Before her resignation, the allegations made against Claudine were refuted by Harvard’s board, and in fact it was quoted stating that “As members of the Harvard Corporation, we today reaffirm our support for President Gay’s continued leadership of Harvard University” (Harvard Corporation, 2023). Multiple scholars proved infuriated by this decision, such as Carol Swain who felt “concern that Harvard University decides it gets to redefine what plagiarism is when it suits its needs” (Swain, 2023). This quote is proof of Hobbes point of view in politics, in which institutions redefine truth for political reasons, making the truth, in this case whether something is sustained as plagiarism or not, political.

The case of Claudine Gay’s resignation proves to be effective as evidence in said point of view. After continuous scrutiny from numerous journalistic institutions, as well as her own university, the decision of resigning proved to be controversial amongst left and right wing columnists; the former argued that the case had nothing to do with her actions, but was instead an attack from the right wing at education, the latter, in contrast, continued augmenting that the denouncement and subsequent compulsory relinquishment of Gay’s position was purely for academic and legal reasons. This debate about the true reasons of the situation inevitably politicized the argument, which now instead of plagiarism and truth is now about the systemic inequalities that are in place inside the educational system. 

Claudine Gay’s resignation and its politicization inside journalistic media is evidence of Hobbes's view on truth; the inherent politicization of news means that truth is also political.