2021. Exhibit 2.
[RELATED: Unequal Outcomes for Equity Advocates at Harvard]
The HBS “interim policy” was developed in secret after Dr. Gino was accused of misconduct. The HBS faculty didn’t even know it existed until two years later, when it was unleashed on Dr. Gino. By keeping its “interim policy” secret, HBS deprived Professor Gino of “notice” of practices that would result in penalties.
The various policies at Harvard agree that a finding of research misconduct requires “a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community” and “the allegation be proven by preponderance of the evidence.” In addition, the university bears the burden of proof.
Harvard’s Vice Provost for Research acknowledges the existence of “the Harvard research community.” President Gay served as Harvard’s executive officer, therefore any practices accepted by Gay are de facto accepted practices of Harvard and its research community. The January 2024 article “Claudine Gay’s Data Problem” discussed data-tampering by President Gay. If Harvard’s president accepts data tampering, then Gino is allowed to do it too, according to Harvard’s policy.
The Tribunal’s final report stated: “By a preponderance of the evidence, the Investigation Committee finds that Professor Gino intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly falsified and/or fabricated portions of the datasets.” But the Tribunal gathered no evidence at all regarding the composition of Gino’s research community, nor of its accepted practices, nor of Gino’s practices compared with those accepted by her research community. There cannot be a preponderance of evidence when there is no evidence. More importantly, there can be no finding of “research misconduct” without a preponderance of evidence of a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community.
It only takes a few internet queries to identify questionable practices accepted by the Harvard research community. This should have been the tribunal’s step number one. But the tribunal did not consider the dozens of examples of retracted papers, which demonstrate practices accepted by Harvard’s research community.
At least the Harvard Corporation got it right with President Gay: even if Gay plagiarized and tampered with data, there was no finding of misconduct. Gay’s actions did not depart significantly from the accepted practices of the Harvard research community, because when the president herself accepts a practice, the institution thereby accepts it.
Harvard sacrificed Professor Gino to atone for the sins of President Gay.
Image edited with Grok
