Thanks, Karen. Her case, if The New York Times article about her is to be believed and the accusations are accurate, seems to be a failure of the peer-review process. It appears to be something that could easily have been addressed in a second or corrected edition.
The book passed through peer review and was looked at by editors, fact-checkers, and reviewers, and it was awarded prizes, including one from the American Historical Association. It passed through many expert hands that signed off on its value, including those at The New York Times Book Review. If the errors in the book were so serious, then all these gatekeepers failed as well. But the scandal becomes entirely about the failure of Kerri Greenidge. The institutions that approved and celebrated the book disappear, and Kerri Greenidge becomes all there is to see.
We are being asked to make the most severe judgment about her scholarship without sufficient grounds for doing so. This is not what constructive accountability and transparency look like. The important word here is constructive, because there appears to be another motive: to be destructive.
As you know, historians make novel interpretations of historical figures all the time, and sometimes those interpretations are controversial. But that is what makes the profession interesting. Those arguments, if they are unpersuasive or even wrong, can be debated—and frequently are—without a historian being accused of professional misconduct. So why the extreme reaction in this case?
It just doesn’t make sense unless there's something we don't know or Kerri Greenidge was an up-and-coming scholar in a space dominated by others who saw her as a threat. That may sound like a leap, but the public scrutiny gnaws at me because, rather than remaining something to be debated within the halls of academia, it becomes a public spectacle whenever a prominent—or even less prominent—Black scholar receives a few plaudits and appears on the radar of those who decry diversity efforts in the university.
The fact that institutional support for Black scholars so often evaporates during these spectacles is disheartening. It is difficult not to see a pattern. As I said, what has been presented publicly as evidence against her could easily have been corrected in a later edition and should have been caught when the book was undergoing peer review.
well this is not directly to your point, but white professor Amy Wax did not lose her tenure and only suspended for one year but is probably making more money in outside speeches...so she's teaching her vile during her susppension
Let me say this as an old head college instructor. When they first accused Harvard’s Claudine Gay of plagiarism, the accusation was an affront to every person (including myself) that ever taught on a college or university campus.
First, any good professor or instructor can spot plagiarism a mile away. I still remember my Freshman History students who, when they wrote papers they would occasionally cite me: Allen, Leslye, Class Lecture, the date and etcetera. They knew what I taught them and what I would recognize that was missing.
To imply that Gay stole someone’s work was bad enough, but the accusation was really much worse. It was a blotch on the record of everyone that taught her.
Second, I lost all my fascination with Ivy League institutions when “Yale graduate,” George W. Bush didn’t know there were people of African descent in Brazil. That comes from a degree granted because his Daddy went to school there. No shade on the Ivy League graduates who did the work, but I know grade inflation and purchased degrees when I see them.
I was teaching at Georgia State University when I had one super brainiac class of the most motivated students anyone could hope for. We met twice a week at 7:30 AM for an hour and a half. No one earned less than a “B” in this particular class.
I was called in. Dr. Davis looked at me and said “Leslye, I know you; and you are not a person that would inflate grades. But tell me about this class.”
I told her just how good they were. She responded, “The next time you get a class this good, raise the bar. Push them even further and harder.”
The moral of this story is that Dubya could not have passed my class or graduated Georgia State University or Howard University or Morehouse College that had tougher entrance requirements than the University of Georgia did in 1900. But Dubya could finish Yale and become President of the United States.
Thank you, Leslye. You are so right. In addition to George W. Bush, let’s not forget that 45 graduated from UPenn. There are published accounts from people who attended school with him, not only at the University of Pennsylvania but also at New York Military Academy, who said that he was unremarkable, incurious, and paid other students—or, rather, that his father paid other students—to do his work. Now, doesn’t that warrant an investigation? He is, after all, the president of the United States.
I think you remember when Michelle Obama’s thesis was scrutinized for errors and deemed America-hating, while Barack Obama’s entire educational career was dissected. But 45 gets a pass. Heck, he gets a pass on his performance right now, every day.
With these two—Claudine Gay and, in some ways, Jason Arday—it never ceases to amaze me how so many historians trained in the craft neglect to apply that craft when exploring the nuances and context of situations like these. What is the historical context? What agendas, competing interpretations, and mitigating circumstances are involved?
While looking through Substack yesterday, I found only one article that detailed the situation with Jason Arday in a meaningful way—one that explored the context and historical circumstances. The rest were basically screeds gloating about the supposed deficiencies of DEI and diversity efforts in the university, all in the name of what they call the culture wars.
None were sympathetic to what I would describe as the predicament of the Black scholar in academia. That is what propelled me to write a Note devoted to the subject.
People have this mistaken impression that academia is filled with high-minded thinking and deliberative insight, but we know that isn’t true. It is just like any other workplace, with its petty rivalries and jealousies, its scramble for resources and prestige, its hierarchy, and, yes, its racism. Just because you have a PhD doesn’t make you above those things.
Add Kerri Greenidge to this list. It feels like Black academics are being hunted. Absolutely disgusting.
Thanks, Karen. Her case, if The New York Times article about her is to be believed and the accusations are accurate, seems to be a failure of the peer-review process. It appears to be something that could easily have been addressed in a second or corrected edition.
The book passed through peer review and was looked at by editors, fact-checkers, and reviewers, and it was awarded prizes, including one from the American Historical Association. It passed through many expert hands that signed off on its value, including those at The New York Times Book Review. If the errors in the book were so serious, then all these gatekeepers failed as well. But the scandal becomes entirely about the failure of Kerri Greenidge. The institutions that approved and celebrated the book disappear, and Kerri Greenidge becomes all there is to see.
We are being asked to make the most severe judgment about her scholarship without sufficient grounds for doing so. This is not what constructive accountability and transparency look like. The important word here is constructive, because there appears to be another motive: to be destructive.
As you know, historians make novel interpretations of historical figures all the time, and sometimes those interpretations are controversial. But that is what makes the profession interesting. Those arguments, if they are unpersuasive or even wrong, can be debated—and frequently are—without a historian being accused of professional misconduct. So why the extreme reaction in this case?
It just doesn’t make sense unless there's something we don't know or Kerri Greenidge was an up-and-coming scholar in a space dominated by others who saw her as a threat. That may sound like a leap, but the public scrutiny gnaws at me because, rather than remaining something to be debated within the halls of academia, it becomes a public spectacle whenever a prominent—or even less prominent—Black scholar receives a few plaudits and appears on the radar of those who decry diversity efforts in the university.
The fact that institutional support for Black scholars so often evaporates during these spectacles is disheartening. It is difficult not to see a pattern. As I said, what has been presented publicly as evidence against her could easily have been corrected in a later edition and should have been caught when the book was undergoing peer review.
I wholeheartedly agree with you!
Great reminder of our history
well this is not directly to your point, but white professor Amy Wax did not lose her tenure and only suspended for one year but is probably making more money in outside speeches...so she's teaching her vile during her susppension
Let me say this as an old head college instructor. When they first accused Harvard’s Claudine Gay of plagiarism, the accusation was an affront to every person (including myself) that ever taught on a college or university campus.
First, any good professor or instructor can spot plagiarism a mile away. I still remember my Freshman History students who, when they wrote papers they would occasionally cite me: Allen, Leslye, Class Lecture, the date and etcetera. They knew what I taught them and what I would recognize that was missing.
To imply that Gay stole someone’s work was bad enough, but the accusation was really much worse. It was a blotch on the record of everyone that taught her.
Second, I lost all my fascination with Ivy League institutions when “Yale graduate,” George W. Bush didn’t know there were people of African descent in Brazil. That comes from a degree granted because his Daddy went to school there. No shade on the Ivy League graduates who did the work, but I know grade inflation and purchased degrees when I see them.
I was teaching at Georgia State University when I had one super brainiac class of the most motivated students anyone could hope for. We met twice a week at 7:30 AM for an hour and a half. No one earned less than a “B” in this particular class.
I was called in. Dr. Davis looked at me and said “Leslye, I know you; and you are not a person that would inflate grades. But tell me about this class.”
I told her just how good they were. She responded, “The next time you get a class this good, raise the bar. Push them even further and harder.”
The moral of this story is that Dubya could not have passed my class or graduated Georgia State University or Howard University or Morehouse College that had tougher entrance requirements than the University of Georgia did in 1900. But Dubya could finish Yale and become President of the United States.
Thank you, Leslye. You are so right. In addition to George W. Bush, let’s not forget that 45 graduated from UPenn. There are published accounts from people who attended school with him, not only at the University of Pennsylvania but also at New York Military Academy, who said that he was unremarkable, incurious, and paid other students—or, rather, that his father paid other students—to do his work. Now, doesn’t that warrant an investigation? He is, after all, the president of the United States.
I think you remember when Michelle Obama’s thesis was scrutinized for errors and deemed America-hating, while Barack Obama’s entire educational career was dissected. But 45 gets a pass. Heck, he gets a pass on his performance right now, every day.
With these two—Claudine Gay and, in some ways, Jason Arday—it never ceases to amaze me how so many historians trained in the craft neglect to apply that craft when exploring the nuances and context of situations like these. What is the historical context? What agendas, competing interpretations, and mitigating circumstances are involved?
While looking through Substack yesterday, I found only one article that detailed the situation with Jason Arday in a meaningful way—one that explored the context and historical circumstances. The rest were basically screeds gloating about the supposed deficiencies of DEI and diversity efforts in the university, all in the name of what they call the culture wars.
None were sympathetic to what I would describe as the predicament of the Black scholar in academia. That is what propelled me to write a Note devoted to the subject.
People have this mistaken impression that academia is filled with high-minded thinking and deliberative insight, but we know that isn’t true. It is just like any other workplace, with its petty rivalries and jealousies, its scramble for resources and prestige, its hierarchy, and, yes, its racism. Just because you have a PhD doesn’t make you above those things.
Ditto everything you said. I am glad you wrote this because Black people, and Black women in particular, cannot afford to be mediocre in academe.
Our current president is a dunce.
I haven’t been following this matter as closely.
From what’s been reported transcripts and other institutions have no record of him.
Is this true?
No, not really. He may have embellished his CV, but most people in academia (and in industry) do some of this.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/aug/06/rise-and-fall-of-jason-arday
Who did he piss off?!?
Damn. Who did he piss off!?!?