The recent Post article on Harvard President Claudine Gay reveals the pervasiveness of fraud in today’s America (“ ‘Plagiarism Privilege,’ ” Editorial, Dec. 17).

Not only do we have a plagiarist in the Oval Office. We also have one presiding over an elite educational institution.

We let biological men compete against women in sports, permitting them to set bogus athletic records. We even allow President Biden to usurp our economic liberty and bankrupt our country in the name of progressive policies.

With all of this in mind, we might as well change our national motto to E pluribus nullus (“out of the many, none”) at this point.

James Evans

Worcester, Mass.

The typical career path toward promotion and tenure at most universities can be simply summed up under three criteria: enhancing the mission of the university, developing its teaching programs and promoting research.

Harvard’s president has failed miserably on two of these criteria, as her multiple incidences of apparent plagiarism undermine the academic integrity of her basic research and scholarly publications.

Apparently, Harvard plays by a very flexible set of rules when it comes to plagiarism and promotion.

Frank Brady

Yonkers

So Harvard launched an investigation to look into the accusations of plagiarism committed by its president.

The upshot was that Gay had to alter her dissertation to include the “correct” citations and quotation marks.

This tells me that a scholar writing an academic paper didn’t know how to reference sources. Either that, or the more likely conclusion: namely, that she is a plagiarist.

Whether or not Gay plagiarized her doctoral thesis, this is damaging to Harvard’s reputation as a whole.

Mindy Rader

New City

The Post article about the culture of fraud that has invaded Harvard is as enlightening as it is disturbing.

Anyone who reads it can hope that Harvard will eventually come to its senses. In the meantime, however, why would any concerned person want to go there?

Diana Klebanow

Forest Hills

I agree that our nation’s schools must implement “broken windows” policies (“Life Lessons,” Naomi Schaefer Riley, PostScript, Dec. 17).

Amidst a scary surge in violence throughout this country’s school districts, a nip-it-in-the-bud strategy would work well to regain control over undisciplined youths.

Stanley Rubin

Fresh Meadows

Riley’s op-ed rings true, and here’s why — incompetent administrators and entitled, often ignorant parents.

Principals no longer have the character or cultural mandate necessary to immediately discipline outrageous student misbehavior in schools. They’re afraid of any conflict, especially legal or public threats from entitled parents.

And now they are outnumbered by those hundreds of parents in the PTA who believe that a teacher is an underpaid servant whose job it is to tolerate and entertain their children, rather than to educate. They just want a vaguely good outcome so their kids can go to college.

So now we have mayhem in school — terrible security, active shooters, lockdown rehearsals, banned books, children educated by iPads and more teachers leaving the profession than ever.

With all that said and done, who would want to teach?

Michael Mason

Castaic, Calif.

Want to weigh in on today’s stories? Send your thoughts (along with your full name and city of residence) to letters@nypost.com. Letters are subject to editing for clarity, length, accuracy, and style.