Richard, check out who's blogging these days: It's Larry!

Well, it's only sort-of blogging, but close enough. The Financial Times posts columns by Summers and Martin Wolf at this page -- http://blogs.ft.com/wolfforum/ -- and the two of them and others respond to the columns in the comments section. It's an "expert panel," though, so plebians aren't allowed to weigh in. But read, for instance, this back and forth between Summers and Wolf on Boris Yeltsin:

http://blogs.ft.com/wolfforum/2007/04/the_tasks_of_re.html#comments

Larry should start commenting on SITD!
 

Also, I had a thought regarding your recent posts about news articles that portray Summers' women-in-science remarks as the cause of his resignation. You're, of course, correct that history is being rewritten in these cases. But there's an interesting hypothetical that hasn't really been considered yet is probably a legitimate question: Would Summers still be in charge today had he not delivered that speech?

I think some of my colleagues would bristle at that question and scream, "Of course not, you're missing the point!" But it's certainly arguable that without the NBER spark, the FAS firestorm could not have materialized. I'd be interested in your thoughts.
 

Mass Ave, let me ponder this, but in the meantime, I'd be interested to hear others' thoughts.
 

But my quick reaction is that if it wasn't women-in-science, it would have been something else...just because LS' patterns of provoking controversy were so consistent.
 

I for one think his ouster would not have manifested without NBER. Faculty discontent might have boiled over down the road given some other immutable gaffe, but going by everything else that really was on the table (the biggest of which was surely Shleifer)--I don't think so. A real scare perhaps but I don't think the numbers would have been nearly as lopsided (re the no confidence vote).

The key difference would've been the absence of the mainstream media. I believe too many tired of reading the relentless ill-fitting comparisons and the never-ending recaps whenever Harvard made news for other reasons. Ultimately they convinced themselves that Larry had to go to save the reputation of the University (no matter how wrongheaded that opinion). This isn't the core opposition mind you, this is the quiet anti-Larry crowd.

The public airing of dirty laundry changes everything.
 

Interesting that Summers could get away with dissing blacks (Cornel West, as reported in "Harvard Rules") but not women, whereas Imus was slammed not so much for the sexist part of hie rant as for its racism.

What does it all mean?