Posted on 02/25/2005 9:02:58 AM PST by MikeEdwards
Some may say its nothing to laugh about but I cant help but find humor when the snobs of the academic elite find themselves mired in paradoxical hypocrisy. One can almost smell the heat from their cerebral wheels, the publicly funded oil burning away, as they try to come up with an explanation of why they are between such a rock and a hard place. It reminds me of the old Bill Cosby bit about the student who asked his Catholic teacher the hypothetical question, Father, if God can do anything, can He Himself make a rock so big that He cant move it? All the priest could say was Sit down, Don.
If, for the sake of analogy, our liberally slanted education community is a ship that ship is listing so hard to port all it can do is sail to the left. An image of a disabled vessel constantly drifting to port, doomed to an eternity of increasing insignificance comes to mind. Within one of these seven circles of Dantesque liberal hell is the paradox of Lawrence Summers and Ward Churchill.
Unless you have been too caught up in the non-reporting of the facts by the mainstream media, you know that liberal activists on our college campuses are in an uproar over two of their own; Lawrence Summers, the president of Harvard University, and Ward Churchill, a professor from the University of Colorado. Both of these men having made controversial statements find themselves engaged in battles involving their First Amendment free speech rights. . . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at therant.us ...
Ah Freezie back from the wars I see. Play fair and only use one half of your 'Cliffie brain.
(((HUGGS)))
"Also, under your logic, this means that white men are being discriminated against in favor of Asian women, right?"
See post above. No, I've never said that nature has to give abilities equally. You keep saying that I'm saying that. I'm not. I think this is a good-faith miscommunication. Please read above again. Those stats indicate that socializaiton (Asian Americans toward math) remains a potent factor that at least in these two subgroups trumps innate abilities (a presumed natural preference/ability male over female in math). That's why I chose those two groups. It's interesting data, when thinking about Summers' thesis that socialization isn't an issue anymore.
Play fair? Ah, c'mon. That's no fun!! Just not going to let too many nice things about a Clintonista show up in our august pages.
Hee hee, someone actually called me "baby" here under the theory that it would bother me! LOL. We're actually debating whether I personally am smarter than so-and-so here, as if THAT mattered, but I think the more amusing debate would be whether I was more of a "baby"! ;)
Regards,
"all it can do is sail to the left" - and, like the fabled and extinct bird, as they sail in arcs of ever decreasing circumference, they will eventually sail up their own arseholes.
First, I've never seen a complete transcript, so certainly correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Summers was responding to the usual radical implication that the marginal number (not marginal people!) of women at the upper eschelons in certain scientific fields is ipso facto due to discrimination by men. Is this not correct?
It seems to me he then outlined three "broad hypothesis" as to what could be causing this disparity. One of which WAS "different socialization and patterns of discrimination". I don't see where he ever says that this ISN'T a problem. He only later concludes that it is NOW less of a problem than the other two reasons he describes. Where am I wrong on this? (And, if the above interpretation is correct,I must say I would tend to agree with him.)
More importantly, aren't you basically saying this also? That, while there is still certainly some discrimination out there, most of the current differences in the proportion of men to women in math and science arenas is due to other factors, one being different physiology between the sexes.
Explain to me where I'm wrong here.
Sure. Summers assumes -- economist are sooo good at that, huh!? -- that innate ability is more of a factor than socialization/discrimination.
There's just no evidence that innate ability is more of a factor. And anyone who has actually *been* in the Harvard math and physics departments would have to disagree.
I would have to say that just about *everything* in Summers speech, *except* his reference to the possibility/probability of innate differentials, is pretty much wrong. E.g., the childcare thing. Hello! On the planet earth, women who at 22 are thinking about getting doctorates in math and physics -- who are the caliber where they're a reasonable prospect for a top graduate school that might lead them into the sparse population for tenure in the fields -- are *not* thinking about starting a family? I mean, he has not met these women! I was one of them. We are the geekiest, late-marrying type of women you'd ever want to meet.
Summers really has to go and actually visit his math and physics department some day. And y'all conservative males have to be mindful, when you talk about equality of opportunity, that you don't "assume away" or "wish away" socialization and discrimination as *major* factors in this particular area of the sciences for women. That's the main thrust of Summers speech -- placing that as lower-ranking to innate ability -- and there's no science to support it. Seriously, Massachusetts Hall in Harvard Yard is not that far from the Science Center: Summers should go take a walk to the math and physics department and learn something.
Here's something I don't dispute, something I snipped from, I gag, ABC news report -- pretty good summary of what little we know of the science:
to be really really clear, I believe you accurate summarize him when you type "He only later concludes that it is NOW less of a problem than the other two reasons he describes" and I believe that -- as to women in math and science at the doctoral level -- that's complete bunk.
I can't help but agree with him that, at this point, any remaining disparities between the proportion of males to females at the top levels of certain fields IS NOT mainly due to discrimination but rather due to other inherent differences between how the sexes are wired (notice I said NOT MAINLY - there will always be some discrimination unfortunately, be based on sex, race, religion or what not).
Guess we'll have to agree to disagree, though I'm still not sure what we disagree on cause it seems to me you think the same thing.
Oh well. Thanks for the debate(?).
2. I think Ken21's original point was obvious and needed no further "evidence". Hell, how many people even went to college back before WW2?
3. Any other bogus points you want to raise lefty? Or maybe you just want to post another wonderfully insightful article from The Guardian? Either way I'm wasting no nore time with you!
The higher up in academia you go, the sillier and goofier it gets.
It might not be a bad idea every few years or so to throw most of the main characters out on the street and start all over again from scratch.
This reminds me of a joke I heard once: "If there had been one more Ivy Leauge brain on our team at Yalta or Potsdam, the Russians would have gotten Westminster Abbey."
Dear HM-BA,
For some real silliness, come on over here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1354449/posts
sitetest
Here is your exact first post "Before World War II, college professors weren't visible (I guess you mean important)? Huh? Woodrow Wilson might disagree with that."
You made NO mention of him being Princeton President! In a later post you mention this, but conspicuously LEAVE OUT him being the freakin' governor of NJ prior to his becoming President. Typical left wing bad faith argument style.
Ken's original point about college professors is obviously true. As I said, there were far fewer of them and far fewer people they were teaching back then. Here's another news flash for you lib, the earth is round! And no, I'm not going to provide any further proof.
Face it lefty, you got busted, as all of you do ultimately here at FR!
"A physiology professor is going to be much more conservative than the average psychiatry professor. Business professors are more conservative and saner than art history instructors."
Not to mention a LOT smarter.
"I assume that they're bigotted and unaware that they're bigotted, because they just can't see"
Whichever, you're still assuming.
It just could be that you're dead wrong.
It just could be that, if only one in 10,000 men have sufficient intelligence to do top-level, original research in physics, only one in 100,000 women do.
Men and women are hard-wired differently. Not the same brain. Men are better at some things, women at others. Get used to it.
It might help you to read Thomas Sowell's excellent analyses of the errors inherent in assuming that statistical differences are indicators of discrimination.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.