Summers Soldier
In the current Boston Phoenix, Reason contributor Harvey Silverglate, co-author of The Shadow University: The Betrayal of Liberty on America's Campuses, has a sharp analysis of Larry Summers' embarrassing retreat from intellectual curiosity in the face of criticism from people offended by his comments on sex difference in math and science achievement:
Two iconic images emerge from this unseemly rout: that of a male Harvard president running for cover because he dares ask an "offensive" question, and that of a female professor promoting the sexist stereotype of the weak, vulnerable woman who gets nauseated, throws up, and has to leave the room for her smelling salts when she encounters an idea she finds threatening. Quite a pair of role models!
Silverglate's conclusion is both depressing and inspiring:
Summers's surrender may have quieted the mob in the short term, but in the long term he will rue the day he failed to take on the totalitarians once and for all. He could have called a national press conference and invited his detractors to debate issues of academic freedom, entrenched orthodoxies, intellectual research and inquiry, and modalities that might indeed remedy real gender discrimination in the academy. He could have freed himself and every other academic administrator from a tyranny that has turned our university presidents into captives of groupthink--nothing more than yes-men and -women and, oh yes, fundraisers. He could have restored the role of university president from that of mere administrator and fundraiser to public intellectual--defender of academic freedom and rational discourse.
Harvard's Richard Freeman, the economist whose invitation to Summers triggered the tumult, insisted in a January 23 New York Times article by James Traub that he had invited Summers specifically to touch upon provocative issues, because otherwise "he would have given us the same type of babble that university presidents give." This is a sad comment on what has happened to our academic leaders. Lawrence Summers had an unparalleled opportunity to turn the tide in Cambridge and all over the country. He blew it.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The entire second page of the linked article concerns political correctness, Harvard, and Silvergate's research. All very interesting and generally irrelevant to Summers' speech -- which _still_ hasn't been officially released to the public, consarnit!
Will Saletan and Meghan O'Rourke have written the most interesting pieces on the flap, and while I generally think Saletan's argument is better, at least both pieces try to _focus on the speech_ and not on the horribleness of political correctness on campuses. The articles are:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2112799/
http://slate.msn.com/id/2112570/
Short summary: Saletan feels people are over-reacting, though Summers could have been more diplomatic in his speech, while O'Rourke feels Summers overstepped his brief as an administrator addressing experts at the end of their conference.
I have my own opinions, informed by some people who were there, but I would still like to actually read the speech, if Summers ever decides to release it.
Anon
The way universities work is that the President gives speeches and raises money, and the Provost makes decisions that actually affect the running of the school. But the Provost mostly labors in obscurity, powerful behind the scenes but not immediately visible to students and the public, so a lot of people don't realize that he runs the place.
And since the Provost is mostly a bureaucrat extraordinaire, while the President is supposed to be an inoffensive and vaguely inspiring public face, nobody at the top is supposed to present an academic vision. That comes from deans and department heads and leading researchers who take it upon themselves to do something (and take the risks as well).
It's really a strange system, IMHO.
I'm shocked, shocked, that another boomer has forgone ethics and good sense in order to keep their cushy do nothing fancy titled job!
Can't wait for them all to be gone!
What we need is a university where all of the faculty have this man's attitude toward bias.
http://volokh.com/posts/1107191025.html
He has a right to his opinion, however, we live in a politically correct society and if his opinions are offensive to anyone, he should keep them to himself.
All sex difference in math and science and anything else are due to discrimination, and discrimination alone, period, end of discussion. You cannot argue with that because to do so is not politically correct.
Discrimination is wrong, we need more discrimination against the white males because they cause all the problems. We need equal outcomes for all, not just equal opportunities.
We need toughter laws against discrimination because discrimination is fucked up.
hahahahaha!
good one, juanita!
I think Juanita is actually "methedrine face" on a bender. Almost all of their posts have the same underlying twisted sensibility.
Juanita,
God, you get funnier by the day! 🙂
We needs more descrimination against the white man to make thinks more equaler.
Careful, Juanita, "equality of opportunity" is pretty controversial ideal around these parts, too.
Anyone, a writer who uses the word "totalitarian" to describe someone who gets offended by a controversial statement isn't exactly the most credible person to accuse others of "hysteria."
"Careful, Juanita, "equality of opportunity" is pretty controversial ideal around these parts, too.:"
And why not?
There's nothing in the Constitution that ennumerates "equal opportunity" as a right.
Careful, Juanita, "equality of opportunity" is pretty controversial ideal around these parts, too.
I am not just advocating equality of opportunity, that is a start but not enougth.
We need equality of outcome. In other words if 55% of the population if female, then 55% of all scientists (and all professions) must be female.
Also, because of the past discrimination, we need perhaps 60% female so that over time the numbers of people who are or were scientists in the past will become equal. Once equal then 55% will be correct.
See, and you thought I was kidding.
I think Juanita is someone else posting as a joke... atleast I hope.
I think Juanita is someone else posting as a joke...
Ya think? 😉
I think Juanita is someone else posting as a joke...
Might as well start with the known multiple identities. Has anybody checked for croesus' whereabouts lately?
Crimethink, what about you? 😉
Me, my only long-running alter-ego is Rick Santorum. Say hi, Rick.
Hi Rick! 😉
All of the descrimination what we got ain't fair.
I'm so opposed to discrimination, I refuse to choose between discrimination and anti-discrimination.
This gets me thinking of school, and perhaps it's time to update the "Pledge of Allegiance" to be less offensive ("god" and probably "republic" for Democrats) and more to the point:
"I pledge allegiance to diversity, In the United States of America, And to the whims of a self-selected elite, That condemn free speech for us all."
I think that should be nicely workable for right or left wing. [g]
Equality of outcome...
So how come no men in the conference got up in the middle of it due to some sort of physical illness from the controversial statements?
I can see from the dropdown that appears when I click the Name box that I once posted as "Yak."
I'm sure it made sense at the time.
Pretty sure, anyway.
Yeah, I remember that post.