I read the linked article in "Commentary" magazine. I would have sworn I remember that magazine as legitimate, but it is clearly on the level of a John Birch Society newsletter. The professor's article (really just a comment) is, as you say, absurd (not to mention badly written and without rational support). More puzzling were some of the comments (mostly supportive), including this one: "Dr. Faust leaves no doubt that she is a radical preferentialist, with a love for ideology over science. This appalling turn paints an ominous shadow over any hopes for the future of Harvard, near term. It is a dark age for the university, which will no doubt force genuine education to take other paths besides the traditional, trendy elite schools."

Richard, since you speak English, what is a "radical preferentialist" and is Dr. Faustus fairly characterized as such?

(Sorry if this has already been addressed in prior blog items; frankly I rarely pay attention to the endless Harvard stuff, but this one caught my eye.)
 

Dear 11:15 AM: You mean Dr. Faust, not Dr. Faustus.
 

She's pretty much of a nut case. I wouldn't take it too seriously.
 

As a counterpoint to the puzzling Wisse piece, you could mention today's op-ed by the former managing editor of the Crimson, Daniel Hemel, who points out that Faust is hardly a "feminazi":

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=517102
 

Rule of thumb:

When DIANA ECK, the head of the Pluralism Project on religious diversity and mutual understanding in the US, comments to the Crimson that your sense of your religious identity places you outside the acceptable discursive mainstream --

you might be a little bit of a fringe figure.


--Standing Eagle



Crimson 3/08/06:

Wisse told The Crimson last week that anti-Semitism was “one of the factors at play” in the run-up to Summers’ resignation, and she made similar remarks to The Boston Globe.
...


Several speakers later, Wisse rose. When asked afterwards about the content of her remarks, Wisse said, “I wrote an op-ed for The Crimson...my thoughts are in it.” In a Feb. 17 op-ed, Wisse criticized fellow faculty members who signed a 2002 petition urging Harvard to divest from Israeli firms.

“I’m tired of this, and I have no faith,” Wisse said last night. “My colleagues have gotten rid of Summers. It seems that they need another target.”

...

Diana L. Eck, the Wertham professor of law and psychiatry in society, said after the meeting that Wisse’s remarks “don’t make much of an impression on the Faculty” because of their “extreme” nature.
 

In summary, it doesn't make sense to spend all this time mulling over remarks by Ruth Wisse. In her recent "Commentary" article, she just gives vent once again to one of her continuing obsessions.
 

Ironically, Wisse's babbling proves to be a better argument against tenure than the sorry reasons for same advanced by her neo-conservative fellow travelers.
 

I do hope Prof. Wisse Brazilian employee is legally allowed to work in the US and that Prof Wisse is not paying her "under the table".

Perhaps the Prof or someone who knows can confirm. It would be a shame if the cleaning lady is not legally allowed to work and not contributing to social security and it would say a lot about the dear Prof.

I hope I am wrong. Do tell.
 

Is Professor Wisse breaking the Federal Immigration and Nationality Act Section 8 USC 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)(b)(iii)

Since Professor Wisse is now on public record stating that she is hiring a person who is college educated in Brazil and cleaning homes in Cambridge --hence in all likelihood not legally allowed to work in the US-- this may make Harvard liable for abating in this felony. University Counsel should look into this issue before the Federal Government begins legal action:

"Any person who . . . encourages or induces an illegal alien to . . . reside . . . knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such . . . residence is . . . in violation of law, shall be punished as provided . . . for each illegal alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs . . . fined under title 18 . . . imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both."

Section 274 felonies under the federal Immigration and Nationality Act, INA 274A(a)(1)(A):

A person (including a group of persons, business, organization, or local government) commits a federal felony when she or he:

assists an illegal alien s/he should reasonably know is illegally in the U.S. or who lacks employment authorization, by transporting, sheltering, or assisting him or her to obtain employment, or
encourages that illegal alien to remain in the U.S. by referring him or her to an employer or by acting as employer or agent for an employer in any way, or
knowingly assists illegal aliens due to personal convictions.

Penalties upon conviction include criminal fines, imprisonment, and forfeiture of vehicles and real property used to commit the crime. Anyone employing or contracting with an illegal alien without verifying his or her work authorization status is guilty of a misdemeanor. Aliens and employers violating immigration laws are subject to arrest, detention, and seizure of their vehicles or property. In addition, individuals or entities who engage in racketeering enterprises that commit (or conspire to commit) immigration-related felonies are subject to private civil suits for treble damages and injunctive relief.


Recruitment and Employment of Illegal Aliens

It is unlawful to hire an alien, to recruit an alien, or to refer an illegal alien for a fee, knowing the illegal alien is unauthorized to work in the United States. It is equally unlawful to continue to employ an illegal alien knowing that the illegal alien is unauthorized to work.

It is unlawful to hire any individual for employment in the United States without complying with employment eligibility verification requirements. Requirements include examination of identity documents and completion of Form I-9 for every employee hired. Employers must retain all I-9s, and, with three days' advance notice, the forms must be made available for inspection. Employment includes any service or labor performed for any type of remuneration within the United States, with the exception of sporadic domestic service by an individual in a private home. "Day laborers" or other casual workers engaged in any compensated activity (with the above exception) are employees for purposes of immigration law. An employer includes an agent or anyone acting directly or indirectly in the interest of the employer. For purposes of verification of authorization to work, employer also means an independent contractor, or a contractor other than the person using the illegal alien labor.

The use of temporary or short-term contracts cannot be used to circumvent the employment authorization verification requirements. If employment is to be for less than the usual three days allowed for completing the I-9 Form requirement, the form must be completed immediately at the time of hire.

An employer has constructive knowledge that an employee is an illegal unauthorized worker if a reasonable person would infer it from the facts. Constructive knowledge constituting a violation of federal law has been found where (1) the I-9 employment eligibility form has not been properly completed, including supporting documentation, (2) the employer has learned from other individuals, media reports, or any source of information available to the employer that the alien is unauthorized to work, or (3) the employer acts with reckless disregard for the legal consequences of permitting a third party to provide or introduce an illegal alien into the employer's work force. Knowledge cannot be inferred solely on the basis of an individual's accent or foreign appearance.

Actual specific knowledge is not required. For example, a newspaper article stating that ballrooms depend on an illegal alien work force of dance hostesses was held by the courts to be a reasonable ground for suspicion that unlawful conduct had occurred.

It is illegal for nonprofit or religious organizations to knowingly assist an employer to violate employment sanctions, regardless of claims that their convictions require them to assist illegal aliens. Harboring or aiding illegal aliens is not protected by the First Amendment. It is a felony to establish a commercial enterprise for the purpose of evading any provision of federal immigration law. Violators may be fined or imprisoned for up to five years.
 

A government major college graduate from Brazil working as a cleaning lady of a Harvard Professor? Doesn't the professor realize the government specialist is probably a spy in disguise? Professor Wisse may have uncovered a much bigger plot on the part of a foreign and hostile nation to infiltrate Harvard University. Obviously this mole in Professor Wisse's home has access to much information about the inner workings of the most important university in the world. What devious means could this foreign agent be using to achieve powers of mind control over Professor Wisse, and in this way influence the governance of Harvard University?

Might this be part of a much bigger operation? How many Harvard faculty are employing cleaning ladies with government majors from Brazil? Secretary Michael Chertoff should look into this matter swiftly.
 

Did Professor Wisse hire her cleaning lady after April 1st of 2004? That was the date of a much controversial trip of President Larry Summers to Brazil in which President Lula refused to meet with him.

Has Professor Wisse placed herself at the center of a spiderweb that ties President Lula, former President Summers and other major players in global politics?
 

How many government majors travelled from Brazil to Cambridge with President Summers in 2004?
 

Has anyone noticed any changes in professor Wisse's behavior since she hired her cleaning lady?
 

She obviously had difficulty developing a coherent argument in her article in commentary? Has her ability to articulate thoughts always been impaired in this way?
 

9:32 and 9:36

w.t.f?

You have got to be kidding, right. Or are you just daft?

If you are a good friend of the professor, nice feint but, i don't think it will work.

In the future, leave the secret squirrel work to the professionals.
 

The daggers are out for all former Summers sympathizers it would seem, so perhaps Pinker's the next casualty of the inevitable purge.
 

Pinker seems to be taking care of that himself. Here he is peddling his 5-year-old book, the ostensible reason for his going on the show:

http://scienceblogs.com/purepedantry/2007/02/steven_pinker_on_the_colbert_r.php
 

who is Pinker?
 

who is Pinker?
 

daggers out??? how about just expecting Harvard Professors to demonstrate intelligence when they write and speak in public? Or at least be accountable for what they say? Professor Wisse demonstrated very poor judgement in writing that commentary. Shouldn't she be accountable for her actions?
 

So who really cares and who will do something about it?

OK who should have intervened-

Should the Crimson have been smart enough not to run it seeing the inherent risk of her remarks? Should she have had enough common sense to "think it throught" before sending it to the Crimson?

Who should hold her accountable-

Harvard? the English department? Department of Labor? who'll let them know? Herself?

Slippery slope-how about some good ole peer pressure courtesy of wise compatriots.