While I Was Away
The New York Times gave Camille Paglia space to publish a loopy op-ed,
What Went Wrong at Harvard? One of those pieces that, had it been submitted without a (prominent) name attached, would surely never have been published....
Much of the op-ed reads like a
Mad Libs compilation of Harvard/Summers cliches—you know, the kind where the form reads _________ faculty and the writer fills in "ingrown humanities" or "ostensibly aggrieved" or "ideological groupthink." Ms. Paglia writes as if she were plucking magnet-words from Rush Limbaugh's refrigerator. Thus, we learn of "fashionable campus leftism," the "self-serving cabal who forced Mr. Summers's premature resignation," "trendy poststructuralism"—this from Camille Paglia—"feminist pressure groups," and so on.
As usual, there's not a single example given. If someone could find me a feminist pressure group on the Harvard campus, I'd send it straight to E.O. Wilson for study as an endangered species.
There's actually an interesting discussion trying to escape from the cage of Paglia's imprisoning rhetoric—an argument that professors, not bureaucrats, should control the academic direction of Harvard and other universities. But Paglia is so filled with cliched stereotypes about the nature of the Harvard faculty, and the humanities in particular, that her argument is tortured indeed. She's saying, essentially, the faculty
should control the intellectual direction of Harvard...just not
this faculty.
She is also plagued by mistakes and misunderstandings. She writes that while Summers was right to fear for Cornel West's productivity—an irony given that Paglia took 14 years after her big book to produce
a rather small book about the importance of poems, and that she fits the definition of celebrity intellectual just as West does (hence the ability to write an NYT op-ed)—"it is unclear on what authority Mr. Summers was challenging Dr. West in the first place."
Much as I have questioned Summers' management of that situation, there's no doubt that he had the authority to address West: University professors at Harvard are, by definition, answerable only to the president.
She also writes that the weakness of the provost's position is suggested by Steve Hyman's "near invisibility through the public battles of the Summers regime."
Well, no. My impression has been that Steve Hyman had a substantial amount of power, particularly when it came to the sciences and Allston. And last year, during the women-in-science craziness, Hyman was photographed walking next to Summers at every important meeting. I suspect he took a lower profile this time because, well, what was the point?
She also writes that Summers criticized Cornel West for his "rap" cd. This is a pet peeve of mine, but West's cd was more like beat poetry or spoken word than rap, and the difference is that white people who use the word "rap" to criticize West in this situation are doing so because rap is a racially charged word to which many whites react negatively. Don't believe me? Then try "Summers criticized West's spoken-word cd" versus "Summers criticized West for making a rap cd." It's different....in a meaningful way. And Paglia, who considers herself down with pop culture, surely knows better.
Paglia also sneaks in something quite nasty in her references to West. This sentence: "Whatever critique of affirmative action Mr. Summers intended was lost in what became a soap opera of hurt feelings and facile accusations of racism."
What "critique of affirmative action" is Paglia talking about, exactly? Is she suggesting that West is a beneficiary of affirmative action? That that's why he was made a university professor, or given tenure at all? That Summers was expressing doubts about affirmative action by attacking one specific professor? (If so, what an asinine way to go about expressing one's doubts about a particular public policy.)
If that's what she's saying about West, she should come out and say it.
After all, Paglia is a woman and a lesbian, and while she is a clever and facile academic, I'm not sure how many would call her profound. Op-ed writers could just as easily imply that she is a beneficiary of affirmative action. If she wants to denigrate West directly, that's one thing. But to hint at something in a way that makes it sound as if it's established fact—that's just sleazy.
In fact, this whole essay reads like the product of an energetic but self-hating mind, which is to say, there are some truths amidst a jumble of contradictions and hypocrisies. While I hope the debate about who controls universities' intellectual direction continues, I question the Times' decision to publish this essay.
