When Academic Snobs Attack

CFP ^ | February 25, 2005 | Frank Salvato

[MikeEdwards]

Some may say it’s nothing to laugh about but I can’t help but find humor when the snobs of the academic elite find themselves mired in paradoxical hypocrisy. One can almost smell the heat from their cerebral wheels, the publicly funded oil burning away, as they try to come up with an explanation of why they are between such a rock and a hard place. It reminds me of the old Bill Cosby bit about the student who asked his Catholic teacher the hypothetical question, “Father, if God can do anything, can He Himself make a rock so big that He can’t move it?” All the priest could say was “Sit down, Don.”

If, for the sake of analogy, our liberally slanted education community is a ship that ship is listing so hard to port all it can do is sail to the left. An image of a disabled vessel constantly drifting to port, doomed to an eternity of increasing insignificance comes to mind. Within one of these seven circles of Dantesque liberal hell is the paradox of Lawrence Summers and Ward Churchill.

Unless you have been too caught up in the non-reporting of the facts by the mainstream media, you know that liberal activists on our college campuses are in an uproar over two of their own; Lawrence Summers, the president of Harvard University, and Ward Churchill, a professor from the University of Colorado. Both of these men – having made controversial statements – find themselves engaged in battles involving their First Amendment free speech rights. . . . .

[Jimmy Valentine's brother]

Ah Freezie back from the wars I see. Play fair and only use one half of your 'Cliffie brain.

(((HUGGS)))

[FreeTheHostages]

"Also, under your logic, this means that white men are being discriminated against in favor of Asian women, right?"

See post above. No, I've never said that nature has to give abilities equally. You keep saying that I'm saying that. I'm not. I think this is a good-faith miscommunication. Please read above again. Those stats indicate that socializaiton (Asian Americans toward math) remains a potent factor that at least in these two subgroups trumps innate abilities (a presumed natural preference/ability male over female in math). That's why I chose those two groups. It's interesting data, when thinking about Summers' thesis that socialization isn't an issue anymore.

[FreeTheHostages]

Play fair? Ah, c'mon. That's no fun!! Just not going to let too many nice things about a Clintonista show up in our august pages.

Hee hee, someone actually called me "baby" here under the theory that it would bother me! LOL. We're actually debating whether I personally am smarter than so-and-so here, as if THAT mattered, but I think the more amusing debate would be whether I was more of a "baby"! ;)

Regards,

[Ed_in_NJ]

"all it can do is sail to the left" - and, like the fabled and extinct bird, as they sail in arcs of ever decreasing circumference, they will eventually sail up their own arseholes.

[safeasthebanks]

Sorry, but for as much as you have quoted and excerpted Summers, it doesn't appear you are comprehending what he said. In fact, I'm not sure that you two don't actually AGREE more than you think!

First, I've never seen a complete transcript, so certainly correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Summers was responding to the usual radical implication that the marginal number (not marginal people!) of women at the upper eschelons in certain scientific fields is ipso facto due to discrimination by men. Is this not correct?

It seems to me he then outlined three "broad hypothesis" as to what could be causing this disparity. One of which WAS "different socialization and patterns of discrimination". I don't see where he ever says that this ISN'T a problem. He only later concludes that it is NOW less of a problem than the other two reasons he describes. Where am I wrong on this? (And, if the above interpretation is correct,I must say I would tend to agree with him.)

More importantly, aren't you basically saying this also? That, while there is still certainly some discrimination out there, most of the current differences in the proportion of men to women in math and science arenas is due to other factors, one being different physiology between the sexes.

Explain to me where I'm wrong here.

[FreeTheHostages]

Sure. Summers assumes -- economist are sooo good at that, huh!? -- that innate ability is more of a factor than socialization/discrimination.

There's just no evidence that innate ability is more of a factor. And anyone who has actually *been* in the Harvard math and physics departments would have to disagree.

I would have to say that just about *everything* in Summers speech, *except* his reference to the possibility/probability of innate differentials, is pretty much wrong. E.g., the childcare thing. Hello! On the planet earth, women who at 22 are thinking about getting doctorates in math and physics -- who are the caliber where they're a reasonable prospect for a top graduate school that might lead them into the sparse population for tenure in the fields -- are *not* thinking about starting a family? I mean, he has not met these women! I was one of them. We are the geekiest, late-marrying type of women you'd ever want to meet.

Summers really has to go and actually visit his math and physics department some day. And y'all conservative males have to be mindful, when you talk about equality of opportunity, that you don't "assume away" or "wish away" socialization and discrimination as *major* factors in this particular area of the sciences for women. That's the main thrust of Summers speech -- placing that as lower-ranking to innate ability -- and there's no science to support it. Seriously, Massachusetts Hall in Harvard Yard is not that far from the Science Center: Summers should go take a walk to the math and physics department and learn something.

Here's something I don't dispute, something I snipped from, I gag, ABC news report -- pretty good summary of what little we know of the science:

---

In recent years, scientists have found that male and female brains are wired differently from one another, due to the role of testosterone and other male hormones during gestation. Brains growing under the influence of male hormones are slightly larger and have denser concentrations of neurons in some regions.

Male brains also contain a greater proportion of gray matter, the part of the brain responsible for computation, while women have relatively more white matter, which specializes in making connections between brain cells.

Brain-imaging studies suggest that both sexes exploit these differences to their benefit. UCLA researchers have done brain scans of men and women who scored in the top 1 percent on the math section of the SAT. As they worked on math problems, the men relied heavily on the grey matter in the brain's parietal and cerebral cortices. Women showed greater activity in areas dominated by the well-connected white matter.

"Maybe they're doing the math using the white matter," Haier says. "It's not completely unreasonable."

So men and women appear to use their brains differently in some situations. Does that make any difference in how smart they are?

The short answer is no. Average IQ is the same among men and women.

But it's the long answer, which considers different kinds of cognitive ability and speculates about how they are distributed among individuals in the two sexes, that has been raised in support of Summers' remarks.

Intelligence tests have found that men, on average, perform better on spatial tasks that require mentally rotating or otherwise manipulating objects. Men also do better on tests of mathematical reasoning. Women tend to do better than men on tasks requiring verbal memory and distinguishing whether objects are similar or different. The relative strengths even out, so on average the sexes are of equal intelligence.

Some studies also have suggested that the IQ distribution is more spread out among men. If that is true, then there are proportionately more men at the extremely brilliant end of the IQ scale and the dull end as well.

[FreeTheHostages]

to be really really clear, I believe you accurate summarize him when you type "He only later concludes that it is NOW less of a problem than the other two reasons he describes" and I believe that -- as to women in math and science at the doctoral level -- that's complete bunk.

[safeasthebanks]

Sorry, but I still am not clear on what your major dispute with ol' Larry is (and, yes, he is a liberal turd, generally).

I can't help but agree with him that, at this point, any remaining disparities between the proportion of males to females at the top levels of certain fields IS NOT mainly due to discrimination but rather due to other inherent differences between how the sexes are wired (notice I said NOT MAINLY - there will always be some discrimination unfortunately, be based on sex, race, religion or what not).

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree, though I'm still not sure what we disagree on cause it seems to me you think the same thing.

Oh well. Thanks for the debate(?).

[F. Barnard]

Hmmm, so Ken21 offers no evidence whatsoever about the role of college professors in public life before World War II. I mention one very prominent former college prof who mattered deeply. And now I'm the person who's using inadequate evidence?! LOL.

I'm guessing that none of us is old enough to have been an adult before World War II, so his, your, and my beliefs are going to have to be based on some evidence other than personal experience. What's your basis for saying that college profs didn't matter before WWII? It's cheap to charge me with arguing from anecdotal evidence; pretty darn good anecdote, btw. So put up some alternative evidence.

Now, on a separate point--maybe college profs don't matter today. I actually think college profs are largely irrelevant to contemporary politics and less relevant to politics now than before World War II. That's one of the reasons why I'm surprised that anyone cares what happens to Larry Summers. If what's happening at colleges is really irrelevant, though, one must ask why so many are concerned with what's happening at Harvard? Or Columbia? Or what books Harvard University Press is publishing?

[safeasthebanks]

1. Please understand, I 'm not saying you're using inadequate evidence, I'm saying you're using BOGUS evidence! Woodrow Wilson became visible enough to be POTUS because he was PRESIDENT of Princeton and, more importantly, HE WAS GOVERNOR OF NJ! Two points you conveniently forgot to mention. His "visibility" as a teaching professor was well before his presidency. Do you believe GWB has raised the "visibility" of MLB team owners by becoming POTUS? (not)

2. I think Ken21's original point was obvious and needed no further "evidence". Hell, how many people even went to college back before WW2?

3. Any other bogus points you want to raise lefty? Or maybe you just want to post another wonderfully insightful article from The Guardian? Either way I'm wasting no nore time with you!

[F. Barnard]

Uh, actually I did mention Wilson was a college president before becoming president of the United States. But leaving aside for the moment that you mischaracterized my post, you're back to no evidence is needed for your point?! Wow.

Now, if the point is, were college profs (and I guess we're talking about political science here) more or less important before World War II than they are now, Wilson's relevant. Wilson was able to become governor of New Jersey because of his prominence at Princeton--further evidence of the importance of colleges in the pre-WWII era. And you might recall that Wilson's actions in leading the country into the League of Nations were an outgrowth of his background as a political scientist. If your point is no one cares about what political science profs say now, I'd mostly agree with you.

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

The higher up in academia you go, the sillier and goofier it gets.

It might not be a bad idea every few years or so to throw most of the main characters out on the street and start all over again from scratch.

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

"And you might recall that Wilson's actions in leading the country into the League of Nations were an outgrowth of his background as a political scientist."

This reminds me of a joke I heard once: "If there had been one more Ivy Leauge brain on our team at Yalta or Potsdam, the Russians would have gotten Westminster Abbey."

[sitetest]

Dear HM-BA,

For some real silliness, come on over here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1354449/posts


sitetest

[safeasthebanks]

This is the last bit of time I'm wasting on you.....

Here is your exact first post "Before World War II, college professors weren't visible (I guess you mean important)? Huh? Woodrow Wilson might disagree with that."

You made NO mention of him being Princeton President! In a later post you mention this, but conspicuously LEAVE OUT him being the freakin' governor of NJ prior to his becoming President. Typical left wing bad faith argument style.

Ken's original point about college professors is obviously true. As I said, there were far fewer of them and far fewer people they were teaching back then. Here's another news flash for you lib, the earth is round! And no, I'm not going to provide any further proof.

Face it lefty, you got busted, as all of you do ultimately here at FR!

[dsc]

"A physiology professor is going to be much more conservative than the average psychiatry professor. Business professors are more conservative and saner than art history instructors."

Not to mention a LOT smarter.

[F. Barnard]

Er, I thought your last post was the last time you were going to spend on me.

Thanks for recognizing that I mentioned Wilson as college president. But here's what I find strange. You mischaracterized my argument, then you have the audacity to say that I'm engaging in bad faith argument?! Come on. You're better than that. And as you're calling me out for bad faith, you ignore my suggestion that Wilson's move from president of Princeton to governor of New Jersey illustrates the (former) power of universities. Don't think you'd see that kind of move today.

(You might note that in the first post, I made no mention of Wilson being a college professor, Princeton president, NJ governor, OR EVEN president of the United States; I had assumed that folks would know his career trajectory from college prof to president of Princeton, through to President of the United States.)
Now, just because fewer people went to college doesn't mean that colleges were less important pre-WWII than they are today. The number of people going to college isn't the sole measure of the importance of college. It's entirely possible that in a period when fewer went, it was more important--because more a mark of distinction. And perhaps because college profs tried to be more relevant; they spoke to the community more and tried to be a part of it, instead of isolating themselves.

BTW, I'm no Wilson fan. TR was my sort of man.

[dsc]

"I assume that they're bigotted and unaware that they're bigotted, because they just can't see"

Whichever, you're still assuming.

It just could be that you're dead wrong.

It just could be that, if only one in 10,000 men have sufficient intelligence to do top-level, original research in physics, only one in 100,000 women do.

Men and women are hard-wired differently. Not the same brain. Men are better at some things, women at others. Get used to it.

It might help you to read Thomas Sowell's excellent analyses of the errors inherent in assuming that statistical differences are indicators of discrimination.