This is equally embarrassing and tragic. Are we not adult enough to realize that the study of religion is now, perhaps more than ever, crucial to understanding the current state of global affairs? You need not respect it to know that it's bloody relevant, "know thy enemy" at the very least. This is two steps backward, the cowardice of leadership.
 

What is your obsession with Marcella Bombardieri and always using her full name?
 

What a weird comment. Bombardieri covers Harvard for the Globe, and when she reports a story from which I quote, I give her credit by name. Not sure I see what's wrong with that.
 

you don't seem to do that when you quote other sources
 

Pretty sure I do, at least some of the time. But you might see Bombardieri's name more because she so frequently writes about Harvard.
 

The ironic thing about Harvard decisions is that most religion classes view religion from a objective, scientific viewpoint. You tend to study why certain societies tend to adopt particular views (Hunter-gatherers are pagans, when they develop agriculture they tend to embrace monotheism. That sort of thing.) You tend to steer away from subjective judgements of religious beliefs.
But, as the writer above said, this is information educated people need to have, much more than fuzzy understandings of what it means to be human.
Indeed, history has shown that "what it means to be human" generally is that we like to kill each other. And that occurs whether we're religious or secular/atheists.
 

I think he/she would prefer if you addressed her as "M-Bom" from now on, Rich.
 

M-Bom? Hmmm...it does have a certain sass to it. Anyone else?
 

Marcella Bombardieri writes about important issues in Higher Education and is insightful. Why are you harrassing her?

For example, she might write about the non-tenure track, a perfect avenue for universities with poor records tenuring women and minorities to appear to be more diverse than they really are.

Guess who is leading the pack in the percentage of non-tenured track faculty? Mmight M.B. write about this? probably...

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=516373
 

Non-tenure tracks are one of the most refined forms of academic exploitation.

Privileged white man push women into these dead end tracks. They then load them with teaching and administrative responsibilities, making it impossible to research and publish. To maintain their jobs women in these positions need to allow themselves to be increasingly exploited by tenured faculty, giving them their ideas, collaborating in the research projects of tenured faculty, rather than working on their own.

Eventually, depleted of all their intellectual capital, exhausted and having lost all self-respect and self-esteem, these women are let go. To be then replaced by younger women, who could have been tenured but were not because they 'didn't quite make the cut for tenure'. Only to start the cycle all over.

This system is also exquisitely balanced in another respect. While the white men who benefit from this form of institutionalized exploitation advance in their careers, and earn increasing salaries and revenues from patents, publications, lecture fees, the women who do the slave work are continuously replaced by younger women who earn lower salaries.

It's a pretty simple system. Man accumulate financial and intellectual capital, at the expense of women who are not allowed to accumulate either.
 

Interesting post. The system you describe perpetuates itself in yet another way. The men who are benefit from this form of contemporary slavery quickly become the principal investigators, the lab directors, program directors, and eventually deans and presidents. They certainly constitute most of the tenured faculty.

In this way they can forever maintain this system, closing the door to anyone who threatens this exploitative institution. Very bright women scientists may be discouraged from applying or joining their labs, or worse yet, be encouraged to join only to be told after a few years that there is no possibility of tenure for them, but perhaps a non-tenured track can be arranged.

It is really the perfect system. Its victims are for the most part grateful to those who benefit from this form of exploitation and there is no way the system can be challenged as it is completely insulated from the norms and expectations of contemporary society within the walls of the ivory tower.
 

This all sounds pretty far fetched and universities are not as insulated from the real world as you think.

It would not take very much to compile the percentage of men and women in tenured and non-tenured tracks, and to survey their satisfaction and perceptions of their work environment. These data could then be compared across departments and universities. Presumably some places would be more expoitative of women than others and this would become apparent in the distribution of their responses to these surveys.

With these data, university presidents, or boards of trustees, could easily spot lab directors or deans who run the units with the greatest disparities in the percentage of men and women with tenure or with the greatest relative disatisfaction among women in non-tenured tracks. These leaders could be offered a first chance at diversity training and, if unable to correct the imbalances, be replaced by more apt leaders to live up to the demands of the 21st century.

It really is not rocket science and any university that seriously wants to address these issues can do it.
 

This all sounds pretty far fetched and universities are not as insulated from the real world as you think.

It would not take very much to compile the percentage of men and women in tenured and non-tenured tracks, and to survey their satisfaction and perceptions of their work environment. These data could then be compared across departments and universities. Presumably some places would be more expoitative of women than others and this would become apparent in the distribution of their responses to these surveys.

With these data, university presidents, or boards of trustees, could easily spot lab directors or deans who run the units with the greatest disparities in the percentage of men and women with tenure or with the greatest relative disatisfaction among women in non-tenured tracks. These leaders could be offered a first chance at diversity training and, if unable to correct the imbalances, be replaced by more apt leaders to live up to the demands of the 21st century.

It really is not rocket science and any university that seriously wants to address these issues can do it.s to address these issues can do it.
 

These issues are more difficult to address than you know.

Harvard appointed a vice-provost to help the university advance on precisely this set of issues over a year ago and she has been largely ineffectual on any of the situations described by the previous bloggers.
 

Do you have reason to think that she was appointed to make progress on these issues or rather to give the appearance that Harvard is doing something about these issues?

Do you remember who appointed her and why?
 

Referring to her as the "M-Bomb" might work a bit better: it would be a hit with the kids, it would confuse the Hell out of the FAS faculty... you could even come up with an action figure if so motivated, accesories being a Harvard telephone directory, laptop, and writers notebook :-).
 

You should not write about E. Hammond if you do not know the facts.

She is doing a lot to address diversity issues at Harvard. She receives letters and phone calls from faculty, staff and students alerting her to problems with these issues. She looks into many of these and advises the President on these matters.

At the moment, for example, she is looking into a letter signed by hundreds of doctoral students in a professional school at Harvard who raise issues of the persistent and worsening racial imbalance of their tenured faculty...

Provost Hammond is very thorough, and is persistent. Do not underestimate what she is doing.
 

Dr. Hammond is also examining some of the issues described above with survey data and with other administrative data. She has commissioned surveys to answer specific questions about how different gender and ethnic groups of faculty experience life at Harvard.

When she and the President begin to report the results of these studies, and more importantly, to act on them, some might be surprised to see how much can change and how quickly.
 

The M-Bomb has lost some of her thunder lately to be outdone by the NYTimes, AP and even the Herald Tribune.

Is she losing her edge or just timely access to information about Harvard.
 

Might the letter mentioned above refer to the departure of Gary Orfield and the Center for Civil Rights?
 

It's an Open Letter to the Dean of the school in question, so there is nothing secret about it. It is signed by over 100 students.

Why don't you just ask Dr. Hammond? She is very accessible.
 

What? An open letter to a Harvard Dean about racial imbalances of the faculty, signed by 100 students? And the Crimson has not picked up on this? Or Bombardieri?

Now THAT'S SOME NEWS...

I thought it was only Larry who managed the press.
 

Attack of the female posters. How off-key is the person above who asks you to quit "harrassing" M-Bom (did you even bother to read Rich's post before you lashed)? And then she (yes, I will venture that guess) proceeds with her agenda, no matter how off-topic. And what about the line "These leaders could be offered a first chance at diversity training and, if unable to correct the imbalances, be replaced..." Wow, a Pinochet-esque approach to the issue. Is anybody else really scared by the idea of "diversity training." After that, do you report to Carousel?

Good luck solving problems like these with strategies like that. Whether you call it "affirmative action" or whether you rename it "commitment to diversity," instituting quotas is never a good idea. You have to be subtle and patient to change a culture, you can't just create an office.
 

It seems like most universities have now created similar offices. Their being ineffectual is probably the point, unfortunately. If Presidents really wanted to see radical change, they would enact it themselves. But these issues are extremely complicated, so when the mob demands action--perhaps on an unrealistic schedule, you act by simply creating a new position of leadership. Then you can say you acted...and down the road you have a ready-made scapegoat.
 

The open letter from students to the Dean of Education begins:

"The recent announcement that Professor Gary Orfield will be leaving the Graduate School of Education (GSE) at the end of this current academic year is a great disappointment for this community of scholars. With his departure, GSE will lose and eminent teacher, an influential mentor, and a social justice champion. Professor Orfield has dedicated his career to addressing issues of social justice, race relations, and civil rights in education, a record of devotion that few scholars in the nation approach. His departure, while profound in its own right, is particularly devastating as it is the most recent of a series of departures by GSE faculty who specialize in issues of race and civil rights in U.S. education. As doctoral students, we are deeply troubled by this trend, and we wish to voice our concerns regarding the following: 1) the diminishing number of GSE faculty who study race relations and social justice issues as a central focus in their workk and 2) the small and decreasing number of senior faculty of color at GSE. We believe that these losses place an undue burden on the few remaining faculty focusing on issues of social justice and on the faculty of color by requiring them to represent the vast array of issues in the social justice and race areans. Further, we believe that our own academic preparation and future scholarship are at risk; if such issues of critial importance in our increasingly diverse nation are not sufficiently addressed by GSE faculty and curriculum, our doctoral education will have been deeply compromised."
 

Richard,

I miss reading your blogs. Read today in the Crimson that Larry Summers was named one of the year's worst "crossovers" by Business Week. Even more startling, the reported response of Weatherhead Professor of Business Administration D. Quinn Mills. He reportedly told the Crimson reporter that BusinessWeek didn't have the “right to characterize President Summers as the worst cross-over.” Freedom of the Press probably isn't a business school concept.
 

What about the Economics requirement? Now that we have seen the recruiting video produced by the department, we should all want to be economists.
Don't miss these--they are already classics in the profession. It is hard to tell which is the parody, though.

Original video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDJ_VHmaHgY

Student parody:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcN9ypgjApQ

Student edited version for next year's video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=271ooLBXJb8
 

isn't the real story in the Crimson that the Bobo's are returning to Harvard.

do you think this would have happened without Dr. Hammond and without Derek Bok at the helm? (given that they are the only two new occupants in the Presidents office).
 

the implication of the previous comment is that Steve Hyman is as responsible as Larry Summers for the profound changes in the gender, ethnic and ideological diversity of the faculty which took place during Summers' tenure.

So far only Summers has taken responsibility for these changes. Hyman, in contrast, has not said a thing about whether he endorses those changes or opposes them. Makes it hard to know where he stands on these issues.
 

Maybe the real story in the Crimson today is that Cornel West was offered a job in October, but turned it down. Who knew that?
 

Yes that is a story.

As long as Harvard is looking at senior scholars in other universities to try to repair some of the damage caused by Summers, why not look at Professor Linda Darling-Hammond from the School of Education at Stanford.

She conveyed an interest to faculty and administrators to move to Harvard only a few months ago. Here is a real opportunity for the Dean to demonstrate her commitment to diversity. Bring in someone who has national stature and who could actually be Dean.

Isn't this the way the corporate sector addresses diversity? bring in diverse talent at the management level, not to the factory floor.
 

To 11:40, could you clarify what you've said? Because I'm not following you--seems like you could be saying one of two very different things, I'm just not sure which one? I think my reading of the previous comment doesn't match with yours. I would appreciate your clarifying.

And how exactly can you credit E. Hammonds (there is an "s" on there, people) for something--though I'm not sure I see the progress you do--and not give equal credit to Hyman, she does take orders from him. Would you credit a cabinet secretary for something but not his/her president?
 

Is this a two way street? should close subordinates share the glories of their leaders?

Should Hyman share those of Summers?
 

No, honestly, I don't think so. Credit--and especially blame--can go up, but it often shouldn't, and usually doesn't, go down, for better (in this case) or for worse.
 

How does Hyman participate in tenure decisions and in decisions about spousal appointments?

What was his role in the decision not to tenure M. Bobo? Has he played a role in helping spouses of some other faculty find jobs at Harvard? What criteria does he use in deciding who is worth supporting and who is not?