What to know as Harvard professor Francesca Gino has tenure revoked amid data fraud investigation
For the first time in roughly 80 years, Harvard University has revoked the tenure of one of its professors.
Former Harvard Business School professor Francesca Gino, widely known for researching honesty and ethical behavior, had her tenure revoked, a university spokesperson confirmed on Monday.
Gino, 47, and her attorneys did not immediately return requests for comment.
The former professor was placed on administrative leave in 2023 after multiple allegations of falsifying data surfaced. She has long maintained that she did not commit academic fraud.
Harvard declined to provide additional details about her revocation, noting that it does not discuss personnel matters.
The move does not appear to be related to the university's ongoing standoff with the Trump administration. For weeks, Harvard and the administration have been in legal battles over cuts to the university's federal funding and ability to enroll foreign students.
However, the revocation represents an unprecedented penalty at Harvard, where no professor has lost their tenure since the 1940s, according to the student university paper The Harvard Crimson, during an exceptional time in the history of the nation's oldest university.
Gino graduated with an economics degree from a small university in Italy, her home country, a copy of her resume says.
She then earned her PhD in economics from the University of Pisa, before moving to the United States to work on a postdoctoral fellowship at Harvard.
"I was supposed to stay in the U.S. for about 6 to 9 months," she wrote in a 2023 post on LinkedIn. "But I truly loved my research and my work, so I never left."
"I'll never forget how fortunate I was to have people at Harvard invest in me," she added.
Gino then worked as a lecturer and researcher at Harvard Business School before becoming a professor at Carnegie Mellon University and later at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
According to her resume, she returned to Harvard as a professor at the university's business school in 2010, teaching graduate courses on decision-making and negotiation. Three years later, she published her first book, Sidetracked, on the science behind decision-making.
In 2015, business school news site Poets&Quants named her a 'best 40 under 40 professor.'
Gino published a second book in 2018, Rebel Talent, in which she argues that rule breakers and contrarians are the most successful in business and in life.
Throughout her academic career, she has published more than 140 scholarly papers, many of which have been widely featured in the media, such as The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and NBC News. Her research centered on behavioral economics, organizational behavior, decision making, negotiation and ethics, according to Harvard's website.
The Harvard Crimson reported that in 2018 and 2019, Gino was the fifth highest paid employee at the university, receiving more than $1 million in compensation per year.
Some of her most prominent studies have been centered on dishonesty.
A team of behavioral professors and researchers affiliated with the blog site Data Coloda began examining several studies co-authored by Gino in 2021, "because we had concerns that they contained fraudulent data," the site said.
The site alleged that the data in the study Gino co-authored had been fabricated, which the researchers denied.
Later that year, the blog said it shared concerns about more than four of Gino's other papers with Harvard Business School.
Gino was then placed on unpaid administrative leave in June 2023 after an 18-month review by the university concluded that Gino committed "research misconduct," according to a lawsuit Gino filed against Harvard and Data Colada that year.
Data Colada's post about their examination of Gino is also cited in her lawsuit.
According to the suit, the move removed Gino from her teaching, research, and titled professorship responsibilities. Gino sued Harvard and Data Colada for defamation, seeking $25 million in relief.
The suit points to changes Harvard made to its internal policies regarding the integrity of its research in 2021, which appeared to be made in response to the allegations against Gino.
Last year, a federal judge partially dismissed the lawsuit, denying Gino the ability to pursue charges that the university defamed her. However, the judge allowed Gino's claim that the university breached its contract with her to proceed.
A month later, Gino amended the lawsuit to include gender discrimination claims.
This article was originally published on NBCNews.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
10 hours ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Harvard can't truly win its fight against Trump
Imagine a boxing match in which one fighter can block the blows of his opponent but isn't permitted to hit back. When struck by a low blow, the injured fighter may appeal, but the referee can only admonish the unscrupulous fighter to abide by the rules. He is not allowed to end the match by throwing in the towel — and his opponent is free to keep punching. This is the situation in which Harvard now finds itself. The Trump administration has accused Harvard University of tolerating antisemitism and implementing diversity, equity and inclusion policies that violate civil rights laws. On those tenuous grounds, the federal government has frozen or terminated billions in research funding, launched at least eight highly intrusive investigations, threatened to revoke the university's tax-exempt status and tried to end its ability to enroll international students. If a private actor illegally crippled Harvard's ability to operate, the university could ask a court to order the defendant to desist, award the institution attorneys' fees and costs and mandate monetary compensation for the harms it suffered. But the federal government has sovereign immunity, largely protecting it from suits and monetary damages. Harvard has already sued the government twice. The first lawsuit, filed in April, accuses the Trump administration of withholding billions in federal funding 'as leverage to gain control of academic decision making' in flagrant violation of the First Amendment and the procedural safeguards of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The second lawsuit, filed in May, challenges the government's revocation of Harvard's right to enroll international students 'without process or cause, to immediate and devastating effect for Harvard and more than 7,000 visa holders,' as another 'blatant violation of the First Amendment, the Due Process Clause, and the Administrative Procedure Act.' In both suits, Harvard seeks injunctions vacating the government's orders and reimbursement of its legal fees and costs. Just hours after Harvard filed its second lawsuit, the judge issued a temporary restraining order barring implementation of the edict prohibiting Harvard from enrolling international students. But neither lawsuit seeks — or can request — monetary compensation for the extraordinary harm Harvard is suffering at the government's hands. Harvard's research programs have been thrown into disarray, its reputation tarnished and, it argues, 'its ability to recruit and retain talent, secure future funding, and maintain its relationships with other institutions' significantly diminished. Harvard has been forced to allocate at least $250 million to salvage some of the research jeopardized by the government's funding freeze. The school has already spent huge amounts of time, energy and money responding to the government's many investigations and sweeping demands for information. And the fight is only in its early rounds. Although the Constitution does not explicitly address sovereign immunity, courts have held from the earliest days of the republic that the government cannot be sued without its consent. This principle is drawn from English common law, which assumed that 'the King can do no wrong.' As legal scholar Erwin Chemerinsky has observed, the effect of sovereign immunity is 'to ensure that some individuals who have suffered egregious harms will be unable to receive redress for their injuries.' Congress can waive the government's immunity from suit through laws such as the Administrative Procedure Act, which underpins most of Harvard's claims against the government. But while that law allows courts to declare certain government actions illegal and issue injunctive relief, it does not permit the award of monetary damages. The Federal Tort Claims Act allows plaintiffs to seek damages for certain negligent or wrongful acts by government officials, such as a car crash or sexual assault. But its waiver doesn't extend to acts involving the performance of 'a discretionary function or duty on the part of a federal agency or an employee of the Government, whether or not the discretion involved be abused.' The law is thus rendered useless to parties injured by government edicts or policies, however damaging or illegal. As the Supreme Court has noted, protecting the government from monetary damages for policy judgments 'prevents judicial 'second-guessing' of legislative and administrative decisions.' Sovereign immunity also reduces the risk that liability concerns will prevent government officials from taking sound but potentially costly actions. But monetary damages serve two important legal functions: they help compensate victims for their injuries, and, by leveling the playing field, they deter government officials from committing wrongful acts. Without the ability to obtain monetary compensation, Harvard can deflect some of the government's attacks through court orders, but it cannot be made whole for the harm done to its finances, its reputation and members of the campus community. Worse still, there is nothing to deter the government from continuing its assault. And some actions will be difficult to challenge in court, such as the government's threat to exclude Harvard from future research grants, and its recent decision to pause all international student visa interviews, an action that will harm hundreds of colleges and universities, including Harvard. And under legislation working its way through Congress, the school may end up paying roughly $850 million annually in endowment excise taxes. As much as some critics of Harvard may revel in watching America's oldest, richest and most influential university humbled, the country benefits enormously from an institution that has trained eight American presidents, produced 161 Nobel laureates and made countless life-changing discoveries in medicine, science and technology, earning 155 patents last year alone. Harvard's experience demonstrates how much the rule of law depends on those in power exercising that power with restraint and in the public interest. Harvard cannot win this fight. It is rigged. But that doesn't mean the university should not stay in the ring, litigate, mobilize its alumni, donors and friends, and enlist the support of other colleges and universities, hoping to remain standing long enough for a new Congress and administration to stop the carnage. And, to that end, to make sure voters understand that when government officials are hell bent on punishing their political enemies (real and imagined) regardless of how large the collateral damage, just about every American loses. Glenn C. Altschuler is the Thomas and Dorothy Litwin Emeritus Professor of American Studies at Cornell University. David Wippman is emeritus president of Hamilton College. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
11 hours ago
- Yahoo
Wall Street Journal slams Vance's foreign student stance as ‘false choice'
The Wall Street Journal's editorial board on Friday slammed recent comments by Vice President Vance on foreign students as a 'false choice' amid tensions between the Trump administration and higher education institutions. In an interview on Newsmax's 'Greg Kelly Reports' late last month, Vance said that an 'idea that American citizens don't have the talent to do great things, that you have to import a foreign class of servants and professors to do these things, I just reject that.' The Journal noted Vance's comments in a Friday opinion piece, alongside other comments in which he said 'we invest in our own people' and that he believes 'that's actually an opportunity for American citizens to really flourish' when it comes to international student visa restrictions. 'This is a classic false choice. Of course the U.S. has talent and should invest in it. But welcoming foreign students doesn't hinder Americans,' the editorial board said in their piece. 'The cold, hard numbers show that too few Americans are pursuing STEM fields to meet the future needs of business and government. Of all U.S. bachelor's degrees, biology and engineering fields make up about 13%,' they added. Earlier this week, limits were placed on foreign student visas at Harvard University by President Trump. 'Admission into the United States to attend, conduct research, or teach at our Nation's institutions of higher education is a privilege granted by our Government, not a guarantee,' Trump said in a Wednesday proclamation restricting the visas. In recent months, the Trump administration has targeted multiple higher education institutions over alleged inaction on campus antisemitism and policies around transgender athletes. 'Does the Trump Administration want to stop illegal immigration, or nearly all legal immigration, including foreign students? The evidence is growing that it wants the latter, which will sharply reduce the human capital the U.S. needs to prosper,' the Journal editorial board wrote. The Hill has reached out to Vance's office for comment. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Forbes
12 hours ago
- Forbes
What's Harder? Planning Interest Rates, Or Harvard's Class Of 2029?
CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS - JUNE 29: People walk through the gate on Harvard Yard at the Harvard ... More University campus on June 29, 2023 in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that race-conscious admission policies used by Harvard and the University of North Carolina violate the Constitution, bringing an end to affirmative action in higher education. (Photo by) Regarding the makeup of Harvard's student body, President Trump thinks 15 percent is a more advisable number than 25 when it comes to international students. Quite reasonably Trump's critics, and surely many who are fans of Trump, are astounded by his conceit. How could the President effectively plan Harvard's student body? Also, since foreign students pay full tuition, it's entirely possible that their payments make it possible for needier Americans to secure spots at Harvard. Or maybe not. What's important with Harvard, and with all schools, is that Presidents, Senators, experts and agitators more broadly should stay out of their admission decisions. And for those who say that Harvard is 'unique' since so many federal dollars flow its way, please stop right there. The thinking is nonsensical. Precisely because the federal government is so large, and for being large operating well beyond its constitutionally limited scope, theoretically nearly every U.S. individual, business and non-profit university is getting something from the government. Let's not expand on the wrong of a federal government lacking boundaries through the excusal of even worse trespasses. Hands off individuals, businesses, and universities. Plus, the arrogance of it all! Harvard is easily one of the most difficult 'fat envelopes' in the world to attain, yet Trump thinks he can plan the class's demographic makeup? That's like the government planning U.S. imports or exports…Oh wait, they sometimes do that. Or try to. Ok, it's like the government attempting to plan the cost of credit to our alleged non-inflationary betterment…Oh wait, they presume to do that too. Interviewed recently by New York Times reporter Colby Smith about the direction of interest rates, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland president Beth Hammack seemingly wrung her hands as she told Smith, 'I legitimately do not know which way this is going to break.' Hammack added that she would 'rather wait and move quickly to play catch up if I really don't know what the right move is. And right now, I really don't know what the right move is based on all of the information and policies that we're responding to.' Some reading the above will conclude that Hammack was being modest, sober in making a difficult assessment about what's ahead, stuff like that. They would conclude incorrectly. The only correct answer from central bankers wouldn't be a professed willingness to delay blind stabs at market intervention, but to instead instruct Smith on the absurdity of the question. Lest everyone forget, people borrow money for what it can be exchanged for. In other words, the cost of credit is the cost of accessing exchange media that can be exchanged not for one market good, but for every market good in the world. Which is a reminder that other than perhaps the dollar that exists as the world's currency, the price of credit is easily the most important price in the world. And exactly because we're all so different now and in the future, there's an interest rate for every single person, business and university in the world, all arrived at through the relentless collision of infinite global inputs every millisecond of every day. Remember this as Hammack and central bankers like her oh so modestly tell Smith 'I legitimately do not know which way [what the Fed will do with 'interest rates'] this is going to break." Wrong answer, and wrong question. Hammack should have replied to Smith that a central banker planning something as complicated as the cost of credit would be as foolhardy as a president planning Harvard's class of 2029, multiplied by many millions.
