MCIGuy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Anyone here? What am I supposed to update?
Posts: 9,426
|
Post by MCIGuy on Sept 22, 2005 13:05:45 GMT -5
The comment should be out of bounds for a president of a co-ed school. Period. Its one thing for a professor who affects at best of handful of courses and maybe a few TA positions to make such a claim. But for the top guy who is overseeing ALL students of all genders that was inexcusable.
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyTwoTimes on Sept 22, 2005 13:08:55 GMT -5
First, he didn't "wonder" but actually suggested that innate differences among men and women are the cause of the discrepancy. Second, when you are the president of a university, where part of your job is to help attract a) women professors to work there; b) women students to attend; and c) women alumnae to contribute, such irresponsible suggestions, with no supporting proof, are very good evidence that you are not fit for the job. I think this supports the point that even the discussion was judged out of bounds by the academic community, despite ongoing research into cognitive differences between men and women. Really? How so? To your knowledge, did someone at Harvard attempt to set up a roundtable discussion or other forum on this issue only to be shouted down by this monstrous PC faculty army? Or perhaps you do not see the difference between the President of the university and other members of the university community. Well, if the latter is your view, I disagree for the reasons I stated above (which you quoted but did not actually address). The president's position holds unique and special responsibilities and, as such, making haphazard remarks -- particularly when there is no conclusion from the "ongoing research," as you admit -- can affect his effectiveness as a president in ways that would not be at issue if some random faculty member made the same remarks.
|
|
|
Post by WilsonBlvdHoya on Sept 22, 2005 13:36:24 GMT -5
Last of all in these discussions someone always bring up the Notre Dame angle and how the expression the “Fighting Irish” can be seen as a slur towards the Irish. Okay. Can someone tell me if people of Irish descent had anything to do with the forming of Notre Dame and if they had anything to do with the creation and approval of the team nickname? Because seriously I don’t know, I can only guess. If the answer is yes then that would make that situation different from those of Native Americans who did not start these state institutions and had zero say in the decision to use Native American figures as mascots. MCI, you've hit on my particular conundrum in this pc debate over mascot names: "The FIGHTING Irish." Full disclosure: I'm partially of Irish descent but mostly German-American. It seems to me if ANY sports nickname could be construed to be patently offensive, it's this one. That's because it attributes a BEHAVIORAL characteristic to an entire ethnic group. Yet, I'd wager if a poll, similar to those from SI that SaxaCD cites, of Irish-Americans were taken, 90%+ would not only not consider it offensive but might actually take pride in it!? Why? To answer, I'll touch on some family and American history.... My Dad is of 100% German-American descent, born and raised in the Germantown section of Philadelphia, whose parents spoke German at home (except during WWI and WWII of course). He was raised and remains a staunch Catholic. Yet he's also a stark-raving mad ND subway alum who never misses ND FB on NBC on Saturdays (he does root for GU against ND in hoops, of course!!!). I believe that he is so passionate about ND FB because it's a way for him to affirm his identity as a Catholic (despite having no Irish affiliations except through marriage and in-laws). He grew up in the days when Philly was an even more segregated city in many ways and the nation was still suspicious of Catholicism in general (see JFK's 1960 campaign). The KKK was founded not merely as an anti-black organization but anti-Catholic and immigrant as well. In the late 1800s and at the turn of the century, "No Irish Need Apply" signs filled the streets of Northeastern cities because so many Irish immigrants flooded this country in search of opportunity. So the success of ND football from back to the 20s and 30s on through most of the century was a way for Catholics to believe that they had "assimilated" or made it into the mainstream of American society. One way for them to facilitate such a belief was to co-opt potentially prejudicial or destructive prejudices. Hence, the FIGHTING Irish. Again, if I were Irish, I might take offense. The FB team in Washington isn't called the Scalping Redskins (although there is a line in the fight song that says. "Braves on the Warpath"!). There's no sports team called the Inscrutable Chinese or the Diligent Jews or the Athletic Afro-Americans. So should the NCAA crack down on ND? Of course not! MCI's other point on who assigned the name to whom is legit. Odds are (and we can probably turn to DFW and other college sports historians for this) the decision to name ND's mascot was made by a couple of priests, some of whom might have had a wee bit of Irish blood coursing through their veins. But I don't hear any outcries, even in academia(!), for ND to change its affiliations due to its patently offensive insinuations/overtones that the Irish like to fight after they've imbibed too much and couldn't hold their liquor! There are many pressing issues and legacies with regard to race and ethnicity that this country needs to address (see Katrina; there was also an excellent column in the Wash. Post last week by Donna Britt on the "everyday" poor, mostly of African-American descent, who have always been with us and are asking why Katrina victims are getting special treatment and attention now). But PC among sports nicknames isn't exactly the most urgent or critical one to focus on given so many other needs.....
|
|
SaxaCD
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,401
|
Post by SaxaCD on Sept 22, 2005 13:43:23 GMT -5
Right -- "we're a premier university, but we must remember not to research things if the results might make some people feel uncomfortable". Summers is hardly an icon on un-PC thinking, but even throwing a legitimate question out there, the result intending to bring MORE women in to the sciences, mind you, gets one strung up by the "offend no one at all costs" brigade -- even if they in turn constantly offend common sense and academic integrity.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,748
Member is Online
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Sept 22, 2005 13:47:00 GMT -5
Right -- "we're a premier university, but we must remember not to research things if the results might make some people feel uncomfortable". Summers is hardly an icon on un-PC thinking, but even throwing a legitimate question out there, the result intending to bring MORE women in to the sciences, mind you, gets one strung up by the "offend no one at all costs" brigade -- even if they in turn constantly offend common sense and academic integrity. C'mon, Saxa, as much as I can see your point, it was a major PR snafu. Harvard's president needs to think about the consequences of his comments. It was poorly worded and had a predictable result -- one that was not favorable to Harvard in most people's eyes. Much of a University President's job is PR and fund-raising. Maybe society is messed up b/c we can't say those things; maybe not. But your University Pres needs to function in reality.
|
|
JimmyHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Hoya fan, est. 1986
Posts: 1,867
|
Post by JimmyHoya on Sept 22, 2005 14:22:19 GMT -5
Rather off topic, but I loved the irony of the Sommers scandal. His comments were in poor taste, but they were all but vindicated by the absurd comments by the offended woman.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Sept 22, 2005 14:38:15 GMT -5
The comment should be out of bounds for a president of a co-ed school. Period. Its one thing for a professor who affects at best of handful of courses and maybe a few TA positions to make such a claim. But for the top guy who is overseeing ALL students of all genders that was inexcusable. [continuing to stretch the bounds of what is allowed on the basketball board] How is it inexcusable? I don't think he said anything wrong or incorrect. I'm not an expert on the subject, but I'm sure there is a lot of work out there on the inherent differences between males and females that might, in part, help to explain what Summers was talking about. The absolute wrong thing to do is dismiss the topic out of hand instead of conducting further study to see what might be done to address these discrepencies. At most, all that can be said was that Summers made a mistake in how or where he brought it up. But that would be elevating style over substance. And if anyone who dares examine the reasons for the disparities between men and women is always shouted down, then the core issue/problem will never be addressed or resolved.
|
|
hoyahoyasaxa
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Sead Dizdarezvic doesn't write term papers. The words rearrange themselves out of fear.
Posts: 464
|
Post by hoyahoyasaxa on Sept 22, 2005 14:45:56 GMT -5
Okay, even though DaJuan may have made some comments about women and the sciences, I still think we should give him a second chance when he plays here. I think he'll be a great addition to the team. I also have an extreme aversion to PC, although when I met Ryan Gomes after they beat us last year, he seemed like a nice guy.
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyTwoTimes on Sept 22, 2005 14:54:49 GMT -5
The comment should be out of bounds for a president of a co-ed school. Period. Its one thing for a professor who affects at best of handful of courses and maybe a few TA positions to make such a claim. But for the top guy who is overseeing ALL students of all genders that was inexcusable. [continuing to stretch the bounds of what is allowed on the basketball board] How is it inexcusable? I don't think he said anything wrong or incorrect. I'm not an expert on the subject, but I'm sure there is a lot of work out there on the inherent differences between males and females that might, in part, help to explain what Summers was talking about. The absolute wrong thing to do is dismiss the topic out of hand instead of conducting further study to see what might be done to address these discrepencies. At most, all that can be said was that Summers made a mistake in how or where he brought it up. But that would be elevating style over substance. And if anyone who dares examine the reasons for the disparities between men and women is always shouted down, then the core issue/problem will never be addressed or resolved. Generalize much? Everyone who dares examines the reasons for the disparities is always shouted down? If indeed there is a lot of work out there to support Summers' suggestions, then there is your evdience that anyone who dares examine the issue is not "shouted down." DFW's original post was about Summers almost "being run out of town" by, presumably, a crusading PC army of faculty members. Whether or not you agree with Summers's viewpoint on this particular issue, I can't possibly see someone being so obtuse as to say that a UNIVERSITY PRESIDENT making such remarks doesn't raise serious questions about his fitness for the position. He is the foremost representative of the university. Ask the recruiters who are trying to sell Harvard over MIT to an exceptionally talented female high school scientist whether it helps their job when Summers makes such remarks. Ask the fundraiser who has to call a scientist alumna for a donation whether that call is facilitated by those remarks. You can talk all you want in generalities about some witchhunt you perceive of anyone who would dare suggest inherent differences between men and women, but we are not talking about anyone, we are talking about the University president. He is in a different position, and the faculty is 100% correct to question his judgment and how it affects his ability to do his job after such an incident.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Sept 22, 2005 15:00:52 GMT -5
When that SUmmers story hit, I agreed with many on this board who felt it was overblown. but, some women in my life pursued the issue and we got an actual transcript of what he said.
Essentially, he suggested three possible reasons why women are underrepresented at the very top of certain math and science disciplines -- and that this issue deserves study (OK so far). 1. Bias in hiring 2. Unwillingness of many women to devote the enormous hours and single minded career approach required to get to the very top because they have so many other aspects to their lives including family 3. An inherent difference in the brains of male and females that give men an edge at the top level of math and sciences
Then he really did himself in by adding: (to paraphrase) "and I think the last of those is the most significant".
THat last statement was prejudging the outcome and revealed how he really felt...as the President of the most prestigious university in the world -- that women were, essentially, inferior. And it was an incredibly DUMB thing to say.
The Prez should not be pre-judging the outcome. And he should not be suggesting that women are cognitively inferior to men. The global implications of such a statement from a man in his position can not be overstated.
IMHO, that was NOT a PC issue.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Sept 22, 2005 15:13:30 GMT -5
[continuing to stretch the bounds of what is allowed on the basketball board] How is it inexcusable? I don't think he said anything wrong or incorrect. I'm not an expert on the subject, but I'm sure there is a lot of work out there on the inherent differences between males and females that might, in part, help to explain what Summers was talking about. The absolute wrong thing to do is dismiss the topic out of hand instead of conducting further study to see what might be done to address these discrepencies. At most, all that can be said was that Summers made a mistake in how or where he brought it up. But that would be elevating style over substance. And if anyone who dares examine the reasons for the disparities between men and women is always shouted down, then the core issue/problem will never be addressed or resolved. Generalize much? Everyone who dares examines the reasons for the disparities is always shouted down? If indeed there is a lot of work out there to support Summers' suggestions, then there is your evdience that anyone who dares examine the issue is not "shouted down." DFW's original post was about Summers almost "being run out of town" by, presumably, a crusading PC army of faculty members. Whether or not you agree with Summers's viewpoint on this particular issue, I can't possibly see someone being so obtuse as to say that a UNIVERSITY PRESIDENT making such remarks doesn't raise serious questions about his fitness for the position. He is the foremost representative of the university. Ask the recruiters who are trying to sell Harvard over MIT to an exceptionally talented female high school scientist whether it helps their job when Summers makes such remarks. Ask the fundraiser who has to call a scientist alumna for a donation whether that call is facilitated by those remarks. You can talk all you want in generalities about some witchhunt you perceive of anyone who would dare suggest inherent differences between men and women, but we are not talking about anyone, we are talking about the University president. He is in a different position, and the faculty is 100% correct to question his judgment and how it affects his ability to do his job after such an incident. Serious questions about his fitness for the position? Jeez, give me a break. The guy stepped on some toes and now he's unfit to lead the school. By that logic, anyone that makes a social mistake or speaking gaffe should be fired. Heaven forbid that the president of an institution of higher learning throw out some thought-provoking comments. It's not like universities are there for learning and education and study.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Sept 22, 2005 15:17:29 GMT -5
When that SUmmers story hit, I agreed with many on this board who felt it was overblown. but, some women in my life pursued the issue and we got an actual transcript of what he said. Essentially, he suggested three possible reasons why women are underrepresented at the very top of certain math and science disciplines -- and that this issue deserves study (OK so far). 1. Bias in hiring 2. Unwillingness of many women to devote the enormous hours and single minded career approach required to get to the very top because they have so many other aspects to their lives including family 3. An inherent difference in the brains of male and females that give men an edge at the top level of math and sciences Then he really did himself in by adding: (to paraphrase) "and I think the last of those is the most significant". THat last statement was prejudging the outcome and revealed how he really felt...as the President of the most prestigious university in the world -- that women were, essentially, inferior. And it was an incredibly DUMB thing to say. The Prez should not be pre-judging the outcome. And he should not be suggesting that women are cognitively inferior to men. The global implications of such a statement from a man in his position can not be overstated. IMHO, that was NOT a PC issue. He's not saying that women are inferior to men. He was saying that, overall, women score lower than men in math and the sciences. Maybe there is an inherent reason for this. Can any of us deny that men and women look at things differently and think about things differently? Maybe there is a hard wired reason for the lower numbers of women at the top of the math science fields.
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyTwoTimes on Sept 22, 2005 15:23:40 GMT -5
First of all, as I originally stated, this was one of many problems he had with the faculty, beginning with his immediate alienation of Cornel West.
Second, I'd love to give you a break, but I can't, simply because you keep insisting that "anyone" who does the same thing would also deserve to be fired. That's precisely my point. Summers isn't anyone. Harvey Mansfield has been intermittently making un-PC remarks for years, and he has remained one of the most popular and respected professors at Harvard. Summers is the university president, not just your average prof. If he can't exercise the simple common sense to understand how his suggestion about women's innate inabilities, unsupported by irrefutable evidence mind you, could have severe negative repercussions on the university, then, yes, that calls into question his fitness as president. I suppose under your logic, he could make some Jimmy the Greek style comment, and under the guise of being "thought-provoking" still be considered to have the judgment necessary to be the president of Harvard.
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyTwoTimes on Sept 22, 2005 15:39:49 GMT -5
When that SUmmers story hit, I agreed with many on this board who felt it was overblown. but, some women in my life pursued the issue and we got an actual transcript of what he said. Essentially, he suggested three possible reasons why women are underrepresented at the very top of certain math and science disciplines -- and that this issue deserves study (OK so far). 1. Bias in hiring 2. Unwillingness of many women to devote the enormous hours and single minded career approach required to get to the very top because they have so many other aspects to their lives including family 3. An inherent difference in the brains of male and females that give men an edge at the top level of math and sciences Then he really did himself in by adding: (to paraphrase) "and I think the last of those is the most significant". THat last statement was prejudging the outcome and revealed how he really felt...as the President of the most prestigious university in the world -- that women were, essentially, inferior. And it was an incredibly DUMB thing to say. The Prez should not be pre-judging the outcome. And he should not be suggesting that women are cognitively inferior to men. The global implications of such a statement from a man in his position can not be overstated. IMHO, that was NOT a PC issue. He's not saying that women are inferior to men. He was saying that, overall, women score lower than men in math and the sciences. Maybe there is an inherent reason for this. Can any of us deny that men and women look at things differently and think about things differently? Maybe there is a hard wired reason for the lower numbers of women at the top of the math science fields. This is not accurate. He expressed his belief that the answer lies in inherent differences between men and women. My point is this: given his position, he can't just throw that out there unless he has irrefutable proof. Given the equally (if not more than) likely possibility that cultural or other causes lie at the heart of the differing test results, the face of the university cannot throw his weight behind the one factor that cannot be changed, unless he has irrefutable proof. The lack of judgment he exercised by supporting that position -- in addition to other controversial remarks and acts he has done during his tenure -- raise questions about whether he is the man for that job.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Sept 22, 2005 15:51:54 GMT -5
Rev. Tim Healy, S.J. had more than a few un-PC moments in his career as Georgetown President, formally and informally. As far as I'm concerned, he was still a pretty good leader for the university.
If Summers was not a good president, it would be evident in more instances and action than just one speech about women in the sciences. If he is a good president, then one statement - misguided as some may feel it is - should not be used to hang him. It certainly shouldn't be the cause for anyone to vomit in disgust and horror.
But then again, I don't know much of anything outside of cartoons and alternative music, so I'm all for the concept that not all opinions are created equal.
Have we signed Duke Crews yet?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2005 15:52:28 GMT -5
What the hell are we talking a bout here? Race? Harvard? Women in science?
If anyone wants to discuss whether or not teams are catching up to the PrinceTown offense and whether or not a deeper, more athletic team will counteract that trend (which we saw firsthand at the end of last season), I'll be over on the HoyaTalk board.
Oh wait...
|
|
the_way
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
The Illest
Posts: 5,422
Member is Online
|
Post by the_way on Sept 22, 2005 15:55:27 GMT -5
Hey Buff, long time no talk. Any recruiting updates lately? ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2005 15:57:40 GMT -5
_way you son of a.... Yeah I sent one out the other day. Have been busy recently getting back into the swing of grad school, but I'll be sure to give it a good once-over in a few days.
|
|
ron
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 112
|
Post by ron on Sept 22, 2005 16:13:31 GMT -5
this is absolutely incredible. there are actually people here that are engaging in a faux-intellectual defense of not only the use of names and symbols (artfully forgotten in the discussion) representing powerless people in a negative manner, but supporting the president of a university ignorantly musing about the lack of women in science and math.
no where in his assinine statements and those of a similar vein here, does anybody attempt to address why #2 may exist, and the absurdity of #3 (as well as its self-propgagting manner of both).
first off, if women have had to take care of home, it is becuase our society dictates that they do. men create that pardgim, and benefit from it. why couldn't men take care of children? there is no biological mandate that suggests otherwise (outside of breast feeding, and that is limited in duration...and most women don't do it anymore anyway). it is a social construct
to suggest men have an natural superiority in math and science borders, imo, is eugenic-inspired nonsense that has a very limiting effect. it ignores years of disallowing women from participating in the sciences. it also turns a blind eye to the blatant steering that goes on in terms of chosing a vocation, and becoming prepared for it.
to me, it is strange that now there is an explosion of little girls participating in science fairs and programs in the last 10-15 years...as if they just now became capable. look at the number of female doctors in india and cuba...since they are allowed and/or pushed into medicine, they do well in those disciplines. it is here, in america, where we don't see similar numbers. and it is because females are discouraged from participating.
any social and/or eugenic-related restriction on women in science and math have obviously limited their participation for generations before and after. instead of thinking of ways to change that unfortunate (think about the brilliant female minds that society will/has not been able to benefit from in those fields) reality, you have people here presenting psuedo-justifications for it. this includes the time-tested tactic of presenting some vague scientific study or discussion, without providing evidence or measuring it through the lens of historic context.
additonally, nobody seems to have a problem with it. forget the altruistic (and presumably civilized) benefit of full inclusion. nobody here has a problem with the economic and societal drain that not having over 50% of your population fully engaged in all endeavors in a civilization has. how far could we have advanced without that self-imposed sociological regulator? incredible.
|
|
MCIGuy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Anyone here? What am I supposed to update?
Posts: 9,426
|
Post by MCIGuy on Sept 22, 2005 16:22:02 GMT -5
The comment should be out of bounds for a president of a co-ed school. Period. Its one thing for a professor who affects at best of handful of courses and maybe a few TA positions to make such a claim. But for the top guy who is overseeing ALL students of all genders that was inexcusable. [continuing to stretch the bounds of what is allowed on the basketball board] He basically implied that females were not cut out for such fields. You don't think that's wrong, especially considering that there are so many female students at his university which could take offense at such a suggestion? Maybe there is; maybe there isn't. Years ago I read a WPost Sunday magazine article about girls taking science and math courses in high school and how they are outnumbered greatly in the toughest classes by boys. In the article it was pointed out how a handful of smart, normally outgoing and vocal female students were reduced to silent participants this in one particular math class the reporter spent time with. It was as if they were intimidated, either ahead of time or after they joined the class, by some unwritten rule or assumption that they weren't at the same level of their male counterparts in that particular course. Was it all mental on their parts? I don't know. But I don't think that males are naturally better at such things. If the president of Harvard felt that way about female students then the smartest thing would have been to keep quiet about it. Think of it this way: what if the CEO of BMW came out publicly and said that he would not advertise in black magazines like "Ebony" because he thinks its a waste of time since there isn't as high a percentage of black readers who could afford such a car as there is a percentage of white readers who subscribe to "Vanity Fair"? Now, technically he would be right and if the research his employees did determine that it would be a waste of revenue to advertise in "Ebony", then no one can blame him for not promoting in that particular mag. However what could hurt him was if he was actually quoted saying that not enough black people could afford his vehicles. That could cause an uproar. That could cause negative publicity which could hurt his company's sales across the board, which affects the bottom line. Sometimes, folks, its all about what you DON’T say. So what one would call being PC by never saying such a thing, others would refer to it as having common sense or being smart and practical or as being courteous and respectful. All of these traits have been seen as positives for centuries; now if you display such common courtesy by refusing to generalize you're labeled as being politically correct. This wasn’t some dude with his own talk show. This was the prez of Harvard. The president of a University in some ways is not much different from a CEO of a business or a politician trying to attract votes. He (or she) doesn't want to insult or alienate his customers/voters/clients/etc. If Summers was actually concerned about the low number of female participants in certain fields then he had all the resources in the world to conduct his studies, set up town hall discussions, talk with experts, professors and students and THEN share his thoughts and findings with faculty members to determine if there was a need or a way to address the situation. But if all he wanted to do was get something off his chest he should have first remembered that he had the role as the most important official at one of the world’s most important schools, which meant his word carried greater weight than most. So it would be important to think about all the repercussions before putting his foot in his mouth. He at least owed Harvard that. Like a CEO of a business he had a job to protect the reputation of the institution he worked for and that meant being careful not to say things, as President of Harvard, which many people could take offense over. Ask yourself how much more heat John Thompson Jr would have gotten if he had come out and said that he didn’t recruit white players because in his opinion white players mostly were inferior when it came to playing the sport ? As much heat as he got from the public who believed he didn’t bring in more white players for that very same reason, the criticism would have been even far greater if JT had actually said such a thing. I don’t think Thompson felt that way by the way. But if he did he was sure smart enough to not do the reckless thing, what by most definitions could be called the “politically correct” thing, by coming out and saying so. If he had how many people here would have felt it would have been a rather inoffensive remark that would lead to more worthy, wider discussions? I think most people here would have been ticked off and quite a few would have asked for Thompson to be fired. So what’s the difference? Political correctness only occurs when it’s a white man who has to bite his tongue or when it’s a white person who must not say anything offensive about a non-white individual? Wilson, I appreciate your well thought out post. But are you sure the KKK was formed in part because of prejudices towards Catholics? As time wore on in the late 19th century the KKK started to target Irish and Italians who were Catholic. But I think when the KKK was actually formed at first its mission was to terrorize blacks (keeping them in “their place”) and to go after anyone supporting Reconstruction. I don’t think Catholics were even a target at first. Maybe I’m mistaken.
|
|