Professors at Harvard Confront Its President | NYT

[Ediacara]

Professors at Harvard Confront Its President
By SARA RIMER


Jodi Hilton for The New York Times
President Lawrence H. Summers of
Harvard on his way Tuesday to face
the Faculty of Arts and Sciences.

Published: February 16, 2005

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. Feb. 15 - President Lawrence H. Summers of Harvard was confronted at a meeting of his own faculty on Tuesday by some of the university's most influential professors, who expressed strong dissatisfaction with his leadership and charged that he was damaging the institution.

These professors, including two department heads, said after the meeting that they had emphasized that their concerns went well beyond the furor that resulted from Dr. Summers's recent comments suggesting that innate sex differences could account for the lack of women in science and math careers.

"Many of your faculty are dismayed and alienated and demoralized," Dr. Arthur Kleinman, chairman of anthropology in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, said at the meeting, referring to a "crisis concerning your style of leadership and governance."

More at the New York Times

[Syrinx]

1. his comments were blown way out of proportion

He didn't say that women are genetically inferior at math. He said there a finite number of possible explanations for the dominance of males in science and math-related professions, and that genetics would have to be considered -- and quite possibly, or probably, dismissed -- in any serious discussion of the issue. Not an unreasonable statement at all.

But that isn't what this story is about. ;)

[BikeWriter]

2. His policies have measurably set back women at the institution.

I don't call that out of proportion.

[tx_dem41]

9. Could you please provide at least a smidgen of backup to your..

assertion....please?

[BikeWriter]

27. No problem, here's some proof! That neanderthal needs an ass kicking...

The percentage of women offered tenured positions has dropped every year since Summers became president in 2001. Only four of 32 tenure offers in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences were extended to women in the last academic year.
http://www.azcentral.com/families/education/articles/0119harvardapologize-ON.html

[Robert Oak]

3. if someone said that the genetic differences

between and black man and a white man explain why white men
more often become CEO's you'd figure it out real quick.

Why is it when women are discriminated against with bogus
"science" that do not prove anything...it can slide right by
when the same scenario applied to any other comnparison would
be recognized for what it is.

[Marnieworld]

18. Not really

There is no difference between a black man and white man beyond physical appearance. There are differences biologically between men and women. It's a fact. These differences may influence behavior and strengths and weaknesses. To compare, and contrast and study how these differences influence us is a fair practice because it is based on known facts. It's this sensitivity to any discussion of our differences that prevents any real understanding.

[ProudToBeLiberal]

20. but you're not taking into social factors

you're only basing it on biological. How about the cultural influence? For example girls get dolls and boys get fire trucks etc. You cannot blantantly ingnore the social concerns.

[ElectroPrincess]

29. There are some very real cultural differences between the races ...

Gee, I doubt we'd hyper-focus on how these would affect academics or behavior. Why? Instead of promoting "understanding" as you put it, it would lead to increased racism.

Women, especially in Bush-World will become easy targets for "turning back the hands of time."

[smirkymonkey]

35. Where is the evidence that women's brians are BIOLOGICALLY

different than men's brains? Not anecdotal evidence, but scientific evidence that, from birth, the female brain is qualitatively different than a male brain.

Then I will believe "It's a fact."

[Marnieworld]

39. Hormones

Hormones affect Brain chemistry. Men and women have different hormonal balances. This is just off the top of my head to think of a possible biological difference. Different doesn't mean inferior. Difference is just difference. Genders ahould be studied for understanding. Science pursues truth without bias. I'm all for truth no matter if it's not what I was hoping for.

[hezekkia]

25. ...

that's a gross exaggeration of what he said. he said that women and men are hardwired differently (DUH), and that that MIGHT cause differences (such as interests in math, science, etc.). He said there is no conclusive evidence, but that it should be RESEARCHED.

[ElectroPrincess]

31. Yeah, this reminds me of the Psychologists like Arthur Jensen ...

doing extensive "research" on race and intelligence. Instead of promoting understanding, his "work" caused a fire storm in academia and was used for years by wingnuts to discriminate against blacks.

He came and spoke at our campus during the 80s. I'll never forget his arrogance as he used correlational data to convince us something to the effect of the innate higher intelligence of Asians.

Like anything else, correlation research can be spun any way the researcher desires.

The most inane comment he said during this lecture was that intelligent men marry tall women.

What a buffoon!

Biologically hardwired my a**! This type of research is only used as a tool to discriminate against women and minorities.

[DrWeird]

8. Bullshit they weren't.

It was sexist bullshit and the guy should be flipping patties, not president of Harvard.

[LinuxInsurgent]

21. i'm not so sure that he's that innocent

and anyway...sounds like this guy had a history of not being exactly the best conduit for more women in Harvard...it seems he had previous baggage..and this article details it.

I think it's time to throw his ass out...bring in someone who will be acceptable to the professors...

[rinsd]

4. Hmmm...where are all the free speech advocates? (nt)

[JVS]

5. Probably doing something for Ward Churchill

[meganmonkey]

6. The question isn't whether he has a right to say it, of course he does.

The question is - was it a smart thing to say given his position?

[BikeWriter]

28. Exactly, his attitude and the outcome of this controversy will affect...

recruiting.

[Toots]

34. You can say what you want,, I don't have to employ you if I don't like it

It is not about free speech. It is about leadership. He is the President of one of the most renowned colleges on earth and has lost the respect of his faculty. They are also very brilliant people and have the same rights of "free speech" and they spoke their piece. If he doesn't start behaving like the President they have the power to get him removed.

[Psephos]

7. If you support Churchill's free speech, you should support Summers too

The only speech that needs protecting is the speech we *don't* like.

I support both Churchill's and Summers' rights to speak their minds. That doesn't make them immune to criticism. But this groupthink stuff has got to go.

[meganmonkey]

10. On a constitutional level, absolutely

But I don't think anyone is arguing with his constitutional right to say something.

I think that the roles of a tenured professor and a university president are very different, however. Judgment must be used, and I think people are questioning his judgment more than his 'right' to speak.

[Psephos]

12. It goes beyond that

Generally, left-thinking people have been supporting not only Churchill's constitutional right to speak, but also arguing that his comments should not cost him personally. This seems to be directly related to political sympathy with him, and with a lot of what he said.

Although I think that most on the left support Summers' constitutional right to speak, because his views are not as politically sympathetic to left sensibilities, there has been a lot of talk that his comments *should* cost him personally. This gets couched in "yes, but..." comments about his "judgment," which sounds like a code word to me.

The mirror-opposite reaction has risen among righties. They want to see Churchill lose his job, while they uphold Summers' "bravery" in saying something controversial.

As I said in my previous post, it's only the speech we don't like that needs protecting. The reason we have a constitutional protection for speaking freely is because it is a net benefit to our society to hear what critics have to say. It is a net benefit to have our views challenged, because it causes us to defend our beliefs, and sometimes even, to change our minds. When critics are silenced, whether through formal government censorship or informal politically-correct pressures, we become the Borg.

I say Churchill and Summers should both speak their minds, take their lumps, and keep their jobs. Anything less would be hypocrisy.

[loudsue]

15. The free speech argument is a big red herring here....designed to take

away from the fact that the man has to be held to his word, and they don't like what his word represents about him and his philosophy.

He can say ANYTHING he wants, but he has to understand that the words are coming from HIS mouth, and HIS brain, and reflect where he stands and who he is.

The professors are concerned that WHERE HE STANDS and WHO HE IS as represented by those words, make him unfit to lead such a traditionally respected institution. In other words, if he THINKS that way, (which he does, or he wouldn't have said it) then his THINKING reflects that he is not a very good "thinker" in terms of his enlightenment about life and reality, and the history of education about the stereotypes concerning the sexes.

Everyone has the freedom of speech to show just what they're made of. But, once they choose to freely express what they're made of, they have to OWN that speech. He showed he was stoooopid! And a stupid person shouldn't be the president of a University like Harvard. The distinguished professors who work for him, obviously don't want a dumbass for a boss. They have freedom of speech to say that, as well.

:kick::kick::kick:

:kick::kick::kick:

[Psephos]

17. Do you think Churchill should also lose his job?

The reason I asked is because it seems like more than coincidence that we always cut extra slack to those whose views are sympathetic to our own. Good for politics, but bad for equal treatment.

Thanks, I enjoy discussing this with you; MeganMonkey also has a good point of view.

I've noticed in my own thinking that as much as I'd like to keep my politics and my science apart, unless I'm careful, politics starts to erode my objectivity.

In Summers' case, btw, he was speaking at a forum where controversial or new ways of thinking were explicitly requested. Even so, he prefaced his remarks with an apology if he said something that might seem shocking. He also wrapped a lot of qualifiers and modifiers around his statement. And yes, there actually is some solid science behind what he said. All of this context was stripped out of the news stories, because, well, it makes the story better that way.

In Churchill's case, he posited his views in academic writings, which by their very nature are supposed to present alternative ways of seeing things, and again, some of the contextual language was omitted. Same thing: the news story has more impact when you "edit" Churchill and turn him into a knuckle-dragging terrorist-lover instead of an academic with an unpopular point of view.

These cases seem to have a lot in common to me, and I support both men not suffering consequences for daring to have a view that other people don't like.

[meganmonkey]

16. I agree with you almost completely

In regards to some posters, I do see the hypocrisy you mention. And I have pretty much not participated in threads on either of these cases.

But I still see a major difference between a tenured professor and a university president. I am not saying Summers' remarks warrant him losing his job, but he essentially speaks for the university as president, as a diplomat. Whereas a professor is EXPECTED to have theories and research, and to write about those things whether his conclusions are popular or not. That is his/her job.

[EFerrari]

19. Nope. Churchill speaks for himself; Summers for an institution

False comparison.

[Psephos]

22. Hardly

As a department chair, and only slightly less as a tenured professor, Churchill brings CU into the mix whenever he "professes." He did not write his commentary as private citizen, he wrote it as a CU professor, and its publication and dissemination was a direct consequence of that. It also appears on his CV, in case there was seriously any doubt.

Likewise with Summers. He blends his own voice with that of Harvard's whenever he speaks as an officer of the university.

The cases are similar and the comparison is valid.

[EFerrari]

23. We disagree. Churchill was hired to opine, It's his job to profess.

Summers was not hired to profess squat but to manage.

The cases have similarities but are not alike. We disagree.

/typo

[Psephos]

24. No problem, we agree to disagree

To my sensibilities, the distinctions you draw are semantic, based upon weak suppositions about job descriptions...and to get to the point, exist because you like (or at least don't mind) what Churchill said, and you don't like what Summers said. I respectfully suggest you consider whether political bias has caused you to look for reasons to embrace one man and deny the other. A jaundiced eye always finds reasons that allow principles to be suspended.

I pass no judgment here; remember, I support both men's right to offer opinions that some or many dislike. (Also, I'd like to be clear that I write only in the spirit of discussion, and value your different perspective.)

This really isn't an argument about job descriptions. Both men are de facto representatives of their institutions. Can you imagine a board of regents saying professors don't represent the university? (I assume we agree that a president usually does.) Does the CU football team win for the university, or just for themselves? If a CU physicist won a Nobel for research conducted in a university lab, would that not reflect upon CU? Churchill wrote and researched his works on the university dime, using university resources and grad assistants, along with the other perks of department chairmanship. Etc., etc.

I have yet to read a news account mentioning either of them without clearly identifying them with their universities. To the public mind there is no difference; each man affects his university's image. CU is currently in damage control mode because CU donors are pissed off that Churchill is compromising the university's image. Harvard donors aren't in nearly as much uproar about Summers, but there are many faculty and students who are. In short, split semantic hairs as you wish, but observed reality trumps theory here.

I don't really have a dog in this race, so perhaps I am less influenced (in this instance) by political bias to cut slack for one guy and withhold it for the other. One thing is sure: our principles of equal treatment and tolerance are only tested when we encounter speech and political opinions we *don't* like.

Peace.

[EFerrari]

26. Psephos, my viewpoint is a little tinged by living in academia for

a while. Plus, I admit bias against Summers and for Churchill.

So right about equal treatment and tolerance. lol

[Psephos]

36. sfexpat, I doff my hat to you

You have an open mind, and the ability to smile wryly where others might bristle. Two of the most powerful tools in the liberal toolbox. I'll be looking for more of your posts.

BTW, I gather from your nickname you're no longer a Bay Area resident. Must be hard sometimes... :-)

[EFerrari]

44. Isn't it nice not to get into reactive shouting matches?

I'm actually back in San Francisco. Want to change my user name to BlowsAgainstTheEmpire but Skinner won't let me. (kidding)

[w4rma]

37. Summers should be replaced. This belief he holds negatively affects

the university. He should never have been given this job.

He can *say* anything he wants. But if he says he's going to set the university on fire and burn it to the ground, he should be fired. If he says he's not going to allow any more tenured professors, he should be fired. If he says 90% of the professors he'll allow to be tenured will be male, he should be fired. What he said should get him fired.

[mutus_frutex]

11. This reminds me of the sociobiology wars of the 70's

You can check some starting points here:

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/E.O._Wilson

Of course, E. O. Wilson's arguments are quite a bit better than those presented in this discussion, but eh whole political mood is pretty much the same.

It is quite reasonable to expect psychological differences between the sexes that are of biological origin. After all, we ARE biologically different. If those differences exist, well, tough, life it is not fair. I couldn't have a baby, even if I wanted to. To reject scientifically proven fact because of political reasons is fascism, be it from the left or from the right.

By the way, I don't think that in this case the scientific facts are know, but if we don't study them just because out political ideas tell us that we might not like the results, we are stupid.

Cheers..

[Psephos]

13. Good post

This is a matter for science, not politics. Unfortunately, politics often suppresses science in the same way religion can. I know it's hard for me to set aside my politics sometimes, but it must be done, or we're back to the Middle Ages.

The jury is out. Let's examine the evidence, and draw our conclusions, instead of start out with our conclusions, and then adduce only the evidence that supports them.

A liberal mind is above all, an open mind.

[mutus_frutex]

14. I was quite lucky.. :-)

I got most of my scientific mind before I got my political mind. And for the most part I avoided religion..

So now I'm able to never put politics before scientific facts. This has, several times, put me in awkward positions with respect to some of my liberal lefty friends..

Cheers..

[ElectroPrincess]

32. That's the problem, none of this research is FACT

but results from highly spurious correlation research. Remember the law: Correlation does NOT prove causation. But what correlation does is give fertile ground for people with "an agenda" to discriminate against entire groups of humanity. Dangerous stuff and NOT I repeat NOT hardwired genetic facts.

[mutus_frutex]

40. What research?

Are you referring to the comments by the Harvard president or to the sociobiology wars?

From your reference to "correlation" I assume you refer to the comments by this fellow. Let me make it clear that I'm not defending him, or trashing him, for that matter. I think a guy in his position should have know that just mentioning the possibility of a biological origin for these differences would unleash a storm.

That said, here are some comment regarding your response:

I don't really know the merits (or lack thereof) of the research that you qualify as "highly spurious". Could you please provide some references? I obviously know that correlation doesn't prove DIRECT causation. It does, however, point to some indirect relation or common cause. Do you think it is worth looking for the possible direct cause, indirect relation or common cause? Even if you might not like the results?

My point is, if we are going to restrain from certain avenues of research just because some group is going to take the fact that we are pursuing that research as a reason to discriminate, well, there are vast areas of science that would simply stop.

Finally, with regards to genetic influence on behavior, one can hardly talk about "hardwired". I am pretty sure that any hypothetical deficiency can be overcome with proper education.

Cheers..

[ElectroPrincess]

41. As a person who has actually earned a Masters Degree in Psychology

I've studied numerous research articles within social science journals ... many studies of the 60s and 70s attempted to draw conclusions regarding the intelligence many "groups of people" solely based on performance tests and other recorded data.

THAT BEING SAID (sorry but I just despise that term <blush>), if we cannot get literally "inside the brain structures" that lead to performance, scientific conclusions are NOT hard fact.

If this University official had inserted AFRICAN AMERICANS or HISPANICS instead of WOMEN, he'd be out on the street by now.

Minorities don't perform as well on standardized tests, can we draw from that they cannot perform academically ... are innately (biologically) inferior?

I'm not denying that there are innate differences between men and women as well as between MANY different human population samples, but this University OFFICIAL was using that as an explanation and fertile ground to base future acts of discrimination.

Even if we can make strides in the field of physiological psychology, scientists still must TEASE OUT the influence of environment before making generalizations regarding *innate* abilities in academia between human races and/or genders.

[mutus_frutex]

42. Fair enough..

I think we agree much more that I thought at first. "Performance" tests are bullshit. Personally, I think that environmental effects are dominant in the case of academic abilities. (As an aside, I was once accused of being sexist because I brought up the fact that I found amazing and discouraging that we had only one woman in our research group. Apparently this woman thought it was bad that I thought of her as a woman, instead of as an associate.. :-)

I also find it is appalling that, as you said, the guy would be on the street if the comments had been racially oriented instead of gender oriented. Of course, this is a socio-political issue, not a scientific one. I still think that trying to find the differences in the genetic make-up of different populations and their effects is highly beneficial for all humanity.

I am wondering what your thoughts are regarding the case of a drug that apparently has less effect on blacks than whites. Doctors are not prescribing it to blacks and trying other things instead. I can't remember the case exactly, I would have to look into it.

Cheers..

[ElectroPrincess]

43. How genuinely kind of you ...

Thanks and I will check out the case referenced in your last paragraph and PM you IF I find anything worthwhile.

It's tough to be sensitive to not coming across as racial prejudice, yet conduct quality scientific research that may assist medical treatment options, etc. The only other non-controversial studies seem to also entail strictly biological processes. For example, the the racial difference in processing of alcohol and how it effects thought processes and funtion. Particular with regard to the Indian American and Certain Asian populations.

Thanks again and Cheers back at ya - :toast:

[Bridget Burke]

30. The meeting was not all about Summers' quoted remarks.

Amazing what one can discover by actually READING the whole article!

Most speakers took aim at Dr. Summers for what they described as an autocratic management style that has stifled the open debate that is at the core of the university's values....

In the past week, Dr. Summers has invited prominent female professors to meet with him, and asked their advice on how to repair his relationships within the Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Several months ago, many of these professors met with Dr. Summers to voice concerns over the sharp decline in the number of offers of tenure to female professors since he became president.

Apparently, there have been ongoing, specific complaints about his performance as President. It's not just a "freedom of speech" matter.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v3.0
==================



This week is our first quarter 2005 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend almost entirely
on donations from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for
your support.

[CWebster]

38. Its about time nt