Perhaps had Larry Summers chosen to wax poetic about his own socially constructed carnal victimization — a product of the hipster’s backlash against Eisenhower’s America, the longterm fallout of such liberation being that poor, confused Boomers have been reduced to oglers whose pleat-hidden chubbies mirror both their shame and their longing, a conflict of social enlightenment manifest in the ostensible intellectual desire to de-objectify women pitted against carefully constructed capitalist machinations that, for all intents and purposes, are designed to mimic consumerist torture (with consumers dressing in rubber underwear and being whipped by Madame Fleshly in a gimp suit, metaphorically speaking) — he might today still have a reputation. And a job.
Or at least, might be able to land one at the Washington Post.
Instead, the poor slob decided to speculate about sexual differences using the horizontal logic of rigid, distaff oppression. Science. How revoltingly male.
Serves the bastard right, as far as I’m concerned.
(h/t Hot Air and CJ Burch)
I thought the column by Hunter was very funny. Yes, he goes overboard with the whole repressed 50’s stuff, but still much of the column seemed “right-on”, as the hipsters used to say in the enlightened 60’s.
I, in fact, remember whiling away many hours in an afternoon geometry class in 8th grade, attempting to angle my chair in just such a way that I could see down the tiny opening in the shirt of a certain well-endowed female classmate. Perhaps if I had paid attention in class I would have realized that what I was attempting to accomplish was physically impossible.
I don’t know… I sort of liked the peice. xcuse me for not knowing who the dude is… but dang it.. I liked the peice.
Because where I live… there is this college see.. and in April… well, there is a lot more traffic around the campus than during the fall and winter months…
And the reason is simple: the young ladies are all undressed to varying degrees. And it is a pleasure to behold.
Dog will hunt!
See? You guys are proving my point. Summers’ problem was that he didn’t couch his rather unremarkable observations in the guise of carnal conflict.
He wasn’t artistic enough, you see.
Bad form, Larry. Whereas Steve? A TRIUMPH!
(Incidentally, “Girls in Their Summer Dresses” is a great short story, for those of you who haven’t read it. Not sure if you can get away with teaching it in today’s English classes without the requisite discussion of sexism / impotence. But whatever).
Give Steve Hunter a break. For one thing, he’s a boomer and is therefore vulnerable to flights of nostalgia like the one you linked to – those born prior to 1960 just can’t help themselves. For another, he deserves props for unabashedly championing the hetro male world view in a paper like the Post where it is usually treated as something that just isn’t spoken of in polite company. Most importantly, he’s probably the best film reviewer now writing. Hunter’s reviews reveal an unpretentious writer who is able to economically convey his opinion to a broad audience without dumbing down his review, or, at the other extreme, lapsing into cinebabble. Moreover, he is an unapologetic fan of well done small arms mayhem (try finding a reviewer for the Times that will actually admit to appreciating the finer points of violence in film). Although I don’t know his politics, Hunter strikes me as at least somewhat conservative and doesn’t seem to reflexively praise every Bush bashing documentary that comes out. All in all, Hunter’s presence at the Washington Post is good illustration of why it is sometimes worth reading.
J.Brenner —
See my previous comment.
Hunter was the reviewer for the Baltimore Sun back when I lived in MD. I dug him, for the most part.
The post is not an attack on Hunter. It was a contemplation on style and substance.
Now shut up and give me some lovin!
Sorry, sir!
Thanks for that link. Haven’t read that in forever, but —
And, after all, how many pretty women are there in New York? Seventeen?
— seventeen is still my default conversational random-small-number-of-people (libertarians, usually) because of that line.
Not sure if you can get away with teaching it in today’s English classes without the requisite discussion of sexism / impotence.
You couldn’t fifteen years ago. (It’s that long? Almost. Shit.)
And my half-serious — no, Derridean! — observation that the vulgarity of lit-theorization of the “gaze” has its origin in the tone-deafness of one translator of Foucault (whose regard doesn’t have the leering baggage “gaze” does) didn’t go over as well as I thought it would.
“Stop knowing things!”
Or so it struck me. Repeatedly.
(Have I mentioned how much I hated college? I think I have.)
“I love me the nekkid bitches”, usually works for me.
I can’t really read that. I think he wrote that for some other publication but ended up putting it in the Post cause Harper’s or whatever passed.
I’ll be so glad when these people are in the ground, really.
If the Truman and Eisenhower years were so sexually repressed, where did all those baby boomers come from?
Hipsters: “Like, man, we’ve discovered sex! Dig that, squares!”
Father-of-four: “No, really? Here, hold this one, I gotta break up a fight!”
Two words: Jane Russell.
In answer to my own question in #10 above:
The Boomers’ parents didn’t need to talk about sex all the time (as is the tendency of intellectuals and hipsters) because they were romping like rabbits.
I’ve wondered about that. How come sexually free wheeling, open minded, swinging, whipped creme and mayo kinds of folk don’t have a tenth the number of children of socially repressed, sticks in the mud who obviously hate sex and all things about sex. Could it be that the first set of folk are childish show offs and the second set of folk are grown ups who actually lead pretty balanced, healthy lives?
“Could it be that the first set of folk are childish show offs and the second set of folk are grown ups who actually lead pretty balanced, healthy lives?”
That answer won’t support the fragile egos of the chattering classes, corvan.
Summers’ basic error (in the context of Academy Politics) was the failure to append “and men are inferior” to his proposition that “men and women are different.”
Had he done so, he would still be employed in the academy, and engaged in many speaking tours.
The fact that P.F.O. physiology is a blasphemy deserving excommunication on campus has definitely reinforced my belief that the days of the university as an irrelevant, useless waste of time are most certainly coming to a middle.
I grieve for my son when he discovers girls, because it seems that any woman who was born post 1980 thinks she has to out-do Jenna in the sack. How do you tell a young woman that there is no camera running and that all those noises and goofy faces are a construct of the porn industry? And to please knock it off and join in the fun?
Ah! For the days when you didn’t know what that “thing” really looked like, and were totally freaked to find out that it was WET! Sex as a young ‘un in the old days was an incredible journey of imagination, not a replay of “Two whores and an idiot with a big shlong”.
I give. I guess I am just too old to think that what I see in porno movies has anything to do with sex. I mean, how bad is it when you are having sex and have to tell your partner to stop making those stupid noises? “And if you keep making those faces, I think I am going to have to slap you”? How can violently whacking groins for twenty minutes ever be considered some kind of pleasing experience?
Well, I guess this dog has a bright future in the sexual arena, huh?
Science? He sited a general trend for males to be more tail heavy for many traits (true, but not for everything), and misrepresented another study re: math scores. He has no evidence that can speak to innate ability, so science is not on his side. Even if male test scores are distributed in a tail heavy manner compared to women, is this due to differences cognitive ability or the reflection of some other trait that is itself tail-heavy and influences test scores? How can one discern nature OR nurture (or even qualitatively which trait differs) from data that is necassarily confounded by both (and can fall under the influence of many traits)?
To be fair, he did say that it could be many things, and not just innate intelligence.
That said, If he were a social scientist and this was his area of study (so, ya know, he could interpret the available data correctly), his view point would be fine. If he had unconfounded data that pointed to a nature explanation, his the comments would be fine. BUT, seeing that the data does not back up what he’s saying ( though it is not at odds with what he’s saying), and seeing that his position is one where he is overseeing ALL of the members of an institution, the comments are inappropriate. It’s not that it shouldn’t be said – it is a possible explanation for the data (among many others). It’s who’s saying it and on what basis. If EITHER of these were different it would be perfectly acceptable.
steve,
The exact same statement would be acceptable if a different person had said it. If that is not typical of the leftist identity politics at play I do not know what is.
Of course, he didn’t state it as a fact, he offered it as something that might be worth looking at. In other words, he was suggesting doing some science on the question.
So, are his comments fine, or the depraved ramblings of a misogynist bastard?
“The exact same statement would be acceptable if a different person had said it. If that is not typical of the leftist identity politics at play I do not know what is.”
I love selectivity….
I said:
“It’s who’s saying it and on what basis. If EITHER of these were different it would be perfectly acceptable.”
So, if it could be demonstrated to be true, then his positio doesn’t play in and it would be fine. But considering that it has NOT been shown to be true, yes, his position matters. The behavior of the president of a Unversity should be different that that of the faculty, and baseless speculation outside his field that could have deleterious consequences for half the people under his leadership is not appropriate.
“Of course, he didn’t state it as a fact, he offered it as something that might be worth looking at. In other words, he was suggesting doing some science on the question.
So, are his comments fine, or the depraved ramblings of a misogynist bastard?”
I don’t think he’s a “misogynist bastard”. See my rely at 20 for why I think it’s innappropriate in this instance.
I do think it’s funny that the left bends over backwards to deny nature and the right does the same for nurture. And of course both would vehemently deny that, but nothing truer can be said.
Until the science is settled, we mustn’t speculate. Particularly in academia, where speculation can only lead to upsetting the status quo.
Raising questions? Blasphemy!
(I’ll let you see if you can’t figure out if that’s closer to how a church might work than how a university should).
steve
The EITHER (in your all caps) suggests that if one changed the utterer to an authentic party OR the foundation was different, his words would be acceptable.
The veracity of the statement rests with your perception of the person uttering it? Even if it is a fellow Leftist?
but nothing truer can be said.
I call BS. Hillary is shrill and mean is truer. Edwards is a disingenuous ambulance chaser is truer. Ron Paul is batshit crazy is truer. Semanticleo suffers from PRE traumatic stress disorder is truer. Andy is obtuse is truer. datadave is taking the wrong medications is truer.
Raising questions causes blasphemy AND the vapours!
“Until the science is settled, we mustn’t speculate. Particularly in academia, where speculation can only lead to upsetting the status quo.
Raising questions? Blasphemy!”
What did I say?
“That said, If he were a social scientist and this was his area of study (so, ya know, he could interpret the available data correctly), his view point would be fine. ”
Do yo bother reading, or what?
“The veracity of the statement rests with your perception of the person uttering it? Even if it is a fellow Leftist?”
YOu are simply wilfully ignoring what I’m saying.
Yes, I read. I just don’t happen to think you need to be credentialed to have an opinion. Being intelligent and curious is enough.
I should think a Harvard President would fit those parameters.
By not rehearsing the moldy elitism in your statement, I was doing you a favor. But if you want to go ahead and highlight it… well, that’s on you, buddy.
Someimes, there’s TWO factors, and they INTERACT.
I know, very complicated.
By the way, the next time some English prof starts prattling on about the Corn Laws by way of trying to interpret some Victorian tome, I’m going to insist they shut the fuck up, or else I’ll have their tenure pulled.
“STICK TO LACY COLLARS AND REPRESSED SEXUALITY, BITCH!”
Alright, steve. Let’s take your criteria, and apply it elsewhere. Most politicians would be disqualified on uttering an opinion about most topics. Mikey Moore would have to quit flapping his jowels about all things Republican. algore would have to quit bouncing his 4 chins about global warming. Hey, you are starting to convince me. I could come around to this idea.
I am not ignoring your words at all. By your words, Summers’ comments could only be uttered by a social scientist (oxymoron if there ever was one), and this was their particular field of study.
“Yes, I read. I just don’t happen to think you need to be credentialed to have an opinion. Being intelligent and curious is enough.”
I couldn’t agree more. But certain positions change what is or isn’t appropriate. Anyone can speculate, but when one is in charge, the speculation is lacking in evidence, and that speculation pertains to the innate lack of ability in 1/2 of the people that the person in question is supposed to be leading, something’s wrong with him thinking that. UNTIL the science is settled, the president of a major university should not be thinking that half of the people he is leading very well may be lacking in some way. He really ought to be null hypothesis on the issue becasue he is paid to lead the woment as well. It’s a responsibility issue, not a political correctness issue.
That is why it matters
1. Whether it’s speculation or not, and IF (IF!) it is speculation, then (THEN!)…
2. The position of the person engaged in the speculation matters. Depending on #2.
HAve I pointed out that the answer to #1 effects whether #2 is true? Just wanna make sure.
JD: Your ignorance re: social science notwithstanding…
Al Gore is not paid to represent anyone with whom his speculation (as I’m sure you would characterize it) conflicts
Yup, no speculation that the Left disagrees with, unless it is a social scientist spouting Teh Narrative.
31: Hopefulle #33 clears up why this is a false analogy.
JD refuses to read my posts, but reserves the right to comment on them.
How nice for you.
So it is a question of payment? Who pays Gore when he goes on his long winded southern preacher-esque rants against all things Republican? Who pays him when he speaking to the global warming groups? I am willing to bet he is not doing it for free.
In the end, this is just like I stated early on, typical Leftist behavior. Only certain authentic or authorized people are allowed to express their thoughts, opinions, or speculation in public. I should have just quit there, as the end point is the same.
I read it, but do not agree with it. You are a pompous one, no?
“typical Leftist behavior.”
Quotes like this are the first sign that you may be suffering from a condition known as Group Think. If they persist, consult your physician.
It’s called RESPONSIBILITY. as the pres of a Univ, one has a responsibility to the entire community that the rest of the faculty do not have.. Baseless speculation that chicks are inherently unable to hold top jobs runs counter to that responsibility when it’s not backed up by fact.
As I said (in paraphrasing Jeff), UNTIL the science is clear, he need to assume the null: that there is no difference.
“You are a pompous one, no?”
Yes.
Uh, even if he was invited to shake things up?
And by the way, I didn’t realize we were now prosecuting thought crimes by academics. Tell me, if the science winds up bearing out his speculations — which were offered to generate discussion — does he get his reputation back?
Having been in the academy myself for close to a decade, it doesn’t surprise me at all that it continues to show itself to be a bastion of politically correct thinking whose commitment to intellectualism is all but absent.
UNTIL the science is settled, no one may dare mention that the science is not settled, and speculate as to what one possible hypothetical might mean.
He was asked to speak at this event. He was there as a scholar, not a figurehead.
But even were he there as a figurehead, the proper figurehead for a university should be one who isn’t afraid to make provocative claims. The way this used to work is, such claims were rebutted, and evidence marshaled against them.
Today, they are shouted down as heretical, and their speakers convicted of thought crimes.
Lovely.
Yes, it does. And because he’s the head of a university, where intellectual speculation and give and take is supposed to take place — where the very system of tenure is designed to protect scholars from the mob mentality of those who would declare them apostates — the way he was treated does more to discredit academia than even the most nonsensical feminist reading of the semiotics of clothing in early Atwood novels.
“Uh, even if he was invited to shake things up?”
So what he’s shaking doesn’t matter – so long as he’s shaking?
“And by the way, I didn’t realize we were now prosecuting thought crimes by academics. Tell me, if the science winds up bearing out his speculations  which were offered to generate discussion  does he get his reputation back?”
Time moving exclusively forward and all, no.
“He was asked to speak at this event. He was there as a scholar, not a figurehead.”
There is no invitation that magically nad temporarily nullifies his position.
“But even were he there as a figurehead, the proper figurehead for a university should be one who isn’t afraid to make provocative claims. The way this used to work is, such claims were rebutted, and evidence marshaled against them.”
1. There is a difference between provacative and baseless. What about getting the studies he’s citing wrong? It smacks of having an axe to grind, considering the lack of evidence (did I mention that this would be OK if….forget it)
2. Life is a series of trade-offs. When you take a job like Univ Pres., you’re no longer in a position where fact-free musings about the abilities of women (or men, or Slavs, or Madagascarans) is appropriate. You continue to gloss over this part – the interaction between the baselessnes of the musings and the responsibilty of the position.
What if a University hired a scientist as President. He goes to some function and tells everyone that it really chafes him that there’s an English Dept at the U. What do they do? They should be a junior dept. to the sciences.
OK, it’s academia, and he should have the right to say what he wants. But if he does think that, don’t ya think he should go back to the physics dept.? It’s fine that he has his viewpoint, but if he wants to be the president to the WHOLE university, it’s not apporpriate to think that. I can think of many other siuation like that. Is it OK for a music professor to not belive in evolution? I think so. Is it OK for a biology prof? Not so much.
Well, it’s not like he said that women belong barefoot and pregnant. He simply made the case that there is some truth to the assertion that women and men differ physiologically — and that those differences may have manifest effects in some areas of scholarship.
Don’t know how many times I’ve been told women are better listeners, etc.
His position doesn’t need to be nullified. That’s the point. It’s academia. His point should have been debated and refuted, not met with protests and demands he be fired.
If you can’t get that, I think we’re done.
Scholars get studies wrong all the time. The make arguments based on a data set that another scholar comes along and calls into question. But nobody can call anything into question if questions aren’t allowed to be raised.
And you can cut the bullshit pragmatics about tradeoffs. The only reason we’re in a position now where you’re prattling on about such tradeoffs is that we’ve made it a criminal offense for certain people to hold certain positions. Or rather, to even articulate those positions as hypotheticals.
Get rid of that, and we wouldn’t have to worry about said “trade off.”
And I can’t believe I’m hearing someone saying, in 2007, it’s not “appropriate” to think that the biological differences between men and women might actually have real world implications.
Like, for instance, the profound lack of women linebackers in the NFL.
Please, just stop. You’re depressing me.
Steve notes:
“but if he wants to be the president to the WHOLE university, it’s not apporpriate to think that”
Perhaps in order to facilitate the learning experience, the various schools and other official and unofficial component organizations that comprise Harvard university should come up with lists of forbidden thoughts and opinions – along with proscribed penalties. Such a list would, of course, need to be specific to the race, class, gender and sexual identity of both the person holding the opinion, and, of any persons that said person might be thinking of. For instance, while it was obviously very improper for Summers, a white male, to consider the possibility that men have a greater aptitude for higher level mathematics, the Harvard women’s studies department might want to list other thoughts that a person of his ilk should not think – as opposed to, say, what a gay Latino female might be permitted to think about the inherent abilities of white males. I suppose the various groups might usefully come up with a standardized form that the university president could use to report thoughts that ran afoul of these guidelines.
You LOVE the straw, I’ll tell ya that! When did I say there were no differences between men and women? He questioned women’s aptitude for the sciences w/o evidence. Very simple. But other characteristics differ – why not that, right? For every differnence you can find, I can find 10 similarities, so pointing out random physiological differences is an absurd point to use toward the end that Sommer’s comments are in keeping with some sort of evidence.
It conflict with his responsibilities, though you apparently favor some sort of beatnik academy where everyone can just do whatever they please whenever they please. How groovy of you.
This is great. You continue to prattle on about positions not mattering – but this is absurd on its face. You know you wouldn’t want to be an English Prof. at my hypothetical University. Oh, I’m sure you’d wow your colleagues bending over backward to defend someone who questioned English Literature’s place in the academy. I’d love to see that. What else should be “debated and refuted, not met with protests and demands he be fired.”? Holocaust denial in the History Dept? Ward Churchill? Flat Earth proponents? Who cares? Nothing’s innaprpriate or grounds for dismissal – we’ll just debate it and then we’ll all get a Snapple and then we’ll laugh and laugh…oh, it’s going to be great!
I got it: let’s hire Leonard Jeffries! That’s the ticket! Becasue saying the whites are the devil may be wrong, but the idea that whites are inherently immoral should be “debated and refuted, not met with protests and demands he be fired.”. Right?
IOW: Cut the adolescent ‘we should be able to say whatever we want’ crap. It’s naive.
Brenner @ 45:
I’ve gone over this enough, so I’m going to simply put out my two favorite scholars for all of your consumption, as I did in my last post. Compare and contrast:
Ward Churchill and Leonard Jeffries.
I know y’all have bent over backards defending them, right? That they should stay in their positions becasue – hey – it’s academia, right? Freedom to express whatever, right?
ADDENDUM: Ever read something and it ends up being VERY different from what you meant?
“IOW: Cut the adolescent ‘we should be able to say whatever we want’ crap. It’s naive.”
should be
“IOW: Cut the adolescent ‘we should be able to say whatever we want’ w/o consequences crap. It’s naive.”
Of course, we should be able to say whatever we want, like, legally.
Not really an addendum….oh forget it….
Steve,
You mean your not even going to consider my carefully crafted proposal? I guess elite university presidents are just going to have to go on thinking the wrong things…and suffering the consequences!
Did I say you said there was no difference between men and women? I mean, you seem to believe saying as much is heretical, but I don’t know that I accused you of not believing there was such a difference.
Before you said he was using debunked studies. Which is it?
The idea that men are better at math, or that women are from venus, etc., has been around for years. Have you read any gender feminism? Do women use a different type of logic than men? (horizontal vs. vertical?)
It’s funny how those who like to shut down debate want it both ways. Summers’ assertions haven’t been scientifically proven to your satisfaction by a consensus of social scientists, therefore his offering the observation by way of starting debate is worthy of his being fired.
But saying that men are all potential rapists, or that Duke lacrosse players being whites of privilege are looking to dominant and dehumanize black women — this is the stuff of dissertations.
Don’t talk to me about straw. Or about what the academy should or should not be doing.
Giving Ahmanididajihadi a platform while demanding Summers’ head on a platter is where the left has taken the university system.
It is anti-intellectualism festooned with conspicuous self righteous moralizing.
In short, it’s a church. And a fundamentalist church, at that.
“Before you said he was using debunked studies. Which is it?”
How are they mutually exclusive?
“It’s funny how those who like to shut down debate want it both ways. Summers’ assertions haven’t been scientifically proven to your satisfaction by a consensus of social scientists, therefore his offering the observation by way of starting debate is worthy of his being fired.”
It’s not just me – it’s most people who measure people for a liveing. Again – his position…questions shouldn’t be off limits…talking to the wall.
“But saying that men are all potential rapists, or that Duke lacrosse players being whites of privilege are looking to dominant and dehumanize black women  this is the stuff of dissertations.”
I agree. I’ve gotten into quite a bit of trouble with these people…believe me. I think they’re FOS. (I am an academic, if you have not guessed)
“Don’t talk to me about straw. Or about what the academy should or should not be doing.”
I’m going to call this fallacy “Appeal to Commandment”. Do you know the Latin?
And then….OFF THE RAILS WE GOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!
“Giving Ahmanididajihadi a platform while demanding Summers’ head on a platter is where the left has taken the university system.
It is anti-intellectualism festooned with conspicuous self righteous moralizing.
In short, it’s a church. And a fundamentalist church, at that.”
WHAT?
Anyway… how IS defending Ward Churchill’s position going, anyway?
Even debunked studies qualify as evidence. The word does not confer upon its object credibility, merely a description.
Let’s not forget the context of Summers’ speech: he was at a conference exploring reasons for the scarcity of women in the upper echelons of the academy. Given that the participants were there specifically to speculate as to reasons for this, it seems absurd to say that Summers stepped over the line by raising this line of study, no matter how unproven or speculative it may be.
Further, I don’t think Summers was making “baseless speculation that chicks are inherently unable to hold top jobs” in his speech. He was saying that it may be possible, statistically speaking, that fewer women inhabit the far ends of the bell curve. This, to me, says that his female colleagues are every bit as gifted as their male counterparts, and are all the more valuable for their scarcity. That’s a far cry from saying “gurlz iz stoopid,” and his critics’ (and your) characterization of his speech as such is dishonest.
Saying that the outliers are lesser in number is not the same as saying they are lesser in ability. One would think that a group of scholars could make that distinction.
I do not think that Churchill was fired for his thoughts. That fales claim to being an Indian might have had something to do with it.
From the beginning, this entire discussion has been that steve does not want certain people to express their thoughts or opinions, unless they are authentic enough, or read from he same hymnal as steve.
Hell, with the way academia is heading, Liberty U is sounding better and better. At least they are upfront about their positions.
“It smacks of having an axe to grind, considering the lack of evidence…”
We can’t ask questions because we don’t have any evidence…
We don’t have any evidence because we can’t ask questions…
We can’t ask questions because we don’t have any evidence…
We don’t have any evidence because we can’t ask questions…
We can’t ask questions because we don’t have any evidence…
We don’t have any evidence because we can’t ask questions…
We can’t ask questions because we don’t have any evidence…
We don’t have any evidence because we can’t ask questions…
This doesn’t seem to be getting anywhere, steve.
Steve asks:
“Anyway… how IS defending Ward Churchill’s position going, anyway?”
I would be more than happy to be the designated hitter for that project (which is not nearly as forminable a task as Steve imagines). I require only that Steve first provide a detailed affirmation or refutation of my proposal that the constituent groups that make up Harvard submitt lists of thoughts or opinions that they believe are not permissible for a university president. I believe my proposal is entirely reasonable in light of Steve’s defense of the Summers firing. Really Steve, don’t be a pussy – you’re and academic and I’m a mere paralegal, so you should be able to frighten me off with your brilliance…..unless you secretly fear that you’re really just a big fraud.
Why would anyone want to defend a guy who plagiarized his work, used sockpuppets to act as sources, and lied about his heritage to land a gig in an ethnic studies department.
But if you’re talking about “little Eichmanns,” he has every right to make that argument. The ridicule that it brought upon him — and the subsequent scrutiny of his record — well, that’s on him.
Silly Squid ;-) Context only matters when the Dems are forced to defend some ridiculous statement made by one of theirs.
I’ve been accused of all sorts of things for suggesting that free software is almost totally male due to differences between males and females. An activity that is entirely self-motivated, entirely following one’s own interest, and almost entirely male.
I thought that the proper way to try to figure stuff out was to observe a phenomena and try to explain it, not explain away phenomena.
There is a book out which posits that if you can’t predict an outcome you know nothing and understand nothing. Summers was commenting on an outcome trying to figure out an understanding, but pointing out the outcome was terrible.
As an uneducated clod who actually can tie his own shoes, I have long laughed at the foolishness of the educated. I’ve come to realize that only the top two or three in any given class actually know what they are talking about, the rest get a piece of paper. I posit that most of this stupidity in educational establishments is due to the desire to be rid of elitism, ie. holding in esteem those who actually know what they are talking about.
Derek
Jeff:AKA, the Artful Dodger.
Of course Churchill brought the ridicule onto himself. As did Sommers. Is there a debate going on here as to whether Sommers was drugged when he made the statements he made? Whether you agree or not, they are both responsible for what they say, obviously. That was pointless.
You said, re Sommers:
“His position doesn’t need to be nullified. That’s the point. It’s academia. His point should have been debated and refuted, not met with protests and demands he be fired.”
So I was asking: same goes for Ward Churchill? Yes or No?
Obviously you don’t want to answer that. . I don’t blame you.
@56:
We don’t have any evidence because we can’t ask questions…” and on and on.
Me@17
“It’s not that it shouldn’t be said – it is a possible explanation for the data (among many others).”
So, since I said that the question should indeed be asked, your comment makes no sense.
steve – How are we supposed to debate Churchill’s plagarism? Or his intentional misrepresentation of his heritage?
That is a mischaracterization of your own position. You would limit the field of people who could ask this question. Given the topic of the program where he was speaking, I fail to see how you can manage to dishonestly compare the actions of Churchill to the words of Summers.