Calling All Hombres

"Defend yourself." That's the lesson Harvey Mansfield drew for Larry Summers the week before Harvard's president was forced to resign. Mr. Mansfield, a 73-year-old government professor and conservative elder statesman of the university, went on to suggest that Mr. Summers's capitulation to those he offended (when he said women might be biologically less inclined to succeed in the hard sciences) is not simply a craven kowtow to political correctness, but proof, also, of a character flaw. Indeed, Mr. Mansfield continued with a mischievous smile, "He has apologized so much that he looks unmanly."

Perhaps this seems like a quaint insult, but Mr. Mansfield means something very particular by it. He would like to return the notion of manliness to the modern lexicon. His new book, "Manliness" (manfully, no subtitle), argues that the gender-neutral society created by modern feminists has been bad both for women and men, and that it is time for men to rediscover, and women to appreciate, the virtue of manliness...

But it is his combat with campus liberal orthodoxy that has brought him a more public profile. To drive home his crusade against grade inflation, he began giving students a real grade (what he actually thinks of their work) and an "ironic grade" (which goes to the registrar). More controversially, Mr. Mansfield argues that grade inflation is the result of the university's affirmative-action program--admitting too many underqualified minority students and then not wanting to give them poor marks.

Of all the enemies Mr. Mansfield has made, none has he more consistently provoked than feminists. It's been 20 years since he voted against the proposal for a women's studies major at Harvard (the only faculty member to do so), arguing that "it is not possible to study women except in relation to men." He hasn't let up since.

Not your typical Harvard professor:

"I've had a lifelong interest in women," Mr. Mansfield purrs in his smooth classical-radio-announcer voice when I ask why he decided to embark on his manliness project. Joking aside, he explains that "I always wanted to write a book on the woman question, and one reason, perhaps the main reason, I see is that we are embarked on a great experiment in our society, something very radical: to make the status of men and women equal, or, better to say, the same."

Mr. Mansfield's contention that women and men are not the same is now widely supported by social scientists. The core of his definition of manliness--"confidence in a risky situation"--is not so far from that of biologists and sociologists, who find men to be more abstract in their thinking and aggressive in their behavior than women, who are more contextual in their thinking and conciliatory in their behavior.

Very interesting article. Booked marked!

"I see is that we are embarked on a great experiment in our society, something very radical: to make the status of men and women equal, or, better to say, the same."

I'm waiting for someone someday to say that the status and roles of men and women are equally important and equally treasured. :)

I know that on FR tenure is often attacked. But, as a conservative professor, let me tell you: tenure is the only reason Mansfield and I have jobs. Take away tenure and do you really think liberal administrators and liberal faculty will keep those who manifest conservative tendencies around?

I can't be shut up. (Of course, administrators can find ways to squeeze a conservative.) And that is good for the school I am at--whether they like it or not.

So, if there was ever any chance that there might be a balance on campus, I would say tenure is not a good idea--but there isn't. Getting rid of tenure and the rules and regulations that accompany it would only make campuses more liberal than they are now and leave conservatives with no legal recourse.

McVey

From the article:

Indeed, Mr. Mansfield continued with a mischievous smile, "He has apologized so much that he looks unmanly."

I am also reminded of Trent Lott trying to save his leadership position. He and Larry Summers have that in common. Had they the courage of their convictions rather than just the fearful desire to keep their jobs they would have fought their opponents on intellectual grounds rather than groveling in a pity pit. They had no chance of begging their way back in, the charges against them were ridiculous, so begging had no chance. Had they any testosterone at all they would have gone out fighting with heads held high.

The situation on today's campi is the result of a subversive drive to install an agenda, as you well know. When tenure was first proposed and adopted it was understood that all would be striving to achieve true academic excellence and that controversy should not be excluded from that.

Since the left has gained control academic excellence has given way to propaganda and controversy is not allowed.

The real qustion for all of us is, "What is the appeal of Communism that attracts so many academics to its fold?" We know their methods, their tactics, and how they accomplish what they do. But why do we allow it?

What is the appeal to journalists? The Communists have taken over our schools and the MSM. Why?

I have no REAL answer at all--only guesses. Of course, many grew up in households which were left to begin with. Some were caught up in the sixties and radicalized by professors who were 1930's Marxists. Others are control freaks--and modern-day Marxism is the drug of choice for control freaks.

A few see this as explaining their own personal lives--i.e., its everybody elses' fault.

But, in today's academe, there is a relentless bombardment of leftist--often far leftist--opinion. You can't get away from it and anyone who disagrees, as one of my ex-students is finding out in grad school, can end up the odd man (or woman) out.

My students know so little when they come to me; they are easily led, I know.

McVey

No. Because they would have been hired and retained anyway.

Every school that has a tenure system has a procedure and rules. So, while rules can always be played with, a conservative such as myself, once hired, can always point to their right to due process and to what is called "adequate consideration." That means if I publish two books and some lib headcase publishes two books, I still get the same credit toward tenure or I call my lawyer. These rules are usually spelled out in very thick handbooks which constitute our contracts. If I am discriminated against, I can take it to a jury. Jurors tend to dislike academics anyway so when someone gets a case in court like this, the conservative has a real good chance of winning.

Most schools would never take this chance and so the game is fair--up to a point. And that point is not saying anything so conservative that it keeps you from getting published (until after tenure.) I know in my case I stuck to statistics until I had been tenured and promoted.

It worked and now it would take a lot to dump me.

McVey

Mike:

In academe, the broader community has no say whatsoever in the process.

Who does? At most colleges and universities it works like this:

1.) Your department chair.

2.) Then a department committee.

3.) Then a division (sometimes called a "school" committee.)

4. Then your dean.

5. Then a college-wide committee.

6. Then a Provost.

7. Then the President.

8. Then the Board or a Board Committee.

By the time your application gets to the Board, which is the first time anyone from beyond academe gets a say, there is opinion after opinion supporting the document. If the application is not approved at one level, it does not go up to the next (at most schools.) With written tenure rules and procedures, it is to no one's advantage to do something really stupid and get sued.

If you take away tenure, ANY one in this change could fire you for any reason (you would have done away with rules and procedures) and simply hired a liberal in your place. The broader community would NEVER have a say in it--which is what I think your point was.

If I am misreading what you are saying, let me know and I will try to make what is an arcane process clearer.

McVey

The argument against every change by the defenders of the status quo, is that nothing changes -- or they just get worse.

Rather than that everything changes -- and so we don't have those problems in the first place.

A teacher who has something of value to transmit, can feel confident that he will find those who will value that information; and those who merely hold their positions out of habit, will have to find other things to do -- that people can value.

Lord, I wish I could agree with you, but I can't. I have been in this business three decades and have seen any number of careers saved by the rules.

I am not trying to maintain the status crow, one of the reasons I am on FR is that this is one place where I can say what goes on in academe and people will listen.

If you really want to do something to change the status quo, then find out who is being hired at your local college and raise hell about it. The deans do the hiring and they are almost always far-left. Put pressure on the hiring process, demand accountability by the board, hell, try to get a seat on a board as a community representative.

If you are inclined to be an activist, get the voter registration records from your courthouse. Almost all, if not all, of the members of your English, History, Political Science, Philosophy, Religious or Theology Department, Psychology, Sociology and Anthropology departments will be Dems or Greens. Then go to the newspapers and raise ugly questions. Send the results to state legislators.

Otherwise, if you do away with tenure, almost every conservative in academe will come under the gun to shut up or be fired by their deans. THERE ARE ALMOST NO PEOPLE INSIDE THE SYSTEM WHO WILL SAVE CONSERVATIVES. THERE ARE MANY WHO WILL SAVE LIBERALS. THE COMMUNITY HAS NOT A CLUE AS TO WHAT HAPPENS.

That is the way it is. I wish I could give you another answer. I can't.

McVey

You're talking about change -- without changing anything, particularly the infrastructure that supports the status quo.

I'm talking about change that is fundamental -- doing something entirely differently, which is the possibility of rethinking learning with today's capabilities. Education, along with mainstream mass media, is one of those functions the technologies of today have made obsolete and redundant.

Here, we talk a lot about the increasing irrelevance and demise of the mainstream press, but close behind are the other institutions of information and communications -- the schools and universities. That's the next playing field to be leveled.

Progress and evolution is not something that happened only in the past -- and now we shouldn't change anything but accept things as they are.

I agree. Tenure may be bad, but I suspect the lack of it would be worse.

Imagine a non-tenure situation with a decidedly leftist leadership. Who is going to express an opinion to the right of the leadership when none of the protections provided by tenure are present.

My vote would be "no one." To the extent that some do, it's a safe bet that it will be far fewer than in a tenure situation.

Well, we agree on a lot of this. I am driving my students to go to the sources outside the MSM--I force them to use the 'net to go to alternate sources--including FR in some classes.

When I hear them talking about what some other professor has poured into them, I ALWAYS push them to double-check the data. If we can teach the kids to be interested, if we can make certain that everything they receive is not filtered, then those of us who still care about truth are going to win. No student today has to be dependent on a professor or a textbook--which is the way it should be.

We will have to disagree on what would happen to conservatives in academe if we did away, right now, with tenure. I speak from some experience on this subject. Back in 1994, I gave a scathing interview regarding Clinton to our university's PR department--they had their own TV station that broadcast across the state. I had been a regular on one of their shows for some time. I never was asked to be on that show or any other of their shows ever again. And I was one of their best known professors (at least in the School of Liberal Arts.)

Had I been an untenured professor, this would have been a difficult situation. The rumor mill (driven I am sure byy the mutants in Journalism) took over at that point and, if I had not had tenure, it could have been bad for me.

I look forward to bringing this issue up again. Thank you for a good disagreement.

McVey

I agree, I know there are colleagues of mine who are probably conservative, but even WITH tenure you cannot be certain what will happen if you are too open about it.

You need funds for research, committees to sit on and classes that you want to teach if you want to move up in your profession. This goes back to the rules that govern tenure and promotion. None of that has to happen and I know my conservatism has made certain that my dean will never appoint me to a committee he controls--PARTICULARLY hiring committees. He hires left and lefter.

McVey

I have tried to answer my own question, why the appeal of Communism, and have come up with lots of fragmented answers. One of them for students is that many youngsters leave home open to new ideas, to academe, and are of the age of seeking independence, self identity, and rebellion to an extent. Many are also seeking God, or the true meaning of God, a God in which they can believe as opposed to a myth or superstition. The want proof where there is none. Their hormones are also raging to one degree or another.

That is fertile ground for planting Communist seeds. Communism is a religion that replaces God with a man-based morality and an earthly paradise. No more need to fear God and be nagged by constant guilt. All rules are off except party loyalty. Lying, cheating, both OK. Hedonism, just fine. For a youngster that is great.

The kicker is they all know deep down that it is a lie and that society in general condemns them. Therefore, they must redouble their fervor for the cause, to be adamant they are not just immoral but that they are in fact fighting for a noble, if unpopular, cause. They are not hedonists, they are martyrs.

That is also generally true of the adults, especially the wealthy adults and the intellectual elite. It absolves them of their sins and to prove they are really good instead of sinners they support all sorts of feel-good welfare programs to take care of the unfortunate or less skilled.

Unvarnished, Communism is a denial of God and all the responsibility that goes with believing in Him.

Naturally, to get away with that dissent must be silenced. Such ideas are so contrary to human nature as to beg dissent, so it must be crushed as quickly and brutally as possible less others be encouraged to do the same. Even death is sanctioned and considered necessary at times to protect the cause, and the leaders of course. And as Stalin said, sort of, the death of one is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic. All for the cause. All to deny God.

That is sort of where I am with Communism at the moment. (All prices are subject to change.) :-)

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.