APPLAUSE FOR HARVARD PRES LAWRENCE SUMMERS. SHAME ON FACULTY
J. Grant Swank, Jr.
The bottom line is that prejudice does mightily rule at Harvard University. It does. Free thinking and speaking are a charade.
Though faculty continually stated to themselves and media that political correctness was not the issue, it was. Harvard President Lawrence Summers stated some words that apparently did not fit in with females and female supporters on and off campus. Therefore, he was put to task for being mean to women, in short. That’s it. He was not being fair. And of course that could not be tolerated by the academic head of Harvard University.
Summers stated that women were not the same as men when it came to science acumen. So it was reported as the "Gender Gap" in the March-April issue of Harvard Magazine (page 62). That kind of talk from the Harvard President was not permitted.
Why not? Why not permitted? Why not? If there were those who disagreed, then let them disagree. That’s what Harvard is for. Supposedly. Yet obviously not so when the females and their female and male supporters got hold of Summer’s remarks.
To the issue, William M. Murphy wrote in "Letters" (May-June 2005 issue / Harvard Magazine (page 4): "Three cheers for President Lawrence H. Summers for the speech that has aroused such paranoia, and no cheers for his apology. No cheers either for the three college presidents who joined in chiding him, or for the Harvard Corporation in its weak-kneed support of him.
"Summers suggested we might look into whether women’s genetic makeup might cause them to be less gifted, or less interested, in the sciences. Is that not a legitimate subject for inquiry? If he had asked whether man’s genetic makeup might be responsible for more men than women being imprisoned for violent crimes, would there have been calls for his head?
"The fallout from this nonsense has already caused grievous harm to Harvard and, if continued, will cause more. What we are seeing is the ultimate triumph of political correctness, the contemporary equivalent of medieval theological dogma, any deviation from which is regarded as heresy. Galileo must have felt much as Summers feels now, and for the same reason, being forced to apologize while still holding to his beliefs.
"Is Harvard to be held hostage to the whims of neo-Victorian maidens who rush to the smelling salts at the utterance of what they regard as a naughty word — but have plenty of strength left to hike up their skirts and trot off to the nearest TV reporters?
"Is Harvard to reassert the primacy of free thought and free investigation or is it to bow down before a powerful anti-intellectual lobby with a specific agenda?"
Bravo to Mr. Murphy.
Summers has been put through the mill, for certain. One meeting after another. One speech following another. One accusation — though supposedly politely put — sequenced after another.
Then there were the police escorts provided Summers to various gatherings. And all the cameras and reporters crowding in upon his person. All because the Harvard President made a perfectly legitimate statement involving women in comparison to men.
Mark Gluck, Professor of neuroscience, Rutgers University, Newark, New Jersey, wrote his letter to the magazine in which he stated: "There is overwhelming evidence for biologically based sex differences in cognition. In fact, few scientists today would question the existence of fundamental differences between men and women in their patterns of cognitive abilities and the structure and function of certain brain regions.
"It is important to be clear that the relevant studies all report the average (mean) performance of representative samples of males versus females on behavioral tasks; they tell us noting about any particular individual. Because these behavioral measures generally show considerable variability within both groups, many males and females perform counter to average trends.
"One striking result from a wide range of research studies is that females consistently score, on average, higher than males in many language skills, including word articulation and measure of verbal fluency.
"These and other studies suggest that differences in verbal skills are influenced by exposure to sex hormones, both prenatal by the developing fetus, and subsequently during adulthood by circulating levels of these hormones.
"In contrast, males tend to show significant advantage in many skills involving spatial cognition or the coordination of visual and motor function. Again, research has suggested that these differences are due, in part, to both prenatal exposure to sex hormones as well as circulating levels of these hormones at the time of testing.
"Perhaps the most striking differences between men and women are with respect to the representation and manipulation of mental images of there-dimensional objects. . .
"Although societal norms and cultural expectations could influence all of these abilities, the key role of sex hormones in modulating these differences provides compelling evidence for an underlying biological basis for many of these differences."
With that, Summers made his remarks. For that, he was tried and found guilty by a faculty vote stating that they no longer had confidence in his ability to lead. The tally was 218 stating they had no confidence in Summers’ leadership ability. There were 185 who stated that they were not in favor of the no-confidence measure. There were 18 who abstained.
But faculties do not decide whether or not Summers remains as President of Harvard University. The Corporation decides that. In finality, the President reports to and is appointed by the Corporation, not the faculties.
Therefore, when all was said and done, or much was said and done with some said-and-done left unsaid and undone, the Corporation gave a brief statement concluding it stood alongside Summers as President.
Summers has not damaged Harvard University. Certain members of the faculty and cohorts have hurt Harvard University for years to come. The very reason for Harvard University’s existence is for any person, including the President, to state what he feels to be pertinent.
Henceforth, that will no longer be the privilege of all, particularly not the privilege of any President seeking to live out the Harvard University reason for being.
Once again, liberalism has turned cannibal and devoured itself in the name of "free speech, free thought."
For more: http://conservativeposts.us/ <http://conservativeposts.us/>
The bottom line is that prejudice does mightily rule at Harvard University. It does. Free thinking and speaking are a charade.
Though faculty continually stated to themselves and media that political correctness was not the issue, it was. Harvard President Lawrence Summers stated some words that apparently did not fit in with females and female supporters on and off campus. Therefore, he was put to task for being mean to women, in short. That’s it. He was not being fair. And of course that could not be tolerated by the academic head of Harvard University.
Summers stated that women were not the same as men when it came to science acumen. So it was reported as the "Gender Gap" in the March-April issue of Harvard Magazine (page 62). That kind of talk from the Harvard President was not permitted.
Why not? Why not permitted? Why not? If there were those who disagreed, then let them disagree. That’s what Harvard is for. Supposedly. Yet obviously not so when the females and their female and male supporters got hold of Summer’s remarks.
To the issue, William M. Murphy wrote in "Letters" (May-June 2005 issue / Harvard Magazine (page 4): "Three cheers for President Lawrence H. Summers for the speech that has aroused such paranoia, and no cheers for his apology. No cheers either for the three college presidents who joined in chiding him, or for the Harvard Corporation in its weak-kneed support of him.
"Summers suggested we might look into whether women’s genetic makeup might cause them to be less gifted, or less interested, in the sciences. Is that not a legitimate subject for inquiry? If he had asked whether man’s genetic makeup might be responsible for more men than women being imprisoned for violent crimes, would there have been calls for his head?
"The fallout from this nonsense has already caused grievous harm to Harvard and, if continued, will cause more. What we are seeing is the ultimate triumph of political correctness, the contemporary equivalent of medieval theological dogma, any deviation from which is regarded as heresy. Galileo must have felt much as Summers feels now, and for the same reason, being forced to apologize while still holding to his beliefs.
"Is Harvard to be held hostage to the whims of neo-Victorian maidens who rush to the smelling salts at the utterance of what they regard as a naughty word — but have plenty of strength left to hike up their skirts and trot off to the nearest TV reporters?
"Is Harvard to reassert the primacy of free thought and free investigation or is it to bow down before a powerful anti-intellectual lobby with a specific agenda?"
Bravo to Mr. Murphy.
Summers has been put through the mill, for certain. One meeting after another. One speech following another. One accusation — though supposedly politely put — sequenced after another.
Then there were the police escorts provided Summers to various gatherings. And all the cameras and reporters crowding in upon his person. All because the Harvard President made a perfectly legitimate statement involving women in comparison to men.
Mark Gluck, Professor of neuroscience, Rutgers University, Newark, New Jersey, wrote his letter to the magazine in which he stated: "There is overwhelming evidence for biologically based sex differences in cognition. In fact, few scientists today would question the existence of fundamental differences between men and women in their patterns of cognitive abilities and the structure and function of certain brain regions.
"It is important to be clear that the relevant studies all report the average (mean) performance of representative samples of males versus females on behavioral tasks; they tell us noting about any particular individual. Because these behavioral measures generally show considerable variability within both groups, many males and females perform counter to average trends.
"One striking result from a wide range of research studies is that females consistently score, on average, higher than males in many language skills, including word articulation and measure of verbal fluency.
"These and other studies suggest that differences in verbal skills are influenced by exposure to sex hormones, both prenatal by the developing fetus, and subsequently during adulthood by circulating levels of these hormones.
"In contrast, males tend to show significant advantage in many skills involving spatial cognition or the coordination of visual and motor function. Again, research has suggested that these differences are due, in part, to both prenatal exposure to sex hormones as well as circulating levels of these hormones at the time of testing.
"Perhaps the most striking differences between men and women are with respect to the representation and manipulation of mental images of there-dimensional objects. . .
"Although societal norms and cultural expectations could influence all of these abilities, the key role of sex hormones in modulating these differences provides compelling evidence for an underlying biological basis for many of these differences."
With that, Summers made his remarks. For that, he was tried and found guilty by a faculty vote stating that they no longer had confidence in his ability to lead. The tally was 218 stating they had no confidence in Summers’ leadership ability. There were 185 who stated that they were not in favor of the no-confidence measure. There were 18 who abstained.
But faculties do not decide whether or not Summers remains as President of Harvard University. The Corporation decides that. In finality, the President reports to and is appointed by the Corporation, not the faculties.
Therefore, when all was said and done, or much was said and done with some said-and-done left unsaid and undone, the Corporation gave a brief statement concluding it stood alongside Summers as President.
Summers has not damaged Harvard University. Certain members of the faculty and cohorts have hurt Harvard University for years to come. The very reason for Harvard University’s existence is for any person, including the President, to state what he feels to be pertinent.
Henceforth, that will no longer be the privilege of all, particularly not the privilege of any President seeking to live out the Harvard University reason for being.
Once again, liberalism has turned cannibal and devoured itself in the name of "free speech, free thought."
For more: http://conservativeposts.us/ <http://conservativeposts.us/>
<< Home