My son applies to college next year. His top three interests, in order, are Girls, Girls and Girls. I personally have no issue with that, but the admissions folks may. Kenyon is going on the list!
 

Here's a curious article in the Crimson today. It seems that Summers and the faculty are never quite on the same page...

The outgoing president also said that the University would beef up its India-related academic offerings.

“We are working hard towards building a program especially on India, the subcontinent and South Asia studies,” Summers said, according to the newspaper. “Like people study political science, culture, public health, economics, law and medicine, students in Harvard will now study India as a subject.”

In an interview yesterday, Sanskrit and Indian Studies Department Chair Leonard Van Der Kuijp—who is also affiliated with the University’s South Asia Initiative—said he did not know what specifically Summers was referring to in the interview.

“We are looking forward to learning more about the plans of the University to develop South Asian studies and as a department we are ready to do whatever needs to be done,” he said.

University officials said they did not know what Summers was referring to in his interview, and his spokesman was unavailable for comment yesterday evening.
 

Just a couple days ago Harvard Medical School announced they were restructuring how they handle minority applications out of fear of being sued. Where is the Heritage Foundation? I recently had a conversation with some folks who worked in admissions at Vassar who told me the college is doing everything it can to maintain a semblance of gender parity. God forbid Vassar look like a women's college. It's not as if it's the oldest women's college in the country or anything.
 

A very tactful quote by Van Der Kuijp.
 

Tactful, yes. But it spoke volumes....
 

Is there misinformation on the web? See below:

Yesterday, Prof. Wisse had no efficient way to defend herself against the attacks of the "majority" and Prof. Laurel Ulrich even proudly said there are occassions when meetings have to be in camera, which reminds me of the Central European history of the 1940s when many things took place in camera.

I, for one, have absolutely no doubts that Prof. Wisse is right. It may be that some people only criticize her because they don't know the actual reality which is why I decided to post this comment. What do I mean by the anti-Semitic dimension? It is not just about the clearly high correlation between being anti-Israel on one side and the attitudes directed against Harvard's first Jewish president on the other side: most anti-Summers professors had also decided to support the anti-Semitic divestment campaign several years ago. More importantly, there have been quite many e-mails influencing the controversy whose character is explicitly anti-Semitic.

Let me repost excerpts of one of these e-mails that the people known to be involved in the controversy received on March 16, 2005, one day after the no-confidence vote. In my opinion, the e-mail is as anti-Semitic as it can be. Moreover, this class of e-mails was apparently determining the character of the future strategies to attack Summers. As you can see, the e-mail below mentioned Prof. Shleifer almost a year before he became a part of the algorithms of the anti-Summers warriors.

When we received these e-mails 1 year ago, most of us were already ready for everything but nevertheless, I was scared even more and thought that al-Qaeda had joined the anti-Summers league. I did not have the courage to speak about these things for half a year.

Disclaimer: the pen name as well as the real name of the author of the anti-Semitic e-mail below is known to The Reference Frame

...
 

Which e-mail below?

In any case, I find the arguments of the last poster unconvincing.