Re: What that evil Harvard president said about women in science
StephenJ 22 February 2005 08:06:58
That certaily seems like a plain enough statement to me. Can you spin> "U.S. off the planet. Out of existence altogether," in some fashion> other than as an advocation of the destruction of the USA?
He tried, but failed miserably.
-- I do not think the United States would come to an end if we lost our power to declare an Act of Congress void. I do think the Union would be imperiled if we could not make that declaration as to the laws of the several States.
Oh wait -- Churchill's right of free speech is defended by the same >>>>>academics that are calling for Summers' firing.>>>>
Cite? On both of those? Or are you lying, again?>>>>
And do they hold the same position? Or are you comparing>>>>fictional apples to fictional oranges.>>>>
rich>>>
There's a known firestorm about Summers' comments from the academic>>>world, yet none apparent about Churchill. What's that say to you?>>
Oh, a known firestorm. Well, as you were. Smirk if you got 'em.>>
* * *>
Furor Lingers as Harvard Chief Gives Details of Talk on Women> By PATRICK D. HEALY and SARA RIMER>
Published: February 18, 2005>
CAMBRIDGE, Mass., Feb. 17 - Bowing to intense pressure from his faculty, > the president of Harvard University, Lawrence H. Summers, on Thursday > released a month-old transcript of his contentious closed-door remarks > about the shortage of women in the sciences and engineering. The > transcript revealed several provocative statements by Dr. Summers about > the "intrinsic aptitude" of women, the career pressures they face and > discrimination within universities.>
Dr. Summers's remarks, which have only been described by others until > now, have fueled a widening crisis on campus, with several professors > talking about taking a vote of no confidence on the president next week. > - That idea alone is unprecedented at Harvard in modern times.>
...Over and over in the transcript, he made clear that he might be wrong > in his theories, and he challenged researchers to study his propositions.>
James Schrumpf 20 February 2005 10:13:59 [ permanent link ]
You nauseate me, Mr. Jeffrey Davis <res099c9@alltel.net>, with a nauseaus super-naus:
James Schrumpf wrote:>> You nauseate me, Mr. Jeffrey Davis <res099c9@alltel.net>, with a>> nauseaus super-naus: >>
James Schrumpf wrote:>>>
You nauseate me, Mr. Jeffrey Davis <res099c9@alltel.net>, with a>>>>nauseaus super-naus: >>>>
James Schrumpf wrote:>>>>>
You nauseate me, Mr. rich hammett <bubbarichau@warmmail.com>, with>>>>>>a nauseaus super-naus:>>>>>>
Minä suojelen sinua kaikelta, mitä ikinä keksitkin sanoa, James>>>>>>>Schrumpf: >>>>>>>
Oh wait -- Churchill's right of free speech is defended by the>>>>>>>>same academics that are calling for Summers' firing.>>>>>>>
Cite? On both of those? Or are you lying, again?>>>>>>>
And do they hold the same position? Or are you comparing>>>>>>>fictional apples to fictional oranges.>>>>>>>
rich>>>>>>
There's a known firestorm about Summers' comments from the>>>>>>academic world, yet none apparent about Churchill. What's that>>>>>>say to you? >>>>>
Oh, a known firestorm. Well, as you were. Smirk if you got 'em.>>>>>
* * *>>>>
Furor Lingers as Harvard Chief Gives Details of Talk on Women>>>>By PATRICK D. HEALY and SARA RIMER>>>>
Published: February 18, 2005>>>>
CAMBRIDGE, Mass., Feb. 17 - Bowing to intense pressure from his>>>>faculty, the president of Harvard University, Lawrence H. Summers,>>>>on Thursday released a month-old transcript of his contentious>>>>closed-door remarks about the shortage of women in the sciences and>>>>engineering. The transcript revealed several provocative statements>>>>by Dr. Summers about the "intrinsic aptitude" of women, the career>>>>pressures they face and discrimination within universities.>>>>
Dr. Summers's remarks, which have only been described by others>>>>until now, have fueled a widening crisis on campus, with several>>>>professors talking about taking a vote of no confidence on the>>>>president next week. - That idea alone is unprecedented at Harvard>>>>in modern times. >>>>
...Over and over in the transcript, he made clear that he might be>>>>wrong in his theories, and he challenged researchers to study his>>>>propositions. >>>>
* * *>>>>
Apology accepted.>>>>
Not given.>>>
Didn't really think it would be. Some people just can't admit when >> they're wrong.>
Do you know why? I hope you don't.>
"yet none apparent about Churchill">
Any number of liberals have denounced Churchill's views. Several here.>
I never said they didn't. I said most of academia was calling for Summer's job, while at the same time defending Churchill. Are you saying both are getting the "free speech" treatment?
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ James Schrumpf http://www.hilltopper.net
Well, look. I mean, is he gonna be able to chase us? Cause if I woke up lookin' like that, I would just run towards the nearest living thing and kill it. -- Master Shake
I don't consider the United States to be> the government, but rather all of us and the land> itself.
So eg if USSR had invaded the USA, toppled our government and installed a communist regime as a soviet republic (as per eastern europe), that wouldn't have been "destroying the USA" either...?
-- I do not think the United States would come to an end if we lost our power to declare an Act of Congress void. I do think the Union would be imperiled if we could not make that declaration as to the laws of the several States.
So eg if USSR had invaded the USA, toppled our government and installed
communist regime as a soviet republic (as per eastern europe), that
wouldn't> > have been "destroying the USA" either...?>
That's called invading another country.
Beside the point, which is... by your definition would the USA be destroyed...?
-- I do not think the United States would come to an end if we lost our power to declare an Act of Congress void. I do think the Union would be imperiled if we could not make that declaration as to the laws of the several States.
Beside the point, which is... by your definition would the USA be> > destroyed...?>
Gee, I already gave you my definition, Mr. Snarky.
Please just answer the question, or else say you're not going to.
-- I do not think the United States would come to an end if we lost our power to declare an Act of Congress void. I do think the Union would be imperiled if we could not make that declaration as to the laws of the several States.
All I have to say about this topic, is that it got way too much attention. Dylan is right about it all being politics within the university, so why is this news, and more importantly, how is it worthy of debate?
Well, they better hurry-up and fire him, because there are many indications he is correct. And there is no greater sin at a university than being correct about a politically incorrect statement.
-Tom Enright
-->
------------------------------------------------------------------------> James Schrumpf http://www.hilltopper.net>
Well, look. I mean, is he gonna be able to chase us? Cause if I woke
lookin' like that, I would just run towards the nearest living thing
