Available here
Mob Rule in Academia
By Deb Saunders
Harvard president Lawrence H. Summers apologized yet again at a meeting with Harvard professors Tuesday for remarks he made some five weeks ago about the lack of substantial "presence of women in high-end scientific professions."
I can't believe I am even writing this column. The furor should have died down weeks ago, but thanks to a fiercely intolerant streak in most Harvard professors (who were emboldened by Summers' propensity to self-immolate), the controversy lives on as a mob of angry academics tries to run Summers out of Cambridge.
Where did Summers err? To start with, he concentrated on the wrong gender. If, for example, Summers had said that men are less likely to play the role of primary caregiver in the home, say, because men tend to be less nurturing than women, academia would have applauded his insight. There would be no charges of sexism, as sexism against men is no problem in the Ivy League.
Summers' next mistake was to be male. In his infamous speech to the National Bureau of Economic Research, Summers noted that women often don't want to work the hours needed to get to the top and that girls are "socialized toward nursing" while boys are "socialized toward building bridges."
The quote that killed him: "In the special case of science and engineering, there are issues of intrinsic aptitude, and particularly of the variability of aptitude, and that those considerations are reinforced by what are, in fact, lesser factors involving socialization and continuing discrimination."
Women say -- or imply -- the same thing all the time. They demand work schedules that are friendly to mothers. They observe that women excel in social and verbal arenas -- and that's no biggie. But when a man says about women what women say about women, it can be career-ending offense.
There's much more at the link. Had Larry Summers badmouthed men or America, the Harvard faculty would be praising him and screaming "Academic freedom!" to anyone who complained. However, he committed the mortal sin of saying something against the PC orthodoxy, and for that, he must be punished.
Off Topic » in reply to Does the Right agree that girls are biologically unfit for science?
A column that nails the Summers matter...
The whole thread (85 posts)
- "On Culture Front, We're Losing War."
- Are there any real sources for the Hitler/Bush art thingy?
- We are evidently producing MORONS in abundance.
- Tom, in fact you are psreading urban legend. Please practice some of the source vetting and checking you crow about.
- Another item from David Horowitz
- For the record...
- A journalism professor defends Ward Churchill
- It has been no secret that the schools and universities are the Right's next target.
- re: It has been no secret that the schools and universities are the Right's next target.
- Complete and utter revisionism
- "not-right-wing" is not equal to "far left"
- Is Ward Churchill a good example? (n/t)
- How many examples do you need?
- Which trend?
- re: Which trend?
- Just three replies
- Another data point...
- Does the Right agree that girls are biologically unfit for science?
- A column that nails the Summers matter...
- No, but it isn't unreasonable to say that there may be differences...
- Cartoon
- Sex and the brain
- Of course they do -- they invented the concept
- Does the Right agree that girls are biologically unfit for science?
- re: Which trend?
- Which trend?
- What?! You want to hold people accountable?
- A couple of points:
- As the left targeted tehm in the 1960's
- re: It has been no secret that the schools and universities are the Right's next target.
- re: "On Culture Front, We're Losing War."
- When you were a kid - - -
