<p>interesting... but she uses the possessive apostrophe in addition to the backslash. isn't that defeating the purpose?</p>
<p>this' is' why' i' don't' want' to' own' up' to' being' a' feminist'- the\ people\ who\ find\ oppression\ and\ chauvanism\ where\ there\ are\ none.</p>
<p>i believe the backslash is meant to negate the apostrophe.</p>
<p>thats just ridiculous!</p>
<p>me, the backslash, or both? :)</p>
<p>As other scholars in this thread have suggested, I believe the backslash preceding the apostrophe is meant to signal rejection of the apostrophe ---and all that it stands for.</p>
<p>because the apostrophe has been used for centuries as a means of subliminally subduing women.</p>
<p>So brandishing a backslash in the face of an apostrophe is sort of the functional equivalent of flashing a cross in the face of a vampire - or driving a stake through it\'s heart?</p>
<p>the op just doesn't quit...this thread is polluted so let's just go start a new one under the guise of discussing af/am studies and cornell west but really intended to bash summers.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Afan, I agree with much that you say. However, I believe a university President, has the ability, through his position, to easily inluence the day to day lives of students.
[/quote]
Actually, the President or Chancellor or a college has very little influence on the day to day life of students. Those who hold such jobs primarily concern themselves with public relations and fundraising. The ones with real influence over student life typically go under the title of Provost or Vice-Chancellor.</p>
<ul>
<li>///</li>
</ul>
<p>I think it's extremely important to note the most significant part (in relation to this entire controversy) that has arisen:</p>
<p>It does appear that on many, many different human attributes-height, weight, propensity for criminality, overall IQ, mathematical ability, scientific ability-there is relatively clear evidence that whatever the difference in means-which can be debated-there is a difference in the standard deviation, and variability of a male and a female population. And that is true with respect to attributes that are and **are not plausibly, culturally determined.* If one supposes, as I think is reasonable, that if one is talking about physicists at a top twenty-five research university, one is not talking about people who are two standard deviations above the mean.*</p>
<p>Many scholars and academians are up in arms over Summers for one reason he simply drapes himself around a biological versus cultural flag. He is simply saying (and if you want to start bashing me cite your evidence) that it is an inherent norm that more men than women will suceed in the hard sciences by virture of them being genetic males.</p>
<p>What's more is that even when pressed with two examples of evidence (the one about North Carolina and France) that lend credence to the culture argument he simple sidesteps the question entirely:</p>
<p>*Q: What about the rest of the world. Are we keeping up? Physics, France, very high powered women in science in top positions. Same nature, same hormones, same ambitions we have to assume. Different cultural, given.</p>
<p>LHS: Good question. Good question. I don't know much about it. My guess is that you'll find that in most of those places, the pressure to be high powered, to work eighty hours a week, is not the same as it is in the United States. And therefore it is easier to balance on both sides. But I thought about that, and I think that you'll find that's probably at least part of the explanation.*</p>
<p>The point being is that most rational human beings believe that culture in large part shapes a lot of what President Summers is trying to analyze (re: the disproportionate numbers of women in the hard sciences).</p>
<p>I think that the controversy President Summers has erupted is important for one reason and one reason alone. It is bringing renewed focus to an issue that needs to be debated and understood further. In the spirit of a balanced debate, I appreciate President Summers comments. However, on a personal level I think his comments are wrong and out of touch. I think President Summers would spend his time better if he looked at cultural expectancies and roles that we have built around women (to some degree Summers does talk about it, but it doesn't form the core arguments that support his biological thesis). Nobody here has talked about the fact that the vast majority of professors of hard sciences are male because the vast majority of them were educated during the 1940s and 1950s when a) attempts to equalize males and females in the hard sciences were nonexistant and b) there was deep institutional (social and cultural) bias against women in the hard sciences. Nobody, here (even those who claim to be feminists) have talked about the studies done in North Carolina and France that discredit President Summers hypothesis. </p>
<p>I have a feeling a lot of people on this thread have been sitting on their ideological platforms and spewing out information as if they were academic elites when in reality most of you probably haven't read his entire transcript. Most of you just sidestep the issue entirely and instead resort to childish sarcasms and jokes that ignore the substance of the issue at heart.</p>
<p>So incisive, so much smarter than the rest of us! </p>
<p>Why you must be the only person here who has read the transcript (or at least part of the transcript, apparently) of President Summers remarks ... the same remarks which caused a noted MIT feminist to burst into tears and - in her own words - to "leave the room immediately before I threw up."</p>
<p>Somehow, not sharing your ideological views, I don't see President Summers having "draped himself around a biological versus cultural flag" (whatever <em>that</em> means.)</p>
<p>If you will permit a poor benighted amateur who is not as brilliant and thoughtful as you to venture an opinion - I'd say this whole "Summers is a sexist" harrangue is a red herring.</p>
<p>The faculty terriers who are nipping at Summers heels these days don't give a fig about "the studies done in North Carolina and France that discredit President Summers hypothesis" (lol!) or the disrespecting of that fraud, Cornel West.</p>
<p>Rather - to use your apt phrase - the "substance of the issue at heart" is that the comfortable world of the tenured faculty barons has been threatened by a blunt and forceful leader - with the full support of those who retained him for this purpose - to </p>
<ol>
<li>reform tenure, restrict the chokehold of the incumbents on the process of selecting their successors, </li>
</ol>
<p>2 make current professors <em>teach</em> to earn their generous pay,</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Find some way to get rid of the fakers (West) and get the doddering geriatrics who don't know which side of their bagels to butter to <em>retire</em>, and</p></li>
<li><p>To award tenure on the basis of merit and teaching ability - and not on the basis of politically correct fit with the faculty "in crowd."</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Again, you completely sidestep the issue at hand. Through the beauty of your written words and persuassion you manage to shift the entire issue of women in hard sciences into one about merit pay for Professors and Cornel West.</p>
<p>Your only comments are a) the criticisms against Summers are "red herrings" and b) Professors don't give a fig about about the various studies. I agree with you in saying that 98% of the Professors don't care about the studies and are probably more concerned about the politics of it all than the real issue, but that isn't an excuse for not flushing out the issue and discussing it.</p>
<p>Your whole merit pay idea presents more problems than solutions. What standards qualify? Aren't grades already by virtue of them being given out by different standards by different professors already unequal. How can you create an uniform process that evaluates Professors when there are such wildly different standards for grades? What if any accomodations will be made to the Professor who ends up getting all the unmotivated students who don't give a damn about the class versus? </p>
<p>Lastly, I have a few questions for you in reference to West et al. Do you think that hip hop is viable medium for study on college campuses? What are your opinions about the Vagina Monologues? Are they sexist blasphemy?</p>
<p>
[quote]
He is simply saying (and if you want to start bashing me cite your evidence) that it is an inherent norm that more men than women will suceed in the hard sciences by virture of their naturally endowed materials.
[/quote]
Perhaps I'm dense, but I don't see that in what you quoted. What I see is Summers talking about the theory that the standard deviation for physical attributes is greater in men than it is in women, and suggesting that it may be applied to mental attributes as well.</p>
<p>The only thing that could suggest what you say it suggests is if you assume for a moment that Summer's theory is correct and consider that it means that more men will be three or four level above the 'mean' than women. Not that there wouldn't be women, simply that it is likely that there would be more men.</p>
<p>Of course, to look at this as being inherently male chauvinistic is to ignore that his theory would also mean that there would be many more men three or four levels below the 'mean' than women (i.e. there will likely be many more unintelligent men than women). Now, I don't see any men taking umbrage at that. The way I see it you can look at it both ways. Further, Summers continually points out that he is well aware that he may be wrong in his theories. Its not as if he meant to be passing broad, conclusive judgments on the human race.</p>
<p>As for Summers draping himself in a biological vs. cultural flag, I disagree. The entire second paragraph, which makes up a significant part of his speech, deals solely with the cultural aspect of the dilemma. What I understand that hes trying to say in the section that you quoted is that while cultural problems make up a great deal of the issue, there are other differences that cannot be entirely attributed to cultural inequity. The way I read it he wasnt saying culture vs. biology, he was saying culture but not just culture and maybe biology.</p>
<p>With the France example, I dont think that Summers did the question justice but I dont think he sidestepped it either. Its simply true that the work ethic is less in France and Europe in general than it is in America, just as its less in America on the west coast than on the east coast, and less on the east coast than it is in Japan. When you take into consideration cultural pressures on women to spend time at home raising families, it only makes sense that universities in France would be at least a little more accommodating than universities in America. The way I see it, Summers was agreeing with the person who asked the question and bringing up what he thought the exact cultural difference responsible was without immediately ruling out his other theories.</p>
<p>Id be interested to read up on the studies done in France and North Carolina. Do you have links? Also, your point about the current generation of professors having been educated in the 40s and 50s is an EXCELLENT point I think, and Ive never seen it brought up anywhere else. Perhaps I havent been looking hard enough, but thank you for enlightening me.</p>
<p>In summation, I do not personally agree with Summers, and I think that you bring up some excellent points, but I also cant help but feel that at times you are just as guilty of skimming over or misreading portions of Summers speech as the people whom you criticize.</p>
<p>EDIT: Also, I apologize for the backslashes at the end of my last post. They were immature.</p>
<p>Google Hits</p>
<p>ashligee+intelligent = 0 hits</p>
<p>Something tells me Stanford, Princeton, and MIT don't base administrative and public relations decisions on <a href="http://www.googlefight.com%5B/url%5D">www.googlefight.com</a>.</p>
<p>Google hits:</p>
<p>Harvard + best college: 3,860,000
Stanford + best college: 2,559,000
Princeton + best college: 1,840,000
Yale + best college: 1,300,000</p>
<p>Summers + brilliant: 237,000
Levin + brilliant: 93,800
Hennessy + brilliant: 34,000
Tilghman + brilliant: 3,710</p>
<hr>
<p>Summers + exciting: 403,000
Levin + exciting: 158,000
Hennessy + exciting: 54,500
Tilghman+ exciting: 7,730</p>
<hr>
<p>Summers + reformer: 14,800
Levin + reformer: 7,220
Hennessy + reformer: 970
Tilghman + reformer: 175</p>
<p>Feminist + backslash: 370.</p>
<p>Hahaha, I love this thread.</p>
<p>Sunglasses + classy: 81,900.</p>