Shots in the Dark

The Yale Daily News offers its take on goings-on at Harvard here.

(Think folks in New Haven are enjoying this much?)

The most interesting part is this contribution from Yale history professor John Morton Blum, a former member of the Harvard Corporation, who spoke about the impossibility of knowing where the Harvard Corporation truly stands.

<<"We don't know what the feeling in the corporation is," Blum said. "I don't know whether Mr. Houghton is speaking for himself or for a majority of the corporation or for the whole corporation." Even if the corporation fully supports Summers now, its support may be tentative, Blum said. But chances are slim that the corporation would fire Summers outright, due to a “tradition of civility” that exists among institutions of higher learning, Blum said. “What they would do would be to go to the president and say, ‘We no longer support you, you’ve got to resign,'” he said, noting that former Harvard President Nathan Pusey, unpopular among students and faculty alike for his handling of a riot during the 1960s, was ousted in this way.>>

Blum indirectly touches upon a crucial point: that “tradition of civility” in institutions of higher learning. That’s exactly what the faculty is saying has been lost under Larry Summers. Ironic that the very tradition he has scorned may keep him from getting fired.

A fascinating trio of letters in the Harvard Crimson.

The first, by J. Robert Moskin, class of ’44, is almost a parody of the grouchy old alum. “Enough of this disgraceful public bickering by teachers who are expected to know better.” And so on.

The second, by Samuel S. Robinson, class of ’54, isn’t much better. Robinson talks about how Harvard once protected its professors from McCarthyism, and now is turning on its own president. “Who would want to succeed University President Lawrence H. Summers, or indeed even teach at or attend a place so disconnected from its glorious past?”

Not quite sure I follow the logic there.

David G. Winter, class of ’60, sounds like a man who graduated just a little ahead of his time. “The Harvard Corporation—one of the oldest absolute oligarchies in the Western Hemisphere, and a bastion of the American ruling class—is in no way bound to act on the faculty’s views,” he writes. “And so as expected, it has announced its continued confidence in Summers.”

Isn’t it remarkable how all these letters seem not just reflective of the men who wrote them, but the era in which they graduated?

And again, a point I’ve made repeatedly in this space: People outside the university simply do not understand that, particularly at Harvard, it is customary for the faculty to have a say in the running of the place. Not necessarily a decisive one, but a voice that is taken seriously and considered with respect.

Here’s Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney at the St. Patrick’s Day breakfast, an annual and venerable Bay State rite. (Spirits were, um, high, so the translation is loose.)

“I know I need to reach out to other constituencies, so I thought about the chances of organizing a ‘Democrats for Romney’ group….About as good as starting a ‘Female Mathematicians for Larry Summers’ group.”

Having said that…

I am surprised that race has not become a bigger part of the discussion at Harvard. Because if women are concerned about their lack of visibility in the university’s higher echelons, African-Americans and other minorities have even more reason to be angry. Look around at the Summers administration—it’s not exactly the Rainbow Coalition. In fact, “not exactly” is giving Summers too much credit. This group is whiter than a doily.

Summers sometimes seem to think that the rules which apply to everyone else don’t apply to him. Even as he talks about diversity and its importance to the student body—even as he co-authors New York Times op-eds in favor of affirmative action—he has not appointed a single minority to a high level post in his administration. Not one African-American, Latino/a, or Asian-American. So while I have no idea if Desiree Goodwin’s lawsuit has merit, I do think that, unless things change, sooner or later Summers is going to get hit with a discrimination lawsuit in which he’ll be the named defendant.

The declining numbers of female faculty members at Harvard is a scandal. So is this.

I have no knowledge of Desiree Goodwin’s situation, but I should say that she came to my reading at the Old South Meeting House and asked what I thought was a smart question.

In James Traub’s August 2003 profile of Larry Summers in the New York Times Magazine, there’s a curious anecdote. While meeting with a group of students, Summers was asked about the incident of the snow penis, the sculpture built by some male Harvard undergrads and knocked down by some female students. Was the sculpture’s destruction justified or an unacceptable violation of free speech?

Summers responded by challenging students to think about the issue. What if a student had written “nigger” in the snow? he asked. Would that change your feelings?

Goodwin wanted to know my reaction to that story and whether I thought Summers was racist.

Tough question.

Because when I first read Traub’s profile, I was a little shocked by Summers’ use of the n-word. For one thing, because he didn’t actually need to say it—he could have done what I just did, and said “the n-word.”

But then, that isn’t his style.

Summers was clearly using the word in a context aimed at showing its offensiveness. Still, it’s risky to throw out that word in a crowded room. Especially when you don’t really need to; when your use of it has more to do with an instinctive dislike for euphemisms, or perhaps the sense that it was so obvious that he was using the word in a critical way, no one could find fault with him.

Still…this is the kind of thing that gets Summers in trouble. Because not everyone will understand his intention. And his almost casual use of the word opens him up to the charge that he’s racist in effect, if not intent.

My answer to Goodwin: I don’t think Summers is racist. But I do think that incident is an excellent example of how Summers can be so clinical, he doesn’t realize when he’s playing with fire.

The book’s mentioned in two news stories today, this one from the Boston Herald and this one from the Baltimore Sun.

The Herald reports on the ongoing lawsuit of Desiree Goodwin, a former Harvard librarian who is suing the university, claiming that a supervisor told her she was “too sexy” to be taken seriously. Goodwin, who is black, also claims that she was repeatedly passed over for promotion while less qualified whites were advanced. She and her lawyer were hoping to call Larry Summers to testify. The judge ruled against Goodwin on the grounds that Summers had no direct knowledge of her situation and that his appearance “would only be for the purpose of harassment and publicity.”

The Herald also reports that Goodwin’s lawyer wants to introduce Harvard Rules as evidence.

Key quote: <<Goodwin’s attorney Richard D. Clarey wants to show jurors a new book, “Harvard Rules—The Struggle for the Soul of the World’s Most Powerful University,” whose author claims Summers oppossed Condoleeza Rice as a graduation speaker by saying he would not let “affirmative action” dictate his choice.>>

More on this momentarily.

The Baltimore Sun piece is called “Tell-All Books are a Dose of Poison in Harvard’s Ivy,” which is the kind of title that gets you irritated at newspapers. The article is about the campus reaction to Harvard Rules and Ross Douthat’s book, Privilege, and neither work really falls into the tell-all category. But never mind. Here’s the key quote in Ellen Gamerman’s story.

<With a faculty fight over Harvard’s leadership resulting in the largest faculty group’s no-confidence vote against President Lawurence H. Summers last week, as well as two new tell-all books offering an unflattering glimpse behind Harvard’s red-brick walls, the university with a seemingly unassailable brand name is finding itself on the defensive.>

Gamerman has a point: Whatever side you take in the Summers controversy, there’s no doubt that it has tarnished Harvard’s reputation. The left sees Summers as a tyrannical, sexist caricature; the right sees the faculty as a politically correct mob. What impact will this have when students receive their acceptance letters in a couple of weeks? Or will the youth of America simply base their decisions on the great soul-killing force of our era— celebrity?

Maureen Dowd writes about the scientific differences between men and women in this column. Does anyone, including herself, have the slightest idea what she’s talking about? Or was she just really, really hard up for a column topic?

Democracy is spreading. On Monday and Tuesday students in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences (GSAS) will vote on the same resolutions that the faculty just approved. Here’s the e-mail that’s sent around by the Graduate Student Council, a group of about 50, including representatives from each academic department. (The website URL has been changed to protect the innocent voters.)

<< The Faculty have spoken, now it’s your turn.

Last Tuesday the FAS faculty voted “lack of confidence” in President Summers. On Monday and Tuesday GSAS students will have the chance to vote on the same question. Harvard and the world want to know what thousands of graduate students think about their university president.

Polls will open from 7am Monday (March 21) and close at 5pm Tuesday (March 22). Log on to the weblink below between these hours to cast your anonymous vote.

It’s a quick and easy process.

http://www.xxxx.yyy.zzz

The two questions are those offered to faculty at their vote last week.

The results are vital to the ongoing debate, and graduate student opinion is of great interest to faculty and the press.

Yours,

The Graduate Student Council>>

This New York Times piece raises an issue that I’ve been trying to follow lately: the conservative attack on Darwin and the theory of evolution.

(I say trying to follow because the attack is so ubiquitous, stories about it are increasingly commonplace.)

Key quote: <<Several Imax theaters, including some in science museums, are refusing to show movies that mention the subject [of evolution] - or the Big Bang or the geology of the earth - fearing protests from people who object to films that contradict biblical descriptions of the origin of Earth and its creatures.>>

Summers erred in January by relying on shaky science to draw dubious conclusions. He could do the country a great favor by speaking out in favor of real science.

Just like the National Organization for Men—who knew?

In any event, he too is on Larry Summers’ side. His defense of Summers is subtly titled “Lawrence Summers and the Left’s Thought Gulag.”

It’s worth considering the argument Limbaugh makes, not so much because it’s serious, but because conservative pundits make this case so often that the sheer repetition of it may convince many.

First, Limbaugh dismisses the idea that Summers’ leadership style is the source of faculty discontent. Instead, he says, it’s all about Summers’ remarks on women in science.

Key quote: “The FAS just could not abide the suggestion that women might have different intellectual strengths from men. It not only wouldn’t accept Summers’ apology, it virtually demanded his head and permanently tarnished his reputation.”

(It virtually demanded his head? Well, did it or didn’t it?)

The faculty reacted this way because it is politically correct, closed-minded, intolerant and liberal—which, according to Limbaugh, is thrice redundant.

Limbaugh then extrapolates from the Summers situation to attack not just Harvard, but “the Left” in general.

As he concludes, “The Left is increasingly intellectually bankrupt and delusional. But worse, it has become boorishly dictatorial, not even sparing would-be allies, like Clintonite Lawrence Summers, from its hellish wrath, if they not just to disagree with its dogma, but to express a willingness to consider ideas the ‘code’ forbids.”

I like that—”the code.” As if liberals all sign their names in blood in a secret book.

In high school, I took a class in logic which taught me to look out for such debate techniques as the straw man, the reductio ad absurdum, the false conclusion. Limbaugh uses all of these and more; the argument is so intellectually dishonest that anyone trying to take it on can get bogged down by all the little lies.

More important, I think, is the big lie: That there is such a thing as The Left—in a country with a Republican president, a Republican Congress, and Republican-dominated governorships and statehouses—and that it is powerful, intolerant, and politically correct.

Limbaugh’s argument really doesn’t have anything to do with Harvard. But it says a lot about how conservatives debase political discussion in order to gin up hysteria and rally their supporters.

Oh, and by the way, David Limbaugh is also an author. His book: Persecution—How Liberals Are Waging Political War Against Christianity. I’m sure it’s equally convincing.