This New York Times editorial expresses some of my feelings about the Lawrence Summers Problem.
Whatever Dr. Summers was doing at the conference, it had nothing to do with serious intellectual inquiry. "I don't think anybody actually has a clue" was one operative phrase. "I don't remember who had told me" was another. It was every woman's nightmare of what a university president thinks privately about equal opportunity.Granted we should be open. I even think positive inquiry can start with "I don't remember who had told me." I think the problem, though, lies in Summers' arrogance and bullying built on a foundation of half-baked assumptions.
An article in the Boston Globe made me think that Summers' seemingly off-the-cuff statements reflect not a critical and open mind, but a powerful crackpot, according to Harvard physics professor Daniel S. Fisher:
''Several years of Summers' pushing for grandiose schemes, emphasis on hype over substance, and remarkably incompetent 'planning' by . . . task forces, have led to massive chaos and disillusionment," he wrote in an e-mail.If Harvard fired Summers, though, that would look like a PC witch hunt, like that performed on Eason Jordan. Better if a chastened and humble Lawrence Summers remained as president. Then again if he is chastened and humble would he remain Lawrence Summers.Fisher said he thinks Summers has been uninterested in true dialogue about the future of science at Harvard, even on the proposed new campus in Allston, which the president wants to focus on science. Fisher said that what passes for science planning under Summers is as phony as creationism passed off as science.
I'm not sure why the Summers story appeals to me right now. Something to do with understanding those who hold power. Surely the transition we're making in regards to sex roles has something to do with it. The whole emergence thing, political attacks coming from left field, as it were, makes this a fascinating story.
Posted by mastr at February 19, 2005 08:38 PM