"My family made me so nuts that I not only went to college halfway across the country, but took an extra year to graduate and then remained in that state almost 20 years." --GRF

New Study on College-Going Rates Gives Mom Something Else to Worry About

N.C. Community Colleges May Admit Illegal Immigrants, Federal Agency Says

Robert Bork and Yale Club Settle $1-Million Lawsuit Out of Court

Chairman of West Virginia U. Board Quits Post but Will Not Leave Board

Universities in Lebanon Close Due to Fighting

Social Scientist in Army's 'Human Terrain' Program Dies in Afghanistan

Cal State Instructor Fired for Refusing to Sign Loyalty Oath | 70

Princeton U. Press Recalls Typo-Filled Book and Says It Will Reprint | 55

U. of Florida Plans Layoffs and Enrollment Cuts as State Funds Fall | 38

Indian Students Protest Exam Question on Muhammad | 35

Ohio State U. Housing Administrator Is Suspended After Arrest on Drug Charges | 34

Athletics
Community Colleges
Government & Politics
Information Technology
International
Money & Management
Northern Illinois
Research & Books
Short Subjects
Students
The Faculty

• May 2008 (52)
• April 2008 (176)
• March 2008 (152)
• February 2008 (216)
• January 2008 (157)

September 15, 2007

U. of California Regents Disinvite Lawrence Summers as Dinner Speaker

The University of California’s Board of Regents has withdrawn an invitation to Lawrence H. Summers, the controversial former president of Harvard University, to speak at a board dinner next week in Sacramento, The Davis Enterprise reported today. The move followed a petition drive by female faculty members on the university’s nearby Davis campus, where the board is meeting.

The faculty members said it was inappropriate for the regents to have Mr. Summers as their guest at a time when the university is struggling to diversity its faculty ranks. Mr. Summers resigned as Harvard’s president in 2006, after an epic battle with the faculty over a range of issues that came to a head when he suggested that women’s innate differences from men might explain why relatively few women reach the top in mathematics and science. He also criticized the work of Cornel West, leading that prominent scholar of religion and African-American studies to leave Harvard.

The petition, which drew 150 signatures, said, “Inviting a keynote speaker who has come to symbolize gender and racial prejudice in academia conveys the wrong message to the university community and to the people of California.” Replacing Mr. Summers as the dinnertime speaker will be Susan Kennedy, chief of staff to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. —Andrew Mytelka

Comments

1. My letter to Prof. Stanton and ccd to Provost Vanderhoef
   Dear Prof. Stanton,

   I am a Ph.D student in the social sciences and was very much struck by the reaction of yourself and those 150 women faculty members to Summers scheduled talk. One can’t help but feeling more anxious about offending women in seminars and discussions. Would I be alone in feeling this? Will this not affect our ability to inquire freely?

   This suggests that there is a tension between the function of the university as a place of “free” inquiry, where controversy is courted, and the other social functions which a university now performs: job training, self esteem building, a showcase of laudable social attitudes and other forms of social activism… See this article for more.

   http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/16/books/review/Donadio-t.html
   We can easily release this tension by segregating its functions. Those faculty, grad students and students who want free inquiry should in their classes, seminars and other activities be asked to sign a waver releasing the university of any liability for hurt feelings, damaged self image… These same people must also promise to restrict their reactions to ideas presented to general standards of civil discourse: presenting counter arguments and refrain from personal attacks…in particular, law suits and demands for resignations for opinions expressed. Faculty should also promise to hire junior faculty based only upon the accepted forms of academic merit, e.g., good arguments that are well defended, and not upon preferences for the content of the argument, in particular, political content.

   The other functions of the university can go on as before, but now without the interference from the demands of free inquiry. Admissions of students, hiring of faculty, speaker invitations should be based on diversity, equity, social justice. Now, they can have equal representation of all races, sexes, sexual orientation…anything whatever without impedance from extraneous considerations of scholastic aptitude, publication record… They may pay women more than men, blacks more than whites…As long as taxpayers think it’s a valuable social function, why not?

   By separating these functions also, students can better choose their courses. Whereas now, some students think they are taking a course in literature, but may actually be getting a course in a special brand of politics. Firms can better hire. Now, they may hire graduates because they think these students can write, do math and think analytically, but in fact, can only take “critical” stances against perceived inequality and social injustice. Similarly, parents make the mistake in believing that their kids are being trained for some profession whereas they are actually being provoked into anger at THE system. Along with this partition of the university, we should also consider changing the name, because “university” itself confounds its two functions.

   If we deconstruct the word, we would see that within it are most of the letters for “diversity”, with the remainder being “un”—the residual reflecting the singularity of truth—which is “un-diverse”? From now on, the business of free inquiry could be done under the aegis of “un” and the business of social activism could be done under the aegis of “diversity”. So, in the future, students can claim unambiguously, that they got a “diversity” degree, and everyone will know what they mean. Whereas now, they get a diversity degree and people might think they got it from a “un”, ie, they actually know the un-diverse truth about something.

   I am sure you would understand, if I don’t sign my name, given the risk of offending some woman faculty in my Department and the possibility of stronger reprisals than a withdrawl of a speaking invitation.
   —
   Best,
   Anon

   — Anon    Sep 16, 05:05 PM    #

2. Concerning the comment in the above post that “They may pay women more than men, blacks more than whites…”; don’t worry – they don’t.

   — Bob M.    Sep 17, 06:20 AM    #

3. I am an administrator who has experienced gender discrimination at every stage of my career. Further, I am and always have been to the left of “liberal,” and I view the Board of Regent’s invitation to Mr. Summers as part of the deadening Conservatism that is taking hold in the California university system. However, as a scholar who is trained in inquiry, I have to ask: why has the decision to withdraw offer of the founding dean position of the law school at UC Irvine made to Mr. Chemerinsky on the basis of his “too liberal” views been greeted with outrage, yet it is somehow seen as appropriate to withdraw the invitation to Mr. Summers on the basis of his unpopular political/social statements? Neither of these decisions is in the spirit of the true university, and every time someone is excluded because of his or her personal beliefs, we are all diminished, and the open inquiry that should be a part of education is threatened. This is a frightening time to be in academe.

   — L.T.    Sep 17, 07:34 AM    #

4. Besides the fact that the term diversity is beginning to lose its meaning, it should be a verb: “diversify its faculty ranks.”

   Sadly, this a great example of censoring someone whose views with which we disagree. As educators we should be modeling how to think critically and engage in free inquiry. The faculty would have been more appropriate to protest at the board dinner.

   — etcetera    Sep 17, 09:06 AM    #

5. Academic debate and freedom are alive and well.

   William Allan Kritsonis, PhD

   — William Allan Kritsonis, PhD    Sep 17, 09:24 AM    #

6. The reality is that most of those screaming loudest about Summers have neither read his previous remarks or understand the context in which they were given. While his remarks deserve criticism, I am not sure that such criticism should translate into professional destruction.

   While I am part of the academic establishment and an avowed liberal, I do believe Summers was shoved to the sidelines by those in the liberal feminist camp for other, less “noble” purposes than his initial offense.

   The university system is in fact not a place where criticism of scholarship can be levied nor where free inquiry reigns.

   Furthermore, while I loathe Horowitz, he wins, as do others, every time with actions such as those taken by UC Irvine and other institutions that squelch discussion and free inquiry.

   I want diversity, gender and racial equity but in tandem with the core values that define higher education.

   BOTH can and should exist. Academicians have a responsibility to restore the university to its once primary purpose as well as to ensure that thorough representation is obtained amongst women and racial-ethnic minorities

   Lastly, not all ideas are equal nor are worthy of being heard, but shouldn’t some semblance of determination be made by those who decide they want to hear what is to be said by Summers, Steinem, or West?

   — NAL    Sep 17, 10:45 AM    #

7. Conservatives have been among the most-ardent defenders of Erwin Chemerinsky, demonstrating that they understand the value of having a diversity of ideas in the room. Liberals generally think differently — look at the political composition of most law faculties. I won’t hold my breath until liberals support Larry Summers, but I don’t believe this is an especially “frightening time to be in academe,” in the words of one correspondent. It is aggravating and unproductive to work within a community of hypocrites. The country no longer depends on us to do anything serious, however, so lost productivity may be a blessing.

   — S. Britchky    Sep 17, 11:14 AM    #

8. Mr. Summers, for all his intellectual gifts, made an egregious mistake. As a hypothetical, suppose he decided to ruminate on why there aren’t very many Jews playing in the NBA and said “maybe there are three reasons: (1) the reluctance of Jews to adapt to the rigors of professional basketball; (2) the possible innate and genetic difference between Jews and non-Jews that render Jews incapable of competing on a professional level; (3) Jews are socialized to take non-sports jobs.”

   Only the third point is possibly defendable; the first and second are intellectually bankrupt. And that is why Larry Summers lost his job and his intellectual credibility. To toast him as some sort of academic guru is insulting to those upon which his intellectual nonsense was rained.

   — marci    Sep 17, 11:54 AM    #

9. The parallel is inexact. Judaism, pace Hitler, isn’t a genetic trait. And inasmuch as there are unquestionably some biological differences between men and women, it is hard to see why studies aimed at determining precisely how far those differences extend should a priori be ruled out as a fit subject for investigation. For one thing, large numbers of people have made, and continue to make, thriving scholarly careers out of precisely such investigations without attracting the odium incurred by Summers—e.g. Carol Gilligan of Harvard (“In a Different Voice”) or Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberg and Tarule (“Women’s Ways of Knowing”). Are we to take it that the protesters of UC-Davis desire their campus to be barred against these researchers as well?

   — Gustave    Sep 17, 02:24 PM    #

10. I’m happy to see Mr. Summers speak elsewhere, but at a time when the UC is struggling to attract more women and people of color to its faculty, he’s not a good choice of speaker to address the Regents on my campus.

    And to commenter NAL: I did read the entire text of Summers’s talk as it was published on the Harvard president’s website, and I do completely understand the context in which it was given. Summers is not only expressing what may be in some circles an unfavorable view—he’s drawing on the same kinds of logic that racists and misogynists use all the time.

    — Leslie    Sep 17, 02:41 PM    #

11. It seems odd that “diversity” continues to be held up as some kind of moral shield in these blogs in light of the recent, ground- breaking article carried in this publication that called attention to the rigorous work of political scientist, Robert Putnam, of Harvard. “[His] study, the largest ever on civic engagement in America, found that virtually all measures of civic health are lower in more diverse settings.” According to this study, then, it might be a good thing that U.C. ( pace Leslie) is finding it difficult to repel men and white people from its ranks. Ten years from now serious men will look back at these misguided diversity programs and the often marginalized people at their helms and blush… if not just outright cry over the mess we let them make out of what was once the best educational system in the world.

    — Paul A.    Sep 17, 04:25 PM    #

12. In light of the foregoing, the issue here is not freedom of speech, or liberalism or diversity. The issue is that a professional educator honestly expressed a thought. That thought discourages any efforts to promote large numbers of females to matriculate in the sciences and mathematics. How can one teach with the hopes of seeing student success when one does not expect a certain gender to realize success?

    — Ursula    Sep 17, 05:21 PM    #

13. Once again, PC strikes academe!

    — Mike in Kalamazoo    Sep 17, 06:00 PM    #

14. What is truly stunning about Lawrence Summers is not what has been quoted above about his views on gender and race, they are quite bad too, but not comparable to what goes on next. It is the following (when he was in world bank) extraordinary racist statement (widely found by googling):

    “‘Dirty’ Industries: Just between you and me, shouldn’t the World Bank be encouraging MORE migration of the dirty industries to the LDCs [Less Developed Countries]? I can think of three reasons:

    “1) The measurements of the costs of health impairing pollution depends on the foregone earnings from increased morbidity and mortality. From this point of view a given amount of health impairing pollution should be done in the country with the lowest cost, which will be the country with the lowest wages. I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that.

    “2) The costs of pollution are likely to be non-linear as the initial increments of pollution probably have very low cost. I’ve always though that under-populated countries in Africa are vastly UNDER-polluted, their air quality is probably vastly inefficiently low compared to Los Angeles or Mexico City. Only the lamentable facts that so much pollution is generated by non-tradable industries (transport, electrical generation) and that the unit transport costs of solid waste are so high prevent world welfare enhancing trade in air pollution and waste.

    “3) The demand for a clean environment for aesthetic and health reasons is likely to have very high income elasticity. The concern over an agent that causes a one in a million change in the odds of prostrate cancer is obviously going to be much higher in a country where people survive to get prostrate cancer than in a country where under 5 mortality is is 200 per thousand. Also, much of the concern over industrial atmosphere discharge is about visibility impairing particulates. These discharges may have very little direct health impact. Clearly trade in goods that embody aesthetic pollution concerns could be welfare enhancing. While production is mobile the consumption of pretty air is a non-tradable.

    “The problem with the arguments against all of these proposals for more pollution in LDCs (intrinsic rights to certain goods, moral reasons, social concerns, lack of adequate markets, etc.) could be turned around and used more or less effectively against every Bank proposal for liberalization.”

    — Buddha    Sep 17, 08:44 PM    #

15. A lot of the foregoing comments are very sad indeed. Academic freedom is academic freedom. For anyone to be censured for expressing an idea should be anathema in academe. The answer to an idea that one doesn’t like is a competing idea. The answer to speech that one doesn’t agree with is more speech.

    Here’s the scarey thing. Summers is a liberal. And even a brainless moron can tell that he is no sexist. . .is not racist. The idea he espoused was hypothetical and is, in fact, the subject of research.

    The question one must ask is, why are (some) women so afraid of what he said? I would think better to prove him wrong, but these people think they must silence him. The only reason for that must be that they think he may be right. And in the academy today, some would rather silence truths with which they disagree than come to understand them and then learn to deal with them effectively.

    Summers is a freakin’ liberal for God’s sake! What fear must exist in these people. . .here’s a thought. Everyone, while created equal, is created differently. All men and all women have to compete. . .all have strengths and weaknesses. If you think the only way you can succeed is to silence others, you probably won’t amount to much regardless of where you go (though sadly, it’s not surprising that cretins of this ilk end up in higher education).

    — Bill    Sep 18, 10:39 AM    #

16. Would Buddah dain to say what exactly is wrong with Summers’ analysis?

    If what he says is true and most of us wouldn’t dare say it, wouldn’t we really need a person like Summers to say it?

    Its the ability to say things like your quote without strong reprisal within the field that makes me proud to be in economics. An economists natural reaction to such a quote would be: whats your evidence? Can you quantify your claims…NOT moral indignation. Don’t you wonder at the ultimate morality of doing otherwise?

    Anon

    — Anon    Sep 19, 12:03 PM    #

17. What happened to Freedom of Speech in the United States? If you can’t speak or write your views at college, what next?

    — Charlotte    Sep 26, 01:23 PM    #

Previous: Hurricane-Damaged Campuses to Get $30-Million in Federal Grants
Next: NCAA Panel Approves Proposal on Pregnant Athletes and Scholarships