Time for Claudine Gay to resign

December 20, 2023 • 12:00 pm

When the Presidents of MIT, Harvard, and Penn testified in a House hearing on antisemitism, I didn’t think any of them deserved to be fired. Sure, their performance was wooden and seemingly unempathic, but they were correct in maintaining that the First Amendment did allow calls for the genocide of Jews—under many circumstances. The problem with all three was not that statement, but their universities’ history of hypocrisy. None of them have speech codes strictly adhering to the courts’ interpretation of the First Amendment, as does the University of Chicago, and so they have enforced speech-code violations unevenly.  It did not look good for them to suddenly invoke the First Amendment when it allowed for calls of Jewish genocide—not after a history of not allowing things like microaggressions.  In other words, Penn, MIT, and Harvard invoked the First Amendment when it was convenient for them to do so—when it allowed dissing of Jews. Not good optics!

Nevertheless, I didn’t think this hypocrisy was sufficient to call for firing the three Presidents. What did rise to the firing level was Penn President Liz Magill walking back her defense of the First Amendment the next day. Any President who doesn’t adhere, at least in lip service, to the First Amendment is not a President who should be leading a college. As for President Gay and President Kornbluth, I thought they should be given a chance to reform their speech codes. After all, both have been Presidents only since this year, and so can’t even be accused of most of the historical speech hypocrisy of their institutions. Perhaps the hearing was a “teachable moment” for Gay and Kornbluth, and would lead to improvements in their universities’ policy of free expression.

No longer. Now, I think, Gay should resign—or be fired. Increasing and credible accusations of plagiarism, which now include substantial lifting of others’ prose in 7 of her 11 published papers (not much of a scholarly output, I must say), is enough to show that her academic history is ridden with theft. If a Harvard student would be kicked out for such plagiarism—and they would be—then how can a President remain in power with the same level of academic theft?

It was clear in Harvard’s announcement that they would retain Gay as President that the Harvard Overseers were indeed aware of the accusations of plagiarism, but they considered them trivial, saying Gay would make “four corrections in two articles to insert citations and quotation marks that were omitted from the original publications.” They even threatened the New York Post for proposing to write about the plagiarism complaints, But investigations by others found more—and nontrivial—instances of theft. To see them, go here, here, and here.  Gay even plagiarized the acknowledgements in her Ph.D. thesis!:

There are now over 40 documented instances of plagiarism—not surprising in light of the fact that plagiarists often continue doing it unless or until they’re caught.

In fact, four Harvard undergraduates wrote a piece on the Heterodox STEM Substack showing that even the initial revelations of Gay’s word theft violated Harvard’s academic standards for plagiarism. They conclude by saying she should leave (I do disagree with their article’s emphasis on her testimony at the House hearing):

We would love to know why, in an email to the Harvard family, the members of the Harvard Corporation deliberately minimized the importance of the president’s misconduct.

When Dr. Gay was announced as the next president of the University, Penny Pritzker (a senior fellow of the Harvard Corporation) said “Claudine is a remarkable leader who is profoundly devoted to sustaining and enhancing Harvard’s academic excellence, to championing both the value and the values of higher education and research, to expanding opportunity, and to strengthening Harvard as a fount of ideas and a force for good in the world.”

Do the members of the Harvard Corporation honestly still believe that Dr. Gay is “strengthening Harvard as… a force for good in the world”? Was she doing that when she testified to Congress that calls for the genocide of Jews would not necessarily constitute harassment? Is she the best possible patron for the “values of higher education and research”? Why is it worth enduring scandal after scandal just to keep her in power? How can Harvard argue that it is a top university in the world when its top executive displays conduct that would get most high school students in serious trouble?

On the plagiarism grounds alone, then, Gay should resign, and I predict she will. Her misdeeds are simply too numerous.

In the WSJ today, black columnist Jason Riley argues, however, that Harvard will never let Gay go. And you know why. Click to read:

First, he asserts that Gay’s hiring was an affirmative action hire. Given her thin scholarly record, and instances of dubious behavior in her previous administrative jobs, this assertion is credible:

Anyone suggesting that Ms. Gay deserves the same treatment as Ms. Magill stands accused of racism by liberal elites who maintain that all black people not named Clarence Thomas are off-limits to criticism. The head of the NAACP, Derrick Johnson, insisted that disapproval of Ms. Gay’s leadership is “nothing more than political theatrics advancing a white supremacist agenda.” More than 80 black faculty members at Harvard signed a letter stating that “any suggestion that her selection as president was the result of a process that elevated an unqualified person based on considerations of race and gender are specious and politically motivated.”

Ms. Gay’s defenders pretend that her qualifications for the job are indisputable and that her being hired had nothing to do with race. That’s baloney and they know it. Bill Ackman, the hedge-fund manager and Harvard megadonor who has led calls for her ouster, said he was told that the search committee that chose Ms. Gay “would not consider a candidate who did not meet the DEI office’s criteria,” using the acronym for diversity, equity and inclusion. There is little reason to doubt him.

That universities take race into account to fill job openings might be the worst-kept secret in academia. As CNN’s Fareed Zakaria put it recently, a “white man studying the American presidency does not have a prayer of getting tenure at a major history department in America today.” Hiring for new faculty positions, particularly in humanities departments, “now appears to center on the race and gender of the applicant, as well as the subject matter, which needs to be about marginalized groups.”

But the very same reason why Gay was hired, says Riley, is why Harvard can’t fire her:

The truth is that Ms. Gay’s defenders don’t want to acknowledge that her administrative experience and scholarly credentials don’t begin to match those of other people in similar posts. The same can’t be said of Ms. Magill, who was dean of Stanford Law School, provost of the University of Virginia and a clerk for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg before being tapped to run Penn.

Ms. Gay wasn’t hired for her academic chops, and her problematic publishing record has become an additional embarrassment. Harvard has been forced to acknowledge multiple instances of “inadequate citation,” which is more commonly known as plagiarism. By some counts, close to half of Ms. Gay’s academic output contains instances of copying word-for-word from another source without using quotation marks.

Harvard’s dilemma illustrates a broader practical problem with racial-preference policies. Once you lower standards for hiring administrators or admitting students, you are forced to lower standards for evaluating their conduct and performance. For purposes of window dressing, people who have no business running elite institutions such as Harvard have been put in charge of people who have no business teaching or matriculating there. What could go wrong?

Now that the accusations of plagiarism are numerous and substantial, however, the argument for “merit” has diminished, and Gay simply isn’t a role model for Harvard students. But I disagree with Riley. Harvard can fire her, and should—if it’s going to maintain any credibility as a serious academic institution.

It’s time for her to leave. Harvard cannot keep a serial plagiarist on as President, even if she is a black woman. And it wouldn’t be the first time a college President resigned for plagiarism, even in a speech rather than scholarly publication:

h/t: Luana

51 thoughts on “Time for Claudine Gay to resign”

  2. Harvard doesn’t need a new boss; it needs a new motto !
    Inspired by Nietzsche’s ‘Die fröhliche Wissenschaft’ [ and its English translation ], what about ‘What Doesn’t Kill Me, Makes Me Stronger — or more Gay’?

  3. “University of South Carolina, pppffffttttt.” /s

    The plagiarized parts of the Acknowledgements in Gay’s dissertation seem to expose an unexpectedly shallow person as well as a weak scholar. The acknowledgements in the dissertation and at the defense are the only opportunities in a person’s whole PhD career where one is encouraged to speak from the heart with personal expressions of gratitude or pride or sadness or regret or a dozen other important emotions. Instead Gay’s is a simulacrum of heartfelt appreciations, a brittle Hallmark holiday card of copypasta that’s both insincere and out of place, like an air kiss in place of a warm embrace.

    I realize that’s an over-reaction. I’ve been pondering why I react so viscerally to what Jerry accurately describes as hypocrisy. It’s a kind of revulsion like the common reactions to noxious smells. Do others react this way? Is obvious hypocrisy a kind of social malodour? There are probably books on this topic that I should read…

    1. I have the same reaction, if it helps. It’s the recognition that people who engage in this level of hypocrisy must be extraordinarily arrogant and callous…they must view the rest of us as little more than objects they can manipulate for their personal gain.

    2. Plagiarism (a blatant theft of intellectual property) is perhaps the most egregious offense that any academician can commit. That may explain why you reacted so viscerally to these revelations about Gay.

  4. Much has been made of the ‘fact’ that Harvard is a private institution. Its endowment is evaluated in the tens of billions, not millions. [$22B]

    So imagine my surprise to see a passing reference to ‘revoking the receipt of public funds’ as one punishment.

    Turns out Harvard has gotten $22 Million in Federal Work Study funding over the years.

    I think this should penetrate the veil of privacy. Harvard should be subject to Gov Institution level scrutiny.

    2. Even private universities are hugely dependent on public money. All of their research depends on grants from government agencies such as NASA, the NSF, DoE, NIH, etc.

      The public purse could bring errant universities to heel very rapidly, if those in charge of the purse chose to pull the strings.

      1. @Coel A contract to conduct specific research or to provide a product or a piece of software is one thing …. that is compensation for service provided. I don’t consider that to make a university “public.” It’s when taxpayer money is “granted” outright for a cause or social engineering, or just added to the endowment that is troubling.

  5. Agree with almost every word.

    The focus on the 1st amendment is a distraction. More on this later.

    Also, I would change this:
    “It’s time for her to leave. Harvard cannot keep a serial plagiarist on as President, even if she is a black woman. ”

    To:
    “Harvard cannot keep a serial plagiarist on as President.”

    Gay’s blackness and femaleness must become irrelevant, even if it isn’t (right) now. DEI is toxic, merit must be the measure, and mediocrity must never be normalized.

    The same reason magnet schools in Chicago need to stay.

  6. I pretty sure that somewhere there’s a list of characteristics of “Whiteness” which includes a pettifogging attention to detail and a rigid adherence to following “rules” and “regulations.” If all else fails, they can include diverse ways of using citations for a more equitable outcome.

    1. The pettifogging attention to detail and rigid adherence to following ‘rules’…. Straight out of Descartes’ Discourse on the Method. Ie, it is ‘evil’ today.

    2. The California Community Colleges does include Merit as a characteristic of “Whiteness” in its official “Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility Glossary of Terms.”

      “Merit: A concept that at face value appears to be a neutral measure of academic achievement and qualifications; however, merit is embedded in the ideology of Whiteness and upholds race-based structural inequality. Merit protects White privilege under the guise of standards (i.e., the use of standardized tests that are biased against racial minorities) and as highlighted by anti-affirmative action forces. Merit implies that White people are deemed better qualified and more worthy but are denied opportunities due to race-conscious policies. However, this understanding of merit and worthiness fails to recognize systemic oppression, racism, and generational privilege afforded to Whites”

  7. From Gay’s CV I learned that before becoming dean of Harvard’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences she had become (at Harvard) the Wilbur A. Cowett Professor of Government and of African and African-American Studies.
    If one looks at her fairly undistinguished scholarly record how can she have become a full professor at one of the world’s top universities? Even her having gotten tenure at Harvard (that is, having been hired as an associate professor) is uncomprehensible given her mediocre scholarly productivity – unless standards for a black woman are significantly lower than for white women and males. Okay, we know that standards for free speech are also different based on what the speaker has said or wants to say. And we also know that Harvard has recently discriminated for years against Asian and Jewish applicants.
    So are there also double or triple standards for plagiarism?

    If she’s allowed to stay on as president and as full professor then Harvard will seriously damage its reputation.

    An opinion column in the New York Post stated that “the donor revolt that followed her [Gay’s] conduct [has] cost Harvard an estimated $1 billion so far” and that figure could rise some more.

    How can you discipline students for plagiarism when the institution’s president did it fairly extensively and was let off with a verbal warning?

    But that’s wokeness – it’s mostly about equity (i.e., the gender and racial composition of an organization’s staff must match that of the overall population, unless it is biased in favor of women or ethnic minorities [Jews and Asians excluded]). Merit matters much less than it used to. Harvard is profoundly out of step with America.

  8. Machiavellian friends of mine want her to stay as a permanent reminder of the rot that DEI/intersectionality are.

    1. Hah. Yes. I’m not Machiavellian, but I just wrote this to relatives on Facebook. See my penultimate sentence: “Harvard is guilty for pushing her along, so richly deserves her on staff.”

      “Originally, I wasn’t in favor of her resigning or being fired for her hypocritical testimony to Congress (and promotion of DEI). Yes, it was disastrous, but she was technically correct that whether calls for genocide violate the First Amendment on campus depend on context. That’s technically correct. The problem is that neither Harvard (nor Penn nor MIT) adhere to First Amendment principles consistently or evenly. Suddenly, when it was convenient, the elite Presidents had a born-again (to borrow Pinker’s perfect description), free-speech conversion. They were washed in the protective blood of “context.” Consider for a tenth of a second that were hooded KKK members shouting around campus calling for the lynchings of blacks, what would happen. Imagine how fast that would be shut down and called out by officials at the university. The hypocrisy is ugly, but the fireable offense is the extensive plagiarism. When the story first broke, I felt protective of her because many people try to get us at Harvard fired. People (on the left) have tried to get me fired! And the instances of copying others’ work were mostly minor. I chalked them up to the sloppiness of a young writer. But then it surfaced that it was a pattern that extended into most of her publications. The plagiarizing of her acknowledgements puts me over the top. She must go. If she has ANY integrity as an educator, she will resign as President and use the moment to openly talk about what’s been uncovered. I don’t necessarily think she should be removed as faculty. Harvard is guilty for pushing her along, so richly deserves her on staff. But she is an embarrassment to Harvard as President.”

      1. Yes, it was disastrous, but she was technically correct that whether calls for genocide violate the First Amendment on campus depend on context.

        Although the three were not asked whether the First Amendment allowed it, but whether their university’s code of conduct allowed it.

        1. Yes, adding to the sick hypocrisy.

          I really hate how DEI has eviscerated the integrity of the academy.

      2. It is funny, people are getting really upset over the plagiarizing of acknowledgements, but IMO that is the least objectionable things she did. If I were an academic the acknowledgements would be the part of a publication I would be most likely to have self-plagiarized myself, i.e. I am most likely to repeat myself when thanking the same person, use the same anecdote, etc… It is also IMO the least severe form of self-plagiarization (which IMO, is the least severe form of plagiarization in general, though not nearly as close to trivial).

  9. I am afraid that, as is usually the case, I agree with Jason Riley. But I do not place blame for President Gay’s selection on her, but, rather, I blame the Harvard Corp that carried out the search and selection that hired her. While I am sure that the role of president of Harvard is extremely demanding, it is still a plum position – one that I would think has a good number of interested and highly qualified applicants. I think about the full diversification of NASA’s astronaut corps. It took awhile to move from the all white fighter pilots only requirements and politics played a large role, but as the old guard retired or died and data were gathered on the actual physical demands of space, a new culture opened up the application process. Today the astronaut corps seems like a reflection of society (at least to me)…except that each member is exceptionally smart and accomplished! I continue to be amazed by the qualifications of our astronauts. It is a job that is very demanding, dangerous, and pays no more than many professional positions for people with similar qualifications. Yet there is no lowering of technical qualifications to make someone “fit”. Over ten thousand people apply for each astronaut class. Many of these are equally qualified with the dozen or so chosen and the final selection decisions must be terribly difficult. But we do not see the equivalent of a Claudine Gay chosen. Why can’t the Harvard Corp do better?

    1. Why can’t the Harvard Corp do better?
      Though I live in Auckland New Zealand, about as geographically far away from Boston as it is possible to be, based on what I read down the years, presumably the most likely explanation is the lingering after-effects of the 2005 Larry Summers imbroglio. Recall this Harvard boss speculated that a major reason [ not the ONLY reason ] for the underrepresentation of women at the highest performance levels of maths and physics was a reduction in mathematical aptitude at high levels of standard deviation above the median. Steve Pinker finessed this more acutely, noting there is no dispute males are overrepresented in highly sub IQ cohorts — because male XY chromosomes— a female faulty X chromosome can have the other X chromosome take over. So no intrinsic reason to state that XY and XX can have differently shaped curves at the +3 sigma or above level, proportionately more EITHER for males or females.

      So after this furore, it became untenable to have male bosses of Harvard, and now going around the diversity mulberry bush. That said, probably nil chance of an Asian Harvard boss until the 22nd C or so.

      1. From Wikipedia:
        “On July 1, 2018, Lawrence Bacow was appointed Harvard’s 29th president.[45] Bacow retired in 2023.”
        So much for your idea that after Lawrence Summers “it became untenable to have male bosses of Harvard.”
        After the death of George Floyd the DEI ideology definitely became hegemonic on elite campuses in North America where it had not been already before.
        Gay is a black women who has fully bought into DEI. I suspect that’s why she became Harvard’s president.

    2. 1. White guilt?
      2. A blindness to what affirmative action had become in practice? Namely that most people who benefited from it did not actually have to overcome significant hardship. John McWhorter has written about this, based on his own experience. There has been a black middle class for a while and its offspring is not disadvantaged (unless we compare it to the rich, but then most white kids are disadvantaged too).
      3. Being woke because its fashionable?

      1. Thanks for the correction! Obviously I missed the Harvard Crimson mag deliveries here in Keyaurastan NZ. I am delighted a White male was appointed Harvard boss post-Summertime, since some of my best friends happen to be White.

    3. … one that I would think has a good number of interested and highly qualified applicants.

      If you narrow the search down to:

      Must be black, and must be female, and must have a strong academic track record, and must have a strong committment to DEI principles, and a decent track record in management, and must want the job (that is, likes management/admin more than research/teaching), and must be available (not happily ensconsed elsewhere) …

      Then you are probably not talking about many candidates.

  10. DEI really hurts people of color in these instances. How would you like to be a black administrator in higher education today…everyone will suspect that you didn’t really earn the position.

    1. Yes! A related, less severe, but much more widely shared effect is all the non-black people also wondering whether that black university admin was a diversity hire, then asking themselves “Gee am I a racist for wondering that?”, then feeling both sad at possibly being a racist and resentful at being forced to consider the possibility in spite of not actually being racists.

      Everyone loses in this game, even the few who really were diversity hires: Claudine Gay has enjoyed some fruits of her favourable treatment at Stanford and then at Harvard, but not many university admins or professors would want to trade places with her today.

  11. Final comment (minding Da Rulz for excessive commenting)…regarding the plagiarism fiasco, how dumb is the committee that selected Gay?

    Either they didn’t do their due diligence (which is a sign of stupidity), or they did uncover evidence of plagiarism, but chose to appoint her anyway, thinking that no one would find out or no one would care???

    That’s just weapons-grade obtuseness. There should be consequences for the dunces who made this decision!

  13. This is a lousy event for the progress of black women. Those who are bigots can now pat themselves on the back because of her academic mediocrity and her plagiarism.

    I would like to echo #9 statement about finding qualified candidates for this position. I assume being the president of Harvard is a prestigious well-paid position that many would love to have. Did the search committee look at anyone outside of Harvard? How did someone with such a thin CV get on a short list much less selected? Their entire process requires review, and not just the DEI aspect.

    Yeah- she needs to step down.

  15. Of course she needs to go. Plagiarism cannot be undone retroactively, as the Board of Overseers attempted to accomplish. They knew about the plagiarism before it became public, so they obviously hoped to be able to cover it up. They failed. There are far too many examples of plagiarism, and the fact that Gay plagiarized acknowledgements in her dissertation is beyond the pale. Pathetic.

  16. Just saw this:
    https://www.karlstack.com/p/breaking-us-congress-launches-plagiarism

    “BREAKING: US Congress launches plagiarism probe!
    Christopher Brunet
    Dec 20

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-12-20/congress-widens-probe-of-harvard-s-gay-to-plagiarism-accusations?embedded-checkout=true

    Bloomberg is the only outlet to cover this breaking news so far, and their article is paywalled, I am too much of a boomer to figure out how to bypass their paywall, so this is all we can see:

    A US House of Representatives committee has opened an inquiry into Harvard University’s handling of allegations of plagiarism against President Claudine Gay, who sat before the panel this month to address antisemitism on campus.

    Republican Virginia Foxx, chair of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, sent a four-page letter Wednesday to Penny Pritzker, head of the school’s governing board, asking for a response by Dec. 29 to questions including whether Harvard holds faculty and students to the same standards.

    I am sure there will be more articles on this tomorrow.

    Wow!”

  17. Jason Riley hints at two reasons for Claudine Gay’s protected position which are different from her sex and ethnic identity per se. One is contained in this quote: ” the search committee that chose Ms. Gay “would not consider a candidate who did not meet the DEI office’s criteria,” “. Which is to say, Ms. Gay anointment serves as a token, not just of the academic status of WOCs, but much more importantly, of the power of the DEI office and its counterparts in the rest of academia. Secondly, she is a token of the arcane wisdom of the Harvard Board of Overseers and its distinguished search committee. How could a mistake by such elevated conclaves be admitted?

  18. I dislike the general practice of allowing someone to resign. If they have shown incompetence or flagrantly violated other organizational principles, then stand up for those principles and fire them outright for cause. Otherwise the organization looks spineless and unprincipled. Worries about a lawsuit? Everything should be in place to make that embarrass the plaintiff.

    The only decent reason to let someone resign is contractual (which is commonly the case with coaches in sports), when millions of dollars are at stake. But even then “for cause” clauses usually override severance ones.

    So Harvard should fire Gay before she can quit, and the entire search committee as well. It’s the only way to restore their reputation.

  19. Harvard essentially says President Gay’s plagiarism was innocuous. It wasn’t. You could (perhaps) accidentally plagiarize by forgetting to properly cite the source, or somehow forget to insert quotation marks around the words. What you would never do, however, unless your intent was deliberate, is to change just one or two unimportant words somewhere in the middle of the passage in hopes that that will negate any future charge of plagiarism.

    Yet that’s what Claudine Gay consistently did in several of the passages I’ve seen, and it’s indubitable evidence that she knew what she was doing. Harvard has asked her to go back and correct some of it, but as has been said, plagiarism can’t be undone retroactively. It’s a serious form of intellectual theft. If you engage in bank robbery, you can’t just go and put the money back. Unless she’s fired, I find it hard to see how Harvard, in the future, could justify disciplining its students for similar instances of plagiarism.

    1. Yup, this is exactly what you see in undergraduates who plagiarize- and they’re not given a pass for it.

  20. Gay should not be fired. She is a voice for the marginalized. Who else will speak for the downtrodden of Phillips Exeter Academy if not one of their own?

  22. I found the story of Dr. Claudine Gay quite inspiring. I had always thought I was not smart enough to become a Harvard professor. But now I have a plan: (1) I start telling people that I’m female. Instead of losing one DEI point for being male, I gain one point for being female and gain another DEI point for being transgender. (2) I continue to date women even though I now proclaim myself female. That give me another DEI point for being gay. (3) I change religions from Judaism (negative 1 DEI point) to Islam (positive 1 DEI point). (4) I change race. I’m currently White (negative 1 DEI point). Changing skin color doesn’t work. So I’ll marry a Hispanic woman and use her surname. That’s another DEI point. My DEI score changes from negative three to to positive five. I can work at Harvard and can commit plagiarism with impunity.

    1. Do have any indigenous ancestry? Like maybe Cherokee (perhaps you have high cheekbones)?

      If so, claim that!

  23. You might be interested to focus on item 28, one of the 40 new charges of plagiarism, because it seems to go far beyond a mere “lifting” of others’ ideas but to outright contradiction of the source so as to portray Blacks in a positive light (https://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Gay_Research_Integrity_Officer_Complaint_.pdf).

    Note the switch from DECREASE to INCREASE:

    28. Gay, Claudine. Taking Charge: Black Electoral Success and the Redefinition of American Politics. Dissertation submitted to the Department of Government, Harvard University, 1997, p. 32: The average turnout rate seems to INCREASE linearly as African-Americans become a larger proportion of the population. This is one sign that the data contain little aggregation bias. (If racial turnout rates changed depending upon a precinct’s racial mix, which is one way to think about bias, a linear form would be unlikely in a simple scatterplot. A linear form would only result if the changes in one race’s turnout were compensated by changes in the turnout of the other race across the graph.

    Palmquist, Bradley and Stephen Voss. “Racial Polarization and Turnout in Louisiana: New Insights from Aggregate Data Analysis.” Paper prepared for the 54th Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, Illinois, April 18-20, 1996, p. 10: … the average turnout rate seems to DECREASE linearly as African Americans become a larger proportion of the population. This is one sign that the data contain little aggregation bias. If racial turnout rates changed depending upon a precinct’s racial mix, which is one description of bias, a linear form would be unlikely in a simple scatter plot (resulting only when changes in one race’s turnout rate somehow compensated for changes in the other’s across the graph.

Comments are closed.