folklorefanatic (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
folklorefanatic) wrote2006-02-22 02:39 am
folklorefanatic) wrote2006-02-22 02:39 am
Ding dong, the witch is gone!
Larry Summers is quitting Harvard University at the end of the year.
More's the pity I wasn't there in Harvard Yard to see it firsthand (like I should have been for my senior year, but that's a story for another time). I was so happy when I heard that I bounced around the room during the newscast (no small feat in our cluttered home, I assure you). Hey, there have to be SOME things worth celebrating in these dark days, right? Right?
Summer sucked. I wish I could say it more scientifically and professionally, but I'm sure that somewhere, somehow, someone else already did.
Back in January 2005, George F. Will of the Washington Post wrote a misleading article praising Summers for fostering a sense of 'diversity' in opinions on campus. It was unusually tongue-in-cheek and sassy, so I replied in turn. ;) I don't have an electronic copy of his editorial, but I do have the reply that I sent to him:
1.27.05
It appears that many people are under the mistaken impression that
Larry Summers, president of Harvard University, has endured an
inquisition of intellectual scorn unparalleled since the days of the
Salem Witch Trials. By using the word 'hysteric' to describe Prof.
Nancy Hopkins and other outraged participants at the conference in
question, detractors of the feminist movement hope to paint those
offended by Summers' myopic framing of his puzzlement at the deficit
of females with tenure at Harvard as mere left-wing reactionaries who
seek to stifle dissent on an "ultra-liberal campus."
Of course, the truth is far more complicated. I have little doubt
that it was not the question itself that raised so much ire as the way
in which Summers structured it — and as a former student at Harvard on
Larry's proverbial clock, I can safely say that this fiasco is
indicative of the underlying problems surrounding our president's
tenuous relationship with his students. Perhaps Mr. Summers would have
better served his attempt at drawing out a reaction from his
colleagues if he had chosen his words more carefully: "Why do we
currently enroll just as many women as men in our college and in many
graduate schools but fail to hire a proportional amount of female
professors?" Or perhaps, "Why does unequal treatment of boys and girls
in adolescent education have such an impact on choice of careers in
higher education?" Better still: "It boggles the mind that more women
than men earn college degrees in the United States, yet the vast
majority of all executive, managerial, tenured or otherwise top
positions in all aspects of our society continue to be dominated by
males, despite marked decreases in this trend by countries far
less industrialized than ours. Why is the American bureaucratic
mindset mired in sexist hiring practices?"
It is all in how you phrase the question.
There is nothing wrong with debating the differences between male and
female anatomy, physiology, or biological predispositions. Healthy
debate is necessary for higher learning to progress and evolve. Mr.
Summers, however, constructed his question to preempt any possibility
that the lack of tenured women at Harvard is the fault of anyone but
women themselves. America is making significant progress to close the
gender gap and will continue to do so, as long as crimes like unequal
wages for female managers inspire boycotts of corporations like
Wal-Mart until the practices die out. In order for women to enter the
corridors of power, unfortunately, the men who already occupy the
space there will have to open the door for them. As it is painfully
clear, the environment breeds the endgame.
Alas, this issue is not the only exercise in power that Summers has
misused. This is not the first time Mr. Summers has stifled discussion
in a brash attempt to provoke it. In the fall of 2001, I was
privileged enough to enroll in Intro to African-American Studies,
during which Prof. Cornell West taught an unprecedented 636 students
in the basement of St. Paul's Church with his notoriously un-orthodox,
bold, and interactive lecturing style. We broke fire regulations on
campus with the crowds and had to transfer out of Harvard Yard in
order to accommodate everyone; finding a seat was a biweekly, fearsome
and selfish battle. I learned more about philosophy, religious
convergences and racism than I had in all my previous years of
education. I am someone siding with Summers would conclude that human
nature has predisposed many of us to react better to one way of
teaching and that, inevitably, on some intangible and minute biometric
scale, certain types of teaching are bound to failure. Larry Summers
certainly seemed to think so. In the guise of "returning
intellectualism to its traditional roots," he criticized and
denigrated West's teaching methods, and the ensuing war of words sent
the professor in question and a second valued instructor in the AfAm
Department packing off the Princeton. While I cannot deny that Cornell
West is not always as receptive to criticism as perhaps he ought to
be, Summers took West and his unconventional, innovative methods away
from Harvard, denying many future students an experience that was, to
me, one of few enlightening experiences that had the power to renew
one's enthusiasm for learning and instill a sense of faith in higher
education in those who may make the grade in typical lecture,
take-notes-silently type courses but pass through them half asleep,
their minds tuned out to the enthusiasm for—and profound meaning
behind—the subjects that they study.
Then there was the ominous, blatantly partisan, and autocratic
warning to the college community in the fall of 2002 that those
students and professors who supported the petition for campus
divestment from the Israeli economy because of the United States'
continuing financial support of the military exacerbation of the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict were being "anti-Semitic in effect, if
not intent." If I recall correctly, the participants in the divestment
campaign were concerned that our country has given more military aid
to Israel than any other country ever, save Iraq, which was not taken
into account at the time. It was not a condemnation of Israelis in
general, nor was it a protest of Israel's right to exist or the equal
rights of Jewish people; it was a criticism of U.S. foreign aid that
they believed was, in effect, escalating the violence in the Middle
East. Since that speech, every single disagreement on the Harvard
campus with Israel's current administration has met with accusations
of anti-Semitism. I have born witness to numerous instances of this
happening, including "witch hunts" against many progressive activists,
and none of them predate Larry Summers' speech. As you can imagine,
the campus political mood under our current leadership suffers from a
plethora of maladies, not the least of which is a phobia of dissent.
Talk about overreactions to imagined slights!
From my observations of Larry Summers, I can only conclude that he is
as mired in an outdated system of thinking as he is in his beliefs
concerning the values of a diverse education. He repeatedly falls into
an "indignation industry" of his own making, and if that makes him a
victim of an ideological crucible, so be it.
I guess it would have been suffice to say that the subject was 'tetchy,' huh? :D
More's the pity I wasn't there in Harvard Yard to see it firsthand (like I should have been for my senior year, but that's a story for another time). I was so happy when I heard that I bounced around the room during the newscast (no small feat in our cluttered home, I assure you). Hey, there have to be SOME things worth celebrating in these dark days, right? Right?
Summer sucked. I wish I could say it more scientifically and professionally, but I'm sure that somewhere, somehow, someone else already did.
Back in January 2005, George F. Will of the Washington Post wrote a misleading article praising Summers for fostering a sense of 'diversity' in opinions on campus. It was unusually tongue-in-cheek and sassy, so I replied in turn. ;) I don't have an electronic copy of his editorial, but I do have the reply that I sent to him:
1.27.05
It appears that many people are under the mistaken impression that
Larry Summers, president of Harvard University, has endured an
inquisition of intellectual scorn unparalleled since the days of the
Salem Witch Trials. By using the word 'hysteric' to describe Prof.
Nancy Hopkins and other outraged participants at the conference in
question, detractors of the feminist movement hope to paint those
offended by Summers' myopic framing of his puzzlement at the deficit
of females with tenure at Harvard as mere left-wing reactionaries who
seek to stifle dissent on an "ultra-liberal campus."
Of course, the truth is far more complicated. I have little doubt
that it was not the question itself that raised so much ire as the way
in which Summers structured it — and as a former student at Harvard on
Larry's proverbial clock, I can safely say that this fiasco is
indicative of the underlying problems surrounding our president's
tenuous relationship with his students. Perhaps Mr. Summers would have
better served his attempt at drawing out a reaction from his
colleagues if he had chosen his words more carefully: "Why do we
currently enroll just as many women as men in our college and in many
graduate schools but fail to hire a proportional amount of female
professors?" Or perhaps, "Why does unequal treatment of boys and girls
in adolescent education have such an impact on choice of careers in
higher education?" Better still: "It boggles the mind that more women
than men earn college degrees in the United States, yet the vast
majority of all executive, managerial, tenured or otherwise top
positions in all aspects of our society continue to be dominated by
males, despite marked decreases in this trend by countries far
less industrialized than ours. Why is the American bureaucratic
mindset mired in sexist hiring practices?"
It is all in how you phrase the question.
There is nothing wrong with debating the differences between male and
female anatomy, physiology, or biological predispositions. Healthy
debate is necessary for higher learning to progress and evolve. Mr.
Summers, however, constructed his question to preempt any possibility
that the lack of tenured women at Harvard is the fault of anyone but
women themselves. America is making significant progress to close the
gender gap and will continue to do so, as long as crimes like unequal
wages for female managers inspire boycotts of corporations like
Wal-Mart until the practices die out. In order for women to enter the
corridors of power, unfortunately, the men who already occupy the
space there will have to open the door for them. As it is painfully
clear, the environment breeds the endgame.
Alas, this issue is not the only exercise in power that Summers has
misused. This is not the first time Mr. Summers has stifled discussion
in a brash attempt to provoke it. In the fall of 2001, I was
privileged enough to enroll in Intro to African-American Studies,
during which Prof. Cornell West taught an unprecedented 636 students
in the basement of St. Paul's Church with his notoriously un-orthodox,
bold, and interactive lecturing style. We broke fire regulations on
campus with the crowds and had to transfer out of Harvard Yard in
order to accommodate everyone; finding a seat was a biweekly, fearsome
and selfish battle. I learned more about philosophy, religious
convergences and racism than I had in all my previous years of
education. I am someone siding with Summers would conclude that human
nature has predisposed many of us to react better to one way of
teaching and that, inevitably, on some intangible and minute biometric
scale, certain types of teaching are bound to failure. Larry Summers
certainly seemed to think so. In the guise of "returning
intellectualism to its traditional roots," he criticized and
denigrated West's teaching methods, and the ensuing war of words sent
the professor in question and a second valued instructor in the AfAm
Department packing off the Princeton. While I cannot deny that Cornell
West is not always as receptive to criticism as perhaps he ought to
be, Summers took West and his unconventional, innovative methods away
from Harvard, denying many future students an experience that was, to
me, one of few enlightening experiences that had the power to renew
one's enthusiasm for learning and instill a sense of faith in higher
education in those who may make the grade in typical lecture,
take-notes-silently type courses but pass through them half asleep,
their minds tuned out to the enthusiasm for—and profound meaning
behind—the subjects that they study.
Then there was the ominous, blatantly partisan, and autocratic
warning to the college community in the fall of 2002 that those
students and professors who supported the petition for campus
divestment from the Israeli economy because of the United States'
continuing financial support of the military exacerbation of the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict were being "anti-Semitic in effect, if
not intent." If I recall correctly, the participants in the divestment
campaign were concerned that our country has given more military aid
to Israel than any other country ever, save Iraq, which was not taken
into account at the time. It was not a condemnation of Israelis in
general, nor was it a protest of Israel's right to exist or the equal
rights of Jewish people; it was a criticism of U.S. foreign aid that
they believed was, in effect, escalating the violence in the Middle
East. Since that speech, every single disagreement on the Harvard
campus with Israel's current administration has met with accusations
of anti-Semitism. I have born witness to numerous instances of this
happening, including "witch hunts" against many progressive activists,
and none of them predate Larry Summers' speech. As you can imagine,
the campus political mood under our current leadership suffers from a
plethora of maladies, not the least of which is a phobia of dissent.
Talk about overreactions to imagined slights!
From my observations of Larry Summers, I can only conclude that he is
as mired in an outdated system of thinking as he is in his beliefs
concerning the values of a diverse education. He repeatedly falls into
an "indignation industry" of his own making, and if that makes him a
victim of an ideological crucible, so be it.
I guess it would have been suffice to say that the subject was 'tetchy,' huh? :D