I agree with everything you've said about Ackman's rationale and actions.
I don't necessarily agree with your overall characterization of Gay's plagiarism. While some of it is clearly of the kind you site (e.g. she's clearly referencing other work in a lot of her analysis, so the fact that she doesn't just reword some phrases a little more seems like a very minor transgression to me), there are other cases that are more than just sloppiness and are outright weird, like the acknowledgements issue. This opinion article from Ruth Marcus (a generally left-leaning writer) of the Washington Post highlighted the issues very well IMO: https://archive.vn/h8lqM
I don't think anyone cares what is written in acknowledgment sections. That's where people thank their mom and dad. If they thank their mom and dad in exactly the same way as someone else, who cares?
Ruth Marcus may be liberal, but she's also extremely pro-Israeli. The entire motivation for going after Claudine Gay was that she didn't stop students from protesting against Israel's war in Gaza, so Marcus' political stance on that issue likely colors her view on the plagiarism accusations.
> If they thank their mom and dad in exactly the same way as someone else, who cares?
Because it's pathetic? Again, this wasn't just one instance of sloppy plagiarism, this was a common thread throughout her extremely thin academic career. And Gay wasn't just some random undergrad, she was the president of what was supposed to be one of the most prestigious universities in the world! The plagiarism scandal was just more proof that Gay was woefully unqualified for her job.
As I said at the top, the plagiarism accusations were extremely thin, and nobody cares about how you word your acknowledgment.
The bottom line is that if Claudine Gay had cracked down hard on students for protesting against Israel's war in Gaza, she would never have faced these accusations, and she would still be president of the university.
I don't particularly care if she was a great president or not. I find it extremely unsettling that a few billionaires were able to oust the president of Harvard, as a way of forcing their own politics on the institution. Since her ousting, Harvard has moved hard against student protesters. Harvard got the message loud and clear, and that message had nothing to do with plagiarism.
I don't necessarily agree with your overall characterization of Gay's plagiarism. While some of it is clearly of the kind you site (e.g. she's clearly referencing other work in a lot of her analysis, so the fact that she doesn't just reword some phrases a little more seems like a very minor transgression to me), there are other cases that are more than just sloppiness and are outright weird, like the acknowledgements issue. This opinion article from Ruth Marcus (a generally left-leaning writer) of the Washington Post highlighted the issues very well IMO: https://archive.vn/h8lqM