Given what we know about certain elements in the Harvard faculty, in particular those aligned against Larry Summers, this vote of no-confidence should probably be interpreted as a ringing endorsement for the majority of people who are not members of the ‘reality based community’ that is the Harvard left.
Reader Interactions
45Comments
Comments are closed.
Kimmitt
Or maybe Summers wasn’t a particularly good President for Harvard, and this is representative decision-making in process.
space
No, Kimmit. Women simply aren’t up to snuff in the science/math areas. Summers is a right-wing hero for calling it like it is. Of course “certain elements” (i.e. women) of the “loony left” can’t handle the truth. But then those “certain elements” never accepted John Cole’s requests for dates when he was in college and their opinions should be weighed accordingly.
Fortunately, there are still right-thinking institutions, like Bob Jones University, that are unafraid to proudly defend the natural order of things.
John Cole
Oh, for the love of christ, Space.
I am not even going to waste my time with you trolls. Just go fuck yourself.
willyb
I read that the vote was 218 to 185, with the 218 expressing no confidence in Summers.
Personally, I was shocked that 185 of these pointy-headed elitists would vote their confidence in a person that dared to deviate from political correctness.
M. Scott Eiland
Professor Reynolds’ mention of the notorious vote by a state legislature to rule that pi = 3 was completely appropriate to the discussion of this latest idiocy–one hopes that a substantial number of parents of our best and brightest youngsters will take note and make sure their children don’t end up in this particular leftist clown college.
space
Spare me, John.
Let me explain what is going on here. Women are under-represented in the sciences, including in the science departments of that bastion of liberalism, Harvard University. Summers’ comments indicated that he believes the primary reason for that disparity is due to the genetic makeup of women relative to men. Those who disagree with that assessment, or at least believe that non-biological factors explain the disparity to a large extent, believe that Larry Summers is a poor candidate for eliminating any non-biological hurdles to women that exist at the university. Hence, they voted “no confidence” in him.
As Kimmit said, this is nothing more and nothing less than a private community expressing itself.
There was a time when sensible Republicans would have laughed in the faces of uninformed outsiders trying to second guess how a private institution chooses its own leaders. They would have considered Glenn Reynolds’ comments, and yours, to have been nothing less than…yes, political correctness. After all, what is it that you are demanding of the Harvard faculty? Nothing less than the adoption of your beliefs on this issue. Anything less and the faculty are deemed “certain elements”…ah, the horror that dare not speak its name.
But such sensibility existed before the Republicans declared a war on intellectualism.
Frankly, I have no idea what you personally believe. Maybe you don’t believe that creationism belongs to be taught in high school science departments. Maybe you don’t think the Earth is a few thousand years old. Maybe you don’t think that the Sun revolves around the Earth (as a recent poll indicated 20% of Americans do).
But you are choosing to ally yourself with fools and charlatans who are literally destroying America’s future prosperty. (Yes, only a fool calls Harvard University, whatever its faults, a “leftist clown college,” whatever its faults.)
I hate to break the news to you but America’s institutions of higher learning are WONDERFUL THINGS. Harvard University is a WONDERFUL PLACE. So are the many other institutions of learning across America.
But go ahead and sneer. Go ahead and join the ranks of the mouth-breathers who declare our fine colleges to be nothing more that liberal indoctrination schools. Whatever. Keep whining about political correctness and liberals as America’s illiteracy rate skyrockets and America’s lead in technology collapses.
Just don’t blame the liberals when you get what you ask for.
Adam
Do you blog? There is currently a research survey out that seeks to know “why bloggers blog.” The study is being performed by a graduate student at Appalachian State University in North Carolina. The survey takes less than 5 minutes to complete. Thanks for your time.
Click Here to take the survey
John Cole
Space-
I never called Harvard a ‘leftist clown college.’ You stated the following:
“No, Kimmit. Women simply aren’t up to snuff in the science/math areas. Summers is a right-wing hero for calling it like it is. Of course “certain elements” (i.e. women) of the “loony left” can’t handle the truth. But then those “certain elements” never accepted John Cole’s requests for dates when he was in college and their opinions should be weighed accordingly.
Fortunately, there are still right-thinking institutions, like Bob Jones University, that are unafraid to proudly defend the natural order of things.”
Now- kindly go to hell.
This isn’t about his comments, either, as most of the people present were not even from Harvard.
This is about the left-wing factions in Harvard attacking himbecause he failed to adhere to their orthodoxy. They are mad aout his refusal to divest from Cornell. THey are mad about his considering ROTC on campus. They are mad about his demanding accountability from Cornell West.
That is what this is about- not anti-intellectualism.
Aaron
When will we see the same furor over the lack of male students and profs in Women’s Studies departments?
OH THE HUMANITY!.
Bob
Isn’t Harvard the leftist clown college Dubya went to for grad work when he was in his sixth year of dodging the draft? Or was it some other leftist clown college?
space
I never called Harvard a ‘leftist clown college.’
No, your sycophant M. Scott Eiland did. Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas.
This isn’t about his comments, either, as most of the people present were not even from Harvard.
I’m not sure what is more ridiculous. Your assertion that Harvard faculty couldn’t be upset at Summers’ remarks (despite the fact that they became national news) or the idea that you have any fucking idea why people voted.
But let’s entertain your little fantasy for a moment. Let’s assume that everyone who voted against Summers did it because they didn’t want ROTC recruiting on campus.
We are then presented with a couple of questions. First, is the desire of faculty members to bar ROTC recruiting beyond the pale? And second, assuming that opposing ROTC recruiting is not, per se, unacceptable, may faculty members take steps – including supporting or opposing university presidents – which further their goals.
See? Here’s the thing. For all your blabbering about liberal orthodoxy and political correctness, it is simply beyond the pale that college professors (a) hold positions which you do not share and (b) act upon their beliefs.
If Republican college professors at some other school tried to vote out a liberal president because the president was hindering ROTC recruitment never – never in a million fucking years – would you or Glenn Reynolds be wailing about how a bunch of Republican “factions” were trying to impose their orthodoxy on the school.
That is what this is about- not anti-intellectualism.
No. This is absolutely about anti-intellectualism. Maybe that is not your motivation. But look around you. You are surrounded by nut jobs who think the enlightenment was a bad idea.
space
BTW, if you don’t like the tone of my initial post you might rethink labeling posts with categories like “loony left”. Adolescent posts invite adolescent comments. Getting indignant after the fact isn’t particularly convincing.
John Cole
Space- I would suggest you find out who you are talking to before you start ranting and raving and assuming I know nothing about college faculty.
You really are a pompous ass.
space
I didn’t say that you know nothing about college faculty. I said you are not a mind reader. (And I suspect, but didn’t say, that you proffered those other reasons because they are less defensible than Summers’ statements.)
I further stated that even if you are entirely correct about the motives of the Harvard faculty, they are entitled to their opinions. However, there is not the slightest bit of evidence that they are any more “dogmatic” about their beliefs than you are.
You really are a pompous ass.
Please. I’m not the one whose every post oozes contempt for anyone whose opinion differs from mine. “Democratic Stupidity” and “Loony Left”? Get a clue.
John Cole
And, I assume, you are a mind reader, because you have decided that you can divine their opinions, with much less evidence than what I have offered.
Summers has pissed these guys off repeatedly and now they see their chance. I never said they did not have the right to vote, and I never said outside forces should intervene. I do believe they have an agenda and this gandstanding should be ignored.
If you don’t like how I express my opinion, you know where the door is- although I must admit that you would come to a website that is nothing but opinions and show a deep surprise that the author is opinionated.
BTW- There is also a ‘Republican Stupidity,’ because unlike you, I do not think that I or my ‘side’ is right all the time. I am sure that was just an oversight on your part.
George Saras
Just curious as to whether this moron who signs off as space, is the same useless idiot named Bob. Their pedantic writing “styles” are uncommonly similar…on the other hand, many fucking jerks often sound a lot alike.
Bob
George, we’re different people.
By the way, George, weren’t you going to tell us about what you and your family did during the right-wing coup back in your old country, Greece? You raised the issue, and now that I’ve called you on it, you seem to be unable to form a sentence about what went on in your old country. How come?
A couple possible things: 1.) You were bullshitting and you never lived in Greece. 2.) You and your family were the same scaredy cats there that you are here. You know, keep your heads down and hope that they don’t come for you.
3.) The statute of limitations hasn’t run out for what your poppa did.
Whatever, you sure are avoiding a subject that you raised. And every time to slander me it reminds me of that.
space
George Saras:
No, I am not Bob. Thank you for your touching comments.
John Cole:
Summers has pissed these guys off repeatedly and now they see their chance.
I have no doubt that some people voted against Summers because of other reasons. I also have no doubt that some people voted for him for other reasons – like not giving “certain elements” the pleasure of a victory – despite believing that he might not be a good president.
People always have multiple and ulterior motives for their actions. Singling out groups you do not like for criticism based on that reality is not a fair criticism.
I am also well aware that you have a Republican Stupidity category. That you think that makes you more objective and willing to criticize “your side” is absurd. Pro-Democratic bloggers criticize their own party all the time. They just don’t claim it is a testament to their god-like ability to rise above the political fray and heap scorn upon “both sides.”
As for your assumption that I can’t criticize “my side”: utter garbage. I’ve voted for Republicans many times. On the local level I still do. Fortunately, the Republicans where I live are still interested in effective governance and still retain a skepticism of government spending. They do not push creationism in science classes, demogogue on patriotism, or scapegoat gays for the ills of the world.
I have no problem with your opinions and am not surprised that you are opinionated. What I do have a problem with is the manner in which you express your opinions. It may come as a shock to you but I (OMG, am I criticizing “my side” now?) find Cornell West to be a buffoon. I also did not find Summers’ comments to be sufficiently outrageous to, per se, justify his dismissal. Although, as I indicated earlier, I think that someone who cares strongly about increasing the representation of women in science departments could reasonably believe that this is not a guy who is going to lead the fight on that score.
One last thing. George Saras just called me a “moron,” a “useless idiot,” and a “fucking jerk”. Now, this is your blog and you can run it as you see fit. And I don’t really care what Mr. Saras thinks and am not offended in the slightest. But compared to that, it is rather silly to get your panties in a wad over my joke about your dating habits in college.
This one-way street where everyone who doesn’t agree with you, or the other commenters here, is stupid, idiotic, moronic, etc., but anyone who dares to disagree is a “troll” (and should head for the door) is, shall we say, juvenile.
John Cole
Space-
“People always have multiple and ulterior motives for their actions. Singling out groups you do not like for criticism based on that reality is not a fair criticism.”
At least we are making progress- you now admit that maybe the Harvard folk aren’t voting against Summers because he is incompetent, but because they do not like his politics.
WHICH IS PRECISELY THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS POST. I am not attacking them because of ‘who they are,’ indeed, this blog has been around for going on 4 years with very little (if any) mention of the Harvard Faculty Senate. But what they are DOING NOW caught my eye and my ire…
You also state:
“I have no problem with your opinions and am not surprised that you are opinionated. What I do have a problem with is the manner in which you express your opinions.”
And the remedy is… me starting to write the way you want me to? It appears what you really have a problem with are not my opinions, but the catgeories those opinions are filed under- becuase that appears to be the only thing that really sets you off.
As far as the name calling- you come in here, call me a bigot, a sexist, a mysoginist, tell me all my posts ooze contempt, tell me I am unbalanced, and then you want me to defend you from someone who calls you a ‘fucking jerk?’
Right now I tend to agree with him.
Flagwaver
space is not only a “fucking jerk,” he shares the left’s tendency to ignore inconvenient facts, and argue from both sides of an issue.
space, my ripe and smelly fruit, if you’d do a little research, you’d discover that the Harvard Faculty Senate’s vote re: Summers is “unprecedented” because the HFS has NO POWER to hire or fire Summers. That power is vested SOLELY in the trustees of the Harvard Corporation, AND THAT’S THE DEAL THEY SIGNED ON FOR WHEN THEY JOINED THE FACULTY. They don’t like Summers’ politics (and John is dead right on that), so they are throwing a totally meaningless tantrum (another typical reaction of the left). And John is calling them on it.
You don’t like the way John writes? Tough fucking shit, numbnuts; it’s HIS fucking blog. He can write any damn way he pleases, and if you don’t like it, take a fucking hike.
Pompous ass, indeed.
space
John Cole:
As far as the name calling- you come in here, call me a bigot, a sexist, a mysoginist, tell me all my posts ooze contempt, tell me I am unbalanced
I never called you any of those things and you know it. Although, yes, your posts do ooze contempt. And you choose to ally yourself with people who, yes, believe that women are inferior, Summers was right and the P.C. police just don’t want to hear the truth, higher education is a liberal conspiracy, and Bob Jones U is an oasis of sanity in a sea of liberal crap. Hey, you might not believe ANY of those things. But when you cavalierly treat the issue with snark and contempt you run the risk of guilt by association.
The truth is that I do drop by from time to time because I think you are a rarity among rightie bloggers, someone who thinks rather than spouts rote dogma. Having said that, I find your general tone, your tendency to respond with strawman arguments when challenged, and your blindness to to the idiocy of some of your commenters to be off-putting. But hey, that’s my opinion.
I think that an intelligent argument can be made that Summers may not have faced this vote had he not been under fire on other issues. I have never disputed that. (I disputed that the science-faculty disparity issue was some sham issue cooked up by “certain elements” who have a hidden agenda). People seldom have one reason for doing anything.
But you didn’t make that argument. In fact, your post was nothing but a feel-good post for the mouth-breathing “leftist clown college” crowd to chuckle at and feel self-righteous. I have no respect for that crowd and I said so.
Listen, if all you want to do is preach to the converted, then just say so on the front of your blog (or ban me) and I won’t return. Otherwise, I’m perfectly happy to continue expressing my opinions even if they are different from yours.
and then you want me to defend you from someone who calls you a ‘fucking jerk?’
No. As I said, I couldn’t care less what the mouth-breathers call me. My point was that if you want me to take serious your complaints about my tone you might want to police the place all the way around. But it’s your blog. I was just making an observation.
Just Passing Through
Soace said:
“Women are under-represented in the sciences, including in the science departments of that bastion of liberalism, Harvard University. Summers’ comments indicated that he believes the primary reason for that disparity is due to the genetic makeup of women relative to men.”
No, he did not. I would present to you what he said and the context in which he said it along with the essentail framing remarks that preceded what he said, but I’ll let you google it. It’s been dealt with online enough times in the past few weeks that you should be able to ascertain the truth for yourself if you are of a mind to dos so.
Given that your initial premise is false, the rational that you developed from it in both the remainder of your initial comment on and your followup comments is incorrect.
The faculty of Harvard is a hell of a lot smarter than you give them credit for. The people who voted no-confidence know damn well what Summer’s said, the context in which it was said, and the preceding framework for his remarks. This was nothing more than politically correct grandstanding from the start and meant to exploit an opening to target Summer.
John is correct because he understood the details and you are not because you are arguing from a position or ignorance.
Bob on the other hand, tossed out the buzzwords Dubya and dodging the draft in his first comment. Having marked himself as an ass, I passed over the rest of his comments without reading them. Handy things, buzzwords.
Just Passing Through
Pardon all the mis-types and spelling errors. On lunch and didn’t preview my comment.
John Cole
Space-
I would suggest you look at your initial comment on this thread:
“No, Kimmit. Women simply aren’t up to snuff in the science/math areas. Summers is a right-wing hero for calling it like it is. Of course “certain elements” (i.e. women) of the “loony left” can’t handle the truth. But then those “certain elements” never accepted John Cole’s requests for dates when he was in college and their opinions should be weighed accordingly.
Fortunately, there are still right-thinking institutions, like Bob Jones University, that are unafraid to proudly defend the natural order of things.”
You called me a sexist, aligned me with Bob Jones University (who I do think have bigoted and sexist elements), and claimed that I believe women are not capable of math and science.
In other words, you set the damn tone of this whole exchange- not me, not anyone else. You started all this bnile, and now you want me to back down. I do normally argue fairly and honestly- but it is pretty damn clear that was not your intent from the VERY FIRST THING YOU WROTE.
As far as this post being nothing more than a chest-thumping chuckle at ‘left-wing’ colleges, that might be accurate if this was the only thing I had written on the matter. The fact is, it isn’t. As the second link there shows, I have already made my thoughts clear on why he isn’t under attack:
” Summers is in trouble because he is being lynched by the same collection of rabble and leftist radicals who he has refused to worship.
He pissed them off with Cornel West, the chief icon for lazy intellectual posturing in the Ivy League. He revisited the ROTC issue. He refused to bow to the Islamists and anti-Semites who wanted to divest in Israel. He took on grade inflation. He, in short, is under attack by a coaltion of those brought up in the brain-washed and brain-dead tradition of 1960’s radicalism, and I hope he crushes them like a bug.”
This post did not occur in a vacuum- that you chose to treat it as such is your failing, not mine. The motivations for this vote are clear- that you choose to ignore them is fine.
Now, if you would like some sort of detente, that would be great. In the future, you will probably have more success arguing in good faith if you don;t start out hurling insults and attempting to insinuate that your opposition is a knuckle-dragging woman hater.
George Saras
Bob, do you still live in the Va. area? A few of my family members from the old country would like to visit and explain to you a little more about what it was really like back in the so-called good old days.
Kimmitt
Ooh, threats on the internets. Brave man.
When will we see the same furor over the lack of male students and profs in Women’s Studies departments?
So what you’re saying is that the study of the natural world should be more correctly termed “Men’s Studies”? Interesting.
Flagwaver
Kimmitt, your last comment was lame, even by your standards. And, to both Kimmitt and “space” (perhaps a description of what’s between his ears) – Just Passing Through nailed it (and both of you) by ACCURATELY pointing out what Summers ACTUALLY said – which is a far cry from what you and other lefty twaddle-peddlers claim.
This is P.C. bullshit, and the Harvard Faculty Senate is engaging in a meaningless circle jerk, all because Summers DARED to QUESTION the accepted P.C. dogma.
How’s that Kool Aid taste?
Kimmitt
I would present to you what he said and the context in which he said it along with the essentail framing remarks that preceded what he said, but I’ll let you google it.
You cannot support your thesis from the text. From Summers’ opening paragraphs:
One is what I would call the-I’ll explain each of these in a few moments and comment on how important I think they are-the first is what I call the high-powered job hypothesis. The second is what I would call different availability of aptitude at the high end, and the third is what I would call different socialization and patterns of discrimination in a search. And in my own view, their importance probably ranks in exactly the order that I just described.
Summers’ opinion is clear — he believes that female genetic incapacity for hard sciences is of greater importance than socialization.
He follows this up with:
There may also be elements, by the way, of differing, there is some, particularly in some attributes, that bear on engineering, there is reasonably strong evidence of taste differences between little girls and little boys that are not easy to attribute to socialization.
It isn’t PC foolishness to be offended when the President of Harvard says that two of the major reasons why women are underrepresented at Harvard are that there aren’t enough smart women and that women are scientifically incurious. It was a stupid and extremely embarrassing thing for him to say, and it’s a particularly stupid and embarrassing thing for a man who has presided over a decline in female hires and tenures to say. I am quite confident that part of the implied job description of a Harvard President is, “Don’t say stupid and embarrassing things in public.” Summers violated that part of the contract.
Flagwaver
Thank you, Kimmitt, for your lesson in reading comprehension and mind reading. Your parsing of Summers’ words does violence to the PLAIN MEANING of his actual utterances.
In your first example, please note this significant qualifying language: “different availability of aptitude at the high end.” Do you comprehend the meaning of those words?? Are you aware, for example, that, although women are FAR more socialized to cook, that there are a relative handful of women among the ranks of the world’s great chefs? Women, on average, probably cook far better than men do, and we would probably all agree that that difference is accounted for by societal roles and socialization. So, riddle me this, Batman: If women in general are socialized to cook (as compared to men), and women on average cook better than men (possibly due to such socialization), then WHY aren’t there more women world-class chefs??? Perhaps it is a “different availability of aptitude AT THE HIGH END.” Now do you understand the point he was making?
And why is it “sexist” to posit that there MAY, in fact, be inherent differential abilities between men and women?? There is ample evidence that evolutionary forces, combined with social roles, have differentiated certain abilities in men and women. That some of these abilities might impact overall ability to excel in math and science AT THE HIGH END does not shock or offend me. That it is an IMPONDERABLE to the left tells me that you have an allergy to reality, if it doesn’t fit your preconceived notions of “right.”
Further, he did not indicate that women are inferior in math and science in general, only at “the high end.” Think about it. Not a lot of women, relatively, are motivated to become, say, grandmaster chess players. Can you name ONE woman grandmaster? If women don’t rise to the high end in a profession, there will be fewer role models in that profession, and fewer women will be attracted. Now, it could very well be that the only reason that there are few women at the “high end” is solely because of socialization and sexism. But that is an ASSUMPTION on your part, and to attack any questioning of your ASSUMPTION as “sexism” is anti-intellectualism in its finest form. If you think Summers is full of shit, PROVE IT.
Otherwise, admit that he is raising a question that is just as valid as your knee-jerk assumption that he is sexist, and all the phenomena he is discussing are the result of inherent societal sexism.
Finally, stop playing the rhetoric game. Find me ONE WORD in Summers’ comments that can FAIRLY be interpreted as “the President of Harvard says that two of the major reasons why women are underrepresented at Harvard are that there aren’t enough smart women and that women are scientifically incurious.” That’s just a complete misstatement of what the man said. But, then, I’m not surprised.
M. Scott Eiland
Are you aware, for example, that, although women are FAR more socialized to cook, that there are a relative handful of women among the ranks of the world’s great chefs?
The same thing is true in the world of high-level contract bridge play–as a group, women players are better than men, but the top 100 players are overwhelmingly men. Go figure.
Aaron
Also, Kimmitt, his first reaon was high-powered jobs, not aptitude at the high end.
But I suspect Kimmit thinks we can replace the whole NHL with teams randomly generated from Canadian voter rolls and the skillz will be the same.
Oh wait, if we just include men, it will cure the socialization issue, and THEY REALY WILL BE JUST AS GOOD AS THE REGULAR NHL.
Kimmitt
Also, Kimmitt, his first reaon was high-powered jobs, not aptitude at the high end.
Oh yes, and if he’d stuck to that, he wouldn’t be in nearly the trouble he’s in now.
But I suspect Kimmit thinks we can replace the whole NHL with teams randomly generated from Canadian voter rolls and the skillz will be the same.
I have no idea what you’re trying to imply here. Is this an oblique way to say that you think that there really are inherent genetic talent differences between the genders with regard to science and math?
And why is it “sexist” to posit that there MAY, in fact, be inherent differential abilities between men and women??
Yeah, it’s sexist to say that a major reason that we have fewer women than men in the hard sciences is because more girls than boys are too dumb to get this stuff.
The consensus here seems to be that Summers’ point was valid — that there are demonstrable genetic differences in intelligence and motivation between men and women — so any attack on him is motivated by Political Correctness. I guess it makes sense; if you’re a sexist, you’re likely not to be offended or frustrated by sexist remarks.
Flagwaver
Dammit, Kimmitt, if you’re going to argue about the topic of a thread, at least learn to effin’ read, and respond to what people ACTUALLY SAY, rather than your convenient, strawman constructs of what they (in your MUCH less than humble opinion) “really meant” by what they said.
I’m sure you’re a real sensitive, Alan Alda type of guy, who supports his local NOW Chapter, etc. And I’m sure you’re convinced that anyone who doesn’t share your slavish devotion to the revealed truth as laid down by such intellectual luminaries as Patricia Ireland, but STOP FARKIN RESTATING WHAT SUMMERS, I AND OTHERS ARE ACTUALLY SAYING TO MAKE YOUR POINT.
It’s totally effin’ annoying, and makes the argument about something OTHER THAN what it is about.
Now, to make it simple for you, since your mind apparently has a great deal of difficulty dealing with nuance (strange for a lefty, n’est pas??), here is what Summers actually said, and one of my points, as well: In addition to whatever social factors influence women to enter certain professions in greater or lesser numbers (including, but not limited to, math, science and engineering) is what APPEARS to be a “different availability of aptitude at the high end.” NOT that women aren’t capable of “doing” math and science. NOT that women, ON AVERAGE, may not be equal to or better than men ON AVERAGE in math and science. NOT that women are somehow disabled from pursuing, or should be discouraged from pursuing, a career in math or science. Bluntly, there is a significant horsepower gap between the very top women mathmeticians and scientists, and the very top men mathmeticians and scientists, and if you chalk it up ON AN UNTESTED, POLITICALLY CORRECT ASSUMPTION of societal sexism, you are acting irrationally, counter-productively, and doing a disservice to science and women.
I know that’s all a little much for you, but try to wrap your rigid little mind around it.
By the way, there are a number of areas where the reverse appears to be true. Is it “sexist” to suggest that women are, as scientists who have studied the phenomenon have conclusively demonstrated, better suited physiologically than men for certain pursuits (including, interestingly enough, to be figher pilots – ain’t THAT a kick in the keister?!)?
Why don’t you grow up and think, instead of emoting all the time. Emoting is tiresome when people are discussing serious issues.
Kimmitt
Bluntly, there is a significant horsepower gap between the very top women mathmeticians and scientists, and the very top men mathmeticians and scientists,
I’m aware that your blunt position is sexist. Because there is practically no research whatsoever which supports this view. One study, on IQ, done once. Period. Summers resorted to an incredibly stupid, “Well, my kids gravitate toward different things” argument. When people grasp at unsupported theory to justify their previous biases, I’m pretty clear on what’s going on.
Why don’t you grow up and think, instead of emoting all the time.
Why don’t you take some time to explain to my female professors that it’s okay that there are fewer of them at every level of achievement, because, realistically, fewer women have the intellectual chops to hack it at the higher levels of inquiry?
Flagwaver
Kimmitt,
So now you’re going to defend your juvenile emotive outbursts with childish illogic? You’re impressing me more by the minute.
You assert Summers’ comment about his children was “stupid.” Do you have any kids, Kimmitt? Spent any significant amount of time parenting children of both sexes? No? Then STFU, you don’t know what the fuck you are talking about.
And STOP TRYING TO RECAST WHAT I AM SAYING. If you can’t respond to my statements, stop building straw men. I did not say, EVER, ANYWHERE, IN ANY POST, that women do not “have the intellectual chops to hack it at the higher levels of inquiry.” Either learn to read and comprehend what you are reading, or stop responding to my posts, because I’m getting SICK of your inaccurately spinning my statements into the statements you WISH they were, because it suits your argument better.
It is categorically sexist (racist, whatever) to assert that different sexes, or even different races, might tend to have ON AVERAGE slightly different genetic abilities? Okay, YOU define it as “sexist” (or racist), but you refuse to address the serious question of WHAT IF IT’S TRUE????? Like all on the left, this is an imponderable for you, which makes having a serious discussion of this issue with you next to impossible.
Fact: Blacks far outnumber whites among NBA players (and the NBA is as nearly a pure meritocracy as exists in our society). So, does it make me racist to say that Blacks are disproportionately overrepresented among NBA players, because there is a “different availability of aptitude at the high end?” Name me ONE white player who could do, physically, what Michael Jordan could do.
Name me one world class woman astrophysicist. One world class woman cosomologist. One world class woman theoretical physicist. One world class woman “speculative” mathmetician. BY “world class,” I mean one freely acknowledged by her colleagues AT THE HIGHEST LEVELS OF INQUIRY, to be doing work at least as good and innovative and substantive as any of her other colleagues AT THE HIGHEST LEVELS OF INQUIRY. I’m not talking about “good” scientists, or “good” professors, I’m talking about the best of the best of the best. So name my all these women who prove, by their existence, that there is no “different availability of aptitude at the high end.” Who was the last woman to win a Noble Prize for physics, or chemistry?
Yes, there are disproportionately fewer women in math and science, but there are virtually NO women at the top of those professions. And it’s all because of societal sexism, BECAUSE KIMMITT SAYS SO??????? Who the fuck are you? I give you facts, and you give me unsupported assertions of opinion.
Kimmitt, I’ve tried like heck to have a reasoned discussion with you of serious topics, but you just refuse to pull your head out of rectal defillade and at least have the courage to examine your a priori assumptions, and then you react to any questioning of those assumptions by making categorical and unsupported assertions in the rough nature (and clear intent) of ad hominem attack.
In short, you’re beginning to annoy the shit out of me with your juvenile, illogical approach to discussing serious topics. I’m going to go talk to adults.
Kimmitt
It is categorically sexist (racist, whatever) to assert that different sexes, or even different races, might tend to have ON AVERAGE slightly different genetic abilities?
Yes.
Just Passing Through
immit said:
“You cannot support your thesis from the text. From Summers’ opening paragraphs:…”
You are ignoring the context and framework in which he said what he said and picking and choosing the text that supports your theory.
Summers’ was presenting a viewpoint to provoke consideration. He was most emphatically NOT presenting it as his personal belief but that there was a body of evidence to suggest that the theory was worth debate and went out of his way to say so in the remarks preceding the ones you lifted.
It is the kneejerk reacion of the woman with both an open agenda and a closed and ignorant mind positioned NOT to except that body of evidence as worth DEBATE – important distinction – that caused all this. Her insistance from the start on misrepresnting what he said in the interests of suppressing debate in favot of political correctness is the real issue here. That is what JC and the others here are contending based on everything that Summers’ said rather than a portion of what he said. Continuing to parse what Summers’ said and lift his comments out of context doesn’t address the contention and is nothing more than more politically correct obstruction to healthy intellectual debate expanding our understanding.
Pick a different hobbyhorse Kimmit. This one’s going nowhere and neither is Summers. Cornell West lost his bid to apply PC restraints to Summers and so will this.
Kimmitt
He was most emphatically NOT presenting it as his personal belief
I’m sorry, but this interpretation is also not supportable from the text:
And in my own view, their importance probably ranks in exactly the order that I just described.
Dr. Summers was expressing his opinion. I’m told that a sign of intelligence lies in how many times one must see the same pattern before it becomes clear. This is twice now that you’ve made extremely insulting statements based on a poor reading of the text.
I want to expand on the comment I made to Flagwaver earlier on. Since there is no useful scientific research on the subject of inherent genetic differences and since the opinion that men and women have differing average cognitive capacities is a basic tenet of sexist thought which has been debunked at every turn, you basically have to have a sexist mode of analysis to retain the opinion.
John Cole
“Since there is no useful scientific research on the subject of inherent genetic differences and since the opinion that men and women have differing average cognitive capacities is a basic tenet of sexist thought which has been debunked at every turn, you basically have to have a sexist mode of analysis to retain the opinion.”
Hunh?
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/story.jsp?story=620895
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7147
The simple fact of the matter is that there are inherent differences between men and women. How they play out, how they impact cognitive abilities is not fully understood. Stating that there may be differences between men and women is not sexist, but stating it should nmot be discussed or studied is profoundly anti-intellectual.
Kimmitt
Hey, I’m all for biologists taking crack after crack at trying to figure out what’s going on with the human genome. But given our current state of knowledge — the article you cite makes clear that we know next to nothing about how X chromosomes differentially affect anything outside disease — and given the long and inglorious history of claims regarding female intelligence, it is wildly inappropriate to state that we can attribute any differences in intelligence or success rates to genetic differences. If you’re going to espouse a position which has both been used as an excuse for outright repression historically and which has been continuously debunked in its various formulations for the past hundred years, you’re going to need some pretty spectacular research. This research does not currently exist.
Flagwaver
John,
Thanks for saying it. Kimmitt’s position, which is virtually universal on the left, is that any suggestion or question that there could be inherent differentials in ability is beyond the pale. The question cannot be asked, the subject cannot be discussed, lest you be labeled (as Kimmitt has labeled me and others on this thread – based on the OVERWHELMING authority of his own narrow-minded and uninformed opinion) a racist or sexist or something of the sort. They discourage any inquiry in the area by labeling and ridiculing any serious effort to study the question, then they rely on the lack of scientific studies as “proof” that the thesis is unsound.
Anti-intellectual is a KIND description of this sort of modern-day Lysenkoism.
Kimmitt
Kimmitt’s position, which is virtually universal on the left, is that any suggestion or question that there could be inherent differentials in ability is beyond the pale.
Yep. Sexist positions are sexist.
Flagwaver
Yes, Kimmitt, and idiot, unsupported, emotional, anti-intellectual leftist dogma is a convenient alternative to thought for the intellectually incurious. Funny how the left always derides the intellectual abilities of the right, when it is the left which tends to avoid thoughtful analysis of its own positions.
Kimmitt, I believe you’re probably a decent person. Too bad you’re a mind-numbed robot.
Kimmitt
Funny how the left always derides the intellectual abilities of the right, when it is the left which tends to avoid thoughtful analysis of its own positions.
Sir, with all due respect, point me to a single study which successfully teases out the differences between male and female intellectual achievement and sorts them unambiguously into genetic and environmental factors.
There’s plenty of science which has tried to get at this — we are of course desperately curious about our origins — but we haven’t figured it out yet. The first female doctor in the US was accredited in the 1840s. Women were not granted universal sufferage in the US until 1920 — and in Switzerland until 1976. Hell, my little sister was told in 8th grade that her poor algebra grade wasn’t a big deal because “a pretty girl like you doesn’t need algebra.” If you’re going to espouse a position that has had these sorts of pernicious effects, you’re going to have to either show me some pretty good science or accept the fact that you’re being sexist.
The science doesn’t exist. But that isn’t relevant to you. Who’s being dogmatic?
Flagwaver
I’ve given you facts, Kimmitt – that there is a PROFOUND and unambiguous “different availability of aptitude at the high end”in math, science and engineering. Your response APPEARS to be (because, other than name-calling, you have yet to articulate a coherent response) that (i) there is no “science” to support my assertion (in the first instance, why do you need “science” to verify an observable fact? Second, I’ve already pointed out to you that the left, and in particular the academic left, has discouraged any inquiry into the underlying differences and their root causes – and your respond that there is “plenty” of inquiry in this area. Oh, REALLY??? Name five significantly funded research studies into this.), and (ii) it is “sexist” to even raise the possibility (which is, as is typical of the left, a redefinition of a term for convenience of your argument. Sexism, like racism, is a belief that one sex/race is INHERENTLY SUPERIOR to another. That is not my thesis, I did not so state, nor did Summers. What we both suggested is that men and women ON AVERAGE appear to have differential abilities in certain areas – which is, of course, merely restating the obvious. Had any babies lately, Kimmitt?? Been lactating, recently???).
Men and women are CLEARLY differently enabled. How extensive these different abilities are, and the causes of these different abilities, remain unclear, and will continue to do so until the academic left has the courage to at least ask the question. Which it never will. And you can call me all the names you like – I do not have sufficient respect for either your opinion or your integrity for your name-calling to mean a damn thing to me.