Lawrence Summers, who announced his resignation this week as president of Harvard University, showed how many professors don’t support critical thinking when it challenges their orthodoxy. Summers had several high-profile confrontations during his tenure, including when he demanded that professors do more scholarly work and be more politically diverse, and when he pondered whether there might be some innate gender differences that helped explain why more men than women go into science and engineering fields. As a result, a group of faculty has been campaigning for his ouster, including forcing no-confidence votes. But as a Washington Post editorial noted: “University professors, of all people, should not require mollycoddling; they should be willing to embrace leaders who ask hard questions about how well they are doing their jobs.”
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/23
- Monkeyhawk on Too many exemptions
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- Phantom on Open thread 11/23
- Raptor on Too many exemptions
- CapnAmerica on Too many exemptions
- CapnAmerica on Too many exemptions
31 Comments
Heaven forbid someone criticizes a professor for not doing his job, which is teaching. Like the far right, the far left liberal teaching establishment brooks no discourse concerning their beliefs. Far be it in the professors’ mind to teach students to think for themselves, rather than be indoctrinated by the professors’ leanings. And should another faculty member, or college administrator question a professor’s unwillingness to teach said students a varied and complete education, why, that person surely needs to be fired. We certainly can’t have someone upsetting the status quo, now, can we? Talk about arrogance.
Brother American JM,
Right on. It’s the same way even in my law school!
Unhyphenated AmericanCrux
It’s the elitist mentality of many professors in the group think of leftism. They believe they are justifably superior in thought, and therefore, when one becomes a leftist, they all must be.
It reminds me of the movie the Aviator, when Howard Hughes (Leonardo DiCaprio) was over at the Hepburn’s family estate. The weatlhy, aristocratic, generational inhertance family who does nothing but play cricket and have lavish meals and talk about politics.
When they said they were socalist and everybody should be a socalist and share and be entitled to a fair share, that is when Howard Hughes said “”You’d understand money has a great value when you have to earn it.”
Same goes with Professors. They should only get respect and praises when they have earn it. Lawrence Summers has earned it, because he was doing what professors and educators should do. That is be critical, ask questions, and seek anwsers.
But the leftist mentality of group think in many professors is they believe they are entitled to it, just because they have the title professor. Not so.
Leftism believes in entitlement. That is why they wanted him our of Harvard. He was going to make the rest work for the respect of professor.
Boy, did the WE Board serve up a softball thread for Joe Williams, or what? I mean he was able to go a total of 12 words before getting in a “Leftist” jab. :)
I don’t think the people at Harvard are guilty of trying to stifle differing opinion. The truth is, if you are the president of Harvard, you have some influence on how others see things – especially nonacademics. Thus in my opinion, Summers needs to be careful with his SWAGs (scientific wild ass guesses). There has been no empirical information that I am aware suggesting a biological/genetic difference between males and females that explains the science achievement gap. The likely culprit is socialization. Until, Summers has some data contradicting that, it is not only non-PC to suggest otherwise, but I would submit irresponsible to do so.
Because the “Leftists” hold a position, that does not automatically mean it is wrong. Thinking persons might be able to see this truth. (Joe, this paragraph is for you; you “Rightist”, you!) :)
Agreed, DD.
I went to college for eight years and earned two M.A.’s in liberal arts fields, and I honestly can never once remember an instructor taking an strong stance on a political question.
I can’t think of a single instance in which a professor revealed his or her party affiliation, their voting preference in an upcoming election, or their personal beliefs on the controversies of the day.
I think what the right-wing hates about academia is that it’s the only a place in our society (unlike Congress, the White House, the high courts, the police and military, the business community, the Chamber of Commerce etc etc.) free of THEIR propaganda and coercive practices.
The important question is not “did Summers get crucified on the PC cross?”
The question is why is Summers even talking about innate gender differences? It’s not in his job description to take on that issue. It’s not part of his academic background or professional duties to ram his personal views down people’s throats.
Academics don’t want Rush Limbaugh or Al Franken leading their college. They want a professional who’ll act like a professional.
I have four University dgrees and during the time I spent in academia I only came to really respect four of my professors. College campuses are for the most part just vile, intolerant stalinist enclaves!
Viva La Raza Blanco!!
“Leftism believes in entitlement.”
You know, that’s true, Joe.
We believe that we’re entitled to the freedoms enumerated in the Constitution, for starters.
Like government needing warrants for search and seizure, that’s something we believe feel every American is entitled to.
Or that no candidate must declare his or her religious preference or even have a religion to hold office in America. That basic notion of separation of church and state, we’re entitled to that.
The part in the Declaration of Independence that says “all men are created equal”? We left-wingers are strict constructionists on that entitlement. We don’t believe that somebody should be able to pull strings and get into the Texas Air National Guard so he doesn’t have to fight in Vietnam, for instance–that’s not equality.
Or when our leader Martin Luther King demanded that the US make good on its promise to strike down the Jim Crow laws passed by the CONSERVATIVES in the South, and who fought King tooth-and-nail under the guise of STATE’S RIGHTS (like they still do), we felt a sense of entitlement.
So, you’re right, when it comes to Constitutionally protected freedoms, we leftists do feel that all Americans are entitled to them.
Well you didn’t go to the right college, Ian.
You should have gone to Bob Jones University. They welcome people like you there.
BTW, how’s that online poker thing working out for you, Ian?
Looks like not so good . . .
Online Poker????????
ProudLib DarDi
You two need to read this little ditty.http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/mikeadams/2006/02/22/187524.html
College campuses used to be places where young people learned to think for themselves. Now they are places where professors tell young people what they should think.
Heckler–
That out of the 4,000 some colleges and universities in this country, you can find a few examples of “liberal indoctrination” and gin it up to a “conspiracy and an outrage” is not terribly surprising.
The first thing they tell you in college statistics is not to rely on a bunch of anecdotes. That’s probably one reason why the right-wing hates academia so much: it’s the ultimate fact-based community as opposed to the conservatives’ faith-based community.
So, I’m not reading any of your trash.
I’ve been there, and I’ve lived it. I don’t need to read about it.
And finally, if academia is so “leftist,” why is George W. in the White House? Looks like all that leftist indoctrination isn’t having much of an impact, doesn’t it . . .
Heck,
I read your link and I guess your point is that Universities are tolerant of things that most people aren’t, and aren’t tolerant of things most people are?
I, for one, would not say that that position is without foundation. I also think that faculty positions can be communicated in less than overt ways. That is one of my problems with Summers’ assertion. I think it is possible his underlying attitude is expressed by his question about gender differences. I would like to ask him to back up his question with data. I don’t think that he can. If he can’t, I would say his question is unwise and not sufficiently responsible for someone in his position. That is merely my opinion.
This rather long .pdf says there is a small and shrinking difference in science/math achievement between the genders.
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2005/2005016.pdf
To clarify, I would suppose any question is okay. But I wonder about unfounded speculation and it is my view that such is not appropriate from a university president. Maybe it is not a termination offense, but it seems to be bad form.
ProudLib
You need to read Horowitz’ new book.
You also need to talk to a few kids who have gone to a variety of different universities. Free thought is squelched and groupthink is force fed.
Heckler,
You need to visit a few college campuses and stop taking Horowitz’s word for what goes on.
I’ve taught at four different universities in three different states. All these phony claims of ‘liberal professors silencing students in the classroom/squelching free thought’ is bullshit.
In my classes, no one is ever shut down on ideological grounds. NEVER. My job is to get them to interrogate their own assumptions, whether I agree with them or not. In a college classroom, nothing can be anathema. If someone personally attacks someone else, I step in. But ALL ideas have to be on the table.
It’s just a way for conservatives–who are underrepresented in the humanities–to demand affirmative action for their weak-assideological commitment.
Horowitz, the would-be Stalinist thought-enforcer, can kiss my ass. So can the WaPo. Elitist conservative pukes. They hate the academy for its freedom; it offends their subservient sensibilities.
cf
are you ever a happy person. a question was asked, an answer posed and the writer and his source belittled. makes wonder if tolerance was actually practiced in your class or just your view of it.
since we are comparing degrees, i have three but i will tell you that i found very little of that. soem by teh pc crowd who wanted every paper be have he/she and other like terms in it and once by a prof who felt that tryign to belittling a student athlete was a good way to teach. didn’t like my poetry and told me it sucked because it had to do with athletics. i blamed it on his over inflated ego.
i really think that all this is more of a coastal bias than it is here in the midwest, mirecki at ku notwithstanding
Well, hell, Scott.
If you’re spelling and punctuation in class was anything like your post, I’d give you a low grade too.
PL,
U cant b waycist wit da student athleet ballers, ya know! rotflmosrfao
peace out.
Oops, that should be “your.” You’re inspiring me, Scott . . .
Ian,I know what rothflm….ao are but what are osrf – old,stupid, ridiculously, fat?
DD,
Yes, I am a short, fat, bald, underaciveing White guy and I look just like George Costanza from Steinfeld! lol
HELP ME JERRY, HELP ME!!!!!!
V.L.R.B!!
Also, any poetry teacher who doesn’t like the topic of “athletics” doesn’t have much knowledge of the field–Houseman’s “To an Athlete Dying Young” is widely anthologized. Odysseus’s exploits at Scheria in their Olympic-style games is an important tale in Homer’s epic poem.
Brother American Ian,I thought you “Aryans” were forbidden to watch Jews on television?ROTFLMAO!
Unhyphenated AmericanCX
scott,
“It is etter to be thought a fool and remain silent, than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt.
Just sayin’.
just sayin cfyeah i type horribly and didn’t have time to proof. you probably ought to look in the mirror. you have some good points but it is so hate filled its hard to see. throughin thatt quote out doesn’t offend me. your intolerance of other ideas does.
pl
i appreciate that poem and my poetry did suck. do you always rush to your buddies defense. apparently struck a nerve with you guys
Scott,
I was agreeing with you on poetry about atheletics. But then you admit that your poetry DID suck. Can’t help you with that . . .
Actually, I agree with you on “inclusive” language. While economic opportunities for women continue to be unequal and “welfare reform” hammers mainly single women and their kids, the academic feminists are getting all in a lather about pronouns.
I just use “their” or “one” instead of “he” or “she.” Long story short, problem solved.
I agree that gender-inclusive language is not nearly as important as other social equality issues. However, I do think that it has some importance. It isn’t so much for generic things; but it reinforces cultural norms, for example when physicians are always he, nurses always she, grade school teachers she, college professors he. “One” often sounds awkward, and “their” can’t properly be used for the singular (The president must give their report).
I found the Wash Post quotation interesting. It uses gender neutral language. I don’t think the problem was questioning whether Harvard prof.’s were doing their jobs well, but whether women were even capable of doing certain academic jobs. So, “their” really only refers to a group of females, though the neutrality of it obscures this point.
This is one of those deals where people don’t understand how normal statistical distributions work. Maybe that in itself is an indication of how poor our math and science education has become.
Consider a normal distribution of all men’s math scores, overlaid on top of a normal distribution of all women’s math scores.
By “normal” I mean that it is a standard bell curve.
The men might easily have a distribution .5 points to the right of the women.
That would be statistically significant but of no practical difference in the market.
Now if you looked at just the far extreme high scores (the little tails to the right) you would find in that little hunk of real estate 4 or 5 times as many men as there are women.
Hence Harvard, which only sees the brightest, would see more men at the extreme end of the spectrum in this particular discipline.
However, if you were to pick a random man and a random woman out of the whole pool you would find that the man was better 50.25% of the time and the woman was superiour 49.75% of the time
Basically that is a draw. They are equal in the real world butat one end of the spectrum there is a difference.
So there are different ways of looking at the question and it disturbs me that we don’t understand that.
That’s how we might for example get a statement that the worst irish drinkers are true world class drunks, but a given irishman is only slightly different than the average of all other people.
Len–interesting point and you know your stats.
But the question is WHY Summers felt he needed to weigh in on this issue to begin with.
Sounds like he was just trying to stir up trouble, IMHO.
Why doesn’t he talk about the scientific evidence for God while he’s at it . . .
I cite for the Eagle the “poster” Kisc. On many threads he is using this forum to shill pornographic websites.