(no subject)
Feb. 21st, 2006 12:21 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cblj_backupI have reluctantly concluded that the rifts between me and segments of the Arts and Sciences faculty make it infeasible for me to advance the agenda of renewal that I see as crucial to Harvard's future.
http://www.president.harvard.edu/speeches/2006/0221_summers.html
Jesus, no wonder he's stepping down as Harvard's president. Could he possible be less concise or coherent? Did he seriously use the word infeasible when the word "difficult" would do? And has nobody taught his speechwriter that "agenda" these days carries some incredibly negative connotations?
I know there was a flap over his remarks about women and the sciences a while back -- women (rightfully) were incredibly offended that he actually appeared to believe that females can't do math, while free-speech advocates were antsy that he wasn't being allowed to express an opinion. I personally thought that he could express his opinions all he damn well wanted but it was ridiculously unwise to keep him on as President if he actually believed something so stupid and backwards.
I mean that's a prime display of a really remarkable lack of critical thinking ability. A University president believing that women are genetically disadvantaged in the sciences is a little bit like the head of the NAACP believing that the poor are "really just lazy". There's a fundamental conflict of interest there.
http://www.president.harvard.edu/speeches/2006/0221_summers.html
Jesus, no wonder he's stepping down as Harvard's president. Could he possible be less concise or coherent? Did he seriously use the word infeasible when the word "difficult" would do? And has nobody taught his speechwriter that "agenda" these days carries some incredibly negative connotations?
I know there was a flap over his remarks about women and the sciences a while back -- women (rightfully) were incredibly offended that he actually appeared to believe that females can't do math, while free-speech advocates were antsy that he wasn't being allowed to express an opinion. I personally thought that he could express his opinions all he damn well wanted but it was ridiculously unwise to keep him on as President if he actually believed something so stupid and backwards.
I mean that's a prime display of a really remarkable lack of critical thinking ability. A University president believing that women are genetically disadvantaged in the sciences is a little bit like the head of the NAACP believing that the poor are "really just lazy". There's a fundamental conflict of interest there.
