Harvard University has shed fresh light on the ongoing investigation into plagiarism accusations against former president Claudine Gay, including that an independent body recommended a broader review after substantiating some of the complaints. …

Harvard then appointed the independent body, which focused on two of Gay’s articles published in 2012 and 2017. It concluded they “are both sophisticated and original,” and found “virtually no evidence of intentional claiming of findings” that were not her own.

The panel, however, concluded that nine of 25 allegations found by the Post were “of principal concern” and featured “paraphrased or reproduced the language of others without quotation marks and without sufficient and clear crediting of sources.” It also found one instance where “fragments of duplicative language and paraphrasing” by Gay could be interpreted as her taking credit for another academic’s work, though there isn’t any evidence that was her aim.

[Is that the standard to which Harvard holds its students — that plagiarism is not actionable unless the university proves intent? According to numerous reports, “duplicative language” is enough for punitive measures for everyone other than Gay. — Ed]