Sunday, March 09, 2024
Shots Misfired?
Well! My thread about Harvard's decision to set aside women-only gym hours at the request of Muslim students seems to have provoked some strong feelings—and some misunderstandings.
Let me clarify, and then perhaps we should move on. Or at least elevate the tenor of the conversation.
I raised the issue because I dislike expressions of religion that come at the expense of someone else, whatever the religion is. To my mind, the best religion is the kind that goes inside a church, temple, synagogue, whatever, then shuts the doors and leaves the rest of us alone. And I speak as someone who was raised in a strong religious tradition with which he is fully comfortable.
In banning men from a gym to protect the sensibilities of Islamic women, Harvard made a choice that glossed over a tension between the imperative of religious tolerance and the rejection of common secular values—community, non-discrimination, mutual co-existence—that bind this country together. In a secular democracy, is it acceptable for members of one group (race, gender, faith, whatever) to say that they don't want to do something next to members of another group? And is it appropriate for a university to foster such separatism, particularly when it comes at a cost, no matter how tiny, to someone else?
These are questions on which reasonable people can disagree. But—and I think this is important—they are questions about which there should be a debate, and there was no debate, at least not publicly, about this segregated-gym decision before Fox News reported on it. (And no, that doesn't make Fox the evil empirical news organization. It's a legitimate story.)
If you believe that what happens at universities is important, as I clearly do, then you should welcome this debate. The process of community-wide discussion is at least as instructive as what takes place inside a Harvard classroom. But—and anyone who cares about Harvard should lament this—official Harvard usually squelches these debates, because it fears that they may be interpreted as "bad publicity," and therefore hurtful to the brand. Harvard diminishes its own educational potential because it lacks faith in its power to engage in constructive conversation.
Where, for example, is that university-wide discussion on the importance of Ivy League athletics? You'll find an articulate, thoughtful version of it on Tim McCarthy's blog, or perhaps in the writing of Harry Lewis or decades-old letters by Derek Bok or a Crimson columist. You might even hear it during Morning Prayers at Memorial Church. You may find it in 02138 or Harvard magazine. But you won't hear it from Harvard's designated leaders, its anonymous decision-makers, or its highest-paid functionaries. A shame. Where is the confidence in the values of a great university?
Now, I'm sure that I haven't always raised these issues in the clearest or most constructive way, and, even though it isn't always fun to hear, I welcome your pointing that out. This blogger has no monopoly on knowledge or clarity, and part of the reason why I enjoy doing this blog is because I learn so much from its readers. I'd suggest only to anonymous posters that whatever failings I have as a writer and a blogger don't make me a misogynistic asshole with my head up my ass.
If you were writing that comment about someone else, I'd delete it, on the basis of my longstanding policy: Don't abuse the protection of anonymity to write things you wouldn't say publicly (unless there's some fear of reprisal).
I cut people more slack when they're commenting on me, because I'm pretty thick-skinned about this stuff and, what the hell, it comes with the territory. (Plus, as a matter of principle, I strongly prefer not to delete comments unless it seems absolutely necessary.)
But, really—how cheap and churlish it is to throw stones when you lack the character to identify yourself.
I'd also remind folks that if I link to an article, or quote someone saying something provocative, it doesn't mean that I'm endorsing that article or that quote, only that I find it topical and thought-provoking.
As to the question of whether Standing Eagle or Richard Thomas should start their own blogs—fantastic! They're both eloquent and thoughtful participants to this one (though I do think Standing Eagle's a little cranky over the decline in Barack Obama's fortunes) and I'd happily read anything they wrote. Plus, we'd finally get to find out who Standing Eagle is, anyway.
The real question is not whether they should start a blog, it's why haven't they started one already?
Happy Sunday, everyone. Don't forget to change your clocks. ¶ 7:49 AM
Let me clarify, and then perhaps we should move on. Or at least elevate the tenor of the conversation.
I raised the issue because I dislike expressions of religion that come at the expense of someone else, whatever the religion is. To my mind, the best religion is the kind that goes inside a church, temple, synagogue, whatever, then shuts the doors and leaves the rest of us alone. And I speak as someone who was raised in a strong religious tradition with which he is fully comfortable.
In banning men from a gym to protect the sensibilities of Islamic women, Harvard made a choice that glossed over a tension between the imperative of religious tolerance and the rejection of common secular values—community, non-discrimination, mutual co-existence—that bind this country together. In a secular democracy, is it acceptable for members of one group (race, gender, faith, whatever) to say that they don't want to do something next to members of another group? And is it appropriate for a university to foster such separatism, particularly when it comes at a cost, no matter how tiny, to someone else?
These are questions on which reasonable people can disagree. But—and I think this is important—they are questions about which there should be a debate, and there was no debate, at least not publicly, about this segregated-gym decision before Fox News reported on it. (And no, that doesn't make Fox the evil empirical news organization. It's a legitimate story.)
If you believe that what happens at universities is important, as I clearly do, then you should welcome this debate. The process of community-wide discussion is at least as instructive as what takes place inside a Harvard classroom. But—and anyone who cares about Harvard should lament this—official Harvard usually squelches these debates, because it fears that they may be interpreted as "bad publicity," and therefore hurtful to the brand. Harvard diminishes its own educational potential because it lacks faith in its power to engage in constructive conversation.
Where, for example, is that university-wide discussion on the importance of Ivy League athletics? You'll find an articulate, thoughtful version of it on Tim McCarthy's blog, or perhaps in the writing of Harry Lewis or decades-old letters by Derek Bok or a Crimson columist. You might even hear it during Morning Prayers at Memorial Church. You may find it in 02138 or Harvard magazine. But you won't hear it from Harvard's designated leaders, its anonymous decision-makers, or its highest-paid functionaries. A shame. Where is the confidence in the values of a great university?
Now, I'm sure that I haven't always raised these issues in the clearest or most constructive way, and, even though it isn't always fun to hear, I welcome your pointing that out. This blogger has no monopoly on knowledge or clarity, and part of the reason why I enjoy doing this blog is because I learn so much from its readers. I'd suggest only to anonymous posters that whatever failings I have as a writer and a blogger don't make me a misogynistic asshole with my head up my ass.
If you were writing that comment about someone else, I'd delete it, on the basis of my longstanding policy: Don't abuse the protection of anonymity to write things you wouldn't say publicly (unless there's some fear of reprisal).
I cut people more slack when they're commenting on me, because I'm pretty thick-skinned about this stuff and, what the hell, it comes with the territory. (Plus, as a matter of principle, I strongly prefer not to delete comments unless it seems absolutely necessary.)
But, really—how cheap and churlish it is to throw stones when you lack the character to identify yourself.
I'd also remind folks that if I link to an article, or quote someone saying something provocative, it doesn't mean that I'm endorsing that article or that quote, only that I find it topical and thought-provoking.
As to the question of whether Standing Eagle or Richard Thomas should start their own blogs—fantastic! They're both eloquent and thoughtful participants to this one (though I do think Standing Eagle's a little cranky over the decline in Barack Obama's fortunes) and I'd happily read anything they wrote. Plus, we'd finally get to find out who Standing Eagle is, anyway.
The real question is not whether they should start a blog, it's why haven't they started one already?
Happy Sunday, everyone. Don't forget to change your clocks. ¶ 7:49 AM
Comments:
<< Home
Now that Richard has cleared everything up for everybody...and reminded me that there have been a couple of Harvard related posts over the past couple of days...which were not boring, by the way...I'm sorry I said that in the heat of the moment but that snarky "misogynist" anonymous post made me so mad I lost it. But that's the only thing I'm sorry I said. Since this snarky reader was obviously educated at Harvard, it made me wonder how Harvard could produce such a misfit. I expect lots from Harvard.
Happy Sunday everyone from me too...and I set my clock ahead an hour and it hurts.
And I love you too eayny..for your decency and common sense and intelligence without a Harvard degree.
lmpaulsen
Happy Sunday everyone from me too...and I set my clock ahead an hour and it hurts.
And I love you too eayny..for your decency and common sense and intelligence without a Harvard degree.
lmpaulsen
# posted by 
: March 9, 2024 11:07 AM
: March 9, 2024 11:07 AM
These are legitimate points, but the way you were raising them was xenophobic. Would you have been so challenging if the women in question were Buddhist? Would it be a story that got any attention at all? I think you need to look hard at the anti-Muslim things you said in the last couple days and think about whether newsworthiness should be inflected by somebody's lame and retrograde 'clash of civilizations' framework. (I didn't see any misogyny.)
Also, keep an eye on whether you're using shorthand that makes you -- well, let's say 'a jerk' this time.
I agree with Harry on the principle but am also a pragmatist about administration. And this one seems easy -- it's only a few hours a week and the QRAC stands empty much of the time anyway. Let 'em sweat without hijabs.
Standing Eagle
Also, keep an eye on whether you're using shorthand that makes you -- well, let's say 'a jerk' this time.
I agree with Harry on the principle but am also a pragmatist about administration. And this one seems easy -- it's only a few hours a week and the QRAC stands empty much of the time anyway. Let 'em sweat without hijabs.
Standing Eagle
# posted by 
Standing Eagle : March 9, 2024 11:20 AM
Standing Eagle : March 9, 2024 11:20 AM
Basically, the whole discussion could have been conducted without the words "suicide bomber" appearing, which I think they did three or four times.
Interesting point made by Harry the Hat, but I agree with SE that there's principle, but also harmless exception-granting... like this one. But HL was dean of the college, actually facing such issues. Is he saying that he would feel, in this case, he couldn't bend? Perhaps in that case, Harvard could assist Muslim women in joining a private gym. But that would be another kind of religious privilege R-Brad would object to--
Interesting point made by Harry the Hat, but I agree with SE that there's principle, but also harmless exception-granting... like this one. But HL was dean of the college, actually facing such issues. Is he saying that he would feel, in this case, he couldn't bend? Perhaps in that case, Harvard could assist Muslim women in joining a private gym. But that would be another kind of religious privilege R-Brad would object to--
# posted by : March 9, 2024 11:31 AM
: March 9, 2024 11:31 AM
Indeed I would, EADW. If anyone's religion says that they can't associate with people who aren't like them, then they're welcome to go off and practice it by themselves. But there's no reason for a university to support it.
"Suicide bomber" was used twice—once to point out an irony, once in a pro-Muslim context. But I'll take the blame for not being clearer about the obvious point that this is a very limited group.
And SE, all due respect, but I don't think I've said anything anti-Muslim. And yes, I would be opposed to Harvard facilitating religious-based segregation regardless of the faith involved.
"Suicide bomber" was used twice—once to point out an irony, once in a pro-Muslim context. But I'll take the blame for not being clearer about the obvious point that this is a very limited group.
And SE, all due respect, but I don't think I've said anything anti-Muslim. And yes, I would be opposed to Harvard facilitating religious-based segregation regardless of the faith involved.
# posted by Richard Bradley : March 9, 2024 11:39 AM
Richard Bradley : March 9, 2024 11:39 AM
RB- the most important time that you raised the specter of suicide bombing was when you wrote, "If the religion in question were not Islam, would Harvard have caved as it did? Is the university afraid of Islamic protest/violence?"
To me, that seemed so plainly ridiculous that I was moved to post the first anonymous comment in that thread (in which I said you were "acting like a moron"). It seemed absurd, first, to characterize Harvard as "caving," given that they simply complied with a student request which they'd never resisted. But, second and more importantly, I thought it was quite troubling that you moved so quickly in your post to associate Islam and violence in an apparently sincere way.
Perhaps you meant only that administrators had wrongly connected the request with an implicit threat of violence, but you sure made it sound like that was a reasonable thing to do in this context. Which, to be brief, it ain't, so this seemed like a slur on the undoubtedly sincere students who raised this issue. You may think them misguided, but to suggest that they could back up their request with the threat of violence strikes me as way out of line. It contributed to the general smearing of Islam that you elsewhere purport to decry when it touches Obama.
To me, that seemed so plainly ridiculous that I was moved to post the first anonymous comment in that thread (in which I said you were "acting like a moron"). It seemed absurd, first, to characterize Harvard as "caving," given that they simply complied with a student request which they'd never resisted. But, second and more importantly, I thought it was quite troubling that you moved so quickly in your post to associate Islam and violence in an apparently sincere way.
Perhaps you meant only that administrators had wrongly connected the request with an implicit threat of violence, but you sure made it sound like that was a reasonable thing to do in this context. Which, to be brief, it ain't, so this seemed like a slur on the undoubtedly sincere students who raised this issue. You may think them misguided, but to suggest that they could back up their request with the threat of violence strikes me as way out of line. It contributed to the general smearing of Islam that you elsewhere purport to decry when it touches Obama.
# posted by : March 9, 2024 12:24 PM
: March 9, 2024 12:24 PM
To me the "no men allowed" issue was trivial...a harmless exception and I didn't agree with Richard. However, Harry Lewis said it best...with historical knowledge and experience as an administrator I was not aware of. He did put it better than Richard. It's very clear and should put an end to any and all arguments about the whole argument for everybody.
And 12:24 PM, when you're going to tell somebody they're "acting like a moron"...or as Standing Eagle points out like a "jerk"...you should be prepared to sign your name to it, and Standing Eagle doesn't count. Especially when you are calling someone these names that you have been on more than one occasion, equally guilty of being yourselves, to someone like Richard who doesn't stoop to your level, even when he disagrees with you.
lmpaulsen
And 12:24 PM, when you're going to tell somebody they're "acting like a moron"...or as Standing Eagle points out like a "jerk"...you should be prepared to sign your name to it, and Standing Eagle doesn't count. Especially when you are calling someone these names that you have been on more than one occasion, equally guilty of being yourselves, to someone like Richard who doesn't stoop to your level, even when he disagrees with you.
lmpaulsen
# posted by : March 9, 2024 3:07 PM
: March 9, 2024 3:07 PM
12:24, let me clarify: I certainly did not mean that any Harvard student would promote or condone violence. What I meant was a point that I think has become a commonplace in American society after 9/11: Whether it's publishing certain kinds of books or cartoons, scheduling certain speakers, or just making certain administrative rulings, the threat of Islamic protest and potential violence is in the minds (maybe just the back of the minds) of many American decision-makers these days.
An article about Harvard denying the "right" of Muslim women to work out separately hits the web, and then, well, what do you think? Does the Harvard University Police Department have a conversation about that? If it didn't, would some call them irresponsible? If they didn't and something terrible happened, would there be legal consequences?
Let me put it another way, as I think Standing Eagle put it: Do you think that if the university were inclined to say no to this request, that it would be more concerned that the students are Muslim (not because of threats from them, but because of outward ripples that could lead to threats) than if they were, say, Buddhist?
An article about Harvard denying the "right" of Muslim women to work out separately hits the web, and then, well, what do you think? Does the Harvard University Police Department have a conversation about that? If it didn't, would some call them irresponsible? If they didn't and something terrible happened, would there be legal consequences?
Let me put it another way, as I think Standing Eagle put it: Do you think that if the university were inclined to say no to this request, that it would be more concerned that the students are Muslim (not because of threats from them, but because of outward ripples that could lead to threats) than if they were, say, Buddhist?
# posted by Richard Bradley : March 9, 2024 3:19 PM
Richard Bradley : March 9, 2024 3:19 PM
12:24pm here.
Hey lmpaulsen, it's the internet -- get used to it. I'm going to stay anonymous (or at least have such anonymity as the internet can provide, which is never as much as you think).
I do think it's important to be responsible in my anonymity by giving reasons for my views, responding to counter-arguments, and making it clear that I'm same the person across posts (ie, not adopting multiple personae in one thread). But beyond that, I don't see where my name adds any value.
As for name-calling, well...sometimes it's appropriate and sometimes it's inappropriate. And yet other times, it's inappropriate but just not a big deal anyway. I'm betting that the ad hominems launched over the past couple days belong to either the first or the last category -- nothing to get hung up about, I think, given that Richard has both demonstrated and boasted of his thick skin (though I'm sure he appreciates your defense).
Besides, I do take some care: note that I said Richard was "acting like a moron" and did not call him a moron simpliciter. And I will further display my forbearance by not ridiculing the grammatical awkwardness of the last sentence of your post.
Hey lmpaulsen, it's the internet -- get used to it. I'm going to stay anonymous (or at least have such anonymity as the internet can provide, which is never as much as you think).
I do think it's important to be responsible in my anonymity by giving reasons for my views, responding to counter-arguments, and making it clear that I'm same the person across posts (ie, not adopting multiple personae in one thread). But beyond that, I don't see where my name adds any value.
As for name-calling, well...sometimes it's appropriate and sometimes it's inappropriate. And yet other times, it's inappropriate but just not a big deal anyway. I'm betting that the ad hominems launched over the past couple days belong to either the first or the last category -- nothing to get hung up about, I think, given that Richard has both demonstrated and boasted of his thick skin (though I'm sure he appreciates your defense).
Besides, I do take some care: note that I said Richard was "acting like a moron" and did not call him a moron simpliciter. And I will further display my forbearance by not ridiculing the grammatical awkwardness of the last sentence of your post.
# posted by : March 9, 2024 3:29 PM
: March 9, 2024 3:29 PM
3:29—a couple quick points.
As to grammar—well, as you say, it's the Internet, get used to it.
I don't think I "boasted" of having a thick skin, but said it with some degree of resignation. As in, well, it's not the greatest thing to have to develop, but there you are.
And finally, your attitude towards anonymous insults is pretty cavalier—and lets you off the hook rather too easily, I think.
The reason signing your name adds value, IMHO, is that it makes you more careful before you go and slag someone; you know that you'll be held accountable, and that accountability either helps you develop a thick skin or leads you to temper your ad hominem remarks. Your rationale for anonymity isn't very convincing.
As to grammar—well, as you say, it's the Internet, get used to it.
I don't think I "boasted" of having a thick skin, but said it with some degree of resignation. As in, well, it's not the greatest thing to have to develop, but there you are.
And finally, your attitude towards anonymous insults is pretty cavalier—and lets you off the hook rather too easily, I think.
The reason signing your name adds value, IMHO, is that it makes you more careful before you go and slag someone; you know that you'll be held accountable, and that accountability either helps you develop a thick skin or leads you to temper your ad hominem remarks. Your rationale for anonymity isn't very convincing.
# posted by Richard Bradley : March 9, 2024 3:38 PM
Richard Bradley : March 9, 2024 3:38 PM
"The threat of Islamic protest and potential violence is in the minds (maybe just the back of the minds) of many American decision-makers these days."
No it isn't.
"An article about Harvard denying the "right" of Muslim women to work out separately hits the web, and then, well, what do you think? Does the Harvard University Police Department have a conversation about that?"
No.
"If it didn't, would some call them irresponsible?"
Morons might.
"If they didn't and something terrible happened, would there be legal consequences?"
No.
Hey Impaulsen -- 'Standing Eagle' is not anonymity. And in fact I'll let you know who I am as soon as it serves my purposes. The time is drawing near.
SE
No it isn't.
"An article about Harvard denying the "right" of Muslim women to work out separately hits the web, and then, well, what do you think? Does the Harvard University Police Department have a conversation about that?"
No.
"If it didn't, would some call them irresponsible?"
Morons might.
"If they didn't and something terrible happened, would there be legal consequences?"
No.
Hey Impaulsen -- 'Standing Eagle' is not anonymity. And in fact I'll let you know who I am as soon as it serves my purposes. The time is drawing near.
SE
# posted by Standing Eagle : March 9, 2024 3:43 PM
Standing Eagle : March 9, 2024 3:43 PM
"I'll take the blame for not being clearer about the obvious point that this is a very limited group.
And SE, all due respect, but I don't think I've said anything anti-Muslim."
These two sentences are in conflict.
Also, RB, you can't say something hateful about Islamic upbringings and suicide bombings and then say Hey, I was just pointing out an irony. That's a total begging of the question of whether it's a bigoted joke or not. Irony is in the eye of the beholder.
Not even Alanis Morrissette would go there: "It's like ra-ain on your wedding day .... It's like a suicide bomber's mom.... wanting her daughter not to strip..... Like a free ride ... when you've already paid.... It's the good advice about where to put your terrorism emergency command center -- that you just didn't take..... Isn't it ironic? Don't you think?" (Answer: no. No, it almost certainly is not.)
SE
And SE, all due respect, but I don't think I've said anything anti-Muslim."
These two sentences are in conflict.
Also, RB, you can't say something hateful about Islamic upbringings and suicide bombings and then say Hey, I was just pointing out an irony. That's a total begging of the question of whether it's a bigoted joke or not. Irony is in the eye of the beholder.
Not even Alanis Morrissette would go there: "It's like ra-ain on your wedding day .... It's like a suicide bomber's mom.... wanting her daughter not to strip..... Like a free ride ... when you've already paid.... It's the good advice about where to put your terrorism emergency command center -- that you just didn't take..... Isn't it ironic? Don't you think?" (Answer: no. No, it almost certainly is not.)
SE
# posted by Standing Eagle : March 9, 2024 3:47 PM
Standing Eagle : March 9, 2024 3:47 PM
12:24pm again -
SE, your invocation of Alanis Morrissette made me laugh out loud.
Richard, I do think anonymity and accountability can be compatible, though anonymity can of course be abused. I don't think I've crossed any lines here. Besides, my anonymity has nothing to do with you - I wouldn't particularly care if you knew who I was, but there's plenty of other people who use the internet (current and former employers, etc) and I'd prefer if they didn't connect my name and opinions.
More substantively, I also agree with SE about your speculations re: Harvard's hypothetical failure to adopt a women-only-gym-hours policy inflaming Muslim terrorists. Harvard made it 370+ years without such a policy, so I find it dubious that it would suddenly spark violent outrage. Think for just one second about who these extremists actually are -- surely they'd be more offended by the existence of independent, Ivy-educated, gym-using Muslim women than by Harvard's refusal to accommodate same. Your apparent inability to see this reflects poorly on your ability to perceive the diversity of Muslims.
SE, your invocation of Alanis Morrissette made me laugh out loud.
Richard, I do think anonymity and accountability can be compatible, though anonymity can of course be abused. I don't think I've crossed any lines here. Besides, my anonymity has nothing to do with you - I wouldn't particularly care if you knew who I was, but there's plenty of other people who use the internet (current and former employers, etc) and I'd prefer if they didn't connect my name and opinions.
More substantively, I also agree with SE about your speculations re: Harvard's hypothetical failure to adopt a women-only-gym-hours policy inflaming Muslim terrorists. Harvard made it 370+ years without such a policy, so I find it dubious that it would suddenly spark violent outrage. Think for just one second about who these extremists actually are -- surely they'd be more offended by the existence of independent, Ivy-educated, gym-using Muslim women than by Harvard's refusal to accommodate same. Your apparent inability to see this reflects poorly on your ability to perceive the diversity of Muslims.
# posted by : March 9, 2024 4:14 PM
: March 9, 2024 4:14 PM
Small tangent--I use the Alanis song when I'm teaching students what "irony" is and explain that none of the examples are irony but more like, "isn't it a bummer?"
Post a Comment
# posted by Beecham : March 9, 2024 9:09 PM
Beecham : March 9, 2024 9:09 PM<< Home
