For the past few months, academic leaders have been increasingly frustrated by the actions of Bill Ackman. On this occasion, he took it a step further by introducing artificial intelligence into the equation.
In a lengthy post on X last Sunday, the billionaire entrepreneur delved into the capabilities of AI tools to efficiently accomplish tasks that may pose significant challenges for humans, such as scouring through decades of scientific literature to detect instances of plagiarism.
According to the founder and CEO of Pershing Square Capital Management, the traditional systems of academic oversight may not withstand the scrutiny of AI, which can easily detect missing quotation marks, improper paraphrasing, and failures to attribute credit accurately.
While some argue that AI tools themselves may engage in plagiarism, as highlighted by a recent lawsuit against OpenAI’s ChatGPT creator by entities like the New York Times, they can also serve as effective tools for plagiarism detection. Despite existing resources for such purposes, AI injects a renewed vigor into this task.
Ackman made a commitment to scrutinize the academic work of MIT President Sally Kornbluth and her faculty for instances of plagiarism in two forthcoming posts, scheduled for Sunday and Saturday. He declared, “We will make our findings publicly available.”
In a subsequent statement on Sunday, he remarked, “I am certain that a collective gasp reverberated across the campus” following the publication of the aforementioned article. The faculty members are acutely aware that AI is poised to scrutinize their work thoroughly.
These recent developments were triggered by allegations from Business Insider regarding Ackman’s wife, Neri Oxman, a former MIT professor, being accused of plagiarizing sections of her doctoral thesis. Ackman refuted these claims and contemplated the future implications of AI technology in such scenarios.
He asserted that moving forward, no academic papers would be released without undergoing a meticulous AI plagiarism review. However, he pondered the fate of past papers that might not withstand such scrutiny, acknowledging the complexities of different forms of academic misconduct.
Ackman raised concerns about the potential repercussions on universities if a plagiarism review were to unveil widespread academic dishonesty, including possible mass terminations, loss of donor support, funding withdrawals, and legal battles over defining plagiarism.
Reflecting on the impact of higher education on society, he mused, “perhaps upheaval is necessary.”
Following a legislative hearing where they failed to demonstrate a commitment to combatting on-campus discrimination in December, Ackman initiated a campaign to exert pressure on three university presidents—MIT’s Kornbluth, Harvard’s, and the University of Pennsylvania’s Liz Magill. Subsequently, Gay resigned, and Magill followed suit shortly after, leaving Kornbluth as Ackman’s primary focus.
While Ackman’s call for the removal of Harvard President Claudine Gay initially did not center on plagiarism allegations, concerns regarding potential plagiarism later emerged as a contributing factor.
He clarified, “My initial push for the removal of Claudine Gay as Harvard’s president was not solely based on plagiarism accusations. My intention was to address the escalating issues of discrimination on campus from the outset.”
In a separate communication, Ackman emphasized that Harvard’s diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies should hold more significance for Gay than her appointment as president based on merit.
In his statement on X, he underscored, “We will soon realize that the current era mirrors the McCarthy period, Part II,” cautioning against limiting the pool of candidates based on predetermined criteria such as race, gender, or sexual orientation when selecting leaders for prestigious academic institutions.
