some interesting thoughts
Talking to various people about this whole Larry Summers thing I’ve come across two thoughts that, while they are somewhat counterintuitive (or at least not held by the main forces in this debate) seem to have some wisdom.
The first, which is not that uncommon, is that Larry being a sexist was actually one of the best things anyone has done for women in academia in a long time because it highlighted the problem, how far we have to go, and how bogus arguments made against women in academia are. While I think the left, especially here at Harvard, hasn’t done as good of a job as it could it making its case, I think its probably true that in many ways its good for the issue because, in the long-run, most media coverage and research shows that Larry is wrong. I don’t think, however, that the tone of the left’s reaction has done it any favors. In fact, the person who expressed the above belief to me was annoyed at today’s protest for exactly that reason. “He did us a favor,” she said, “why are they so upset?”
The second view I’ve heard is also interesting. This one says that, if you are an advocate for women’s equality and tenure etc., you should actually want Larry to stay at Harvard. At this point, this line of reasoning goes, if he stays he’ll have to spend every day trying to prove that this hubub was wrong and that he does care about the issue. For the rest of his tenure it will have to be on the front burner because there will be such heightened scrutiny on the issue.
I’m not sure I buy either argument in full, but they have a certain logic to them.
What do you think?
Comments
Is it wrong that reading your blog makes me want to have your babies?
I must say I kind of came across your blog by accident and I am not at all aware of what`s going on in Harvard.
However, what I can say according to my experience at the University of Lisbon law school (and note that what`s true for most Portuguese/Spanish/Italian universities doesn`t necessarily apply to northern and central Europe universities) is that the matter has long been avoided as if it were a non-problem. Although a vast majority of college graduates are female (and even PhD researchers), most college professors are still male (and perhaps worse than that, people with uptight and old-fashioned views relating to what should be the role of universities in society.
That doesn`t mean, by the way, that I would support “positive action” measures to the extent that are currently implemented in the US and Canada due to extreme political correctness. I think that the public duty of providing an equal treatment should be regarded as a duty of providing equal opportunities, not to enforce patroninising measures such as establishing for example a certain minimum percentage of female professors (or black, or eskimo, or disabled, whatever), which would ultimately contradict the idea of equality itself.
brittany, i don’t see anything wrong with that kind of reaction.
This is very much the problem I’ve been having with RUS over the past week or so. I did not attend the protest yesterday (though felt very torn in not doing so) because A) I don’t feel that Summers should be fired particularly for this event, wrong or inappropriate as he may have been and B) because I feel that RUS’ message was so diluted by calling for actions such as divestment from Sudan that all of what really matters in terms of gender reform has been lost in the shuffle.
As you say, this seems like a golden opportunity for progressives, feminists and anyone who cares about equal rights, treatment, and opportunity to call for serious and effective changes instead of personalizing the issue to Summers or making such disparate demands as to draw all attention away from the issue. I wish very much that the progressive community would stop absolutely refusing to even discuss what Summers said, and would start focusing on concrete changes that Summers is currently very willing to help in making.
did you read the article pinker wrote for tnr (on summers’ comments)? just curious.
i think a major problem in the gender equality discussion is that some men are blind (willfully and not) to the challenges women face in the world– the same way that some people are unsympathetic to the problems of marginalised peoples, whether it’s the rich not caring about the poor or a ‘race’/'color’ issue. this applies to pinker’s arguments, also. it would be nice to believe that there is no gender divide, but it isn’t true. pinker and summers both need to realise that simply getting everyone to believe ‘everything’s okay’ doesn’t make it true.
on a somewhat unrelated note, it reminded me to nader’s campaign in 2000. nader would roar about how roe v. wade would never be endangered, and that it was a non-issue. but wow was he COMPLETELY wrong. even the dems are debating support for a woman’s right to choose now (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30916FE385E0C758DDDAB0894DD404482).
Post a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.