<p>Do you think this is free speech or conduct unbecoming of an ex-harvard president and Treasury Official?</p>
<p>Actually, it’s refreshingly candid!</p>
<p>That said, the case in question illustrates why the U.S. would benefit from the English rule, “loser pays,” with regard to civil suits.</p>
<p>
According to Wikipedia, free speech is the freedom to speak freely without censorship. [Freedom</a> of speech - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech]Freedom”>Freedom of speech - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>You asked whether or not this was “free speech or conduct unbecoming of an ex-harvard president and Treasury Official.” This obviously is free speech seeing as he wasn’t censored. So…how can someone “think” something is free speech?</p>
<p>I don’t think that this is “conduct unbecoming of an ex-harvard president and Treasury Official.” I didn’t realize that ex-Harvard presidents couldn’t use naughty words!</p>
<p>Sorry ifax they are not just naughty words, it is profanity. If he were the current harvard president, what kind of example would that set to the students? :(</p>
<p>
I was joking when I mentioned the “naughty words…”
On a more serious note, do you actually think the Harvard president did something wrong? Yes or no?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>1) Many American college students “use profanity,” others don’t. Here’s a thread on CC that discusses how Americans curse. As you can see, there is great diversity among the results.<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-life/732780-how-badly-do-americans-curse.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-life/732780-how-badly-do-americans-curse.html</a></p>
<p>2) I don’t think that just because the president of their school said one minor curse word, that every single Harvard student is going to become foul-mouthed. Though if they did, the majority of them are legal adults, so that would be their own choice</p>
<p>3) It’s not like he was caught doing hard drugs, soliciting prostitution, or robbing a bank.</p>
<p>Invent, if you think the man didn’t use the same kind of language in Cambridge, you’re mistaken. There’s a reason (actually, a whole bunch of them) why he’s H’s X-President.</p>
<p>Wasn’t he hired at the treasury dept after those accomplishments?</p>
<p>Is this not the same jerk who also made disparaging comments about women and their academic ability at Harvard, thus causing an uproar? I think Obama was asleep when he let Summers come to Washington.</p>
<p>@Exie: I’m no expert in this topic and no fan of Summers, but I think it’s important to find the actual text of what said. In many circles, his departure was viewed as the result of political correctness run amok. I think the kids on this board should train themselves to look carefully at what is said and to encourage open debate, not to shoot first and ask questions later.</p>
<p>“Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider.”</p>
<p>Sir Francis Bacon</p>
<p>Here’s the Summers speech in case anyone wants to see what created the firestorm and his ultimate ouster.</p>
<p>[Then</a> Harvard University President Larry Summers’ Controversial 2005 Speech Questioning the Continued Lack of Female Represention in the Science, Engineering and Math Faculties of America’s Best Universities rudhro’s ruminatoria](<a href=“http://rudhro.■■■■■■■■■■■■■/2010/05/21/president-of-harvard-university-larry-summers-2005-remarks-at-nber-conference-on-diversifying-the-science-engineering-workforce/]Then”>Then Harvard University President Larry Summers’ Controversial 2005 Speech Questioning the Continued Lack of Female Represention in the Science, Engineering and Math Faculties of America’s Best Universities – Tribal Interloper)</p>
<p>Insider take: although those remarks were the icing on the cake, he was widely detested by faculty and used a confrontational management style that never attempted consensus building. He burned all kinds of bridges and cooked his own goose in very short time.</p>
<p>I’ve worked with people who know him personally. Your comments don’t surprise me. I did read the text though and found it to be analytical and inoffensive.</p>
<p>To the original post, this is a private citizen with an opinion. As an EX president none of Harvard’s business what he says, or how he presents himself.</p>
<p>Every private citizen has the right to behave in decorum.</p>
<p>Perhaps, @kraordrawoh</p>
<p>but there is something to be said about separating one’s private opinions, from one’s role as the head of a major institution. I think it is his body of work and his behavior in general that shaped his reputation - not his comment in isolation.</p>
<p>I think Summers has a high opinion of himself not universally shared. Perhaps he called the Winklevoss twins a name because “birds of a feather” recognize each other on in the light of day. :)</p>
<p>@Exie: I think you’re right about his personality and attitude. After reading the speech, which even states in its introduction that it was designed to provoke thought and discussion, not to be a statement of policy, I felt that this forum would be well served to treat the subject of his remarks only with adequate rigor and circumspection if at all. There are plenty of smart people who don’t work well with others. Summers seems to be one of those. PelicanDad’s remarks and my own contacts support that idea. </p>
<p>Given the title of this thread, though, I felt that a core idea of academia is being touched upon. Namely, that the academy should be an arena in which all ideas are exposed to the harsh light of scrutiny and analysis and must stand or be cast aside on their merits. A priori truncation of the debate serves students poorly and the institutions even more poorly.</p>
<p>@kraordrawoh</p>
<p>Lol! You are absolutely right. I was talking to a psychologist today who made the comment that life finds a way of balancing out brilliance with a few compromises (or deficits). Hence smart people can often be socially awkward (or inept). I call it the missing common sense gene. Or the ability to self-edit.</p>
<p>You make good points and given the nature of the post’s original premise - it is indeed protected speech, even if it was not a politically astute move!</p>