Embattled Harvard president Claudine Gay has been hit with six new plagiarism charges, bringing the total number of allegations against her to well over two dozen — and sparking fresh calls for a new investigation.

Gay allegedly lifted nearly half a page of material verbatim from a fellow political scientist’s work in a 2001 article, according to a complaint filedwith the university Monday and obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

The complaint claims Gay’s article “The Effect of Minority Districts and Minority Representation on Political Participation in California” borrows four sentences from David Canon’s 1999 book “Race Redistricting and Representation: The Unintended Consequences of Black Majority Districts” without quotation marks and with only minor edits.

Gay did not cite Canon near the passage, though his name does appear in the bibliography, according to the complaint, which claims there are nearly 50 plagiarism allegations against her.

In one passage, Canon — a political science professor at the University of Wisconsin — wrote: “The VRA is often cited as one of the most significant pieces of civil rights legislation passed in our nation’s history.”

Gay, meanwhile, wrote: “The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is often cited as one of the most significant pieces of civil rights legislation passed in our nation’s history…”

Other allegations cited in the new complaint include more material from Gay’s dissertation, which has already received three corrections for “instances of inadequate citation.”

It claims Gay, who works in quantitative political science, lifted a sentence about a mathematical model from her own thesis adviser, Gary King, which is against Harvard’s code of conduct.

A university handbook from 1998 — the year Gay completed her dissertation — says: “Citing tells your readers that the strategy or method isn’t original with you and allows them to consult its original context.”

The rest of the new allegations focus on a 1996 paper by Frank Gilliam, titled “Exploring Minority Empowerment: Symbolic Politics, Governing Coalitions and Traces of Political Style in Los Angeles,” from which Gay allegedly lifted in her thesis.

The complaint points to one passage in which Gay writes: “For example, research has demonstrated that policy preferences or how one perceives and evaluates government, are correlated with electoral participation.”

The sentence bears a striking resemblance to Gilliam’s paper, in which he writes: “Research suggests that how and why one perceives and evaluates government is correlated with rates of electoral participation.”

The Post has reached out to King, Gilliam and Harvard University for comment.

In a statement, Canon denied that Gay’s use of his work was plagiarism.

“I am not at all concerned about the passages,” he told the Washington Free Beacon.

“Both Dr. Gay and I are defining basic terms such as Section 2 and Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, covered jurisdictions, and bailout. Good definitions of these terms would have to use similar language or they would not be accurate!”

“This isn’t even close to an example of academic plagiarism.”

The new charges were brought by the same professor who originally told The Post that Gay had plagiarized much of her work.

He is now calling for a new research misconduct inquiry to be opened, calling the board’s initial investigation “a sham” after the college called allegations that she lifted other academics’ work “demonstrably false” and threatened legal action against The Post — before later admitting that an independent review uncovered three cases of “inadequate citation.”

“Gay and Harvard … had already made up their minds before launching their investigation,” the professor wrote in his complaint. “That’s why they let their lawyers tell the Post that the allegations were ‘demonstrably false’ days before an investigation ever began. 

“The investigation was just for show,” he argued.

The professor, who has remained anonymous, also noted that “Gay and Harvard asked The Post, ‘Why would someone making such a complaint be unwilling to attach their name to it?’

“I was unwilling because I feared that Gay and Harvard would violate their policies, behave more like a cartel with a hedge fund attached than a university, try to seek ‘immense’ damages from me and who knows what else.

“The board and the board subcommittee should be investigated for violating Harvard’s policies and procedures,” he said.

Gay has previously been accused of plagiarizing others’ work more than 40 times.

She vehemently defended her academic rigor in a statement to theBoston Globe, saying: “I stand by the integrity of my scholarship. Throughout my career, I have worked to ensure my scholarship adheres to the highest academic standards.”

The Harvard Corporation — the school’s highest governing body — also said Gay has its unanimous support.

But over the weekend, a Harvard Honor Council student slammed the Harvard Corporation for that support — claiming the corporation is using a double standard for Gay and the Ivy League students.

“That the Corporation considers her corrections an adequate response is not fair to undergraduates, who cannot simply submit corrections to avoid penalties,” the student wrote in an op-ed.

“When my peers are found responsible for multiple instances of inadequate citation, they are often suspended for an academic year. 

“When the president of their university is found responsible for the same types of infractions, the fellows of the Corporation ‘unanimously stand in support of’ her.”