Reacting to an absurd claim by race activist Marc Lamont Hill, National Review editor-in-chief Rich Lowry dismisses the notion that all of the Right’s criticism of Claudine Gay, who recently resigned as president of Harvard, is solely because she was a black woman in a position of authority:

Her critics pounced on her in the first place because she engaged in repeated instances of plagiarism in her academic work that weren’t that extensive and impressive to begin with. She engaged in misconduct that would have blown a white president of Harvard out of the water, an Asian-American president of Harvard out of the water, and even a male president out of the water. Engaging in special pleading for her based on race and gender for Claudine Gay doesn’t score points with critics. It demonstrates that those factors were a significant reason why she was there in the first place and why her defenders thought she needed to be protected and have her own set of lower standards.

We must acknowledge and condemn any form of discrimination. However, the specific circumstances surrounding Gay’s dismissal highlight the importance of workplace environments adhering to ethical standards and meritocracy as much as they value diversity.