Tuesday, February 22, 2005
Harvard, Free Speech and Academic Integrity
The New York Post has an excellent editorial about the ongoing "uproar" over Harvard President Lawrence Summers. The issue here, as the columnist notes, is not just this single statement, but the record of President Summers, which is clearly at odds with the liberal academia. Am I the only one struck by the irony of the quick defense Ward Churchill recieved after his inflamatory (And frankly far more offensive and baseless) remarks. Comapring civilian victims of terrorist attacks to Nazis is acceptable, but proposing a hypothesis about the lack of women in high level science is not. And that's what really happened here, despite the horn blowing and hot air balooning on the left. Taken in context, his remarks are, well, hardly remarkable.
He goes on to explain what he means by each of these (The full transcript is here), and points out that these are only broad theories. Actually reading the remarks would remove the wind from some critics sails, because its clear that he does eveything possible to present the ideas factually, and without disparaging anyone. He even notes at one point that he would prefer if the evidence pointed to some answer other than his hypothesis, but unfortunately it does not. By far the most disgusting aspect of this nonsense is the failure of more academics to come to his defense. Regardless of their feelings about what he proposed (Again, the NY Post article is ambiguous to that end), persons in academics everywhere should recognize the danger in curtailing the free speech at Harvard. A Washington Post editorial attacks those who are defending him, saying "Academic freedom does not protect any professor from having his or her ideas scrutinized." Come on. Anyone can see that this goes far beyond "peer review" and "scrutiny." If it were really that way, then there would be discussions and editorials about the factual content and debating various ideas on the subject. Instead, we have a liberal lynch mob calling for his removal. Scrutiny? Hardly.
There are three broad hypotheses about the sources of the very substantial disparities that this conference's papers document and have been documented before with respect to the presence of women in high-end scientific professions. One is what I would call the-I'll explain each of these in a few moments and comment on how important I think they are-the first is what I call the high-powered job hypothesis. The second is what I would call different availability of aptitude at the high end, and the third is what I would call different socialization and patterns of discrimination in a search. And in my own view, their importance probably ranks in exactly the order that I just described.
He goes on to explain what he means by each of these (The full transcript is here), and points out that these are only broad theories. Actually reading the remarks would remove the wind from some critics sails, because its clear that he does eveything possible to present the ideas factually, and without disparaging anyone. He even notes at one point that he would prefer if the evidence pointed to some answer other than his hypothesis, but unfortunately it does not. By far the most disgusting aspect of this nonsense is the failure of more academics to come to his defense. Regardless of their feelings about what he proposed (Again, the NY Post article is ambiguous to that end), persons in academics everywhere should recognize the danger in curtailing the free speech at Harvard. A Washington Post editorial attacks those who are defending him, saying "Academic freedom does not protect any professor from having his or her ideas scrutinized." Come on. Anyone can see that this goes far beyond "peer review" and "scrutiny." If it were really that way, then there would be discussions and editorials about the factual content and debating various ideas on the subject. Instead, we have a liberal lynch mob calling for his removal. Scrutiny? Hardly.
Comments:
Andrew, just wondering what your opinion on the lack of women in science and high-powered jobs is? Actually. I'm curious about your opinion as to sexism in America in general. I know what you thought when you were in the 5th grade, but I've lost track since then.
Post a Comment
# posted by 
: 1:12 AM
: 1:12 AM
