Comments on: Who Runs Your University? http://www.radioopensource.org/who-runs-your-university/ Christopher Lydon in conversation on arts, ideas and politics Sun, 12 Feb 2012 19:09:22 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Disparate http://www.radioopensource.org/who-runs-your-university/#comment-70026 Disparate Tue, 17 Oct 2006 05:53:45 +0000 http://www.radioopensource.org/?p=430#comment-70026 [...] he Colbert Report). Radio Open Source has also been broadcasting (and podcasting) shows on university leadership, academia, and education requirements, among several relevant topi [...] [...] he Colbert Report). Radio Open Source has also been broadcasting (and podcasting) shows on university leadership, academia, and education requirements, among several relevant topi [...]

]]> By: Potter http://www.radioopensource.org/who-runs-your-university/#comment-70025 Potter Mon, 06 Mar 2006 12:56:34 +0000 http://www.radioopensource.org/?p=430#comment-70025 In today's New York Times: <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/06/opinion/06paglia.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fContributors&pagewanted=print" rel="nofollow">Academic, Heal Thyself by Camille Paglia</a> Here is the last part of the piece: <i>Mr. Summers's strategic blunders unfortunately took the spotlight off entrenched political correctness and changed the debate to academic power: who has it, and how should it be exercised? Nationwide, campus administrations faced with factionalized or obdurate faculties have in some cases taken matters into their own hands by creating programs or reducing and even eliminating departments. The trend is disturbingly away from faculty power. Hence more is at stake in the Harvard affair than merely one overpriced campus with an exaggerated reputation. Support for Larry Summers was strong among Harvard undergraduates and outside the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, which constitutes only one of Harvard's many colleges and professional schools. The Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz protested that Mr. Summers had been removed by "a coup d'état." But by his failure to provide a systematic rationale for his words and actions, Mr. Summers gave the impression of governing by whim and impulse. The leader of so huge and complex an institution cannot be a whirling dervish. IT now remains to be seen whether Harvard's Faculty of Arts and Sciences is capable of self-critique. Will its members acknowledge their own insularity and excesses, or will they continue down the path of smug self-congratulation and vanity? Harvard's reputation for disinterested scholarship has been severely gored by the shadowy manipulations of the self-serving cabal who forced Mr. Summers's premature resignation. That so few of the ostensibly aggrieved faculty members deigned to speak on the record to The Crimson, the student newspaper, illustrates the cagey hypocrisy that permeates fashionable campus leftism, which worships diversity in all things except diversity of thought. If Harvard cannot correct itself in this crisis, it will signal that academe cannot be trusted to reform itself from within. There is a rising tide of off-campus discontent with the monolithic orthodoxies of humanities departments. David Horowitz, a 1960's radical turned conservative, has researched the lopsided party registration of humanities professors (who tend to be Democrats like me) and proposed an "academic bill of rights" to guarantee fairness and political balance in the classroom. The conservative radio host Sean Hannity regularly broadcasts students' justifiable complaints about biased teachers and urges students to take recording devices to class to gather evidence. These efforts to hold professors accountable are welcome and bracing, but the danger is that such tactics can be abused. Tenure owes its very existence to past intrusions by state legislatures in the curricular business of state universities. If politicians start to meddle in campus governance, academic freedom will be the victim. And when students become snitches, we are heading toward dictatorship by Mao's Red Guards or Hitler Youth. Over the last three decades of trendy poststructuralism and postmodernism, American humanities professors fell under the sway of a ruthless guild mentality. Corruption and cronyism became systemic, spread by the ostentatious conference circuit and the new humanities centers of the 1980's. Harvard did not begin that blight but became an extreme example of it. Amid the ruins of the Summers presidency, there is a tremendous opportunity for recovery and renewal of the humanities. Which way will Harvard go? Camille Paglia is the university professor of humanities and media studies at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia.</i> In today’s New York Times:

Academic, Heal Thyself by Camille Paglia

Here is the last part of the piece:

Mr. Summers’s strategic blunders unfortunately took the spotlight off entrenched political correctness and changed the debate to academic power: who has it, and how should it be exercised? Nationwide, campus administrations faced with factionalized or obdurate faculties have in some cases taken matters into their own hands by creating programs or reducing and even eliminating departments. The trend is disturbingly away from faculty power.

Hence more is at stake in the Harvard affair than merely one overpriced campus with an exaggerated reputation. Support for Larry Summers was strong among Harvard undergraduates and outside the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, which constitutes only one of Harvard’s many colleges and professional schools. The Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz protested that Mr. Summers had been removed by “a coup d’état.” But by his failure to provide a systematic rationale for his words and actions, Mr. Summers gave the impression of governing by whim and impulse. The leader of so huge and complex an institution cannot be a whirling dervish.

IT now remains to be seen whether Harvard’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences is capable of self-critique. Will its members acknowledge their own insularity and excesses, or will they continue down the path of smug self-congratulation and vanity? Harvard’s reputation for disinterested scholarship has been severely gored by the shadowy manipulations of the self-serving cabal who forced Mr. Summers’s premature resignation. That so few of the ostensibly aggrieved faculty members deigned to speak on the record to The Crimson, the student newspaper, illustrates the cagey hypocrisy that permeates fashionable campus leftism, which worships diversity in all things except diversity of thought.

If Harvard cannot correct itself in this crisis, it will signal that academe cannot be trusted to reform itself from within. There is a rising tide of off-campus discontent with the monolithic orthodoxies of humanities departments. David Horowitz, a 1960′s radical turned conservative, has researched the lopsided party registration of humanities professors (who tend to be Democrats like me) and proposed an “academic bill of rights” to guarantee fairness and political balance in the classroom. The conservative radio host Sean Hannity regularly broadcasts students’ justifiable complaints about biased teachers and urges students to take recording devices to class to gather evidence.

These efforts to hold professors accountable are welcome and bracing, but the danger is that such tactics can be abused. Tenure owes its very existence to past intrusions by state legislatures in the curricular business of state universities. If politicians start to meddle in campus governance, academic freedom will be the victim. And when students become snitches, we are heading toward dictatorship by Mao’s Red Guards or Hitler Youth.

Over the last three decades of trendy poststructuralism and postmodernism, American humanities professors fell under the sway of a ruthless guild mentality. Corruption and cronyism became systemic, spread by the ostentatious conference circuit and the new humanities centers of the 1980′s. Harvard did not begin that blight but became an extreme example of it. Amid the ruins of the Summers presidency, there is a tremendous opportunity for recovery and renewal of the humanities. Which way will Harvard go?

Camille Paglia is the university professor of humanities and media studies at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia.

]]> By: Potter http://www.radioopensource.org/who-runs-your-university/#comment-70024 Potter Fri, 03 Mar 2006 11:59:50 +0000 http://www.radioopensource.org/?p=430#comment-70024 UtahOwl: Silverglate, Harvard alumnus, is well known in this area but in case you do not know of him here is a link: http://www.harveysilverglate.com/about.html UtahOwl: Silverglate, Harvard alumnus, is well known in this area but in case you do not know of him here is a link:

http://www.harveysilverglate.com/about.html

]]> By: Potter http://www.radioopensource.org/who-runs-your-university/#comment-70023 Potter Fri, 03 Mar 2006 11:37:55 +0000 http://www.radioopensource.org/?p=430#comment-70023 UtahOwl: According to Harvey Silverglate ( see link to his article "Say it Ain't So" I posted above) quote <i>At issue were comments Summers made, at a January 14 conference, merely stating the obvious: that genetic differences between the sexes might in part account for women’s underrepresentation in math, science, and engineering, and that research must be conducted to answer the hard questions and devise remedies............ An here’s the irony: Summers’s "feminist" critics set back the struggle for gender equality far more effectively than even the most sexist anti-intellectual troglodyte ever could. FOR THOSE who missed the brouhaha of the past two weeks, here is what happened. The outspoken Summers was invited to speak at a Harvard academic conference run by the National Bureau of Economic Research, where he was urged to raise some of the thornier questions about the frustrating scarcity of women in academic math, engineering, and science positions. Summers suggested three areas of research seeking possible answers. First he noted the possibility that women raising children are often unwilling to put in the 80-hour weeks required to compete for elite posts. Secondly, he urged examination of the discrimination women encounter in the hard sciences. But then Summers touched the third rail of academic politics. He observed that as early as high school, boys often seem to perform better than girls in science and math, raising the possibility that the disparity might be due in some measure to innate differences in gender. All three of these issues, he suggested, should be studied to figure out how to deal with them. Midway through Summers’s talk, Nancy Hopkins, an MIT biologist, walked out of the room, later explaining to Boston Globe reporter Marcella Bombardieri that if she hadn’t left she would have "either blacked out or thrown up." The next day, Hopkins told the New York Times that "when [Summers] began talking about innate differences in aptitude between men and women, I just couldn’t breathe because this kind of bias makes me physically ill." Five other female conference attendees reached by Bombardieri likewise reported being offended. Summers and Harvard professor Richard Freeman, who had invited the president to address the conference, at first frankly expressed their bewilderment over the emerging firestorm. Freeman explained that Summers was trying to "provoke" thought and research. "Men are taller than women, that comes from the biology," Freeman explained to New York Times reporter Sam Dillon. "Larry’s view was that perhaps the dispersion in test scores could also come from the biology." Summers further explained: "I was trying to provoke discussion, and I certainly believe that there’s been some move in the research away from believing all these things are shaped only by socialization." Nonetheless, news of the incident reverberated across the nation. Before long, National Organization for Women president Kim Gandy intoned: "Summers must go, and Harvard must start with a clean slate." In short order, signatures were collected for a faculty letter admonishing Summers, who soon began to backtrack, issuing a statement expressing "deep regret" over the "impact of my comments" and an "apology" for "not having weighed them more carefully." In a January 19 letter to "Members of the Harvard Community," Summers suddenly announced that he was sorry for having raised the issue — that research might be undertaken to determine what role, if any, genetics plays in accounting for the gender gap in math and science — in a way that "has resulted in an unintended signal of discouragement to talented girls and women." Summers’s statement assured Harvard, the nation, and the world that in fact gender and biology do not indicate "that girls are intellectually less able than boys, or that women lack the ability to succeed at the highest levels of science." Never mind that Summers never suggested such a belief, and that his talk was sympathetic to the need to tear down existing gender barriers. "The human potential to excel in science" is not, he suddenly realized, at all gender-related — a stunning turnaround, given that the research he called for on January 14 obviously had not been completed by January 19. Rather, the question was resolved by the loudest voices who could raise the most clamor, collect the most signatures, and attract the most sensationalistic media coverage.</i> Read the rest. I would like to voice my appeciation ( always) for Camille Paglia. She's a real pleasure. UtahOwl: According to Harvey Silverglate ( see link to his article “Say it Ain’t So” I posted above)

quote At issue were comments Summers made, at a January 14 conference, merely stating the obvious: that genetic differences between the sexes might in part account for women’s underrepresentation in math, science, and engineering, and that research must be conducted to answer the hard questions and devise remedies…………

An here’s the irony: Summers’s “feminist” critics set back the struggle for gender equality far more effectively than even the most sexist anti-intellectual troglodyte ever could.

FOR THOSE who missed the brouhaha of the past two weeks, here is what happened.

The outspoken Summers was invited to speak at a Harvard academic conference run by the National Bureau of Economic Research, where he was urged to raise some of the thornier questions about the frustrating scarcity of women in academic math, engineering, and science positions. Summers suggested three areas of research seeking possible answers. First he noted the possibility that women raising children are often unwilling to put in the 80-hour weeks required to compete for elite posts. Secondly, he urged examination of the discrimination women encounter in the hard sciences.

But then Summers touched the third rail of academic politics. He observed that as early as high school, boys often seem to perform better than girls in science and math, raising the possibility that the disparity might be due in some measure to innate differences in gender. All three of these issues, he suggested, should be studied to figure out how to deal with them.

Midway through Summers’s talk, Nancy Hopkins, an MIT biologist, walked out of the room, later explaining to Boston Globe reporter Marcella Bombardieri that if she hadn’t left she would have “either blacked out or thrown up.” The next day, Hopkins told the New York Times that “when [Summers] began talking about innate differences in aptitude between men and women, I just couldn’t breathe because this kind of bias makes me physically ill.” Five other female conference attendees reached by Bombardieri likewise reported being offended.

Summers and Harvard professor Richard Freeman, who had invited the president to address the conference, at first frankly expressed their bewilderment over the emerging firestorm. Freeman explained that Summers was trying to “provoke” thought and research. “Men are taller than women, that comes from the biology,” Freeman explained to New York Times reporter Sam Dillon. “Larry’s view was that perhaps the dispersion in test scores could also come from the biology.” Summers further explained: “I was trying to provoke discussion, and I certainly believe that there’s been some move in the research away from believing all these things are shaped only by socialization.”

Nonetheless, news of the incident reverberated across the nation. Before long, National Organization for Women president Kim Gandy intoned: “Summers must go, and Harvard must start with a clean slate.” In short order, signatures were collected for a faculty letter admonishing Summers, who soon began to backtrack, issuing a statement expressing “deep regret” over the “impact of my comments” and an “apology” for “not having weighed them more carefully.”

In a January 19 letter to “Members of the Harvard Community,” Summers suddenly announced that he was sorry for having raised the issue — that research might be undertaken to determine what role, if any, genetics plays in accounting for the gender gap in math and science — in a way that “has resulted in an unintended signal of discouragement to talented girls and women.” Summers’s statement assured Harvard, the nation, and the world that in fact gender and biology do not indicate “that girls are intellectually less able than boys, or that women lack the ability to succeed at the highest levels of science.” Never mind that Summers never suggested such a belief, and that his talk was sympathetic to the need to tear down existing gender barriers. “The human potential to excel in science” is not, he suddenly realized, at all gender-related — a stunning turnaround, given that the research he called for on January 14 obviously had not been completed by January 19. Rather, the question was resolved by the loudest voices who could raise the most clamor, collect the most signatures, and attract the most sensationalistic media coverage.

Read the rest.

I would like to voice my appeciation ( always) for Camille Paglia. She’s a real pleasure.

]]> By: UtahOwl http://www.radioopensource.org/who-runs-your-university/#comment-70022 UtahOwl Wed, 01 Mar 2006 05:26:39 +0000 http://www.radioopensource.org/?p=430#comment-70022 <blockquote>Point on ownership vs. management is well taken, tbrucia. To John B Chilton: First: It is necessary to consider context in understanding the full meaning of what is said, particularly by powerful players making public speeches. Summer's statement about women should be placed in its context. As I noted previously,it was by no means a general, innocent statement about "the dispersion of intelligence and how it differed between genders." Second: There is not really general agreement on how intelligence varies between genders. There have been excellent studies on heritability of intelligence (defined as IQ), but gender influence is altogether more difficult to assess, because it is so difficult to separate nature & culture/nurture. In any event, population studies may not be terribly relevant to Harvard faculty, a group which are selected precisely for being at least 4 standard deviations above the mean in some [limited] area of expertise. This, of course, does not preclude them from being considerably below the mean in other areas... Winston, if I understand you correctly, you place scientists & engineers among those who "spend" money and economists such as Summers among those who "make" money? An odd position. The Economist appears to think quite highly of those engineers & scientists whose discoveries & patents are fueling the High Tech & BioTech sectors. For myself, I think it is probably unsustainable to expect universities to compensate for the incredibly inadequate investment by corporations in R & D. This, with the inadequate cultural support for educational excellence in the U.S., are penny-wise and pound-foolish policies that will cost us dear in the global competition. </blockquote><blockquote></blockquote>

Point on ownership vs. management is well taken, tbrucia. To John B Chilton: First: It is necessary to consider context in understanding the full meaning of what is said, particularly by powerful players making public speeches. Summer’s statement about women should be placed in its context. As I noted previously,it was by no means a general, innocent statement about “the dispersion of intelligence and how it differed between genders.”

Second: There is not really general agreement on how intelligence varies between genders. There have been excellent studies on heritability of intelligence (defined as IQ), but gender influence is altogether more difficult to assess, because it is so difficult to separate nature & culture/nurture. In any event, population studies may not be terribly relevant to Harvard faculty, a group which are selected precisely for being at least 4 standard deviations above the mean in some [limited] area of expertise. This, of course, does not preclude them from being considerably below the mean in other areas…

Winston, if I understand you correctly, you place scientists & engineers among those who “spend” money and economists such as Summers among those who “make” money? An odd position. The Economist appears to think quite highly of those engineers & scientists whose discoveries & patents are fueling the High Tech & BioTech sectors. For myself, I think it is probably unsustainable to expect universities to compensate for the incredibly inadequate investment by corporations in R & D. This, with the inadequate cultural support for educational excellence in the U.S., are penny-wise and pound-foolish policies that will cost us dear in the global competition.

]]> By: tbrucia http://www.radioopensource.org/who-runs-your-university/#comment-70021 tbrucia Wed, 01 Mar 2006 04:49:08 +0000 http://www.radioopensource.org/?p=430#comment-70021 It strikes me that WHO RUNS an institution is less important than HOW they run it (management style). Also, ownership is different from management. Some owners are dictatorial and -- next level down -- the managers they hire insist on obedience and orthodoxy. Those at supervisory (teaching) level are governed by fear and play it safe.... Other institutions have a more relaxed style where collegiality counts for everything.... Many years ago I attended a Roman Catholic college, run by Benedictine monks. The English Department members were mostly (all?) atheists, party animals, and somewhat nihilistic. And everyone got along. It was a weird schizophrenic place, but I was exposed to an incredible variety of views, philosophies, and thought. We read Sartre, Camus, Teilhard de Chardin, Thomas Aquinas, Saint Benedict, and so on. (Given that it was the 1960s, we never read Qutb, Madudhi, the hadith, nor the Talmud and kabbalah. Oh, well...) It was an intellectual hotbed -- not at all what one would conceive of when the words 'Catholic college' come to mind! It strikes me that WHO RUNS an institution is less important than HOW they run it (management style). Also, ownership is different from management. Some owners are dictatorial and — next level down — the managers they hire insist on obedience and orthodoxy. Those at supervisory (teaching) level are governed by fear and play it safe…. Other institutions have a more relaxed style where collegiality counts for everything…. Many years ago I attended a Roman Catholic college, run by Benedictine monks. The English Department members were mostly (all?) atheists, party animals, and somewhat nihilistic. And everyone got along. It was a weird schizophrenic place, but I was exposed to an incredible variety of views, philosophies, and thought. We read Sartre, Camus, Teilhard de Chardin, Thomas Aquinas, Saint Benedict, and so on. (Given that it was the 1960s, we never read Qutb, Madudhi, the hadith, nor the Talmud and kabbalah. Oh, well…) It was an intellectual hotbed — not at all what one would conceive of when the words ‘Catholic college’ come to mind!

]]> By: John B. Chilton http://www.radioopensource.org/who-runs-your-university/#comment-70020 John B. Chilton Tue, 28 Feb 2006 19:58:47 +0000 http://www.radioopensource.org/?p=430#comment-70020 What? -"most prominent among them his unfortunate remark on woman’s capacity for reason" Prominent - He tried to reform undergrad ed at Harvard, and he expected faculty to show for work and teach undergrads. The inmates threw him out. Unfortunate - What is unfortunate, and in extremely bad taste, is to suggest that Larry Summer said anything false or derogatory about woman's (women's?) capacity to reason. He said something about the dispersion of intelligence and how it differed between the genders. First, true. Second, useful in coming to good judgments about the market outcomes and occupational choices we observe are something that need to fixed. What? -”most prominent among them his unfortunate remark on woman’s capacity for reason”

Prominent – He tried to reform undergrad ed at Harvard, and he expected faculty to show for work and teach undergrads. The inmates threw him out.

Unfortunate – What is unfortunate, and in extremely bad taste, is to suggest that Larry Summer said anything false or derogatory about woman’s (women’s?) capacity to reason. He said something about the dispersion of intelligence and how it differed between the genders. First, true. Second, useful in coming to good judgments about the market outcomes and occupational choices we observe are something that need to fixed.

]]> By: Potter http://www.radioopensource.org/who-runs-your-university/#comment-70019 Potter Tue, 28 Feb 2006 13:19:27 +0000 http://www.radioopensource.org/?p=430#comment-70019 BTW- There was another speaker that I enjoyed last night- perhaps it was Timothy Burke. BTW- There was another speaker that I enjoyed last night- perhaps it was Timothy Burke.

]]> By: Potter http://www.radioopensource.org/who-runs-your-university/#comment-70018 Potter Tue, 28 Feb 2006 13:15:17 +0000 http://www.radioopensource.org/?p=430#comment-70018 Thank you for Andrew Hacker. I connected very much with what he was saying. I graduated the City University of New York, Hunter College, many years ago. It was a first rate education and it cost me practically nothing. Nothing. Some of my professors were scholars, the top in their field at the height of their careers and they loved teaching and we felt they loved teaching us and we really loved learning. We were not there for the label. There was no question of that. I have always felt grateful for this gift. Thank you for Andrew Hacker. I connected very much with what he was saying. I graduated the City University of New York, Hunter College, many years ago. It was a first rate education and it cost me practically nothing. Nothing. Some of my professors were scholars, the top in their field at the height of their careers and they loved teaching and we felt they loved teaching us and we really loved learning. We were not there for the label. There was no question of that.

I have always felt grateful for this gift.

]]> By: Winston Dodson http://www.radioopensource.org/who-runs-your-university/#comment-70017 Winston Dodson Tue, 28 Feb 2006 06:17:30 +0000 http://www.radioopensource.org/?p=430#comment-70017 As the article in the Economist pointed out, this entire fiasco (for Harvard) wasn't about offending a few female researcers, it was about reforming Harvard and as both articles pointed out, its "reform or die". And I am not naive in thinking that undegraduates have as much power as grduates students, but combined with the Harvard Corporation (who collects the payments for the endowments) they are very powerfull. Example: Look at hte disaster that are the "elite" universities in England - Cambridge and Oxford. Both argueably as good at research as any in US but there funding models are broken. Research money doesn't pay the bills Endowments do and you get those from people who support the University not the faculty - that is why the Harvard Corp Board selects the President and why, when a few members of the faculty (the FAS) send him away it simply shows that the place is incapable of reform. As the Economists article points out, Larry Summer's vision of an expanded Harvard able to out compete other universities in a Glaobal Market is dead for at least the tenure of one more President ~ 10-20 years. By then, like many of the other "bussinesses" in the NE that have proven to be incapable of competing in the real world, it will be too late. I always find it amusing re: comments for people who spend money about people who make it. Maybe that;s why each is in the role's that they are - the next time we need a new high tech chemical assay we can call on a research chemist but when it comes to Economy and Finance, I think I much rather have people like Sumer's give advice. As the article in the Economist pointed out, this entire fiasco (for Harvard) wasn’t about offending a few female researcers, it was about reforming Harvard and as both articles pointed out, its “reform or die”.

And I am not naive in thinking that undegraduates have as much power as grduates students, but combined with the Harvard Corporation (who collects the payments for the endowments) they are very powerfull.

Example: Look at hte disaster that are the “elite” universities in England – Cambridge and Oxford. Both argueably as good at research as any in US but there funding models are broken. Research money doesn’t pay the bills Endowments do and you get those from people who support the University not the faculty – that is why the Harvard Corp Board selects the President and why, when a few members of the faculty (the FAS) send him away it simply shows that the place is incapable of reform.

As the Economists article points out, Larry Summer’s vision of an expanded Harvard able to out compete other universities in a Glaobal Market is dead for at least the tenure of one more President ~ 10-20 years. By then, like many of the other “bussinesses” in the NE that have proven to be incapable of competing in the real world, it will be too late.

I always find it amusing re: comments for people who spend money about people who make it. Maybe that;s why each is in the role’s that they are – the next time we need a new high tech chemical assay we can call on a research chemist but when it comes to Economy and Finance, I think I much rather have people like Sumer’s give advice.

]]>