TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Where Are All The Free Speech Activists In Support Of Harvard Pres Lawrence Summers?

Where Are All The Free Speech Activists In Support Of Harvard Pres Lawrence Summers?

Lawrence Summers, President of Harvard University, is currently being lambasted by the American media and by the faculty at Harvard University for some supposedly remarks he made "[i]n his January 14 remarks, Summers repeatedly emphasized that he was "guessing," attempting to provoke and hoped to be proved wrong."
"So my best guess, to provoke you, of what's behind all this is that the largest phenomenon, by far, is the general clash between people's legitimate family desires and employers' current desire for high power and high intensity," Summers said at a National Bureau of Economic Research conference in Cambridge. "In the special case of science and engineering, there are issues of intrinsic aptitude, and particularly of the variability of aptitude, and that those considerations are reinforced by what are in fact lesser factors involving socialization and continuing discrimination," he said. http://edition.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATI....transcript.ap/
I do not think Lawrence Summers should have to apologize for these remarks, they were obviously meant to be inflamatory and to get the people at the conference thinking. That was why he began his statement with the words "TO PROVOKE YOU", he did not say it was something he believed, he said he was making a statement based on a (most probably flawed) logic and a guess which he (most probably) assumed would be quickly disproven.
But, even if we go out on a limb and assume that Lawrence Summers believed every word he was saying SO WHAT? Lawrence Summers is entitled to the same free speech as everyone else in America and being a sexist pig and making sexist comments is perfectly within his rights as an American.
To take a totally different tack let us look at someone else who has also been in the news recently for their inflamatory remarks. Professor Ward Churchill of the University of Colorado has been causing an uproar across the USA for the past couple of weeks due to an essay he wrote in which he rationalized the attacks and likened World Trade Center victims to the Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann.
In his essay, Churchill used the incendiary words "little Eichmanns" to suggest that some of the Trade Center victims were like the notorious Nazi bureaucrat. He called them "a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire" who, like Eichmann, didn't kill anyone directly but were part of the infrastructure of an imperialist government.
Churchill posited that America's crimes abroad ultimately led terrorists to hijack and crash jetliners into symbols of America's military and economic might. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation...2-08-prof_x.htm
Now every free-speech activist in America is getting up and telling us that though we find his words despicable, Ward Churchill has the right to say or write whatever he wants. So Ward Churchill can spread his anti-American vitriol from coast to coast and theres nothing the University of Colorado or the American public can do about it.
But let us look back at President Lawrence Summers of Harvard who makes one sexist remark which he only made to be provocative and was not an indication of his true feelings on the matter and the whole world -- which is busy advocating free-speech for a treasonous, anti-American dreg of our society -- turns against him and attempts to get him fired.

There's no such thing as free speech. People in higher positions like these two guys have to follow certain rules. It's the way it is. The president is the face of the school. He has to represent.

quote:

Originally posted by ierxium There's no such thing as free speech. People in higher positions like these two guys have to follow certain rules. It's the way it is. The president is the face of the school. He has to represent.

there is some aspects of truth to what you say, they do have to follow certain rules due to their positions in the world. what i was pointing out is the way the media reacts to a sexist comment as opposed to an anti-american one tantamount to treason. the treason is defended by the laws regarding free speech but when it comes to a stupid sexist remark the reaction of the media (and a bunch of harvard professors who sit and advocate free speech on a daily basis)is fire him and dont think twice!

Well, it's not like he isn't allowed to say it. It's just that when he says something like that, he should expect consequences. He has a right to make an idiot out of himself, but the school board also has a right to remove him from his positon if they think he's not representing the university in a good way. And, of course, the newspapers have a right to free speech as well, so they have a right to demonize the guy as much as they want.

I don't see how his free speech was violated. He ain't goin to jail for it. He is just getting a lot of shit from people who vehemently disagree. SURPRISE! He is a public figure. Its one thing for me to say that sort of thing to people, they might look at me funny, a righteous chick would probably kick me in the nutz, but I still had the right to say it. Laws or no laws, you live within a society, and you have to understand that society and work within it. ESPECIALLY when you are the fucking president of Harvard.

so why is it that whenever the idea of firing ward churchill is brought up everyone starts going on about academic freedom and freedom of speech and all that?
granted churchill is a professor who makes money teaching his ideas and summers is a straight up fundraiser but they should both have the same freedoms and their rights to freedom of speech should be defended with equal vigor
my point was you dont see anyone worried about the consequences to academic freedoms and freedom of speech for firing the president of harvard over some provocative comments but bring the idea of firing one pissant professor from colorado -- whos entire academic career is being brought into question now -- and everyone is tripping over themselves to defend him under the first amendment.
oh and by the way the whole point is really moot because the first amendment protection doesnt apply in either case; it clearly says "CONGRESS shall make no law...abridging the freeodm of speech." it never says anything about state government institutions such as the university of colorado or even private institutions such as harvard.

quote:

Originally posted by abort416 so why is it that whenever the idea of firing ward churchill is brought up everyone starts going on about academic freedom and freedom of speech and all that? granted churchill is a professor who makes money teaching his ideas and summers is a straight up fundraiser but they should both have the same freedoms and their rights to freedom of speech should be defended with equal vigor my point was you dont see anyone worried about the consequences to academic freedoms and freedom of speech for firing the president of harvard over some provocative comments but bring the idea of firing one pissant professor from colorado -- whos entire academic career is being brought into question now -- and everyone is tripping over themselves to defend him under the first amendment. oh and by the way the whole point is really moot because the first amendment protection doesnt apply in either case; it clearly says "CONGRESS shall make no law...abridging the freeodm of speech." it never says anything about state government institutions such as the university of colorado or even private institutions such as harvard.

Well private institutions have the right to fire him if they so choose. I haven't kept up with the story, Summers was fired? If so that is a bit much. I can certainly understand him getting reprimanded, but fired is a stretch. At the same time the Universities president represents the school. If he says something that contradicts the beliefs of the majority if not all people their. I can understand how maybe they wouldn't want him around.

Time to write without investigation: Professors have more freedom in what they do and what they say. Of course this is different for every institution. There are highly respected universities that keep a reputation, Harvard is one of them.

Look at it this way: If Churchill worked at Harvard and did what he did at the U. of Colorado, he would be without a job by now. It's that easy.

There are big differences between a president and a professor. A president has more obligations. S/he doesn't have as much freedom as a professor.

true that the president has more responsibilities but the thing is the presidents words were meant to be provocative and were not a reflection of his true beliefs he was essentially playing the devils advocate
ward churchill on the other hand believes in what he is saying and is going around the country spewing his bile
lawrence summers will not be fired he has already appeared before the harvard corporation which is the body that has the power to hire or fire him as well he had a conference with the harvard professors which wanted to give him a vote of no-confidence (which would have been entirely symbolic because again only the harvard corp can hire/fire him) but ended up just lambasting him about the views he espoused while playing devils advocate to provoke thought

quote:

Originally posted by abort416 true that the president has more responsibilities but the thing is the presidents words were meant to be provocative and were not a reflection of his true beliefs he was essentially playing the devils advocate ward churchill on the other hand believes in what he is saying and is going around the country spewing his bile lawrence summers will not be fired he has already appeared before the harvard corporation which is the body that has the power to hire or fire him as well he had a conference with the harvard professors which wanted to give him a vote of no-confidence (which would have been entirely symbolic because again only the harvard corp can hire/fire him) but ended up just lambasting him about the views he espoused while playing devils advocate to provoke thought

You know, I think you should put periods and commas into your sentences. That way we might actually figure out what you're saying. Anyway, it seems that Summers will not be fired. So what's the big deal then? As far as for that Churchill guy, he does have one correct point, and that is that the US actions abroad are a direct reason for why the WTC was attacked. But he's voicing his personal opinions, while Summers was acting as a public figure and the head of Harvard. There's a difference between a head of Harvard and a low-grade provincial professor.

I sell commas, periods and question marks in case someone is interested.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Well, it's not like he isn't allowed to say it. It's just that when he says something like that, he should expect consequences. He has a right to make an idiot out of himself, but the school board also has a right to remove him from his positon if they think he's not representing the university in a good way. And, of course, the newspapers have a right to free speech as well, so they have a right to demonize the guy as much as they want.

I somehow agree with what you are saying here, but at the same time think that one should be careful with this kind of logic. Following it, you would have freedom of speech anywhere (Iran, North Korea, etc.) - it's just that one should expect consequences if one exercises it (capital punishment).
When it comes to a school board's responsibilities, I don't think that they should include the duty to act as a political correctness oracle. Employees should be hired and fired depending on their abilities at fulfilling their jobs - not because their views may divert from those of the media at large.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.