Lawrence Summers has finally provided a full transcript of the remarks he made that caused so much controversy, not to mention physical illness, at Harvard last month. I haven't had time to read them over entirely yet, but at least now people have the full remarks to respond to.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
The title of John Tierney's recent column in the New York Times, "Daring to Discuss Women's Potential in Science", suggests that Tierney thinks there's something dangerous about even raising the subject:
The House of Representatives has passed what I like to think of as Larry's Law. The official…
I've not commented on the brouhaha that has surrounded Harvard President Lawrence Summers' comment at a conference last week that the relative lack of women in math and science might reflect innate differences rather than the effects of socialization. Let me do so now. Bottom line: *shrug*. I think…
The AP has now made available the full transcript of the oral arguments of the McCreary case, the second of the two Ten Commandments cases heard by the Supreme Court yesterday. I haven't had time to read it yet, but thought some of my readers might like to do so.
As you've probably heard, Stephen Meyer of the Discovery Institute published a book last year calle Signature in the Cell. It stunk, it got virtually no reviews from the scientific community, although it was avidly sucked up by the fans of Intelligent Design creationism. One curious thing about the…
To put it simply, I would've walked out on it after he ranks "the high-powered" hypothesis, then the genetics factor, and lastly socialization as being the top causes, IN THAT ORDER of why women aren't well represented in science and engineering.
"...hypotheses as to why we observe what we observe without seeing this through the kind of judgmental tendency that inevitably is connected with all our common goals of equality."
As far as radical egalitarians, like those who fight their Kulture Kampf here, he will have to deal with the sweaty little hands of the censor on that basis alone. I.e., it doesn't matter what he says further, as he has already broken the unspoken rule.
For the radical egalitarians, that "judgmental tendency" seems to be the core of their being.
So from there, it probably really did not matter what he said. It could be as plain as day, basic observations that anyone can make, that would not matter.
Indeed, this blog illustrates the same point.
"I would've walked out on it...."
Of course, of course....yet it is the "conservatives" and the like who are close-minded.
That's the funny part. In my blogging experience, Leftists on conservative blogs being crass, etc., are not censored. Yet conservatives on Leftist blogs are censored for dealing with facts, logic and evidence as well as basic everyday observations that anyone can make.
Censorship, the walk out, etc., that seems typical.
Jeez, Ed, is there any way you can go back and retroactively award a share of the Robert O'Brien Trophy (formerly the Idiot of the Month Award) to this mynym moron? Reading this rambling spam is like listening to Rush Limbaugh on steroids. Is there some bigot blogging rule that mandates the use of "radical egalitarians," "sweaty little hands of the censor," and "Leftists" in every comment? This person is a walking so-con/fundamentalist talking point, who has not the slightest clue what he/she is saying. Note to mynym: stringing together a bunch of fancy-sounding words into something resembling a sentence doesn't fool anyone around here. We know you're an idiot, despite your faux-intellectual posing. Get a life. Somewhere else.
Dan, you really made me laugh with that last post. LOL
Channelling Rush Lamebrain, does anyone have an idea why he hasn't been indicted for his drug dealing? Maybe it's because he's a major taxpayer in Palm Beach County. Maybe it's because he's white.
raj: I've not followed it, but last I heard, he was fighting with the state over access to his medical records. In perhaps the most delicious irony I've seen in a long time, the ACLU filed an amicus brief in support of Limbaugh's claim of privacy. Ouch! Don't you know that had to make Limbaugh practically choke? Wonder if Rush publicly thanked the ACLU for its support?
I remember seeing a weblog entry on Balkin's site some time ago. Limbaugh was quoted -- I think on his radio show -- commenting upon the observation that drug laws disparately impact minorities. Limbaugh's argument was (I'm going from memory here) if there is a disparate impact, the answer isn't to do something else with minority offenders. We should just throw more white drug offenders in jail.
I'm shocked -- shocked I say -- that we didn't see Rush march himself down to the courthouse and ask to be thrown in jail. Because we know that Rush would never behave like a hypocrite, right? Oh, wait. I get it. He's Rush Limbaugh. He can't be a criminal. He was talking about throwing other white people in jail.
Lynn: Glad you got a laugh. Is there a Webster's Unabridged Dumbass Dictionary out there that people like mynym quote from? If so, we should try to get our hands on a copy so we can be hip to the vocabulary. And why does "mynym" bring to mind the "Mini-Me" character from the Austin Powers flicks? Wait a second -- I think we're on to something here... .
Sorry for the blatantly off-topic comments.