The Continuing Saga of Larry Summers and Harvard

He Who Dares Question the Party Line

from JoeUser Forums
Harvard Faculty: No Confidence in President

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. — Harvard's Faculty of Arts and Sciences passed a no-confidence vote against President Lawrence Summers (search) on Tuesday, the latest setback for the embattled university leader who has come under fire for his managerial style and comments on women in science.


Whether what Summers said was factual or not is immaterial. Summers made the mistake of making statements that were not certified by the PC Commissars in control of the universities, especially his own.

If you are so inclined, you can read the entire transcript of Larry Summers speech where his "controversial" statements were made RIGHT HERE.
3,760 views 7 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top

I saw the issue when it was made and even wrote an article on it.  And while his statement could have been phrased better (for the idiots that cant brook discussion of scientific fact), it is being essentially proved true.

And so for speaking a truth, he is now a pariah.  Way to Go Harvard.  That makes 3 bone head blunders in the last 2 weeks alone. I doubt any Nobel Prize winners will want to go there for fear of having their work censored.

Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
What Summers said is not immaterial--it is the core of the problem.

Summers said that "intrinsic differences in ability" cause women to be less often found in the field of science. While he is quite entitled to hold that opinion, I think the faculty at Harvard is also able to question his suitability as the President of the University.

Let's just say that I was currently looking at colleges and wanted to study science. If I know that the President of a University has made statements suggesting that my biological make up will make me less capable of being a scientist--I'm not going to go to that university.

Summers could have potentially cost Harvard qualified applicants hoping to pursue scientific studies--those women are now more likely to look at MIT or Yale. It is the faculty's duty to do what is right for the school.
DeskScapes - Bring your desktop background to life.
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Summers said that "intrinsic differences in ability" cause women to be less often found in the field of science. While he is quite entitled to hold that opinion, I think the faculty at Harvard is also able to question his suitability as the President of the University.


It is only opinion today. But as research has been reapidly proving, it will soon be known as a fact. Notice, he did not say "inferior" or that one was better than the other, only that they are different. And to deny that is to deny reality. There is a reason that God or evolution made men and women different, and that difference is what makes the species so great.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
I hope Summers gets shitcanned - and proceeds to sue Harvard out of existence.

David St. Hubbins
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
It is only opinion today. But as research has been reapidly proving, it will soon be known as a fact. Notice, he did not say "inferior" or that one was better than the other, only that they are different. And to deny that is to deny reality. There is a reason that God or evolution made men and women different, and that difference is what makes the species so great.


Interesting that it is only opinion, but you know it will be fact. And no, he didn't say inferior, he said women had less aptitude...one in the same really.

Summers' comments are going to cause females seeking degrees in science think twice before going to Harvard.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top

Interesting that it is only opinion, but you know it will be fact. And no, he didn't say inferior, he said women had less aptitude...one in the same really.

Summers' comments are going to cause females seeking degrees in science think twice before going to Harvard

It is theory today just like Evolution is theory.  But the evidence is undeniable and becoming overwhelming.  And stating a now generally accepted theory "less aptitude", is not the same as saying inferior.  For the simple reason that a dog is not inferior to a cat, they are just different and do different duties.  But when you get a PC pole stuck up your tail pipe (the you in that statement is a generic you, not YOU Shades), then you are offended by anything that you feel is a threat, but in actual fact is just the product of nature.  We cannot help that men are naturally stronger and faster, or that Women bear babies, and are more compassionate and loving.  It is nature, not nurture.  Confusing the 2 is the reason that his critics will always be just shreaking scared, doomed to remain ignorant, people.

And there are a lot of other reasons that people will start thinking twice about going to harvard, top among them perhaps the 'cleaning' scandal, and the fact the loons are running the asylum now.

Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
What Summers said is not immaterial--it is the core of the problem.


I said "Whether what Summers said was factual or not is immaterial." Even if Summers is correct in his statements, it doesn't matter, because in the world of academia political correctness trumps actual correctness.

Summers said that "intrinsic differences in ability" cause women to be less often found in the field of science. While he is quite entitled to hold that opinion, I think the faculty at Harvard is also able to question his suitability as the President of the University.


He's offering an explanation of a social phenomenon by summarizing current research. It's not just some willy-nilly idea he came up with while on an acid trip. If he's wrong, then he should be proven wrong through honest research, not politically motivated tripe.

Let's just say that I was currently looking at colleges and wanted to study science. If I know that the President of a University has made statements suggesting that my biological make up will make me less capable of being a scientist--I'm not going to go to that university.

Summers could have potentially cost Harvard qualified applicants hoping to pursue scientific studies--those women are now more likely to look at MIT or Yale. It is the faculty's duty to do what is right for the school.


Universities have a duty different than the rest of the business world. Their duty is supposed to be an honest pursuit of knowledge and truth. To compromise this duty in the name of political correctness and good PR is a travesty. If you are a scientist who refuses to go to Harvard because the president came to a conclusion, born of scientific inquiry, that wasn't PC in your mind, then maybe you aren't a very good scientist, and aren't qualified to attend such an institution. That kind of minset is that of a person who would manipulate an experiment to achieve desired results. That is the antithesis of the pursuit of knowledge, and of the mission of a righteous univsersity.