The concept of “diversity,” to the extent that it can be seen to have any affirmative value in its own right – rather than merely a convenient, if tedious tub for the perpetually aggrieved set to thump on – is only worthwhile because it enables the airing of different viewpoints, perspectives and ideas that might otherwise never emerge from within a field of intellectual uniformity. Not all ideas are created equal of course, and it is in the rough and tumble or rigorous intellectual scrubbing that the best concepts come to the fore.
Unless, of course, we’re talking about the University of California, Davis where the regents have just allowed the Guardians of the Narrative to mau-mau them into submission for the crime of having invited former Treasury Secretary and Harvard president Lawrence Summers to speak:
After a group of UC Davis women faculty began circulating a petition, UC regents rescinded an invitation to Larry Summers, the controversial former president of Harvard University, to speak at a board dinner Wednesday night in Sacramento. The dinner comes during the regents’ meeting at UCD next week.
Summers gained notoriety for saying that innate differences between men and women could be a reason for under-representation of women in science, math and engineering.
‚ÄúThe regents’ dinners have always been informal, social occasions,‚Äù said UC spokesman Trey Davis. ‚ÄúChairman (Richard) Blum and Dr. Summers talked yesterday, and agreed that UC would locate a different speaker. Susan Kennedy, the governor’s chief of staff, has this morning graciously agreed to speak at the dinner.‚Äù
Blum, chairman of the UC Board of Regents, was out of the country on business and unavailable for comment.
UCD professor Maureen Stanton, one of the petition organizers, was delighted by news of the change this morning, saying it’s ‚Äúa move in the right direction.‚Äù
“UC has an enormous historical commitment to diversity within its faculty ranks, but still has a long way to go before our faculty adequately represent the diversity of our constituency, the people of California,” said Stanton, professor and chairwoman of the section of evolution and ecology.
When Stanton heard about the initial invitation to Summers, she was “stunned.”
“I was appalled that someone articulating that point of view would be invited by the regents,” she said. “This is a symbolic invitation and a symbolic measure that I believe sends the wrong message about the University of California and its cultural principles.”
I mean he’s setting it up on the tee for them, isn’t he? It’d be like clubbing baby seals, you’d think. It seems to me that a truly confident academy, certain of its “cultural principles” – what a chillingly Orwellian formulation – would relish the opportunity to hear and deconstruct opposing points of view.
Not so much, I guess.
Poor Larry Summers. The man has an intellect that could run circles around the people who are refusing to be in the same room with him. And all for the crime of pointing out something blindingly obvious to the rest of us – that men and women are not equally drawn to or gifted at subjects like engineering. My husband was an engineering major, and he used to walk across the campus at lunchtime to eat in the humanities quad so that he could at least catch a glimpse of a female face.
It seems to me that a truly confident academy, certain of its “cultural principles” – what a chillingly Orwellian formulation – would relish the opportunity to hear and deconstruct opposing points of view.
Ah, and there’s the rub. Methinks Academe isn’t all that confident in their beliefs. You hit it dead center, Cap’n.
The whole thing has gone pathetic. What else is there to say?
I will never forget the first day of some touchy feely “environment” class I had to take in Architecture school. The “instructor” came in and immediately wrote the chemical equation for photosynthesis incorrectly on the board.It stayed there for the entire class. When class was over I went up and corrected it. She was stunned…
I mean, can you believe it? It was like H to the second power or some insane thing like that. Can’t even write the chemical name for water? Find another line of work.
I had the advantage of going into University relatively late in life, 25 and married. Plus, it was on my dime… I didn’t suffer these idiots easily.
Metaphorically speaking, it is called rot; as in “the rot has set in”.
I will take it upon myself to write the unthinkable, certainly unmentionable, as I do from time to time when unedited comments opportunities present themselves (with apologies to Lex):
Historically, the survival rate of female dominated cultures is very poor, legends of Amazons and Scythians notwithstanding.
If the good ladies wish to contribute on an equal basis, why not? If they wish only to throw their weight around, why? Inherent death wish? Penis envy?
I ran afoul of some rule somewhere, once. Everybody told me, “don’t try to fight it, it’s impossible to change things here,” but I went an talked to Summers (who took the time to see me, a little snot-nose nobody).
It was one of the more intense five minuites of my life, but, by god, in a few months, the rule had changed, protecting folks, who, in the future, might follow in my footsteps. For that, I’m eternally grateful. Contrary to popular myth, he looked out for the small fry…and gave ‘em a chance.
Boys and girls have differently-shaped bell curves. More wimmin are 50th-percentilers, more men are, just weird, when it comes to the extremes. If you want Mozart, yer gonna have to put up with Manson. More male Nobelists, and more male convicts. Just make shure you pick a good’un. (And that goes for both sexes.)
I’m OK with women not being at the forefront of math or science – not that we the fairer sex aren’t capable of comprehending the complexities of either subject. We tend to excel in other ways…some more creative than others.
Sorry Lex, but that decision by the UCD is the perfect illustration of why people think the way they do about things coming from the far west coast on this country…silly people, making silly decisions in a silly vacuum.
Ah, the soft Stalinism of low feminism.
Aw c’mon Kris, Harvard was the scene of the crime. Better to go back to the classic Goldwater formulation, “Sometimes I think this country would be better off if we could just saw off the Eastern Seaboard and let it float out to sea.”
In re: “Penis Envy”, I had an interesting experience this week. I went to a Brandi Carlile concert at THoB. Speculation is that she’s a lesbo, at least the throng of lesbos in the crowd thought so. My running mate had a tete-a-tete with three of these angry youngish manlings in the men’s room. He let them touch his man part, and he was beaming. Alas, all joy evaporated when I explained that they weren’t interested in it because they wanted to use it. They simply wanted one, and part of what makes them so mad is not having one.
Casca – I don’t believe the “scene of the crime” is at Harvard, though the idiots at UCD clearly think otherwise. As Kristen said in the first comment, he was pointing out the obvious, IMO.
I’ve long intended to begin compiling a list of “institutions of higher learning” to which I will not send my child, for reasons such as this. Alas, the task is so daunting I think it would be easier to list the few that AREN’T full of imbeciles. Except they never make the news, do they?