NEW: I’ve been asking Harvard about its investigation into alleged plagiarism by President Gay, and tonight, they provided some new information to @chronicle . I’ll thread it here. Bear with me...

@chronicle First, Harvard says the U and Gay learned of the allegations when contacted by the New York Post, in October. Five days later, President Gay asked the Harvard Corporation to "conduct an independent review of the articles referenced" in the Post’s outreach.

@chronicle So who looked at what? Per Harvard, the expert panel looked at all “all of the anonymous allegations” from the Post's inquiry. The subcommittee “further reviewed all of President Gay’s other published works from 1993 to 2019.” The review *did not* include Gay’s diss...

@chronicle Because, per Harvard, “the allegations at the time concerned Gay’s published works.” Since then, the subcommittee *has* taken a look and found one issue that had already been flagged, plus "two other examples of duplicative language without appropriate attribution."

@chronicle Per Harvard, Gay is updating her diss to correct "these instances of inadequate citation." See my above tweet for the specifics. Ok now back to what *was* looked at during the review...

@chronicle Harvard points to the FAS policy on research misconduct (which I'll link below). Neither the panel or subcommittee "found evidence of intentional deception or recklessness in Gay’s work, which is a required element" for finding misconduct under this policy.

@chronicle Here's that policy. Harvard also told me that the subcommittee consulted Harvard's guide to using sources but says its a "reference resource," not a "governing policy."

@chronicle Nevertheless, the review *did* find what they call "instances" of Gay failing to "adhere" to that guide. Here's more context for those instances and the corrections to two articles that Gay asked for, which Harvard has already acknowledged.

@chronicle As for the complaint filed Dec. 19 with Harvard's research integrity office (first reported by @FreeBeacon ): Harvard says it included old allegations already adjudicated, plus four new ones that the subcommittee determined "to be without merit."

@chronicle @FreeBeacon As for why the Harvard corp. was even tapped in the first place, as opposed to some internal process, Harvard says that decision was made "due to the potential for the appearance of a conflict of interest, because these offices ultimately report to the President."

@chronicle @FreeBeacon Here's a screenshot of what Harvard sent me about its scope of what it calls its initial review, and its policies, which I quote from and reference above. And with that, I've summarized all the new info I've gotten. Still wrapping my head around it, so tell me your thoughts!