<p>Any women thinking of science at Harvard should read this.
Also, male chauvinists will probably be interested.</p>
<p>What do you think?</p>
<p>I admire Summers greatly.</p>
<p>Ever since he took on that fraud, Cornel West, and sent him packing, I've been confident that although Summers is a certified liberal and former Treasury Secretary under Clinton, that he is not a slave to "political correctness" as so many academics - including college presidents - are these days.</p>
<p>Larry Summers is a breath of fresh air and can be counted on to lead higher education through a much-needed period of reform.A brilliant man "who would speak his mind."</p>
<p>That he is not only willing to stand up to affirmative action extremists, but also to the feminazis, to call reform of oppressive tenure rules by which faculties protect insiders and exclude new ideas, and to press for return of ROTC to the Harvard campus, tells me that this is one "liberal" with his head screwed on straight.</p>
<p>Byerly, is Harvard a more liberal or conservative college?</p>
<p>98.5% of recorded political contributions from faculty and staff this year went to Kerry over Bush. Almost all academia is skewed Democratic, of course, but Harvard is among the most predominantly liberal. That said, the intellectlal atmosphere is more open and less oppressive than at many elites, including a few other Ivies.</p>
<p>Why is it necessary to research this topic? The guy thinks more research is necessary to determine that/why/how... women are not as good at science and math. . . what is this? That's a really dumb thing for Summers to say.</p>
<p>He made a reference to kids playing with trucks and dolls. . . Obviously, playing with trucks or dolls doesn't determine a kid's future ability in science. (His daughter named her trucks like dolls, and she'll probably never reach her potential in science or math now. What a shame. umm)</p>
<p>?</p>
<p>Byerly,</p>
<p>You seem to have more information than god on the ivies.
Hope you don't mind me asking, but I would love to hear your input on the political atmospere of the ivies.
I should say opinions and or links.</p>
<p>Thanks in advance.</p>
<p>even on a different thread if you like.</p>
<p>Rather a broad topic!</p>
<p>Ok most liberal student body to most conservative.</p>
<p>most liberal faculty to most conservative.</p>
<p>not voting records but intellectual atmosphere.</p>
<p>When you ask about the "political atmosphere" on campuses, it may depend what issues you're concerned about.</p>
<p>See, for example:</p>
<p>See also:</p>
<p>That he is not only willing to stand up to affirmative action extremists, but also to the feminazis, to call reform of oppressive tenure rules by which faculties protect insiders and exclude new ideas, and to press for return of ROTC to the Harvard campus, tells me that this is one "liberal" with his head screwed on straight.</p>
<ol>
<li>Since when are female scientists feminazis? Women are in no way any more or less qualified than men to do any scientific job. It depends on the individual person. Why not fight AIDS or poverty? Much more respectable and <em>important</em> than fighting the so-called feminazis. This is the problem with our leaders today... too concerned about what they can't do anything about (like change the opinions of a feminist) and not concerned enough about what they can do.</li>
</ol>
<p>"Larry Summers is a god!"</p>
<p>When did it become admirable for a university president to suggest that 50% of the population is genetically inferior to the rest? Does that make it logical to suggest that blacks are also less intelligent than other races, and that this topic is also worthy of further "research"??? (After all, William Schockley, a Nobel Prize winner from Stanford, was interested in this area ... therefore it must be worthy of scholarship from smart people.)</p>
<p>His point may or may not be correct. However, there is no place for that type of attitude, particularly from the president of one of the country's leading universities.</p>
<p>I agree that Summers is a smart person. But in the end, he is simply an egotist who overstepped his bounds yet again and needs to begin learning from his mistakes.</p>
<p>I'm certainly glad Larry Summers has the courage to stand up to politically correct ayatollahs such as yourself, who apparently think that in academia, there are certain theories which - correct or not - simply CANNOT BE DISCUSSED, and certain viewpoints that, if voiced, mean the speaker has "overstepped his bounds" (as you put it).</p>
<p>As I understand it, even though you grudgingly concede that Summers speculation (and that's all it was) "may or may not be correct", that academia is "no place to express" such ideas. "Genetically inferior???" Oh come on .. please spare us the feminazi hyperbole.</p>
<p>I say academia (and Harvard) need more people like Larry Summers and fewer of the craven, self-censoring, leftist intellectual party-liners of the sort you seem comfortable with.</p>
<p>THREE CHEERS FOR LARRY!</p>
<p>Here's today's NYTimes story on the "scandal":</p>
<p>amen to that. you can look at the numbers and tell that there is a trend, so what's wrong with finding out why?</p>
<p>It appears that Harvard undergraduates do not agree with their president or Byerly. And why does Harvard have so few tenured women professors? </p>
<p>Only about 28% In Engineering programs are women.
There might well be discrimination in admissions.</p>
<p>As compared to WHAT engineering program that is a politically correct 50% female?</p>
<p>SURE there is "discrimination in admissions." Just look at the absolutely HUGE edge given to females at MIT and Caltech, as they strive for greater sexual balance.</p>
<p>You imply that Harvard is "politically" incorrect. </p>
<p>Fact is, their low admission of women into engineering is just incorrect, period.</p>
<p>MIT is regarded as the #1 Engineering school in the U.S. and women make up a huge percent of their class and are very successful in their program. </p>
<p>Seems pretty simple to me.</p>
<p>The new president of MIT and Cambridge are women in the sciences.</p>
<p>Genetically speaking, there is not one shread of evidence that women are inherently handicapped in science and math ability. Old cronies like Byerly might quote biased aptitute scores or faculty percentages until they are blue in the face - but they will never find one science article delineating the molecular, DNA differences which impede women. All they can cite for their argument is circumstantial evidence, which is fun for arguing sake, but should never be thought of as theory. What they are doing is very dangerous though since they make these grand genetic propositions from social trends - the same thing which led Germany in the 1930's to their abhorrent "theories" on races. And we know what the result of that was.</p>