Some excerpts from my op-ed, which appears in today's L.A. Times:
The saga of controversial liberal law professor Erwin Chemerinsky's on-again, off-again deanship at the new UC Irvine law school was highly unusual in two ways. First, the pressure to enforce political orthodoxy at Chemerinsky's expense came from the right, not the left, and second, academic freedom and 1st Amendment values won a resounding victory when Chemerinsky was ultimately rehired. A more typical example of how academic freedom remains in jeopardy across the country is the UC Board of Regents' treatment of Larry Summers, the former president of Harvard. University....
The hostility to Summers reflects the growing influence of professors who see their primary mission not as advancing human knowledge but as promoting a "progressive" political agenda.
Entire academic departments are often overtly ideological and politicized, even at schools not normally thought of as hotbeds of activism. Loyola Marymount's women's studies department, for example, proclaims as its mission "to call attention to the androcentric nature of society, propose alternatives and strategies that honor women's human rights, and promote a vision of society where gender hierarchy, as well as other forms of social injustice, are eliminated." In universities across the United States, conservative scholars are about as welcome, and as rare, in women's studies programs as Nazis in B'nai B'rith....
The Chemerinsky episode, disturbing though it was, should not distract us from the primary challenge facing academic freedom in American universities: the rise of an academic far-left establishment that seeks to use universities as a base for political activism, and is perfectly willing to violate accepted standards of academic freedom to achieve that goal. Anyone concerned with the future of American higher education has the duty to defend the values of scholarship and open debate against authoritarian political correctness. Unfortunately, by disinviting Summers, the UC regents failed miserably.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Another Example of Academic Open-Mindedness in California:
- My L.A. Times op-ed on Chermersinsky, Summers, and the State of Academic Freedom on Campus:
In the other thread many commenters (but not all) seemed to agree that authoritarian political correctness tends to concentrate more in some academic departments than others. David, do you agree? If so, isn't it worth pointing out in venues like the LA Times? If you dont' agree, why not?
Is there any evidence that this is actually true, besides the word of the guy that fired him? From what I have read it's not like there is a signed letter from a bunch of conservatives demanding he be fired.
Sure, in some sense, but there has been no evidence that more than a couple people were involved. Chem'sky quoted Drake as not understanding what the former's appointment would cause in terms of controversy, but Drake then denies any pressure.
Isn't it most likely that either:
1) Drake didn't have donor Donald Bren's OK to decide who to hire, and realized he'd overstepped when donor Bren objected to Chem'sky. On this view, Drake and Bren didn't have a meeting of minds in advance.
2) Or perhaps Drake overreacted to a few negative comments from other potential donors.
In other words, this was amaturism, not a conspiracy.
They are lucky they didn't lose Chem'sky. They can afford to lose Drake.
mentioned the unmentionableobnoxiously talked out of his ass to a group of experts.There, fixed that for you.
Apparently, the "experts" only read what they want to read.
However, you have to remember that the UC budget is
controlled by the Legislature, which has a solid
Democratic majority. This is not necessarily bad,
except that the Democrats in question are hard-left
with a racialist/gender obsession. Thus I see no
way for UC to reform itself, or have reform forced
from outside.
As President Dynes himself pointed out, the eventual
Hispanic majority in California will hopefully
(from his point of view) overturn Proposition 209.
Furthermore, immigration patterns in California
will assure a left-wing government for generations.
Eventually UC will become one big ethnic/women's
studies department.
Great article. Glad you didn't try to let facts, data, evidence, economic or empirical analysis, or counterarguments get in the way of a good rant.
There, fixed that for you."
Res ipsa loquitur.
I am not a defender of Larry Summers. I disagree with many of his positions, and though I do not know him personally have heard that he may be abrasive. Nonetheless, there appears to be a major disconnect between collegial discourse, and emotional blackmail. Please see George Will's editorial on this issue:
George Will on Summers
As for those who are terrified of the mere suggestion of innate differences between men and women, I suggest a perusal of The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker. The unwillingness to even consider certain ideas is evidence that some of the people criticizing Summers misunderstand the point of science, let alone academic freedom. Or do none of you remember the conservative donor outcry when Peter Singer was hired at Princeton? Dare I say that the academic left has a horrible sense of history, let alone memory?
At least in the Summers case the UC regents were responding to a large number of faculty members as to whom they have some fiduciary role. In the Chemerinsky case it wasn't clear whose concerns Drake had in mind, but one can reasonably infer it wasn't those of prospective faculty and students of the Donald Bren School of Law.
DB's op-ed plays up the weary progressive versus conservative, us versus them angle, but it seems to me that the Summers case is a round peg for that square hole. Many consider Summers to be relatively progressive in one field (finance), while not progressive in another field (higher education). To me the episode says a lot about the faded star power of Larry Summers and not a lot about university education in general.
I wonder what the empirical evidence is, though, for the statement that it is "highly unusual" for the right to attack First Amendment values at universities. At my university -- which was a liberal one -- it was usually Al Sharpton or PLO-related people who got disinvited from speaking engagements. And though it's undoubtedly true that faculty are disproportionately left of center and have at times acted as PC police, the anti-PC forces have got more help from elected officials and alumni (see eg, American Council of Trustees and Alumni and the "Concerned Alumni" of Everywhere). Query which is a greater threat to academic freedom.
A claim like this wants a little more support, I think. I am located in three Departments at UT. In all of them, conservative scholars are welcome. University-wide, our President is fairly conservative. I have visited some other leading schools, and conservatives are welcome there. Lots of my friends are conservative, I would be happy even if my sister married one.
DB has taken a very legitimate point in some areas of the University, I think, and escalated it to fevered paranoia.
Has there even been any actual evidence of that besides rumor and speculation? Perhaps it's just a red herring because Drake just didn't want someone famous to hog his limelight?
You could have said "... in women's studies programs as Jews in the Nazi party." instead, that's an analogy that has the onus on the appropriate party.
I really don't know much about women's studies, though I share your impressions about its bias. I would not make the Nazi statement without considerable evidence on women's studies, though. Perhaps you have it.
In an Op-ed?
What you suggested sounds like something you'll never see in any part of the major papers -- it used to be called Journalism.
I'm curious about your analysis of the LA Times op-eds for, oh say, the past year. Do you apply those standards there, as well?
Either a colossal accomplishment in irony, or more of the usual from Justin.
"At least in the Summers case the UC regents were responding to a large number of faculty members as to whom they have some fiduciary role."
So the regents might have been persuaded they were violating some "fiduciary" duty to the faculty by inviting Larry Summers to a private dinner? I'm not sure this casts them in a better light than simply caving to faculty pressure.
I admit the sentence isn't the best one I've ever written, but it's clearly talking about Women's Studies programs.
Maybe it's a temporary thing.
"You [evidently DB] say that [Summers] merely 'suggested that it's worth researching whether, among other factors, innate differences between men and women may play a role in the greater prominence of men in the sciences.' Actually, he did more than that. He he expressed his own belief that women did not have the same 'innate ability' or 'natural ability' as men."
The link provided by CVT in this statement to establish its truth does nothing of the sort. To the contrary, it fully supports DB's description, which is consistent with my own recollection. Absent an explanation, I have to conclude DB is correct on this point.
Once upon a time I was sick of political correctness. By now I am mostly sick of the martyrdom of its foes.
Dear Prof. Stanton,
I am a Ph.D student in the social sciences and was very much struck by the reaction of yourself and those 150 women faculty members to Summers scheduled talk. One can't help but feeling more anxious about offending women in seminars and discussions. Would I be alone in feeling this? Will this not affect our ability to inquire freely?
This suggests that there is a tension between the function of the university as a place of "free" inquiry, where controversy is courted, and the other social functions which a university now performs: job training, self esteem building, a showcase of laudable social attitudes and other forms of social activism… See this article for more.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/16
/books/review/Donadio-t.html>
We can easily release this tension by segregating its functions. Those faculty, grad students and students who want free inquiry should in their classes, seminars and other activities be asked to sign a waver releasing the university of any liability for hurt feelings, damaged self image... These same people must also promise to restrict their reactions to ideas presented to general standards of civil discourse: presenting counter arguments and refrain from personal attacks...in particular, law suits and demands for resignations for opinions expressed. Faculty should also promise to hire junior faculty based only upon the accepted forms of academic merit, e.g., good arguments that are well defended, and not upon preferences for the content of the argument, in particular, political content.
The other functions of the university can go on as before, but now without the interference from the demands of free inquiry. Admissions of students, hiring of faculty, speaker invitations should be based on diversity, equity, social justice. Now, they can have equal representation of all races, sexes, sexual orientation…anything whatever without impedance from extraneous considerations of scholastic aptitude, publication record… They may pay women more than men, blacks more than whites…As long as taxpayers think it's a valuable social function, why not?
By separating these functions also, students can better choose their courses. Whereas now, some students think they are taking a course in literature, but may actually be getting a course in a special brand of politics. Firms can better hire. Now, they may hire graduates because they think these students can write, do math and think analytically, but in fact, can only take "critical" stances against perceived inequality and social injustice. Similarly, parents make the mistake in believing that their kids are being trained for some profession whereas they are actually being provoked into anger at THE system. Along with this partition of the university, we should also consider changing the name, because "university" itself confounds its two functions.
If we deconstruct the word, we would see that within it are most of the letters for "diversity", with the remainder being "un"—the residual reflecting the singularity of truth—which is "un-diverse"? From now on, the business of free inquiry could be done under the aegis of "un" and the business of social activism could be done under the aegis of "diversity". So, in the future, students can claim unambiguously, that they got a "diversity" degree, and everyone will know what they mean. Whereas now, they get a diversity degree and people might think they got it from a "un", ie, they actually know the un-diverse truth about something.
I am sure you would understand, if I don't sign my name, given the risk of offending some woman faculty in my Department and the possibility of stronger reprisals than a withdrawl of a speaking invitation.
—
Best,
Anon
I saw some days ago a posting quoting Bren's chief administrator that as a far as he knew, Bren hadn't taken nor expressed any strong opinion on the Cherm'sky appointment.
Even though they only supply 20% of the cash. $3 bil out of the $16 bil they blow. Maybe UC should cut the cord.
Let me tell you a little story about when my wife took a Women's Studies class at Sonoma State University--not because she wanted to, but because it was one of the general education choices along with the other political agitation classes pretending to be academic.
The professor's assigned readings included an article asserting that women are shorter than men because their families systematically starve them. Someone isn't familar with sexual dimorphism, which is common in many species.
The professor assigned a paper written by some whining undergraduate comparing male privilege to white privilege, and asked the students to write a critical evaluation. My wife did exactly that--pointing out that while blacks are growing up disproportionately in poor homes compared to whites, females grow up in homes that are identical economically and culturally to males. There were some similarities, to the extent that both females and blacks have been subject to legally enforced discrimination--but a female growing up in an upper class home enjoys enormous advantages relative to middle class or lower class blacks.
I overheard the conversation between my wife and this professor when she went to discuss the low grade she received, and it was apparent that the professor expected students to write papers about how brilliant this comparison was--not to actually critically evaluate it.
From then on, if the professor asked for questions in class, if my wife raised her hand, she was invisible. The professor would see her, say, "Good," and go on. My wife refused to go along with this simplistic, anti-intellectual approach to the subject, and became a non-person.
Why do universities waste money on idiots like this? Because the holy triumvirate of "gender, race, and class" take precedence over thinking.
Thank God that Summer didn't suggest that women are more emotional than men.
I still don't understand how Larry Summers became a pariah for wondering why there are relatively few women with PhDs in math and science, and stating the truth that the highest hs math test scorers are boys, so just maybe boys had an edge at the highest levels of math performance. The lowest hs math test scorers are also boys, but somehow women are content to let the boys take the lead in math stupidity. He said nothing regarding any lack of ability of any female professor; simply wondered why there were so few of them. And maybe the disparity is due to social factors, as Hopkins argued, but the attitude that women must be shielded from the presence of men because they are so easily intimidated by them does not help women seeking equality (women score higher on math tests if there are fewer men in the room while they are taking the test). Moreover, even had Summers not speculated about the reasons for the lack of women in math and science, he would still be an outcast for his racist(?) telling a black prof to turn out more substantive work, which caused said prof to move to Princeton.
The Boston Globe reported that according to some in the audience "Summers said that women do not have the same 'innate ability' or 'natural ability' as men in some fields." He denied it, but later apologized because he "spoke[] in a way that has resulted in an unintended signal of discouragement to talented girls and women." He wouldn't have apologized if he merely suggested that the issue needed more study, which is what David Bernstein says in his op-ed today.
Summers wasn't the one who started the wondering; he was responding to an existing concern, and suggested that all possible causes should be evaluated, not just "sexist oppression of women" but also the possibility that there were biological reasons for an overrepresentation of men in the math and sciences. That is all he was asking--could there be a biological cause as well? And for this, he was drummed out of Harvard.
You have alluded to the core problem with what Summers said: if you treat everyone as an individual, instead of as a member of a collective, then you accomplish the right result. Hire the very best scientist, regardless of sex. If this is disproportionately men, try to figure out why. But assuming that discrepancies are sexism without considering any other possibility is just playing the collectivist game, which make each of us a representative of our race, gender, ethnicity, and class--instead of each of us as an individual, who needs to be treated and considered as an individual.
That's a paraphrase. The actual text isn't hard to find, and in my view the actual quote is signficantly different than the paraphrase you quoted.
As was the case in the thread at VC yesterday about the Statement of 88, I'm of the perhaps naive belief that if you're going to hang a man with his own words, you owe him the courtesy of using his actual words.
Interesting that "some" in the audience said that this was he said. If he said it, why was there not agreement about what he said?
Maybe "some" in the audience are so committed to a particular philosophy that they can't hear Summers without going into a rage. And isn't that the defining characteristic of the left? Continual rage?
Just like no Nazi presumably would want in to B'nai Brith.
Can you back up your claims DB with examples of conservative students who wanted to enroll but were unwelcome in the Campus women's studies programs? Do they ask you for political preference when registering for classes where you're at?
Wha..wha...wha. Poor conservatives being kept out by the women. It's sad to see the whiny state conservatism has fallen to -- it's like you failed so often on the big points, now you're looking to play the discrimination card.
Wha...wha...wha...
You sure you want to come off that whiny, DB? This reminds me of the boys who choose not to turn in their homework assignments, then claim teacher is discriminating against them as boys for awarding lower school grades. Wha...wha...wha
The first step in success is not allowing yourself to be a victim. Of couse, for some, that's the only route to success that they know -- the whine about others.
Because people like your wife are dumb enough to roll in the Sonoma States of the world, and for whatever genetic or gender reason that compelled her, your wife chose to continue sitting there on her rear accepting this as "education."
Maybe if we train our wives and women to be more assertive -- and I don't mean in waving her hand to get the professor's opinion so your wife could educate the class with her contrary opinions -- they would be smart enough not to waste their time sitting through classes they consider a waste of time.
You can't convince me that she had no other way of obtaining her degree than to sit through that -- there are always alternative classes, professors, and subjects to study, and if you don't like the mandatory requirements, you can change majors or even transfer to another school. Yes, you can.
Maybe your wife secretly liked being in the Women's Studies class at Sonoma State, and she got a kick out of playing the foil to the professor's teachings? So move on already, lady. Enough people do that, I guarantee you the school will offer classes that the students choose to enroll in.
Sorry, try again. She's no victim here, but a willing participant.
It's not required for too many majors out there either. I think some of you protest too much though, because surely all students are welcome to pick their classes -- how did Cramer's wife get herself enrolled after all?
The left uses victimology quite effectively.
In fact, the left uses victimology so effectively that some on the right may be tempted to try it.
Or, on the other hand, to use your technique of sneering at those with a complaint. That would be fun.
Women/blacks/gays/Native Americans don't have as much.....
"Yeah, yeah. Whine all you want. Why don't you pull up your smelly socks and actually do something about it?"
I think it is like a religion, but this is not unknown. While Divinity Schools today tend to be very liberal, in past decades they taught a Christian dogma. And I sense today that Women's Studies teach their own dogma. It's not like Creationism in Biology, because that is a question of fact to be tested and assessed. Whereas, I sense that some Women's Studies departments aren't interested in testing factual claims.
[BTW, is the Gonerill here the same person, albeit slightly different spelling of the name, as King Lear's perfidious daughter, one of the "sharper than a serpent's tooth" ones that Lear railed against? That would make sense.]
"Passion is inversely proportional to the amount of real information available."
"And isn't that the defining characteristic of the left? Continual rage?"
I'd like to pretend that was meant to be ironic, but something tells me it wasn't.
More martyrdom, I see. If you don't let someone speak at your dinner, you want him "to be silenced forever"! Oh, the humanity.
Maybe if we train our wives and women to be more assertive -- and I don't mean in waving her hand to get the professor's opinion so your wife could educate the class with her contrary opinions -- they would be smart enough not to waste their time sitting through classes they consider a waste of time.
Just out of curiosity, WWJRD, what course of action would you suggest for a student who is genuinely interested in gender roles in human society but is also (understandably) resistant towards being taught utter bullsh*t?
What exactly are we to understand by "not progressive in another field (higher education)"? I really don't know what would or would not make him "not progressive" where higher education is concerned, so I would like to be enlightened about this. Surely the evidence cannot be that he did not please the majority of Harvard's A&S faculty, though he enjoyed the support of other schools within the university. Is it not peculiar that someone decidedly "not progressive in another field (higher education)" would be so highly regarded by the undergraduate student body, as Summers was at Harvard, and have their support against the A&S faculty's putsch? (Summers thought that Harvard short changes its undergrads in many ways, a view that I as a tuition-paying parent shared, and he was firmly committed to that which would most directly benefit the undergraduate experience there.)
I freely admit that I am not well-informed about the "progressive" agenda, and I part company with "progressives" on many things, especially as they move farther and farther to the Left of what I regard as traditional liberalism. So, again, any help you or others can offer in this regard will be appreciated. (I am less interested in the perception of Summers as "progressive" on finance, whatever that may mean, than I am in the "not progressive" in higher education, whatever that may mean.)
BTW, is Summers' opposition to the "anti-Zionists'" disinvestment campaign part of the bill of particulars against him on the field of higher education count?
Dude, pull the other one. I just looked, and it's part of the sentence.
Now, maybe there's a big demand outside the UC system to listen to the symbol of prejudice in academia. But I would agree that thus characterizing Larry Summers will likely silence him forever.
Well, I expect to see him speaking all over the place in the future, your overwrought protestations notwithstanding.
I just don't see what letting Larry Summers address a dinner has anything to do with academic freedom. He won't be at my daughter's birthday party, either.
Just out of curiosity, WWJRD, what course of action would you suggest for a student who is genuinely interested in gender roles in human society but is also (understandably) resistant towards being taught utter bullsh*t?
Well gee Michelle, I can't tell if you've asked me that last question in jest, but then again, never overestimate the intelligence of learned people these days. Here goes:
Find yourself a library. Get yourself a library card -- if you can sign your name, you qualify. Go to the computer, most libraries have them, and do a search on the topic you're interested in. Then walk yourself over to that section of the library, and dig in!
Reading is the number one best way to gain knowledge -- always has been. You can't expect people to spoon feed knowledge to you.
Also, search out speakers that often are accessible in public forums, for free. Find yourself other students who are interested in whatever field you want to learn more about: is there a campus group if you're near a college? Maybe you can form a reading group to discuss what you've read, if you want other perspectives on the material.
Most of all: do your research. Surely there are some scholars out there in a particular field that you don't disagree with? Seek them out, and apply to those campuses if necessary. It's clear to me that Mrs. Cramer did not find herself a good fit at Sonoma State in that particular class.
Instead of whining, take some responsibility for your own learning. You may have to relocate or commute further if you want to pursue your studies at another school, but that's what real students do. Whining about a course of study because you didn't get along with the professor in one class you chose to enroll in ... sorry, but this victimization has to stop somewhere.
If you're not independent enough to visit a library and select your own reading materials though, waiting for someone to spoonfeed their ideas into your head, well I suspect you may be more comfortable in a less cerebral field.
Hope this helps!
Please. The LA Times regularly publishes Jonah Goldberg who is a complete nitwit (query whether the supposedly "liberal" LA Times in fact publishes Goldberg to make all conservatives seem like juvenile idiots with an IQ of about 80?). So, I think it is not surprising that they would publish a conservative like DB who at least has a brain.
If people don't sign up for these classes, they wouldn't be offered.
Do any of the commenters here know if the procedure used to force an entity into federal bankruptcy can be used to force an individual into "intellectual bankruptcy." I think we have a test case.
Credibility, gone (not that Clayton has any anyway -- sorry to feed the troll).
Well, the Bell Curve didn't make this stuff up. Fortunately for you, though, since the book mentioned this stuff, it can be comfortably dismissed.
As if running a table of prime numbers through a book by David Duke makes the whole concept of prime numbers meaningless.
Problem for you is, even though you tried this technique, the information still exists and is, to the best of our knowledge, still valid. Maybe instead of simply referring to Cramer's gaffe in referring to reality by mentioning The Bell Curve instead of the actual studies the book quoted, you should figure out a HORROR font. Lots of exclamation points, possibly clashing colors and so forth. That would convince even more people that the stuff Murray quoted isn't true.
I don't understand, though, why you don't go further and attack the existence of universities, law schools, &c. I mean, classes are only for the intellectually timid sheeple without the guts to walk into a library and read a book for themselves, yes?
If people don't sign up for these classes, they wouldn't be offered.
Indeed. But the point I was trying to make is that it's unfortunate that the teaching can be so slipshod and tendentious. The subject deserves better.
As for your query about which is the greater threat to academic freedom, the answer may depend on your notion of "academic freedom" and what exactly it entails. For example, do you believe that Ward Churchill got a full measure of academic freedom at U Colorado, or do you believe along with some of the faculty there that his dismissal was a breach of academic freedom? What would you cite as the most notable breaches of academic freedom in recent years by forces from the Right, or elected officials and alumni? Do you think that alumni are not among a school's stakeholders? What about trustees like Todd Zywicki and the other "independent" trusts at Dartmouth, are they threats to academic freedom at that school?
And I'm curious to ask, how much was that fomenter of racial hatred Al Sharpton to be paid for speaking at your school?
As for your query about which is the greater threat to academic freedom, the answer may depend on your notion of "academic freedom" and what exactly it entails. For example, do you believe that Ward Churchill got a full measure of academic freedom at U Colorado, or do you believe along with some of the faculty there that his dismissal was a breach of academic freedom? What would you cite as the most notable breaches of academic freedom in recent years by forces from the Right, or elected officials and alumni? Do you think that alumni are not among a school's stakeholders? What about trustees like Todd Zywicki and the other "independent" trusts at Dartmouth, are they threats to academic freedom at that school?
And I'm curious to ask, how much was that fomenter of racial hatred Al Sharpton to be paid for speaking at your school?
"Doesn't the Left understand that they can oppress just as cruelly as the Right?"
They understand it very well. They also understand that denying they are doing so helps them get away with it.
Go back and reread your questions without the implicit assumption of good faith on the part of the left and all will become clear.
While I am on the subject of apologies, I assume that DB was typing too hastily when he said that he lost respect for Summers due to an apology. A genuine apology would actually increase my respect for someone, since genuine, unconditional apologies are so rare these days. Now if Summers disingenuously changed his position under pressure, that would be something other than an apology.
Just out of curiosity, WWJRD, what course of action would you suggest for a student who is genuinely interested in gender roles in human society but is also (understandably) resistant towards being taught utter bullsh*t?
And I responded. Where in the world did you get from that that I am anti learning or education???
I don't understand, though, why you don't go further and attack the existence of universities, law schools, &c. I mean, classes are only for the intellectually timid sheeple without the guts to walk into a library and read a book for themselves, yes?
The point is: don't give up on reading if there is a book you encounter that does nothing for you.
Likewise, keep searching to find classes, professors, even a college, if necessary, that better fits your own needs. Isn't that what all the high school counselors advise: finding a place where you can be comfortable and challenged in learning?
The truth is, if a class is universally bad due to poor teaching and enough students don't sign up for it, or drop the class, it won't get offered again. But because one person, here Mrs. Cramer, encountered trouble with one professor at Sonoma State, it just doesn't prove that the subject itself is unworthy or unwelcoming.
She should have had the courage to walk out when she realized it was "bullsh*tting", unless as I suggested, that perhaps she enjoyed playing the professor's foil, as Mr. Cramer often does himself here.
Perhaps if you lose some of that defensiveness and anger, you'll learn to accept that other people have other opinions, and instead of shutting down others, it's best to find an educational environment that better fits your needs?
Further, the college choices of adults are constrained by factors such as wanting to live with one's spouse, a spouse whose job provides the two of you with food and shelter. So you could well want to go to Sonoma State, instead of Yale, or even instead of driving five hours a day to and from Stanford.
It's ironic given Summer's uneasiness at being cheered by the Federalists that he was undone by feminists and their supporters.
Anon99's Diversity degree is brilliant.
You sound like a broken record. I hated the way Harvard and UC treated Summers, but can you see anything beyond some imagined vast left-wing conspiracy? The Chemerinsky debacle is a launching point to attack academia for being unfair to conservatives?
"The Boston Globe reported that according to some in the audience 'Summers said that women do not have the same "innate ability" or "natural ability" as men in some fields.' He denied it, but later apologized because he 'spoke[] in a way that has resulted in an unintended signal of discouragement to talented girls and women.' He wouldn't have apologized if he merely suggested that the issue needed more study, which is what David Bernstein says in his op-ed today."
1. "According to some in the audience" -- but Summers "denied it." Sorry, but that doesn't show DB's characterization was wrong. At most it shows there's disagreement about what Summers said. And given the behavior of "some in the audience," their credibility isn't particularly high.
2. "He wouldn't have apologized if he merely suggested that the issue needed more study . . . ." No sarcasm intended, but you really must live somewhere other than in a university community or in other precincts of the elite left in the U.S. today. In that world, once you've been publicly branded as politically incorrect, you HAVE to apologize in some fashion, if only (as in Summers' case) for having given an unintentional "signal" of the sort that's heretical in that world. To suggest that his apology PROVES he actually said women "do not have the same 'innate ability'" as men in math and other fields (rather than merely suggesting that women's underrepresentation in those fields could bear study) is remarkably naive. Read Darkness at Noon. (The comparison is of course exaggerated, but it is directionally apt -- people who are pushed to apologize by groups with relevant power frequently apologize even if they truly have nothing to apologize about.)
I didn't realize that the transcript existed. Thanks. This seems to be his summing up statement:
For which he was pilloried.
If anybody is still thinking the fem/libs/rads are merely oversensitive, this is the cure.
They are tyrannical and without scruple.
As are their enablers who misquoted Summers.
or "as popular as a bouquet at an allergy sufferers convention"?
This is just yet another variant of the tired old head-fake we've seen so often recently. "War going well? Good news for Republicans! War going poorly? Good news for Republicans!"
David's getting closer and closer to sounding like Horowitz.
The two are not identical. Nobody said they were. Your objection is to a manufactured--by you--non-fact. Which means its worth is pretty slim.
The point is the reason(s) used to force such decisions. The reason is that the people forcing the decisions don't want the party in question to have a forum. In the case of Summers, they can only keep him from their event. But they aren't the only ones who would do so, should the opportunity arise. In the Chemsky case, it is not his administrative skills which are in question, but the fear that his views will prevail both personally and by his hires. In these cases, Summers had a small forum denied him and Chemsky had the possibility of a large forum denied him.
Same reason. Keep their message tamped down.
This was one of several political indoctrination classes that was required for graduation from SSU--regardless of major.
I took the ethnic studies class that met the same requirement, and it was at about the same level of academic integrity. We learned that Beethoven and Cleopatra were both black, for example. (If you don't realize that Cleopatra was of Greek blood--generations of descendants from one of Alexander the Great's generals--there's probably not much point in explaining to the problems with the idiotic misunderstanding that schwarz in German means literally black but also melancholic.)
We learned that the values of Western civilization were so culturally specific that one of the textbooks claimed that there was real question as to whether the binary system of 0s and 1s used in computers would still be valid in non-Western societies. (Good news for Iran--our cruise missiles won't work once they enter Islamic airspace, I guess.)
Our professor at one point had everyone take one of those "intelligence tests" developed to prove that IQ tests are culturally specific, filled with questions designed to make inner city blacks look smart. But what was really sad was that many of the questions were built around prostitution, theft, and welfare dependency--and a number of the black kids in the class from the inner city had no idea what "a stable of lace" is. (A pimp's girls.)
My wife could have taken another class filled with this same sort of crap, but in any case, you have to take the political falsehood class to graduate, and it doesn't much matter what the department is.