Obsession Massage
Toronto Escorts

For Every Harpers Article Bashing the Right

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
There should be a National Review article doing the same to the left, here's mine by my favorite NR author:

Masters of the Game
The Left on Churchill and Summers.

By Johah Goldberg

If you're a liberal who's still moping like a dog whose food bowl has been moved, thanks to all the conservative victories of late, I have some words of encouragement for you: You guys are still way, way smarter than we are about some things.

Consider the current flap about Ward Churchill and the recent one about Harvard President Larry Summers.

Ward Churchill, as you've probably heard, is a tenured professor of "ethnic studies" at the University of Colorado. Until recently he was the chairman of the department. When invited to another school to give a talk, it came out that he had written an essay comparing the civilian victims of 9/11 to "little Eichmanns." This was a reference to Adolf Eichmann, the chief architect of the Holocaust.

Known for making factually unencumbered statements about the evils of America, Churchill recently gave an interview in which he said he wanted the "U.S. off the planet. Out of existence altogether." He thinks "more 9/11s" are necessary. He holds no Ph.D., and his scholarship — for want of a better word — is under relentless attack. Before the current kerfuffle, he'd attained whatever prominence he had by pretending he was an American Indian radical. He likes to pose with assault rifles. The Rocky Mountain News did a genealogical search of Churchill's past and found that he's basically a vanilla white guy playing Indian and enriching himself in the process. The American Indian Movement called Churchill a fraud years ago.

OK, flash back to the hysteria over Larry Summers. By now his auto-da-fé is old news. But let's recap. One of the most respected economists in America, president of Harvard University, and the former secretary of the Treasury, Summers was invited to a closed-door, off-the-record academic conference at which everyone was encouraged to think unconventionally. Warning his audience several times that he was going to be deliberately "provocative," he suggested that there might be some innate cognitive differences between men and women.

This is not a controversial hypothesis in macroeconomics, and it is losing its taboo status in psychology, genetics, and neuroscience. Thousands of peer-reviewed academic papers have been written on the differences between men and women when it comes to various cognitive functions. Note that I said "differences." Superiority and inferiority don't play into it, and Summers never said otherwise. Indeed, he ventured this hypothesis, after showing his obeisance to the more politically correct explanations: discrimination, not enough effort to recruit women, etc., etc.

cont....

OTB
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
Cont...

So what was the reaction?

An MIT feminist biologist — who moonlights as a feminist activist — quickly got the vapors and stormed out of the room for fear of fainting. If she stayed any longer, she explained, she'd vomit. Derrick Jackson of the Boston Globe compared Summers to people who cavalierly bandy about the N-word or who thoughtlessly wear swastikas. One hundred members of the Harvard faculty drafted a letter demanding that he apologize. The National Organization for Women demanded that he resign.

The dean of engineering at the University of Washington called his comments "an intellectual tsunami." Since the Asian catastrophe had only just transpired, the tastelessness of the metaphor may not be as apparent now as it was then. Regardless, if his comments were a tsunami, Summers's critics have certainly cashed in on the disaster-relief effort.

Forced to apologize over and over, Summers was then bullied into appointing not one but two new "task forces" on gender equity. Staffed with 22 women and five men, the task forces will no doubt discover that much more work needs to be done and that Summers should apologize more.

In the Summers affair, free speech and academic freedom barely came up, except among a few conservative commentators and one or two academics who were already known for their political incorrectness. Instead, Summers was a pinata to be bashed for material rewards and to send the message that some subjects — no matter what the evidence — are simply taboo even for serious scholars to discuss in closed-door, off-the-record meetings.

Meanwhile, Ward Churchill, whose scholarship is a joke, whose evidence is tendentious at best, and who called the victims of 9/11 the moral equivalent of a man who sent babies to the gas chambers, is a hero of free speech. He has refused to apologize. Many conservatives are forced to defend free speech and "diversity" in academia while liberals let the NOWers feed on Summers's flesh.

Liberals may despise what Churchill said, but it's a matter of principle now. The normally insightful and fair Mort Kondracke declared on Fox News, "I really think it's useful for universities to have people like this around, to show students and the rest of us just how odious some of the ideas of the far Left are." Would Kondracke punt on a professor who'd endorsed slavery? I somehow doubt it.

Hopefully — and, I think, probably — someone will find enough academic fraud to fire Churchill for cause. No doubt, we'll hear from many on the left about the "chilling effect" such a move would have on "academic freedom," and many conservatives will clear their throats in embarrassment. You really have to marvel at how the other side has mastered this game

OTB
 

Peeping Tom

Boil them in Oil
Dec 24, 2002
803
0
0
Hellholes of the earth
There are signs that a firing is about to happen. This clown is despicable, even by the "standards" of the left. But, some good will come from this. Its not just that this time he got caught - many wonder just how much similar drivel this clown has put out over the years. Many wonder just how many more scumbags are hiding in the academic world.

Anyways, to your point: the cultural clergy are on the run now but not defeated - it will take much more work to finish the job.

onthebottom said:
Cont...

Hopefully — and, I think, probably — someone will find enough academic fraud to fire Churchill for cause. No doubt, we'll hear from many on the left about the "chilling effect" such a move would have on "academic freedom," and many conservatives will clear their throats in embarrassment. You really have to marvel at how the other side has mastered this game
 

happygrump

Once more into the breach
May 21, 2004
820
0
0
Waterloo Region
As expected, the political right missed the exit that led to common sense in their headlong rush to the turnoff for ideology.

This isn't about left vs right. Just because Goldberg says it is does not make it so. It's also not about academic freedom. This is about competence.

If Goldberg is correct in his assertion that Churchill is making factually unencumbered statements about the evils of America (and, glaringly, Goldberg offers no support to this position, making Goldberg's argument sloppy at best, and deliberately misleading at worst) then clearly there's cause for dismissal.

Tenure and academic freedom is a double-edged sword, and is designed specifically to create discomfort. However, in general the system works very well. It's largely the political right that takes these extremely rare circumstances and uses them for political gain. But so what else is new? They encourage an atmosphere of fear, then set themselves up as coming to the rescue. It's a very old ploy, and they're masters at it.
 
Y

yychobbyist

I have to agree with HG on this one - what does this have to do with "the left" or "the right". My post was far more interesting.

Seems like a pretty weak argument against the left. But then it's NR....
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
yychobbyist said:
I have to agree with HG on this one - what does this have to do with "the left" or "the right". My post was far more interesting.

Seems like a pretty weak argument against the left. But then it's NR....
Your post was completely devoid of interest.

Two academics, one fairly well accredited, one not. One says that men and women may process information differently and is put thru the ringer, the other says that the WTC had "little Eichmans" that deserved it. To not see the hypocrisy is to not be paying attention.

OTB
 

happygrump

Once more into the breach
May 21, 2004
820
0
0
Waterloo Region
onthebottom said:
Two academics, one fairly well accredited, one not. One says that men and women may process information differently and is put thru the ringer, the other says that the WTC had "little Eichmans" that deserved it. To not see the hypocrisy is to not be paying attention.

OTB
OTB, it's not like you to miss the point.

The poorly accredited academic (at least based on Goldberg's largely unsupported assertions) is clearly worthy of his walking papers. The other example, at least as I understand it, is about the often-ugly process of academic tenure. But guess what? That's how these things work. It's not that much different than creating legislation - or sausage.

Now, if your assertion was about the decline of the American university, or the cancerous affliction of political correctness, or even the sloppy reporting of Goldberg, then you certainly would have a vaild point to make. But to throw out the tired old left vs. right smokescreen does your argument a disservice. And that is truly too bad, because from what I've seen you're clearly much more intelligent than that.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
The simple point, and one I'm surprised you've missed, is that in one case where someone says something stupid the left throws up the free speech defense and in the other takes the person to the wood shed. Even if the two people were equal (not a chance in hell this is true) or their offences equal (same no chance in hell) this would be hypocrisy.

OTB
 

someone

Active member
Jun 7, 2003
4,307
1
36
Earth
onthebottom said:
This is not a controversial hypothesis in macroeconomics
Given that it has nothing at all to do with macroeconomics, saying that it is not a controversial hypothesis in macroeconomics is a meaningless statement.

Summers is a very smart man who is used to saying controversial things. He is the same guy who created a controversy a few years ago at the World Bank when a memo he wrote advocating trade in toxic waste between first world and third world countries leaked out. This current controversy will be forgotten as that one was. Harvard is a very good university that will respect academic freedom (although I understand many at Harvard are upset at changes he has made in other areas).
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
happygrump said:
But, other than Goldberg's characterization, where's the left vs. right issue?
He's saying that the left does a great job of protecting their speech and demonizing the speech they disagree with, and that they do this better than the right.

Geeze, you guys need some caffeine.

OTB
 

happygrump

Once more into the breach
May 21, 2004
820
0
0
Waterloo Region
No argument about the caffeine!

But I'm still unclear why this has to devolve into a left vs. right issue. Only Goldberg draws that parallel, but his rather messy style doesn't give much credence to his argument. No one else in the article draws that conclusion, just Goldberg himself, which tells me much more about him than it does about his subject matter.

Obviously, it's panacea to expect journalists and even academics to come to a topic without bias, so I don't automatically draw the conclusion that Goldberg is necessarily wrong. But all I'm saying is that he doesn't back up his assertions. Saying so doesn't make it so. Hence, the reason I see this more as an argument about the perils of academic freedom, tenure and responsibility.

But that's just me.

Now, on to coffee #3... pass the cream.
 

slowpoke

New member
Oct 22, 2004
2,899
0
0
Toronto
onthebottom said:
He's saying that the left does a great job of protecting their speech and demonizing the speech they disagree with, and that they do this better than the right.

Geeze, you guys need some caffeine.

OTB
It is just too easy for you to casually label these aberrations of academe as representative of left wing intolerance or liberals "demonizing the speech they disagree with". There are a plenty of examples of extreme right wing pathology out there too, but you rarely see Canadians pretending that these are indicative or typical of the right wing. We're too busy lampooning your foreign policy and that nasty little prick Dubya.

It is interesting how Goldberg provides detailed descriptions of the two incidents, both involving extremes of academic craziness, then he launches into a very cursory analysis of how the reactions to each are so unfair and so different. He then, inexplicably, attempts to give it a liberal / left wing label. Very shoddy. Somewhere in the following three short paragraphs he has moved from a simple description of the events to his anti liberal conclusions. I still don't see any evidence to support those conclusions. Just more right wing propaganda posing as factual commentary.



"...Meanwhile, Ward Churchill, whose scholarship is a joke, whose evidence is tendentious at best, and who called the victims of 9/11 the moral equivalent of a man who sent babies to the gas chambers, is a hero of free speech. He has refused to apologize. Many conservatives are forced to defend free speech and "diversity" in academia while liberals let the NOWers feed on Summers's flesh.

Liberals may despise what Churchill said, but it's a matter of principle now. The normally insightful and fair Mort Kondracke declared on Fox News, "I really think it's useful for universities to have people like this around, to show students and the rest of us just how odious some of the ideas of the far Left are." Would Kondracke punt on a professor who'd endorsed slavery? I somehow doubt it.

Hopefully — and, I think, probably — someone will find enough academic fraud to fire Churchill for cause. No doubt, we'll hear from many on the left about the "chilling effect" such a move would have on "academic freedom," and many conservatives will clear their throats in embarrassment. You really have to marvel at how the other side has mastered this game..."
 
Toronto Escorts