On Being Reasonable

In light of the official release of Larry Summer's "controversial" remarks, that underscored the inherent reasonableness of his opinions, the Washington Post today has an editorial that says, in effect, "get off Larry's back." Harvard's Free Mind

A primary function of universities is to ask questions and to advance knowledge, popular or otherwise. When they do this well, whole societies benefit: from scientific innovation, from smarter economic and social policies, and from a culture that values truth and reason above prejudice. This is why the battle over Harvard's president has broad national consequences. If Lawrence H. Summers loses his job for the crime of positing a politically incorrect hypothesis -- or even if he pays some lesser price for it -- the chilling effect on free inquiry will harm everyone.

The self-evident nature of this truth is what has made Summer's subsequent grovelling so difficult to watch. The ethos at Harvard (and much of academia more generally speaking) is one of idelogical conformity and not a spirt of free inquiry. What Summer's should have done, instead of his craven capitulation, is turn to these would be hegemons and say "No."

One can agree or disagree with this ranking of reasons or with Mr. Summers's reading of the research on gender and ability. But it's contrary to the mission of a university to attack people for provoking fresh thought on big issues -- issues that, as Mr. Summers rightly put it, "are too important to sentimentalize." The furious reaction from some members of the Harvard faculty may reflect disaffection with Mr. Summers's leadership on issues ranging from his questioning of tenure to his expansion of the campus. Mr. Summers has sparked controversies on other subjects, too, including political diversity in the law school, the quality of African American studies and campus criticism of Israel. If those subjects in part underlie the movement against Mr. Summers, his critics should engage them directly and not unjustifiably paint him as an anti-feminist bigot.

I've always thought that blaming Summer's for the relative lack of female tenure decisions is a classic example of scapegoating. In only one instance have I heard of Summer's intervening to deny tenure to a female faculty member, the celebrated "hip-hop scholar." (Somehow that term always seems to deserve more than just quotation marks around it. That doesn't produce the needed level of irony.) It is unclear how Larry Summer's has affected the decisions of the dozens of departments that actually make the tenure decisions. Scapegoating Larry is a good way for faculty members to deflect any blame attaching to themselves.

It is an open question as to how much scrutiny Harvard could stand, as in "put up with." You try telling someone from Harvard that they are wrong about anything. Then you will see their true commitment to "free inquiry." Or, more likely, the lack thereof.