<p>No. He did not measure up even before, amongst the knowlegeable in the field. The rest of us just didn't hear about it until the non-PC stuff began.</p>
<p>WSJ had the most thorough discussion of the whole thing. Not sure if non-print subscribers can get this link, but here's a try: </p>
<p>The Harvard Corporation could remedy the situation by appointing a new President who is not unnecessarily politically correct. Fat chance.</p>
<p>"No. He did not measure up even before, amongst the knowlegeable in the field. The rest of us just didn't hear about it until the non-PC stuff began."</p>
<p>Sounds like a poor hiring decision then. That would be the Board of Trustees, right? :)</p>
<p>
[quote]
The Harvard Corporation could remedy the situation by appointing a new President who is not unnecessarily politically correct. Fat chance.
[/quote]
A member of the faculty at Smith College has thrown his hat into the ring:
[quote]
If made president of Harvard I would spend the $50 million Summers pledged to the feminists to instead set up a center to study genetic differences in intelligence between men and women. The center would prove that Harvard, once again, is committed to free inquiry.
[/quote]
<a href="http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=022206G%5B/url%5D">http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=022206G</a></p>
<p>I dont see it as a matter of political correctness at all. Whether he knew it or not, Summers was possibly shaking his head against the very hopes and dreams of millions of people, some of whom are teaching right there at Harvard today. Come on. You cant just do this sort of thing and not catch holy crap about it. Freedom of speech doesnt mean you can say anything you want and then necessarily keep your job. It deals with force, especially government force. You can say what you want and not go to jail or be killed for it, but you still may have to pay some social consequences for running your mouth recklessly. Personally, this stuff has changed my view of Harvard. My kid still loves the school, claiming the public misunderstands Summers. Well I still wonder about the culture of a school whose top leader can be so careless and bumbling.</p>
<p>
[quote]
My kid still loves the school, claiming the public misunderstands Summers.
[/quote]
That seems to be the majority opinion, outside of the hard-core left.</p>
<p>OK, time for Harvard to stop teaching evolution. You never know whose feelings might be hurt.</p>
<p>"OK, time for Harvard to stop teaching evolution. You never know whose feelings might be hurt."</p>
<p>I think this is a bad analogy. Try to see it less in terms of left and right and take it as it apparently has been received by many others. Okay. Let's put it in another brutal context.</p>
<p>You are a Jew attending a conference. The president of one of the foremost universities in the nation says it is a possibility, perhaps unlikely, but a possibility that Jews historically, and perhaps even genetically, are driven to ganging up against, even murdering anyone who rejects their religion, controlling the media, yadda yadda, listing a number of things that anti-semites have said ad nauseum. The president says this casually, as if he thinks there is something to it, particularly since so many Jews lead media outlets. He is clear that other factors may be responsible for this, but that Jews may also have some kind of genetic disposition to murder people like Christ. Don't you think at least one Jew is going to be deeply offended by this?</p>
<p>It is not a matter of free inquiry about an impersonal subject, as is the case with evolution. What the guy above did here was kick a lot of people right in their faces. I am not a Jew. Neither am I a woman. But, you know, I would stand hotly against an educational leader who casually threw around this sort of stuff. As a Jew, I would also be wary about the culture of an institution led by this guy.</p>
<p>Does this not make any sense at all?</p>
<p>Dros - You are right. This is a real stretch to turn this into some kind of a PC-throng stoning. It's not. It's the leader of an organization who failed to lead correctly. Think about Carly Fiorina. She came in, made a lot of headlines, tried to change the corporation too quickly, alienated her supporters, and then the numbers started showing up bad. Harvard's application numbers were down - majority of Ivy's were up. Fundraising was getting difficult. Being given the responsibility as the leader of an organization in the USA does not give you title to a despot-ship. If there is such a word. You have to align the thought leaders below you. You can whine all you want that they are mean or PC or stupid but the metrics are - here's your talent. Can you lead them? And can you bring in the key numbers by doing so. </p>
<p>This is not about politics per se.</p>
<p>All these right-wing supporters for a Clinton appointee. Amazing. </p>
<p>Lets see if we can summarize: Summers supported a corrupt friend that has brought Harvard into disrepute and cost it 44 mil; he has been arrogant and unnecessarily provocative in his rhetoric; he made thoughtless statements about women and minorities. </p>
<p>Yep that's what it takes to get support here from the radical right, but hardly my view of what a good college president should be.</p>
<p>I think that's what happens when a major institution hires someone with a disability.</p>
<p>Many coaches get "resigned" when they cross star players. Academics and sports aren't all that different.</p>
<p>I loved Ben's article:<a href="http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/benshapiro/2006/02/22/187402.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/benshapiro/2006/02/22/187402.html</a></p>
<p>umm-- Dros... the difference is that these women are scientists, for god's sake, so presumably they are not offended by data. Yes, it was provocative for Summers to propose a theory as to why there are fewer women at top levels of science.... but it is ludicrous for a woman to be offended by his bringing up the fact that this is so. The data offends you? You're not much of a scientist. </p>
<p>We can argue about whether it's culture or sexism or hard-wiring or anything else that causes the difference, but it would be hard to look at the faculty of a university, or staff of a large research facility, or the personnel directory of a technology based company, and not to conclude that empirically, there are fewer women "doing science". And frankly, it would have been hard to look at the top ranks of major Banks in the 1920's and 1930's and conclude that Jews ran the global banking system... since there were so few of them. Whether it was because they couldn't get hired (true for most) or didn't have the "credentials" (Andover, Yale, or Exeter and Harvard-- true for many) is besides the point... there just weren't many, the social theories notwithstanding.</p>
<p>mini - Huh?!</p>
<p>You're exactly right, Blossom, except that Summers didn't even propose the theory....he just mentioned that there was a study at one of the UCs--co-authored by a Gyno-American, in fact--that suggested that the off-the-wall math geniuses (as well as off-the-wall failures) tended to be male, and that perhaps one of the geniuses attending the conferenced might want to look at the study, and hopefully disprove it. But we went through all of this exactly one year ago. In case anyone wants to save some time.....</p>
<p>Blossom and driver....Yes, HE JUST MENTIONED IT! And at a research institution, no less...And then the vultures descended...</p>
<p>tsdad--it's not about right-wingers supporting Summers. It's about political correctness run amok.</p>
<p>"mini - Huh?!"</p>
<p>Aspergers. I used to work for him in Philadelphia (more than 20 years ago.) Very smart. Very self-assured. Very driven. He appears arrogant, but I don't think that's actually true - rather his inability to control his disability. Not at all good with people, and, frankly, not great at orally articulating ideas. Fantastic writer!</p>
<p>He could have done much better with the women's thing, proposing the institute and study BEFORE spouting off. And, I think (giving him the benefit of the doubt), if he had it to do over again, he likely would.</p>
<p>He makes for a very good, iconoclastic committee member, one voice among many. But he's in the wrong job.</p>
<p>The Wall Street Journal's editorial put it well: "Only on an American university campus could Mr. Summers, a former Clinton Treasury Secretary, be portrayed as a radical neocon.
...In his first commencement address as president, Summers spoke of his vision of Harvard as a place "open to all ideas" and "committed to a diversity of perspectives." We wish Mr. Summers's successor good luck with that one."</p>