R.I.P. Harvard President Lawrence Summers

[MARIO]

R.I.P. Harvard President Lawrence Summers
By Ben Shapiro

Feb 22, 2006


Lawrence Summers, we hardly knew ye. This week, the embattled Harvard president fell on his sword rather than face a no-confidence vote from the faculty of arts and sciences or a possible Harvard Corporation firing squad. The behavior of the faculty is a disgrace to the university and a dramatic example of the totalitarian control that the campus left exerts over its administrators.

Summers has been in hot water since he took over the Harvard University presidency. When he arrived on campus in 2001, he quickly let the student body know that he would not tolerate anti-military policy, stating, "We need to be careful about adopting any policy on campus of non-support for those involved in defending the country. … Every Harvard student should be proud that we have in our midst students who make the commitment to ROTC." In October 2001, Summers said that patriotism was a word "used too infrequently" at universities. In June 2002, he spoke at the ROTC commissioning ceremony. Naturally, that led certain professors to question his leadership ability -- backing ROTC's presence on campus and uttering the forbidden word, "patriotism," was like waving a red cape before the bull that is the Harvard faculty.

In January 2002, Summers further endeared himself to the faculty by speaking out against Harvard's massive grade inflation (Harvard allots 50 percent of its grades to A's and A-minuses). "To some extent, (this is because) the quality of students has gotten better over time, but not completely," Summers pointed out.

Meanwhile, Summers placed himself even further in the professors' doghouse by questioning the commitment of Cornel West, a highly eccentric professor of Afro-American Studies. West was too busy making horrible rap CDs, leading perennial presidential candidate Al Sharpton's campaign and writing pop-culture books on radicalism and race to bother actually teaching his students. Summers called West to account on his cavalier performance. In response, West called in his allies, Jesse Jackson and Sharpton. Jackson portentously proclaimed, "The tension at Harvard is having an impact across the country." Sharpton simultaneously threatened to sue Harvard University. "The one thing that I do not tolerate is disrespect, being dishonored and being devalued," West huffed before taking off for Princeton.

Then, in September 2002, Summers made the speech that likely stamped his presidency DOA: He explained that those stumping for divestment from Israel on campus were "anti-Semitic in their effect if not their intent." "Where anti-Semitism and views that are profoundly anti-Israeli have traditionally been the primary preserve of poorly educated right-wing populists," Summers posited, "profoundly anti-Israel views are increasingly finding support in progressive intellectual communities." The anger at Summers continued to mushroom as professors like John Assad and J. Lorand Matory thundered against Summers' intolerance of idiocy.

READ THE REST:

www.townhall.com/print/print_story.php?sid=187402&loc=/opinion/columns/benshapiro/2006/02/22/187402.html

[LorSpi]

The man got nailed because he stated that women are biologically not capable of being scientists and mathematicians. In front of women scientists and mathematicians.

Let's see - women were (at one time these were the standards) not capable of being DJs because no one could stand listening to female voices. Not capable of holding a responsible jobs because their "monthlies" made them unstable - btw who gave the world the expression "going postal"? Not physical capable of doing name-the-high-paying-job but were perfectly qualified for the low-paying when not non-paying back breaking job of nursing, doing laundry by hand (think wet sheets in pots of boiling water and lye).

Barriers to women have always been erected (yuk!yuk!) based on their "inability". Rarely do these inequalities stand once the walls keeping women out are dismantled. Note that women rapidly became the majority at universities (though still not in faculty count) to the point where we have "experts" bemoaning the loss of men. No bemoaning the lack of women, ya notice, before.

This clown caught my attention when he made that statement. My daughter is a biology major btw.

As for the other stuff - that did not nail him. Suggesting that women were biologically inferior - well that's half the population he's calling "inferior". I suspect he made quite a few enemies with that one. Count me in.

[bounce]

Is there a transcript of his speech somewhere?

I hear people say that he said this or he said that...

I'd really like to see EXACTLY what he said.

[cameron]

The man got nailed because he stated that women are biologically not capable of being scientists and mathematicians. In front of women scientists and mathematicians.

No that is not what he said or what he did, he suggested that the lack of women in hard sciences was possibly due to "issues of intrinsic aptitude, and particularly of the variability of aptitude, and … those considerations are reinforced by what are in fact lesser factors involving socialization and continuing discrimination." He added, "I would like nothing better than to be proved wrong."

So to ask the question is heresy to the accepted orthodoxy worthy of condemnation?

[LorSpi]

bounce said:

Is there a transcript of his speech somewhere?

I hear people say that he said this or he said that...

I'd really like to see EXACTLY what he said.

This was at a seminar where he was a speaker. He puts his "suggestion" in "reasonable" language - maybe the reason there aren't more women is that they aren't cut out for the subject type of phrasing. But this has been the "reasonable" approach all along. Maybe the reason there are more women in universities is that they aren't mentally capable of doing that level of work. Maybe the reason there are no women DJs is that no one will listen to them. Maybe the reason there are no women anchors is that they don't project the image needed.

I remember the DJ part because I was working in the field at the tail end of this "truth" aka keep the "broads out of broadcasting". When I was in high school I wanted to study oceanography at university. I was unable even to get an internship at a local Marine Biology center in high school because - and this is a direct quote - "we do not have facilities for women." I couldn't pee in their man toilet? Whaaaat? I told them (17 years old btw) I could pee off the pier like everyone else in the area. No go. Shut down before I had started. I decided to study politics because there were at least women working in the field.

Here's the transcript www.president.harvard.edu/speeches/2005/nber.html

[cameron]

lorspi said:

bounce said:

Is there a transcript of his speech somewhere?

I hear people say that he said this or he said that...

I'd really like to see EXACTLY what he said.

This was at a seminar where he was a speaker. He puts his "suggestion" in "reasonable" language - maybe the reason there aren't more women is that they aren't cut out for the subject type of phrasing. But this has been the "reasonable" approach all along. Maybe the reason there are more women in universities is that they aren't mentally capable of doing that level of work. Maybe the reason there are no women DJs is that no one will listen to them. Maybe the reason there are no women anchors is that they don't project the image needed.

I remember the DJ part because I was working in the field at the tail end of this "truth" aka keep the "broads out of broadcasting". When I was in high school I wanted to study oceanography at university. I was unable even to get an internship at a local Marine Biology center in high school because - and this is a direct quote - "we do not have facilities for women." I couldn't pee in their man toilet? Whaaaat? I told them (17 years old btw) I could pee off the pier like everyone else in the area. No go. Shut down before I had started. I decided to study politics because there were at least women working in the field.

Here's the transcript www.president.harvard.edu/speeches/2005/nber.html

You are confusing aptitude with intellect

[bounce]

lorspi said:

I couldn't pee in their man toilet? Whaaaat? I told them (17 years old btw) I could pee off the pier like everyone else in the area.

Hilarious.

I can't believe they didn't admit you into the program ON THE SPOT! I would have.

LOL

Excellent come back.

Thanks for the link. It's pretty long. I am going to print it out and read it when I have time.

[LorSpi]

But I remember full well when the better part of entires fields were closed off solely because of gender - and then the failure of women to work in that field was cited as an example of women's inability.

Many government agencies require specific military training as requirements for positions (communicator). The US military restricts its hire of women to 10% of its force. That requirement is inherently discriminatory. Nothing in that job makes it "male" and I know quite a few women communicators. But the initial restriction immediately reduces access. Just like fire fighters. The old school required its candidates to carry a weight that immediately disqualified most women. Except that carrying that specific weight had NOTHING to do with firefighting. A qualification quite necessary - the ability to get around in a smoke filled room - impossible to see and highly claustrophobic - women did far better than men.

These are the types of barriers that kept women out of fields where they could perform better than men. The fact that women now dominate university student population demonstrates that it is not about intellect. Women do exceeding well when there is a level playing field. For the president of Harvard to suggest that the problem was that women weren't quite bright enough demonstrated only that the president of Harvard was a bigoted fool.

[cameron]

that women weren't quite bright enough

That was never said, or implied, it is a gross mis-characterization of his remarks. You say women did far better than men in smoke filled rooms, but that to suppose the reason men do far better than women in other respects, for reasons of aptitude, is proof of a bigoted fool? I am not a bigoted fool, and some of the most intelligent people I know are women, to include you. You are on this topic, demonstrating a knee jerk reaction. Do you see the fact that women now dominate college, and universities, as proof women are smarter then men?

[bounce]

Lor, I just read the speech in its entirety.

My printed copy is 15 pages long. Out of that entire thing, there is one six-word statement (a quarter of a sentence) that probably backs up your assertion.

Here is the sentence in question:

So my best guess, to provoke you, of what's behind all of this is that the largest phenomenon, by far, is the general clash between people's legitimate family desires and employers' current desire for high power and high intensity, that 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.

However, the remainder of his speech in its entirety is based on reasons women CHOOSE not to pursue 80 hour work weeks in technical fields.

My wife was a professional computer "payroll" programmer when we met. However, the day her biological clock went off, all desires of maintaining that "professional career" went out the window.

I don't think she'd consider someone recognizing and mentioning that as an insult.

[LorSpi]

bounce said:

My wife was a professional computer "payroll" programmer when we met. However, the day her biological clock went off, all desires of maintaining that "professional career" went out the window.

I don't think she'd consider someone recognizing and mentioning that as an insult.

But it sure as hell insulted those women who worked those 80 hours weeks, did not want babies - and had to listen to that crap.

I work with women who don't have children, spend 60 to 80 hours a week in successful jobs. I also work with guys who punch the clock and go home bang on the minute.

The suggestion that women are some how intrinsically incapable because of some biological clock ranks right up there with the former "fact" that no one would listen to a woman's voice on the radio.

Family friendly companies are as attractive to men as women. The only thing that kept women out of positions in law offices was outright discrimination - - not the grueling hours required of associates. I see no one claiming that women are intrinsically unable to become lawyers or judges. BUT THEY ONCE DID.

There are more and more women going into sciences and math. But the complaint remains about "old boys clubs". So long as it does, then there exists open discrimination. The remarks were made public by one of the women attending. Many women - tenured scientists - were outraged as the dismissive attitude. Some were not. That is to be expected. What was interesting was the heavy handed tactics used to keep the speech out of the public view initially because it is quite obvious not an acceptable view from the president of Harvard - you girls just ain't smart enuff to be scientists. It was eventually released because of the growing outrage. Why in the hell do women need to battle their own professors? Let me tell you that it was really bad before. Part two of story - when I went to my "counselor" at the university (poli sci major), he tried to convince me to switch to education and become a glorified babysitter. I had NO appeal. No route to complain about that. I had to take it in order to get him to sign off on my classes. THAT's the crap that was out there before - - and when the president of Harvard starts up with the same shit - it's just the wrong damn advice to the wrong crowd.

Women just like men have different priorities, ambitions and goals. Making babies is only about a few years of anyone's life. Children are off and running in short order. They are gone when they hit college. That is NOT a life. That is part of a life - which includes the significant other that also makes that baby. That is the oh so very short season that passes too quickly. An adult's life is more than that. It may very well not include a job working for someone else 40 hours a week - but that description covers men as well as women.

Summers got it flat out wrong. That was not about political correctness. That was the sound of his knuckles scrapping the floor.

[cameron]

Summers got it flat out wrong. That was not about political correctness. That was the sound of his knuckles scrapping the floor.

No it was a victory for the PC crowd.

[LorSpi]

cameron said:

that women weren't quite bright enough

That was never said, or implied, it is a gross mis-characterization of his remarks. You say women did far better than men in smoke filled rooms, but that to suppose the reason men do far better than women in other respects, for reasons of aptitude, is proof of a bigoted fool? I am not a bigoted fool, and some of the most intelligent people I know are women, to include you. You are on this topic, demonstrating a knee jerk reaction. Do you see the fact that women now dominate college, and universities, as proof women are smarter then men?

I'd like to jerk my knee right into his crotch if you get right down to it.

The "right thinking" believed right up until the 80s that the reason women weren't proportionally represented at universities was because they weren't "capable of" or "interested in" university studies. Provide a level playing field - and today we see the result.

Science and math isn't about gender - it's still about preconceived stereotypes. Marie Curie. She wasn't the only woman out there. She was the only one who had the opportunity.

[LorSpi]

cameron said:

No it was a victory for the PC crowd.

Nah. Not PC. The dude was wrong. He certainly isn't the only one out there mouthing that nonsense. That time he said it as president of Harvard. The women scientists tenured at Harvard called him on it.

[cameron]

lorspi said:

cameron said:

that women weren't quite bright enough

That was never said, or implied, it is a gross mis-characterization of his remarks. You say women did far better than men in smoke filled rooms, but that to suppose the reason men do far better than women in other respects, for reasons of aptitude, is proof of a bigoted fool? I am not a bigoted fool, and some of the most intelligent people I know are women, to include you. You are on this topic, demonstrating a knee jerk reaction. Do you see the fact that women now dominate college, and universities, as proof women are smarter then men?

I'd like to jerk my knee right into his crotch if you get right down to it.

The "right thinking" believed right up until the 80s that the reason women weren't proportionally represented at universities was because they weren't "capable of" or "interested in" university studies. Provide a level playing field - and today we see the result.

Science and math isn't about gender - it's still about preconceived stereotypes. Marie Curie. She wasn't the only woman out there. She was the only one who had the opportunity.

I luv ya Lor you know that, but I just don't see this the same way you do.