<p>Maybe so. But our point is that he's gone about it poorly. He caused his opponents to dig in their heels from the get-go. He handed them the ammunition they're now shooting at him. If he'd gently herded them into his camp instead -- a la Dean Kagan -- he'd be a lot closer to achieving his goals right now. Instead, he has to devote his energies to keeping his job. No one can get much work done with an ax hanging over his neck.</p>
<p>The issues Dean Kagan has/had to deal with, and the constituencies to whom she must answer, pale by comparison with those facing the president of Harvard. There is no easy or gentle way to excise the cancel cells within the FAS. Charm will not work with them. Derek Bok stopped trying, and Rudenstine broke down even thinking about trying.</p>
<p>Yet in any situation, it is always a good idea to ingratiate yourself with your opponents and coalesce your power before you begin attacking enemies.</p>
<p>The ROTC and military recruiting are slightly different issues.
The law school has a policy that NO recruiters are allowed to use campus facilities if they discriminate based on race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation.
They apply this rule to ALL recruiters. The military can still recruit Harvard students, just not using Harvard facilities to do the recruiting... no law student is prevented from seeking out military employment.</p>
<p>With regards to the way the Bush administration wants to apply the Solomon Amendment, they not only want to penalize the law school (which, I think would be defensible, though I disagree with it), they would also punish the medical school, the school of public health, the division of engineering and applied sciences, etc.</p>
<p>you are so concerned about the "students who are part of ROTC [who] are being unfairly discriminated against," but what about the same regard for the millions of gay-american students who are also discriminated against? You complain that you can't take an ROTC scholarship at Harvard, yet there are many very patriotic, smart, gay candidates who are denied the opportunity to attend the US Naval Academy.</p>
<p>That stuff is all a smokescreen to justify what Congress (which, after all, adopted the Solomon amendment) rightly viewed as a way to "punish" a government and a military to which academia is hostile.</p>
<p>A prime example of why it is widely assumed that "Harvard Hates America" - and why many in the nation return the sentiment.</p>
<p>I love it when the ultra-libs want to be left free to practice their own forms of bigotry and bias, but without being forced to suffer the consequences (ie, have the taxpayers continue to subsidize them all the while.)</p>
<p>You can still do ROTC and be a Harvard student, but you have to do it at MIT. And you CAN be gay in the military, but you can't be open about it. It's not like it's just random discrimination either; the military has very specific reasons for it. </p>
<p>It is discriminatory towards ROTC students to tell them they can't be based on campus, when they are defending the rights of every person on that campus. It's not like it's some chic club; it's serving a defined, necessary purpose. </p>
<p>So if I'm a student at Harvard, and I want to serve my country by being in the military, why am I being punished? If you have issue with the military's policies, don't take it out on the students. They don't have a say in the policies.</p>
<p>You can still do ROTC and be a Harvard student, but you have to do it at MIT. And you CAN be gay in the military, but you can't be open about it.</p>
<br>
<p>Are these supposed to be comparable? Maybe if you could be kicked out of Harvard for telling someone that you were doing ROTC, I would see the parallel.</p>
<p>The mild inconvenience of you having to go over to MIT for your ROTC classes pales in comparison to the outright discrimination gays face when wanting to also be patriotic and defend the rights of every person.</p>
<p>Though not the topic of this thread, the military does NOT have any real reasons left other than homophobia. I mean, even the freakin Israeli military allows gays to serve... and no one can claim the Israeli military are a bunch of wimps... the very survival of their country depends on a well-run, efficient, and high-performing military. Apparently gays have not hurt morale or hurt combat-readiness... of any country in the world, they would want a military that functions at the highest level, because for them, it is literally life or death. Oh, and our British allies in this war also allow gays in the military with no loss of combat-readiness.</p>
<p>That, of course, it the problem; elements within the FAS actually BELIEVE it is "some sort of chic club" from which they seek to bar those who do not share their values. 98.5% of political contributions made by Harvard faculty members in the last presidential year cycle went to Democrats.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And you know what? I just might not attend Harvard for this reason.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Don't take this the wrong way, but I suspect that Harvard will survive, even if you do not attend. </p>
<p>If you that much problem with gays, it sounds like you would be happier at the Naval Academy anyway. Realize that if you go to Harvard, there is no "don't tell", and you will encounter many gay people who are quite open about it.</p>
<p>Perhaps gays have no more business in the military than women do in science. I hope for his sake Summers does not get dragged back into the gays and ROTC debate.</p>
<p>The above post is indicative of the soft bigotry at Harvard and many elites: you are free to express any views and to hold any beliefs, as long as they are approved by the self-appointed guardians of political correctness at the campus gates. If you disagree, well, then, you will be sweetly informed, "perhaps you will be happier elsewhere!"</p>
<p>Don't let these people scare you off, Boston USMC.</p>
<p>It also demonstrates, once again, that the negative animus directed againt Summers is based more on ideological hatred (against a fellow liberal of lesser ideologicial purity) than on actual policy or ethical grievances.</p>
<p>It also demonstrates, once again, that the negative animus directed againt Summers is based more on ideological hatred </p>
<br>
<p>Huh? First of all, no one on this thread, that I've noticed, has expressed "negative animus" against Summers. The worst I've seen here is that he was called a bad politician or "tone deaf." That's not the kind of ill will that I would call animus. Second, even if this thread were full of venom toward Summers, what would the posts tell you about the motives of the relevant people who ARE directing negative animus against Summers (namely a portion of the A&S faculty)? Nothing, as far as I can tell -- unless they are posting anonymously on the thread, which I doubt.</p>
<p>Byerly,
First "feminazi", now "soft bigotry"... wow, you are well versed in GOP double-speak!</p>
<p>4th floor,
Don't get it twisted... just because some of us individual posters were debating ROTC policy does not mean that is the reason for opposition to Summers. I think I've made quite clear that I support some of his initiatives at reform, but the problem is clearly Summers leadership style... that is why he is floundering as president. He is trying to bully the faculty into submission, but he found out the hard way that he really doesn't have much power as he thought he had... which calls for a different set of leadership skills.</p>
<p>If you want to hear venom and "negative animus", you can hear it directly from a number of the Summers-haters in the FAS. Nothing "genteel" about it. I have heard some of these people holding forth when they are not pretending to appear noble and acting in the best interests of the University. I have seen chins trembling, and spittle dripping from the corners of their mouths. Its not a pretty sight.</p>
<p>On the other hand, it appears to me that the animus is not primarily "ideological" in the political sense, but rather simple turf-protection of the narrow academic variety.</p>
<p>It is largely turf. Summers has taken a very direct approach to what are traditionaly internal school faculty matters. People resent this. He has done this far more with the FAS than with the other schools, which is why there is so little agitation outside of FAS.</p>
<p>This may not be pure political tone deafness. I wonder whether he really thought the faculty would welcome this level of engagement by the President, or he does it because the Corporation wanted to assert more control over the faculty. Perhaps the only thing the faculty could consider more offensive than the president trying to control the faculty would be the Corporation doing it. So, if he entered with this plan, or mandate, he was a set up for what happened.</p>
<p>As for "might be happier at the Naval Academy" believe it or not, I was really trying to be helpful. If you are very uncomfortable with gays, then any of the service academies will be a lot more pleasant than a pluralistic university. If you want to be in an environment where no one dares admit they are gay, then a place like Harvard will not be inviting.</p>
<p>Similarly, idealogical considerations aside, it does not much matter to Harvard, or to the military, whether ROTC returns to campus. Harvard will not run out of excellent students, and the military will not run out of well educated officers. Wonderful as Harvard may be, it is hard to argue that it is the only place where one can get a top education. If the problem is that having to go down the street is insulting in itself , then yes, you will not get from others on campus universal admiration for your decision to enter the military. You will get this at service academies. At Harvard, the reaction will run the gamut from admiration to indifference to hostility. Just as it would in the wider world.</p>
<p>Overall, this is still a tempest in a teapot. Summers could go tomorrow; he could make peace with his critics and get a standing ovation everytime he comes into an FAS faculty meeting; or he could continue for years with bitter divisions. It does not make that much difference. Some universities are sucessful with highly unpopular presidents. This is because, for most faculty members and almost all students, the president has little effect on their daily lives. Even with Summers, the same is true for Harvard. </p>