Shots In The Dark
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
How We Choose Our Presidents
The Washington Post reports that voters care more about whether a candidate smokes than his or her race....
Barack, time to quit.
I wonder why, though. Do they think the president will get cancer in office? Do they feel that smoking is retro? That it's a sign of weakness? That it's suggestive of smoky back-room politics?
Or is it just—my theory—that we have so many negative connotations about smoking, we impose them on people who smoke?
Which, in my opinion, is not entirely unfair. I do look at Obama's inability to quit and see it as a sign of weakness.
Oh, and bad news for Mitt Romney: 3 in 10 voters say they'd be less likely to vote for a Mormon....
Barack, time to quit.
I wonder why, though. Do they think the president will get cancer in office? Do they feel that smoking is retro? That it's a sign of weakness? That it's suggestive of smoky back-room politics?
Or is it just—my theory—that we have so many negative connotations about smoking, we impose them on people who smoke?
Which, in my opinion, is not entirely unfair. I do look at Obama's inability to quit and see it as a sign of weakness.
Oh, and bad news for Mitt Romney: 3 in 10 voters say they'd be less likely to vote for a Mormon....
More on the New Republic
A relative points out the greatest example of The New Republic's editorial failure in recent memory: Its dogged support of Joe Lieberman against Ned Lamont in the 2006 Connecticut Senate election.
As expected, Lieberman is acting like a spoiled, petulant brat in the Senate, continually threatening to take his ball and go home. He is an embarrassment to my home state and to his once credible reputation.
The New Republic's failure to realize that Lieberman is a politician whose time has gone typifies the kind of editorial idiocy that has led the magazine to cut its frequency of publication in half. They wonder why their circulation is slipping....
As expected, Lieberman is acting like a spoiled, petulant brat in the Senate, continually threatening to take his ball and go home. He is an embarrassment to my home state and to his once credible reputation.
The New Republic's failure to realize that Lieberman is a politician whose time has gone typifies the kind of editorial idiocy that has led the magazine to cut its frequency of publication in half. They wonder why their circulation is slipping....
Is Harvard Following Yale's Lead?
The Yale Daily News suggests that, if Harvard is lucky, Drew Faust may be a president in the mode of Yale's Rick Levin—just as Larry Summers was a president in the mode of the disastrous, where-is-he-now? Benno Schmidt.
Following the turmoil under Schmidt and Summers, both of whom were appointed from outside their respective universities, search committees at both schools picked insider candidates who displayed leadership styles markedly different from their predecessors. Whereas Schmidt and Summers engendered ire among their faculties, Levin and Faust are, by all accounts, widely respected at their institutions.....
Yale has enjoyed a period of stability, prosperity and growth under Levin; Harvard would welcome the same. But would it be satisfied with the same?
Following the turmoil under Schmidt and Summers, both of whom were appointed from outside their respective universities, search committees at both schools picked insider candidates who displayed leadership styles markedly different from their predecessors. Whereas Schmidt and Summers engendered ire among their faculties, Levin and Faust are, by all accounts, widely respected at their institutions.....
Yale has enjoyed a period of stability, prosperity and growth under Levin; Harvard would welcome the same. But would it be satisfied with the same?
Boycotting Summers?
So, as part of the rehabilitation of Larry Summers, Tufts president Lawrence Bacow invited the hedge fund employee and former Harvard president to give a talk. Innocent enough, right? Well, now some Tufts professors are calling for a boycott of Summers' lecture.
According to InsideHigherEd....
Having Larry Summers here is like a slap in the face,” said Gary Goldstein, a professor in the physics and astronomy department. “I see him being invited here as a lack of awareness about how that affects our campus environment.
How exactly does it affect your "campus environment," Professor Goldstein?
(In fairness to the professor, I should at least mention his argument: It's a high-profile lecture series which he feels has been weighted toward conservative speakers—apparently Summers falls into that category—at the expense of "progressive" speakers.)
I, um, haven't always been supportive of Summers. But the man has hardly done anything boycott-worthy. All this does is confirm Summers' arguments about the mediocrity of the professoriat.
(Although at least Goldstein is a scientist; if he were a humanist, all of Summers' stereotypes would be fulfilled.)
Goldstein goes on to say, "Having Larry Summers here is like a slap in the face." Professor Goldstein is clearly a sensitive man.
On another note, Summers' talk is entitled "Rethinking Undergraduate Education." Is this more evidence that Summers is working on a book about universities?
According to InsideHigherEd....
Having Larry Summers here is like a slap in the face,” said Gary Goldstein, a professor in the physics and astronomy department. “I see him being invited here as a lack of awareness about how that affects our campus environment.
How exactly does it affect your "campus environment," Professor Goldstein?
(In fairness to the professor, I should at least mention his argument: It's a high-profile lecture series which he feels has been weighted toward conservative speakers—apparently Summers falls into that category—at the expense of "progressive" speakers.)
I, um, haven't always been supportive of Summers. But the man has hardly done anything boycott-worthy. All this does is confirm Summers' arguments about the mediocrity of the professoriat.
(Although at least Goldstein is a scientist; if he were a humanist, all of Summers' stereotypes would be fulfilled.)
Goldstein goes on to say, "Having Larry Summers here is like a slap in the face." Professor Goldstein is clearly a sensitive man.
On another note, Summers' talk is entitled "Rethinking Undergraduate Education." Is this more evidence that Summers is working on a book about universities?
Faust Cleans House
Drew Faust is wasting no time; as the Crimson reports, Harvard v-p for Alumni Relations and Development Donnella M. Rapier has announced her resignation. As even Rapier seems to admit, Drew Faust fired her.
This move has been expected since about five minutes after Faust was named. As one person told me at the time, "They're going to get rid of Donella because she's a Larry person and because she couldn't get a campaign off the ground." Some felt that she wasn't qualified for the job, that she was "in way over her head."
Who will Faust install in Rapier's place? Put your money on longtime aide Tamara Rogers, who went to Harvard-Radcliffe, has worked at Harvard for ages, has a good reputation and is well-liked both within and outside the university.
Who's next on the chopping block? It would be grossly unfair to speculate....
This move has been expected since about five minutes after Faust was named. As one person told me at the time, "They're going to get rid of Donella because she's a Larry person and because she couldn't get a campaign off the ground." Some felt that she wasn't qualified for the job, that she was "in way over her head."
Who will Faust install in Rapier's place? Put your money on longtime aide Tamara Rogers, who went to Harvard-Radcliffe, has worked at Harvard for ages, has a good reputation and is well-liked both within and outside the university.
Who's next on the chopping block? It would be grossly unfair to speculate....
Monday, February 26, 2007
The New Republic Splits in Half
I was saddened by the news that the New Republic, where I began my career in political journalism, has lost so much circulation that it is moving from a weekly to a biweekly.
I am also saddened by the magazine's peremptory announcement that we subscribers will now simply be receiving half as many issues as we paid for, and too bad about that.
And, finally, I am amused by editor Franklin Foer's remark that the magazine now hopes to publish articles that will "transcend ideology."
This sounds very much like what my old boss, John Kennedy, said when he described the new magazine he was creating, George, as "post-partisan."
Transcend ideology...post-partisan...yup, pretty much the same thing.
But what magazine ripped John a new one for coining that term? You guessed it: The New Republic. First, literary editor Leon Wieseltier trashed the magazine in a column he essentially co-wrote with his old friend, Maureen Dowd. "The message of George is...don't take politics seriously." Etc., etc.
Then TNR published an absolutely vicious piece accusing John of squandering his family's dignity. (News to William Kennedy Smith, I'm sure.)
What wonderful irony! Twelve years after George was founded, TNR admits that John was right. (I'm not holding my breath waiting for an apology.)
And the irony goes even deeper...because at the moment, those political magazines which have the passion to take on the Bush administration are actually doing well. This might actually be a moment when a little ideology would be a good thing.
The reason TNR has been slumping for years is not that it isn't viable. It's because it's been badly edited....
I am also saddened by the magazine's peremptory announcement that we subscribers will now simply be receiving half as many issues as we paid for, and too bad about that.
And, finally, I am amused by editor Franklin Foer's remark that the magazine now hopes to publish articles that will "transcend ideology."
This sounds very much like what my old boss, John Kennedy, said when he described the new magazine he was creating, George, as "post-partisan."
Transcend ideology...post-partisan...yup, pretty much the same thing.
But what magazine ripped John a new one for coining that term? You guessed it: The New Republic. First, literary editor Leon Wieseltier trashed the magazine in a column he essentially co-wrote with his old friend, Maureen Dowd. "The message of George is...don't take politics seriously." Etc., etc.
Then TNR published an absolutely vicious piece accusing John of squandering his family's dignity. (News to William Kennedy Smith, I'm sure.)
What wonderful irony! Twelve years after George was founded, TNR admits that John was right. (I'm not holding my breath waiting for an apology.)
And the irony goes even deeper...because at the moment, those political magazines which have the passion to take on the Bush administration are actually doing well. This might actually be a moment when a little ideology would be a good thing.
The reason TNR has been slumping for years is not that it isn't viable. It's because it's been badly edited....
Stanford's Buckraking President
On Saturday, the Wall Street Journal published a shocking and terrifically good piece about Stanford president John Hennessy. (Online, but available to subscribers only; the Stanford Daily writes about it, not very well, here.)
Illustrated by artwork showing Hennessy holding a thick wad of cash, the article begins by noting that last November Hennessy earned more than $1 million, none of which came from his presidential salary. The money included a $75,000 retainer from Cisco and revenues from sales of stock in Cisco, Atheros Communications and Google, where he sits on the board.
That month makes up only one part of an income stream that many in academia consdier without precedent for a university president. In the past five years, through exclusive investments and relationships with companies, Mr. Hennessy has collected fees, stock and paper stock-option profits totalling $43 million...That dwarfs his $616,000 annual compensation at Stanford.....
Mr. Hennessy's outside business interests crisscross his life at Stanford. Stanford and Google have a number of business relationships, giving Mr Hennessy a seat on both sides of the table. He has invested in venture-capital firms generally inaccessible to the public, many of which invest the university's money. Mr. Hennessy has introduced some of these firms to promising Stanford entepreneurs. He has also put his own money into Stanford-based projects.
The article then goes on to detail conflicts of interest that would make an Enron executive blush. It is astonishing that Stanford's board of trustees permits this—but because Hennessy is a gifted fundraiser, it does.
This is a fascinating and important story; you can't help but think that it's only a matter of time till one of Hennessy's investments blows up in Stanford's face.
And the article realizes something very important: As universities get richer and richer, and those who work at them fall prey to the greed that courses through today's money culture, the way that universities are reported on needs to change. Universities must be considered subjects for business, political and investigative reporting. At the moment, universities exist in a gray area where they exploit private sector opportunities while claiming to be non-profits that should be reported on only for that aspect of their work. Meanwhile, the money pours in, and university officials reach out their arms—and open their pockets—to catch it....
Here's a suggestion for Derek Bok: President Bok, you've written eloquently on ethical issues regarding universities and the private sector, but your writings have been reluctant to mention specifics and spark controversy.
You could do an enormous service here by writing about the increasing profiteering of university presidencies—it's astonishing to read how many university presidents earn lucrative outside incomes by sitting on corporate boards which have business before their universities—and naming names.
Illustrated by artwork showing Hennessy holding a thick wad of cash, the article begins by noting that last November Hennessy earned more than $1 million, none of which came from his presidential salary. The money included a $75,000 retainer from Cisco and revenues from sales of stock in Cisco, Atheros Communications and Google, where he sits on the board.
That month makes up only one part of an income stream that many in academia consdier without precedent for a university president. In the past five years, through exclusive investments and relationships with companies, Mr. Hennessy has collected fees, stock and paper stock-option profits totalling $43 million...That dwarfs his $616,000 annual compensation at Stanford.....
Mr. Hennessy's outside business interests crisscross his life at Stanford. Stanford and Google have a number of business relationships, giving Mr Hennessy a seat on both sides of the table. He has invested in venture-capital firms generally inaccessible to the public, many of which invest the university's money. Mr. Hennessy has introduced some of these firms to promising Stanford entepreneurs. He has also put his own money into Stanford-based projects.
The article then goes on to detail conflicts of interest that would make an Enron executive blush. It is astonishing that Stanford's board of trustees permits this—but because Hennessy is a gifted fundraiser, it does.
This is a fascinating and important story; you can't help but think that it's only a matter of time till one of Hennessy's investments blows up in Stanford's face.
And the article realizes something very important: As universities get richer and richer, and those who work at them fall prey to the greed that courses through today's money culture, the way that universities are reported on needs to change. Universities must be considered subjects for business, political and investigative reporting. At the moment, universities exist in a gray area where they exploit private sector opportunities while claiming to be non-profits that should be reported on only for that aspect of their work. Meanwhile, the money pours in, and university officials reach out their arms—and open their pockets—to catch it....
Here's a suggestion for Derek Bok: President Bok, you've written eloquently on ethical issues regarding universities and the private sector, but your writings have been reluctant to mention specifics and spark controversy.
You could do an enormous service here by writing about the increasing profiteering of university presidencies—it's astonishing to read how many university presidents earn lucrative outside incomes by sitting on corporate boards which have business before their universities—and naming names.
Faust the Aristocrat
In the Globe yesterday, the M-Bomb and Maria Sacchetti wrote this long and interesting profile of Drew Faust. The dominant theme is that Faust was composed and mature from an early age—the letter-writing to Eisenhower was hardly an isolated example.
The part of the piece I most enjoyed delved into Faust's childhood. Knowing that Faust went to prep school, I knew that hers couldn't have been such a hardscrabble existence. Turns out that Faust grew up with extraordinary privilege.
Catharine Drew Gilpin was born on Sept. 18, 1947 , in New York City to the former Catharine Mellick , a New Jersey socialite, and McGhee Tyson Gilpin , a Princeton graduate from Virginia who became a thoroughbred horse breeder. Her parents, who met on a fox hunt, lived near New York before she was born.
[Blogger: Her parents met on a fox hunt? Fabulous. You can't make this stuff up.]
"The Gilpins are to Clarke County what the Kennedys are to Hyannisport," said Paul Jones , a retired school principal who once worked with Faust's uncle. "You would go by Scaleby and look at how the other half lived."
Great stuff.
Here's a question: Would a young woman from that background today go in Faust's direction, living a life of hard work, leadership, and accomplishment? Or, as part of America's money culture, would she follow the Paris Hilton model?
(Hint: This is not so much a question about feminism as it is one about American cultural decline.)
The part of the piece I most enjoyed delved into Faust's childhood. Knowing that Faust went to prep school, I knew that hers couldn't have been such a hardscrabble existence. Turns out that Faust grew up with extraordinary privilege.
Catharine Drew Gilpin was born on Sept. 18, 1947 , in New York City to the former Catharine Mellick , a New Jersey socialite, and McGhee Tyson Gilpin , a Princeton graduate from Virginia who became a thoroughbred horse breeder. Her parents, who met on a fox hunt, lived near New York before she was born.
[Blogger: Her parents met on a fox hunt? Fabulous. You can't make this stuff up.]
The family later moved near Millwood, in Clarke County, Va. Known as "Drewdie," she was raised mainly at Lakeville Farm , a white farmhouse on hundreds of acres with a view of the Blue Ridge Mountains. At Scaleby , their grandmother's estate nearby, she and her three brothers swam in the pools and read by the fire in the Georgian mansion, with crystal chandeliers and a ballroom on the top floor.
[Blogger: The pools, plural?]"The Gilpins are to Clarke County what the Kennedys are to Hyannisport," said Paul Jones , a retired school principal who once worked with Faust's uncle. "You would go by Scaleby and look at how the other half lived."
Great stuff.
Here's a question: Would a young woman from that background today go in Faust's direction, living a life of hard work, leadership, and accomplishment? Or, as part of America's money culture, would she follow the Paris Hilton model?
(Hint: This is not so much a question about feminism as it is one about American cultural decline.)
A Minor Correction
In the Crimson, Samuel Jacobs writes:
But after working at John F. Kennedy Jr.’s George magazine and writing a book about the magazine’s late founder—its publication complicated by lawsuits and allegations that Bradley was profiting off Kennedy’s death—the New York writer found himself drawn to Harvard and following its players.
All true, except that there weren't any lawsuits involved. Threats of lawsuits, sure. But on one actually followed through...because they would have lost. There was really nothing to sue about.
Perhaps the Crimson was thinking of this $12.5 million libel suit that was filed against me?
But after working at John F. Kennedy Jr.’s George magazine and writing a book about the magazine’s late founder—its publication complicated by lawsuits and allegations that Bradley was profiting off Kennedy’s death—the New York writer found himself drawn to Harvard and following its players.
All true, except that there weren't any lawsuits involved. Threats of lawsuits, sure. But on one actually followed through...because they would have lost. There was really nothing to sue about.
Perhaps the Crimson was thinking of this $12.5 million libel suit that was filed against me?
I Blush Crimson Red
Today's Crimson has a story about this little ol' blog.
Since breaking ground two winters ago, Shots in the Dark has become a motley circus, filled with its own distinct set of acts and performers with Bradley serving as ringmaster. The blog, at richardbradley.net, provides those sitting at their desks anywhere from Mather House to Manhattan with a view of machinations in Mass. Hall and an ear to whispering throughout the Yard.
Some of the descriptions of SITD include: "catty," "chatty," less than influential, irresponsible (that was me), "democratic" (love that one!), and "prescient."
I would add "often wrong."
The sage Robert Putnam says, "I think that the best part of his blog is the commentary from other readers." I agree. While I enjoy writing a post that seems useful, what I really enjoy is reading your comments. That's where I feel that I'm learning something, and where I feel that in a small (irresponsible, etc.) way, I have sparked some conversation. Even on those occasions where you folks make mincemeat of what I write—I've usually deserved it—you are a great community of contributors, and I thank you for it.
So welcome, new Shots in the Dark readers. And thanks to all of you who have visited over the months. I couldn't do it without you.
Since breaking ground two winters ago, Shots in the Dark has become a motley circus, filled with its own distinct set of acts and performers with Bradley serving as ringmaster. The blog, at richardbradley.net, provides those sitting at their desks anywhere from Mather House to Manhattan with a view of machinations in Mass. Hall and an ear to whispering throughout the Yard.
Some of the descriptions of SITD include: "catty," "chatty," less than influential, irresponsible (that was me), "democratic" (love that one!), and "prescient."
I would add "often wrong."
The sage Robert Putnam says, "I think that the best part of his blog is the commentary from other readers." I agree. While I enjoy writing a post that seems useful, what I really enjoy is reading your comments. That's where I feel that I'm learning something, and where I feel that in a small (irresponsible, etc.) way, I have sparked some conversation. Even on those occasions where you folks make mincemeat of what I write—I've usually deserved it—you are a great community of contributors, and I thank you for it.
So welcome, new Shots in the Dark readers. And thanks to all of you who have visited over the months. I couldn't do it without you.
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Red Ink
Fisherman in New Zealand have caught what is believed to be the largest squid ever landed intact—about 33 feet long and weighing 990 pounds.
The fishermen were fishing for Patagonian toothfish—which is served in American restaurants as "Chilean sea bass"—when they hooked the giant squid, which was also fishing for Patagonian toothfish at the time. (By the way, the Brits call these "colossal squids," which is sort of sweet.)
According to one expert, calamari rings made from the squid would be the size of tractor tires.
Good thing I've never liked calamari....
The fishermen were fishing for Patagonian toothfish—which is served in American restaurants as "Chilean sea bass"—when they hooked the giant squid, which was also fishing for Patagonian toothfish at the time. (By the way, the Brits call these "colossal squids," which is sort of sweet.)
According to one expert, calamari rings made from the squid would be the size of tractor tires.
Good thing I've never liked calamari....
The Money Culture/Quote of the Day
(A twofer!)
It makes sense. This is such beautiful land, and Bedminster is one of the richest places in the country.
—Donal Trump, on why he's building a mausoleum for himself in Bedminster, New Jersey
It makes sense. This is such beautiful land, and Bedminster is one of the richest places in the country.
—Donal Trump, on why he's building a mausoleum for himself in Bedminster, New Jersey
The Gender Double Standard?
Here's more evidence that making broad generalizations about gender is considered wrong when men do so negatively about women...but right when women generalize positively about themselves.
On the Center for Global Development website, Kennedy School student Molly Kinder writes about women's gender-specific leadership style.
...the ascent of so many talented women to presidential posts reflects an emerging openness to women (and minorities) that should rightly be heralded as a watershed shift in societal attitudes. But perhaps more importantly, that Ellen Johnson Sirleaf and Drew Gilpin Faust were chosen to lead war ravaged Liberia and unwieldy Harvard University reveals a far more salient reality: that women make damn good leaders and, importantly, different leaders. [Blogger: emphasis mine.] The fundamental contrast between Ellen Johnson Sirleaf and Samuel Doe and Charles Taylor, and the contrast in style between Drew Gilpin Faust and Larry Summers -- these are both evidence enough of this fact. Consensus building, accomplished, competent, pioneering and principled. (And, notably, all are mothers). Now that's a style of leadership that the developing world -- and my own country -- would do well from.
Huh.
Two quick things about this post: I love the fact that Kinder has already established that Drew Faust is a "damn good leader" two weeks after she's named president. Also, that she can write about the presidencies of "war-ravaged Liberia" and "unwieldy Harvard" in the same sentence.
More to the point, a simple contrast between one leader, who happens to be a man, and another leader who happens to be female proves...absolutely nothing, except that the two leaders are different. It certainly doesn't establish that leadership style and gender are linked, despite Kinder's argument that the simple contrast between a man and a woman is "evidence of this fact."
I am also intrigued by the introduction of motherhood as a contributing factor in leadership style. Maybe it's true, I don't know. (Does that make the FAS a bunch of big babies?) But I'm not sure that Kinder has fully considered the implications of her idea.
After all, if motherhood shapes leadership style, what about fatherhood? Larry Summers, from everything I ever heard, was a really good dad to his three kids. Shouldn't Kinder give Summers some leadership points as a result? Or is motherhood positive, and fatherhood negative? And what are the specific qualities that stem from motherhood, and what are the specific qualities that flow from fatherhood?
And if women are better leaders because they are mothers, does this mean that women who choose not to have children are somehow lacking, and must compensate for not being moms?
This is very tricky ground.
I am fascinated by the way Drew Faust's appointment has prompted the emergence of this sexual double standard. Attributing universal attributes to a gender is highly problematic whether it has to do with leadership style or innate aptitude for science. I'm not saying either is wrong, but you have to be consistent. You can't say one declaration is perfectly appropriate and the other is inherently offensive.
I'll bet Molly Kinder dinner at the restaurant of her choice that she was outraged when Larry Summers made his remarks about women in science....
On the Center for Global Development website, Kennedy School student Molly Kinder writes about women's gender-specific leadership style.
...the ascent of so many talented women to presidential posts reflects an emerging openness to women (and minorities) that should rightly be heralded as a watershed shift in societal attitudes. But perhaps more importantly, that Ellen Johnson Sirleaf and Drew Gilpin Faust were chosen to lead war ravaged Liberia and unwieldy Harvard University reveals a far more salient reality: that women make damn good leaders and, importantly, different leaders. [Blogger: emphasis mine.] The fundamental contrast between Ellen Johnson Sirleaf and Samuel Doe and Charles Taylor, and the contrast in style between Drew Gilpin Faust and Larry Summers -- these are both evidence enough of this fact. Consensus building, accomplished, competent, pioneering and principled. (And, notably, all are mothers). Now that's a style of leadership that the developing world -- and my own country -- would do well from.
Huh.
Two quick things about this post: I love the fact that Kinder has already established that Drew Faust is a "damn good leader" two weeks after she's named president. Also, that she can write about the presidencies of "war-ravaged Liberia" and "unwieldy Harvard" in the same sentence.
More to the point, a simple contrast between one leader, who happens to be a man, and another leader who happens to be female proves...absolutely nothing, except that the two leaders are different. It certainly doesn't establish that leadership style and gender are linked, despite Kinder's argument that the simple contrast between a man and a woman is "evidence of this fact."
I am also intrigued by the introduction of motherhood as a contributing factor in leadership style. Maybe it's true, I don't know. (Does that make the FAS a bunch of big babies?) But I'm not sure that Kinder has fully considered the implications of her idea.
After all, if motherhood shapes leadership style, what about fatherhood? Larry Summers, from everything I ever heard, was a really good dad to his three kids. Shouldn't Kinder give Summers some leadership points as a result? Or is motherhood positive, and fatherhood negative? And what are the specific qualities that stem from motherhood, and what are the specific qualities that flow from fatherhood?
And if women are better leaders because they are mothers, does this mean that women who choose not to have children are somehow lacking, and must compensate for not being moms?
This is very tricky ground.
I am fascinated by the way Drew Faust's appointment has prompted the emergence of this sexual double standard. Attributing universal attributes to a gender is highly problematic whether it has to do with leadership style or innate aptitude for science. I'm not saying either is wrong, but you have to be consistent. You can't say one declaration is perfectly appropriate and the other is inherently offensive.
I'll bet Molly Kinder dinner at the restaurant of her choice that she was outraged when Larry Summers made his remarks about women in science....
At Radcliffe, "Jubilation"
Radcliffe Institute fellow Christine Stansell has an interesting post over at Open University. (And you thought that was an oxymoron.)
Jubilation reigned at the Radcliffe Institute of Advanced Study in Cambridge last week, where I'm a fellow this year. The new president of Harvard is an admired and appealing figure, beloved by her staff and garnering immense affection even from the visiting scholars who've only known her for six months. About three-quarters of the fellows are women, and fully aware of the ardor of what Drew Faust just accomplished. To jump through one hoop after another, ever higher, for six months!
Stansell goes on to argue that, in academia, having children significantly decreases women's chances for tenure but actually increases men's.
Statistically, each child of a man makes him more likely to get tenure. The brilliant young mother appears stressed out and underproductive. The brilliant young father, no longer the obnoxious young nerd he might have seemed when he was hired, now seems all the more human and charming for his (discrete) family responsibilities.
Huh.
My problem with that paragraph is that it posits statistical evidence, then introduces an anecdotal and highly subjective ("obnoxious young nerd") and absolutely unquantifiable generalization. If Larry Summers had made this kind of remark, what would the reaction be? Or are such arguments only offensive when they come from white men in positions of power?
Jubilation reigned at the Radcliffe Institute of Advanced Study in Cambridge last week, where I'm a fellow this year. The new president of Harvard is an admired and appealing figure, beloved by her staff and garnering immense affection even from the visiting scholars who've only known her for six months. About three-quarters of the fellows are women, and fully aware of the ardor of what Drew Faust just accomplished. To jump through one hoop after another, ever higher, for six months!
Stansell goes on to argue that, in academia, having children significantly decreases women's chances for tenure but actually increases men's.
Statistically, each child of a man makes him more likely to get tenure. The brilliant young mother appears stressed out and underproductive. The brilliant young father, no longer the obnoxious young nerd he might have seemed when he was hired, now seems all the more human and charming for his (discrete) family responsibilities.
Huh.
My problem with that paragraph is that it posits statistical evidence, then introduces an anecdotal and highly subjective ("obnoxious young nerd") and absolutely unquantifiable generalization. If Larry Summers had made this kind of remark, what would the reaction be? Or are such arguments only offensive when they come from white men in positions of power?
Drew Faust's Drapes
Sometimes the Boston Globe verges on self-parody.
Consider, for example, this editorial about Deval Patrick's costly office redecoration. It begins:
QUESTION: When Drew Gilpin Faust moves into Elmwood, the historic, three-story home of Harvard presidents, will anyone howl if she replaces the drapes?
The Globe seems to be implying that people are mad because it's a man who's redecorating his office, while everyone would expect a woman to do the same. How politically correct of the paper—and how silly.
No, people are mad because one of the new governor's opening moves is to blow a bunch of money on new furniture, a new Caddy, and an expensive chief of staff for his wife.
In a time of concerns about budget deficits at Harvard, if Drew Faust spent a bunch of money refurbishing the presidential mansion and got herself a new Cadillac, that wouldn't go over so well either.....
Consider, for example, this editorial about Deval Patrick's costly office redecoration. It begins:
QUESTION: When Drew Gilpin Faust moves into Elmwood, the historic, three-story home of Harvard presidents, will anyone howl if she replaces the drapes?
Why then has there been such a hullabaloo over Deval Patrick's redecoration of his office in another late 18th - century architectural treasure -- the Massachusetts State House?
Some of the answers are obvious: Harvard is private; the government of Massachusetts is public....
If the public/private distinction here is so obvious—which it is—why does the writer even bring Drew Faust into the question?The Globe seems to be implying that people are mad because it's a man who's redecorating his office, while everyone would expect a woman to do the same. How politically correct of the paper—and how silly.
No, people are mad because one of the new governor's opening moves is to blow a bunch of money on new furniture, a new Caddy, and an expensive chief of staff for his wife.
In a time of concerns about budget deficits at Harvard, if Drew Faust spent a bunch of money refurbishing the presidential mansion and got herself a new Cadillac, that wouldn't go over so well either.....
Friday, February 23, 2007
Quote for the Day
"If Bob Dylan's done [an iTunes ad], I'm up for it."
—Jon Fratelli of the Fratellis on selling out (Rolling Stone, 3/8/07)
—Jon Fratelli of the Fratellis on selling out (Rolling Stone, 3/8/07)
Friday Pick of the Week
Today, with a magazine deadline looming—and a book manuscript due in two months—I am, naturally, thinking of vacation. This is partly because I've already planned one; I'll be diving in late May. And while I'm on my favorite Mexican island, I may take a day trip to swim in a cenote (pronounced see—no—tay) along the Yucatan peninsula, as described in today's Times "Escapes" section.
Have you ever been to one of these inland caverns? They are not easily described, but essentially they're massive cave systems filled with fresh water. They dot the Yucatan, sometimes appearing like enormous sinkholes, sometimes looking like little more than a very small pond, no bigger than a backyard pool—which can travel underground for uncharted miles. Some of the cenotes are set up for tourists, with stairs and lighting. Others you can find at the end of an apparently abandoned dirt road, with a rocky path to the cenote and a man waiting to take your pesos.
Using flashlights and rope, you can dive them, though I haven't. Snorkeling in a cenote is already an intense experience. The water is crisp, cool, and remarkably clear. There are some small fish, but there's not really much life in them; they are stark. The underwater rock formations are dramatic and otherworldly. You can swim from chamber to chamber, especially if you're willing to hold your breath and swim under a rock ceiling for 30 or 40 feet until you reach a room where there is again room to lift your head above water. This is really not far, of course, a child can do it, but when you're swimming and there's only rock overhead—no light, no sky, no air—your rational mind can desert you.
(I'm not great about these things; when I'm underwater, I like to be able to see light overhead. Once, in Belize, I went canoeing with friends in an underground cave, and at times the cave ceiling was so low that we could not paddle, but had to lie down in the canoe and use our hands to grab the rock and pull the canoe along. Not for the claustrophobic.)
At Gran Cenote near Tulum, my friends and I climbed to the top of a rock wall and jumped about 30 feet or so into the water. (You kind of have to pick your spot.) Unlike in the United States, in Mexico you can do these things without having to sign eight pages of legalese. It's a risk, sure (though not really a very big one). But the kind of risk that makes you feel deeply alive.
Swimming in a cenote is humbling and spiritual—a Baptist preacher would understand. It's another aspect of our wonderful neighbor to the south that many U.S. citizens don't appreciate. Mexico is a hard and beautiful place, the beauty often in correlation to the toughness. Cenotes fill you with feelings of humility and awe at the power of nature, and maybe a little more respect for the people who inhabit this amazing country.
El Gran Cenote, Tulum.
Have you ever been to one of these inland caverns? They are not easily described, but essentially they're massive cave systems filled with fresh water. They dot the Yucatan, sometimes appearing like enormous sinkholes, sometimes looking like little more than a very small pond, no bigger than a backyard pool—which can travel underground for uncharted miles. Some of the cenotes are set up for tourists, with stairs and lighting. Others you can find at the end of an apparently abandoned dirt road, with a rocky path to the cenote and a man waiting to take your pesos.
Using flashlights and rope, you can dive them, though I haven't. Snorkeling in a cenote is already an intense experience. The water is crisp, cool, and remarkably clear. There are some small fish, but there's not really much life in them; they are stark. The underwater rock formations are dramatic and otherworldly. You can swim from chamber to chamber, especially if you're willing to hold your breath and swim under a rock ceiling for 30 or 40 feet until you reach a room where there is again room to lift your head above water. This is really not far, of course, a child can do it, but when you're swimming and there's only rock overhead—no light, no sky, no air—your rational mind can desert you.
(I'm not great about these things; when I'm underwater, I like to be able to see light overhead. Once, in Belize, I went canoeing with friends in an underground cave, and at times the cave ceiling was so low that we could not paddle, but had to lie down in the canoe and use our hands to grab the rock and pull the canoe along. Not for the claustrophobic.)
At Gran Cenote near Tulum, my friends and I climbed to the top of a rock wall and jumped about 30 feet or so into the water. (You kind of have to pick your spot.) Unlike in the United States, in Mexico you can do these things without having to sign eight pages of legalese. It's a risk, sure (though not really a very big one). But the kind of risk that makes you feel deeply alive.
Swimming in a cenote is humbling and spiritual—a Baptist preacher would understand. It's another aspect of our wonderful neighbor to the south that many U.S. citizens don't appreciate. Mexico is a hard and beautiful place, the beauty often in correlation to the toughness. Cenotes fill you with feelings of humility and awe at the power of nature, and maybe a little more respect for the people who inhabit this amazing country.
El Gran Cenote, Tulum.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
At Princeton, It's All About Race, Class, and Connections
For all the good things that can be said about a Princeton education, sometimes, aren't you just really glad that you didn't go there?
In Which I Solve the Tom Brady Dilemma
The Patriots quarterback is taking a lot of grief for the delicate dilemma in which he finds himself: dating the world's most famous supermodel even as his longtime ex announces that she is pregnant with his baby.
Bridget Moynihan: In trouble. Giselle Bunchen: Trouble.
Tom Brady is 29. Bridget Moynihan is 36. I think the phrase 'old enough to know better' fits here,' writes one sports columnist. ...I'm profoundly disappointed in Our Tom.
Oh, please—like you wouldn't be playing the field, in his position, no puns intended.
Meanwhile, various sexist scribes are suggesting that Bridget Moynihan, worried about her age, has "trapped" Brady.
I'll probably regret saying this—in fact, I just about already do—but can't we all just be a little more French about such matters? Enough with all the prudishness, chauvinism ,and moralizing. Everyone needs to relax a little. It's not like Tom and Bridget had a one-night stand and this happened. They were together for four years.
So far as we know, Tom Brady is still a good guy and Bridget Moynihan is a lovely woman and a relatively okay actress who's going to have a baby. Life is a little messy sometimes. Let's be happy for her and wish them all the best.
Bridget Moynihan: In trouble. Giselle Bunchen: Trouble.
Tom Brady is 29. Bridget Moynihan is 36. I think the phrase 'old enough to know better' fits here,' writes one sports columnist. ...I'm profoundly disappointed in Our Tom.
Oh, please—like you wouldn't be playing the field, in his position, no puns intended.
Meanwhile, various sexist scribes are suggesting that Bridget Moynihan, worried about her age, has "trapped" Brady.
I'll probably regret saying this—in fact, I just about already do—but can't we all just be a little more French about such matters? Enough with all the prudishness, chauvinism ,and moralizing. Everyone needs to relax a little. It's not like Tom and Bridget had a one-night stand and this happened. They were together for four years.
So far as we know, Tom Brady is still a good guy and Bridget Moynihan is a lovely woman and a relatively okay actress who's going to have a baby. Life is a little messy sometimes. Let's be happy for her and wish them all the best.
Meanwhile, in New Haven
Yale president Rick Levin announces his plan to make Yale the country's greenest university, lands in Newsweek.
What will Drew Faust do?
Oh, and by the way, Governor Patrick—Yale is replacing its cars with hybrids.
What will Drew Faust do?
Oh, and by the way, Governor Patrick—Yale is replacing its cars with hybrids.
Deval Patrick, Idiot
New Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick is in hot water for spending state money on swank redecorations for his office and ditching Mitt Romney's Lincoln Town Car in favor of a Cadillac DTS.
I swear, sometimes I think I should go into politics. Because, guys, this stuff is not that hard.
Okay, Governor, maybe your office is a little ratty. You really want to redecorate? Bring in some "Living" reporter from the Globe, tell him/her how the office doesn't do the great state of Massachusetts justice, and announce that you've found a donor, preferably someone with a longtime interest in historic preservation, to pay for it, because you don't want to spend taxpayer dollars.
Next...a Cadillac? Oh, Deval, you are a bonehead. What kind of message does that send, driving around in a posh new Caddy? This kind of message:
One word, Governor Patrick: Hybrid. How about the Ford Escape? It's American, it's populist, and it gets about six times the gas mileage of the Cadillac. It's still an SUV, which is unfortunate, but people will forgive you that.
Oh, and Governor—your wife doesn't need a $72,000 aide. She just doesn't. (Ever heard the name Alan Hevesi? You could look it up.) Tell her to get over herself. Hire a scholarship student graduating from a local university—not Harvard—maybe the daughter of a veteran—and pay her $30 grand. She'll be happy to get the job, and you'll look like you're helping out a hard-working, up-and-coming young person. Which, in fact, you will be.
Residents of Massachusetts, you have a problem, because if this behavior is indicative of Patrick's character—and trust me, it always is—in about three years, you're going to have some serious corruption scandals on your hands.
I swear, sometimes I think I should go into politics. Because, guys, this stuff is not that hard.
Okay, Governor, maybe your office is a little ratty. You really want to redecorate? Bring in some "Living" reporter from the Globe, tell him/her how the office doesn't do the great state of Massachusetts justice, and announce that you've found a donor, preferably someone with a longtime interest in historic preservation, to pay for it, because you don't want to spend taxpayer dollars.
Next...a Cadillac? Oh, Deval, you are a bonehead. What kind of message does that send, driving around in a posh new Caddy? This kind of message:
One word, Governor Patrick: Hybrid. How about the Ford Escape? It's American, it's populist, and it gets about six times the gas mileage of the Cadillac. It's still an SUV, which is unfortunate, but people will forgive you that.
Oh, and Governor—your wife doesn't need a $72,000 aide. She just doesn't. (Ever heard the name Alan Hevesi? You could look it up.) Tell her to get over herself. Hire a scholarship student graduating from a local university—not Harvard—maybe the daughter of a veteran—and pay her $30 grand. She'll be happy to get the job, and you'll look like you're helping out a hard-working, up-and-coming young person. Which, in fact, you will be.
Residents of Massachusetts, you have a problem, because if this behavior is indicative of Patrick's character—and trust me, it always is—in about three years, you're going to have some serious corruption scandals on your hands.
A First Move for Faust
The Crimson reports that Drew Faust has asked Steve Hyman to stay on as provost.
Interesting.
What does this mean? Here are some possibilities.
1) Sometimes a rose is just a rose: Faust, like others around campus, thinks that Hyman is doing a good job and sees no reason to cast him off just because he wanted to be president
2) Faust knows that she needs to build support with the scientists and thinks this is a good way to start doing so
3) The Corporation wanted Faust to keep Hyman, and since she has been angling for the job for years, she played along
4) Drew Faust is a very secure woman, strong enough to retain a former rival
5) Drew Faust is a placeholder president, which is what the Corporation wanted
Take it from here, folks.
Interesting.
What does this mean? Here are some possibilities.
1) Sometimes a rose is just a rose: Faust, like others around campus, thinks that Hyman is doing a good job and sees no reason to cast him off just because he wanted to be president
2) Faust knows that she needs to build support with the scientists and thinks this is a good way to start doing so
3) The Corporation wanted Faust to keep Hyman, and since she has been angling for the job for years, she played along
4) Drew Faust is a very secure woman, strong enough to retain a former rival
5) Drew Faust is a placeholder president, which is what the Corporation wanted
Take it from here, folks.
A Letter to the Crimson
Dear Crimson folks,
One of my least favorite words in the English language is "asshole." Why? Because even though it's fairly common, it's unpleasantly graphic. Maybe I'm Waspy that way, but maybe I'm emo and just very sensitive to words, too. There are some swear words I'm pretty okay with. "Fuck" has a nice ring to it. "Shit" and "bullshit" are good too. But "asshole" bothers me. So sue me, Dr. Freud.
Then again, I'm okay with "motherfucker," which is icky, it's true, but in a funny, over-the-top way. No one really means it when they call you a motherfucker, unless possibly you go to Brown, so everyone can have a good laugh. But "asshole" always has a nasty, vicious undertone. A Nixonian quality, really.
Moreover, when we say "motherfucker" in polite conversation—"Gosh, my co-worker is a motherfucker"—eyebrows are raised. Shouldn't the same be true for the word "asshole." Our society is vulgar enough as it is. Must we debase it further?
The point is, do I really need to open up your website and see a huge ad for some hack book by "Robert I. Sutton, Ph.D." called "THE NO ASSHOLE RULE."
Here's a tip, Dr. Sutton. Putting "Ph.D." after your name doesn't make you look smart and authoritative. It makes you look needy and pathetic and, frankly, probably dumb. Even though you are allegedly a professor at Stanford. It also makes it look like you're paying Alibris to publish your book, even though you're not.
I'm sorry; I don't mean to be a jerk about this. Please, don't call me an—well, you know. It's just that I'm having my morning coffee here. Who needs "ASSHOLE" in their face at this hour?
Crimson, you guys don't need the ad money that much. (Do you?) Strike a blow for clean living. Purge the ass**** from your page. We'll all feel better.
One of my least favorite words in the English language is "asshole." Why? Because even though it's fairly common, it's unpleasantly graphic. Maybe I'm Waspy that way, but maybe I'm emo and just very sensitive to words, too. There are some swear words I'm pretty okay with. "Fuck" has a nice ring to it. "Shit" and "bullshit" are good too. But "asshole" bothers me. So sue me, Dr. Freud.
Then again, I'm okay with "motherfucker," which is icky, it's true, but in a funny, over-the-top way. No one really means it when they call you a motherfucker, unless possibly you go to Brown, so everyone can have a good laugh. But "asshole" always has a nasty, vicious undertone. A Nixonian quality, really.
Moreover, when we say "motherfucker" in polite conversation—"Gosh, my co-worker is a motherfucker"—eyebrows are raised. Shouldn't the same be true for the word "asshole." Our society is vulgar enough as it is. Must we debase it further?
The point is, do I really need to open up your website and see a huge ad for some hack book by "Robert I. Sutton, Ph.D." called "THE NO ASSHOLE RULE."
Here's a tip, Dr. Sutton. Putting "Ph.D." after your name doesn't make you look smart and authoritative. It makes you look needy and pathetic and, frankly, probably dumb. Even though you are allegedly a professor at Stanford. It also makes it look like you're paying Alibris to publish your book, even though you're not.
I'm sorry; I don't mean to be a jerk about this. Please, don't call me an—well, you know. It's just that I'm having my morning coffee here. Who needs "ASSHOLE" in their face at this hour?
Crimson, you guys don't need the ad money that much. (Do you?) Strike a blow for clean living. Purge the ass**** from your page. We'll all feel better.
Quote of the Day
"I don't think anybody believes that in the last six years, all of a sudden Bill Clinton has become a different person."
—David Geffen, who, apparently, is without sin
"I want to run a very positive campaign, and I sure don't want Democrats or supporters of Democrats to be engaging in the politics of personal destruction."
—Hillary Clinton, in response
—David Geffen, who, apparently, is without sin
"I want to run a very positive campaign, and I sure don't want Democrats or supporters of Democrats to be engaging in the politics of personal destruction."
—Hillary Clinton, in response
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
This and That
Duke political scientist Brendan Nyhan defends Larry Summers on his blog, pointing out the various ways in which Summers statements about women in science have been translated into the popular press. See for yourself...and while you're at it, Harvard folks, you might take notice of something else: A professor who actually writes a blog!
(All right, I take it back, he's a graduate student. But still.)
Meanwhile, a commenter below wondered what was up with Rick Levin's decision not to abandon early admissions at Yale. Here's his explanation...and here's my excerpt of what seems to me the most candid part:
(All right, I take it back, he's a graduate student. But still.)
Meanwhile, a commenter below wondered what was up with Rick Levin's decision not to abandon early admissions at Yale. Here's his explanation...and here's my excerpt of what seems to me the most candid part:
Y: But by keeping early admissions, you keep a system in which the early pool, which is wealthier, has a higher acceptance rate -- approximately 18 percent last year versus 8 percent for the regular pool.
L: The quality of the early pool is higher on average. Many of the best high schools encourage their best students to apply early.
Y: In 2002, you told the alumni magazine you would like to see early admissions eliminated everywhere.
L: I emphasized that every school would have to eliminate early admissions to achieve the desired result. But this is very unlikely to happen. If Yale were to eliminate early admissions now, it is most likely that we would end up with a system where the top three or five schools had no early program, and just about everybody else did. That wouldn't solve many problems and would create some new ones.
By the way, good for the Yale Alumni Magazine to ask Levin some tough questions. While people pay a lot of attention to Harvard Magazine—which is very fine, it's true—the YAM has actually gotten really good, and is in some ways (design, for example) better than Harvard Magazine.
Bryn Mawr Remakes Harvard
In what is either shameless and pathetic self-promotion or a candid recognition of its relative place in the world, Bryn Mawr college has posted a webpage devoted to its graduates (e.g., Drew Faust. '68) who have gone on to prominent jobs at Harvard.
Anna Lo Davol '64....was a physician at Harvard's University Health Services.
To be fair, there are some interesting women on the list. (I'd forgotten that Hanna Gray went to Brywn Mawr, and Mary Maples Dunn, and Rosabeth Moss Kanter, and Sally Zeckhauser.)
But still...a whole page devoted to the fact that your alumnae did well at Harvard? Isn't that sort of like the Tampa Bay Devil Rays putting out a press release devoted to guys they traded to the Yankees?
Anna Lo Davol '64....was a physician at Harvard's University Health Services.
To be fair, there are some interesting women on the list. (I'd forgotten that Hanna Gray went to Brywn Mawr, and Mary Maples Dunn, and Rosabeth Moss Kanter, and Sally Zeckhauser.)
But still...a whole page devoted to the fact that your alumnae did well at Harvard? Isn't that sort of like the Tampa Bay Devil Rays putting out a press release devoted to guys they traded to the Yankees?
Jeter & A-Rod: The Drama Continues
A couple days ago, Alex Rodriguez said that he doesn't spend five nights a week at Derek Jeter's house any more, but they're still friends. Today, Jeter responds by saying that yes, they get along fine, and the media makes too much of their relationship.
I'm going to defend the media—and A-Rod—here.
There clearly is an interesting dynamic between these two guys. They're both extremely well-paid, remarkably talented players, with very different personalities. A-Rod seems introspective and sometimes insecure; Jeter loves to play ball and chase girls, and if he thinks about much else, he gives little sign of it. (In my opinion, he should have stuck with Yalie Jordana Brewster, granddaughter of Kingman Brewster and daughter of a Brazilian model. How's that for bloodlines? Though come to think of it, she might have been too smart for him....)
A few years ago, A-Rod slagged Jeter in an Esquire article, saying that because he'd always been on such good teams, he'd never really had to be a leader. (While that may have been true at the time, Jeter has certainly proved it wrong in the past few years.) Jeter is the hometown here who can do no wrong in the fans' eyes; A-Rod is the import whom the fans cheer only as long as he doesn't screw up.
Jeter is a great player, of course. His love for the game and the passion with which he plays it are inspiring. But I think A-Rod deserves our appreciation as well. He's obviously struggling with some issues—last season was a psychological nightmare for him—and he talks about them out loud. I like his honesty. Baseball, and the Yankees, are more interesting for it. And when A-Rod is playing the way that he can, he really is a joy to watch; there's probably no more gifted athlete in the entire sport. He may never match Derek Jeter in the hearts of Yankee fans, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't be appreciated in his own right.
I'm going to defend the media—and A-Rod—here.
There clearly is an interesting dynamic between these two guys. They're both extremely well-paid, remarkably talented players, with very different personalities. A-Rod seems introspective and sometimes insecure; Jeter loves to play ball and chase girls, and if he thinks about much else, he gives little sign of it. (In my opinion, he should have stuck with Yalie Jordana Brewster, granddaughter of Kingman Brewster and daughter of a Brazilian model. How's that for bloodlines? Though come to think of it, she might have been too smart for him....)
A few years ago, A-Rod slagged Jeter in an Esquire article, saying that because he'd always been on such good teams, he'd never really had to be a leader. (While that may have been true at the time, Jeter has certainly proved it wrong in the past few years.) Jeter is the hometown here who can do no wrong in the fans' eyes; A-Rod is the import whom the fans cheer only as long as he doesn't screw up.
Jeter is a great player, of course. His love for the game and the passion with which he plays it are inspiring. But I think A-Rod deserves our appreciation as well. He's obviously struggling with some issues—last season was a psychological nightmare for him—and he talks about them out loud. I like his honesty. Baseball, and the Yankees, are more interesting for it. And when A-Rod is playing the way that he can, he really is a joy to watch; there's probably no more gifted athlete in the entire sport. He may never match Derek Jeter in the hearts of Yankee fans, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't be appreciated in his own right.
William & Mary Puts on a Show
A sex show, that is. On Monday night, the College of William & Mary hosted something called the Sex Workers Art Show.
Sparkling nipple adornments, feather boas, bare bottoms, erotic dances, striptease music and sex toys entertained a crowd of more than 400 who were packed into the auditorium of the University Center. Another 300 were turned away. The show attempted to empower the actors by portraying the realities of their careers.
A worthy cause, no doubt.
Naturally, the show has caused some controversy, according to the Virginia Gazette.
Ken Petzinger, a physics professor, was outraged to learn that the college had permitted such an event. He found out about it last Friday, too late to stop it.
"I think it's a totally inappropriate use of student funds," Petzinger said. "It's in conflict with other values the college has."
Mr. Petzinger, by the way, is a Christian bigot who, when he learned that William & Mary planned to extend health care to the partners of gay and lesbian staff, organized a successful crusade against the plan, and managed to beat back health insurance!
Meanwhile, senior Sean Barker, a black studies major who organized the art show, defended it.
"It serves to deconstruct some of the assumptions we may have about sex workers," he said.
That's hilarious.
Virginia Walters, another student who helped organize the show, agreed.
"A really important aspect of this particular show is that it's not pornography," she said. "People also confuse 'sex positivity' with sex all the time, and that's not what this is about. It's about making your own choices."
Don't you hate it when people confuse "sex positivity" with sex?
And, of course, a sensitive man got all huffy:
...John Foubert, a professor in the School of Ed and faculty sponsor of One in 4, a student organization devoted to battling sexual assault on college campuses, felt compelled to give people more information.
I swear to God, you can't make this stuff up—"a professor in the School of Ed and faculty sponsor of One in 4," a group which makes the ludicrous claim that one in four college women will be the victims of rape or attempted rape. (If you want to know more, you could purchase one of the videos they sell for $125 on their website.)
And finally, a 75-year-old guy went to the show.
He was bothered by what he saw. "It's shocking they had this type of event for impressionable young people," the man said.
But it's all right for creepy old men to check out naked strippers making performance art with dildos.
Isn't it amazing how all the stereotypical types play their parts in such trumped-up dramas? The students say they're just deconstructing, the physics professor/religious bigot gets outraged, the ed school professor cares deeply about women, and a righteous but possibly pervy citizen grimly mutters his concern.
I swear, it's just like the '80s all over again. Next, someone will actually give a damn about Karen Finley.
Sparkling nipple adornments, feather boas, bare bottoms, erotic dances, striptease music and sex toys entertained a crowd of more than 400 who were packed into the auditorium of the University Center. Another 300 were turned away. The show attempted to empower the actors by portraying the realities of their careers.
A worthy cause, no doubt.
Naturally, the show has caused some controversy, according to the Virginia Gazette.
Ken Petzinger, a physics professor, was outraged to learn that the college had permitted such an event. He found out about it last Friday, too late to stop it.
"I think it's a totally inappropriate use of student funds," Petzinger said. "It's in conflict with other values the college has."
Mr. Petzinger, by the way, is a Christian bigot who, when he learned that William & Mary planned to extend health care to the partners of gay and lesbian staff, organized a successful crusade against the plan, and managed to beat back health insurance!
Meanwhile, senior Sean Barker, a black studies major who organized the art show, defended it.
"It serves to deconstruct some of the assumptions we may have about sex workers," he said.
That's hilarious.
Virginia Walters, another student who helped organize the show, agreed.
"A really important aspect of this particular show is that it's not pornography," she said. "People also confuse 'sex positivity' with sex all the time, and that's not what this is about. It's about making your own choices."
Don't you hate it when people confuse "sex positivity" with sex?
And, of course, a sensitive man got all huffy:
...John Foubert, a professor in the School of Ed and faculty sponsor of One in 4, a student organization devoted to battling sexual assault on college campuses, felt compelled to give people more information.
I swear to God, you can't make this stuff up—"a professor in the School of Ed and faculty sponsor of One in 4," a group which makes the ludicrous claim that one in four college women will be the victims of rape or attempted rape. (If you want to know more, you could purchase one of the videos they sell for $125 on their website.)
And finally, a 75-year-old guy went to the show.
He was bothered by what he saw. "It's shocking they had this type of event for impressionable young people," the man said.
But it's all right for creepy old men to check out naked strippers making performance art with dildos.
Isn't it amazing how all the stereotypical types play their parts in such trumped-up dramas? The students say they're just deconstructing, the physics professor/religious bigot gets outraged, the ed school professor cares deeply about women, and a righteous but possibly pervy citizen grimly mutters his concern.
I swear, it's just like the '80s all over again. Next, someone will actually give a damn about Karen Finley.
The Times Comes to Radcliffe
New York Times Book Review editor Barry Gewen spoke at Radcliffe yesterday after being introduced by Drew Faust. He talked about how there's not much diversity on staff (shocker there) and how they like the mystery about how books get reviewed and why.
Pity he didn't talk about how incredibly boring the NYTBR is, and what a terrific job they do of making an exciting subject seem bloodless and irrelevant.....
Here's a little secret of mine that I think many people share: When you see that Sunday Times lying on your doorstep, don't you die a little bit inside, overwhelmed at the thought of plowing through the dreariest collection of sections that ever consumed hours and hours of your life? And yet, we feel guilty if we just admit that the whole thing bores us to tears and go out and do something useful with out Sundays.
What fun it would be to make the NYTBR lively and compelling and relevant....to make the book review into something that actually generated conversation, maybe even argument.
Pity he didn't talk about how incredibly boring the NYTBR is, and what a terrific job they do of making an exciting subject seem bloodless and irrelevant.....
Here's a little secret of mine that I think many people share: When you see that Sunday Times lying on your doorstep, don't you die a little bit inside, overwhelmed at the thought of plowing through the dreariest collection of sections that ever consumed hours and hours of your life? And yet, we feel guilty if we just admit that the whole thing bores us to tears and go out and do something useful with out Sundays.
What fun it would be to make the NYTBR lively and compelling and relevant....to make the book review into something that actually generated conversation, maybe even argument.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
The Money Culture
I loved this Times piece about Yale investment manager David Swensen, who's made a fortune for Yale—over 21 years, his investments have average annual returns of about 16.3%—without making a fortune for himself. (He's kicking Harvard's ass, by the way.) Swensen takes home a salary of about a million bucks year, which is probably less than 1/100th of what he'd make at a hedge fund.
Why does he do it? Because he believes that a million dollars is still a lot of money, and he thinks there's something socially valuable about the particular nature of his work.
“People think working for something other than the most money you could get is an odd concept, but it seems a perfectly natural concept to me,” says Mr. Swensen.
...A number of high-profile endowment chiefs have recently bolted academia for the more lush pay packages offered by private funds in the for-profit sector. When Jack R. Meyer, who racked up stellar returns as the head of the Harvard endowment, gave up his post in 2005, for example, he and his team easily raised $6 billion for their new hedge fund. But Mr. Swensen says he has no desire to do something similar.
“I just had an e-mail from a friend who manages money for a wealthy family,” he said in an interview in the endowment’s plain campus office. “He was troubled by it: making wealthy people wealthier. I feel privileged to be in a place where the resources that we generate are applied to the world’s problems.”
Swensen spent some time in the IB world, but ultimately found the experience spiritually unsatisfying....
“In the finance world it is very easy to measure winning and losing in dollars and cents,” he says. “That has always seemed to be an inadequate measure. The quality of life is a better way to measure winning and losing. Money is only one element of that.”
In addition to helping Yale, Swensen has trained a number of money managers who share his public service spirit and have gone on to work at other universities such as MIT and Princeton.
I'm sure there are lots of people in the hedge fund world who give back as well. Nonetheless, I doubt there are many who've made so much money for a non-profit while making so relatively little for oneself. Swensen reminds us of the great power that economically-minded people can wield for the public good. I wish there were more like him.
Why does he do it? Because he believes that a million dollars is still a lot of money, and he thinks there's something socially valuable about the particular nature of his work.
“People think working for something other than the most money you could get is an odd concept, but it seems a perfectly natural concept to me,” says Mr. Swensen.
...A number of high-profile endowment chiefs have recently bolted academia for the more lush pay packages offered by private funds in the for-profit sector. When Jack R. Meyer, who racked up stellar returns as the head of the Harvard endowment, gave up his post in 2005, for example, he and his team easily raised $6 billion for their new hedge fund. But Mr. Swensen says he has no desire to do something similar.
“I just had an e-mail from a friend who manages money for a wealthy family,” he said in an interview in the endowment’s plain campus office. “He was troubled by it: making wealthy people wealthier. I feel privileged to be in a place where the resources that we generate are applied to the world’s problems.”
Swensen spent some time in the IB world, but ultimately found the experience spiritually unsatisfying....
“In the finance world it is very easy to measure winning and losing in dollars and cents,” he says. “That has always seemed to be an inadequate measure. The quality of life is a better way to measure winning and losing. Money is only one element of that.”
In addition to helping Yale, Swensen has trained a number of money managers who share his public service spirit and have gone on to work at other universities such as MIT and Princeton.
I'm sure there are lots of people in the hedge fund world who give back as well. Nonetheless, I doubt there are many who've made so much money for a non-profit while making so relatively little for oneself. Swensen reminds us of the great power that economically-minded people can wield for the public good. I wish there were more like him.
Quote for the Day
You go from sleeping over at somebody's house five days a week and now you don't sleep over. It's not that big a deal.
—Alex Rodriguez, speaking of his relationship with Derek Jeter
Meanwhile, in Boston, here's a dilemma that we should all have: What to do if you're dating Gisele Bundchen and Bridget Moynihan says that she's having your baby?
You go from sleeping over at somebody's house five days a week and now you don't sleep over. It's not that big a deal.
—Alex Rodriguez, speaking of his relationship with Derek Jeter
Meanwhile, in Boston, here's a dilemma that we should all have: What to do if you're dating Gisele Bundchen and Bridget Moynihan says that she's having your baby?
Monday, February 19, 2007
The Police at Madison Square Garden
It's only five months away...
In case you missed, the Times paid a lengthy visit to the band's rehearsal space in Vancouver, and—here's the coolest part—the band was actually there.....
In case you missed, the Times paid a lengthy visit to the band's rehearsal space in Vancouver, and—here's the coolest part—the band was actually there.....
Hot Times at Brown
Not too long ago, you will remember, there was a little problem at Yale's Calhoun College with students becoming amorous in the shower. (We should all have such problems, right?)
Now the issue of sex in semi-public spaces has migrated to Brown, where, apparently, they are having sex in sinks.
Writes one Brown authority figure—and no, that is not an oxymoron...
...there has been some activity taking place in Perkins' kitchens that is inappropriate for public spaces. Not only does this negatively affect the comfort of our community, but it is also a hygiene and safety concern.
A safety concern?
Well, kids will be kids. But why has there been no such news emanating from Harvard? Is no one at Harvard having sex?
Now the issue of sex in semi-public spaces has migrated to Brown, where, apparently, they are having sex in sinks.
Writes one Brown authority figure—and no, that is not an oxymoron...
...there has been some activity taking place in Perkins' kitchens that is inappropriate for public spaces. Not only does this negatively affect the comfort of our community, but it is also a hygiene and safety concern.
A safety concern?
Well, kids will be kids. But why has there been no such news emanating from Harvard? Is no one at Harvard having sex?
Historians Do It Better
Has anyone else noticed that faculty from the University of Pennsylvania have been more outspoken in their support of Drew Faust than have Harvard professors?
Case in point: Steven Hahn, U-Penn professor of history, writing in the The New Republic about why historians (Drew Faust) make better presidents than economists (one guess).
...as most academics will tell you, economists tend to think that they're smarter than everybody else, can find the answer to any important question, and don't need to listen carefully to other opinions. Pity the poor fellow who must present research to an economics department seminar: He can hardly get a word in edgewise.
Historians, now—that's a different matter.
Historians can be as arrogant and tone-deaf as any people who claim intellectual authority, but the nature of their work disposes them to be otherwise. Although historians pose large questions, they are skeptical of easy answers. Although they like to bring order out of apparent chaos, they quickly recognize the complexity of human undertakings. Although they seek to recover something of the past, they soon discover how much digging that requires. They come to learn that historical writing and historical experience involve conflicting perspectives and that they need to confront viewpoints different than their own. Historians have to be prepared to follow unexpected leads and uncharted paths. And they must develop skills (and patience) to hear and understand what their subjects are trying to tell them. It is all a very humbling process.
It's all a good omen for Harvard, Hahn concludes. And so Larry Summers takes another spear to the chest.
Any economists want to rise to the defense of your profession?
Case in point: Steven Hahn, U-Penn professor of history, writing in the The New Republic about why historians (Drew Faust) make better presidents than economists (one guess).
...as most academics will tell you, economists tend to think that they're smarter than everybody else, can find the answer to any important question, and don't need to listen carefully to other opinions. Pity the poor fellow who must present research to an economics department seminar: He can hardly get a word in edgewise.
Historians, now—that's a different matter.
Historians can be as arrogant and tone-deaf as any people who claim intellectual authority, but the nature of their work disposes them to be otherwise. Although historians pose large questions, they are skeptical of easy answers. Although they like to bring order out of apparent chaos, they quickly recognize the complexity of human undertakings. Although they seek to recover something of the past, they soon discover how much digging that requires. They come to learn that historical writing and historical experience involve conflicting perspectives and that they need to confront viewpoints different than their own. Historians have to be prepared to follow unexpected leads and uncharted paths. And they must develop skills (and patience) to hear and understand what their subjects are trying to tell them. It is all a very humbling process.
It's all a good omen for Harvard, Hahn concludes. And so Larry Summers takes another spear to the chest.
Any economists want to rise to the defense of your profession?
Friday, February 16, 2007
Faust: She's no Hellcat
Daniel Hemel responds to the right-wing jeers—predicted on this blog the day of Faust's choice—charging that Faust is a radical feminist with this Crimson editorial.
Forget, for a moment, that most intelligent people believe in equal rights for women and, like Faust, technically fall under the rubric of “feminist.” Faust has been branded with the F-word by writers who have clearly never read her work....
This is a fascinating issue, I must say, and a slightly tricky one for lefties, who are willing to cheer Faust for being a woman and writing history about women while at the same time saying, Don't worry, she's no "feminist."
Hey, she obviously is a feminist. Her rejection of the "it's a man's world, sweetie," line from her mother—and the centrality of that anecdote to her bio-narrative—establish that.
So what? What's wrong with being a feminist?
Problem is, of course, hardly anyone knows or can agree upon what that word means these days, which is why so many women shun it. But Faust is certainly of the generation that used it; she did graduate from Bryn Mawr in 1968.....
This may be one way that the Summers legacy continues. His presidency—his identity, his Washington experience, his leadership style—politicized the university, and his departure became a tug-of-war between the political left and right, particularly outside 02138.
Now that fight is continuing in an ongoing attempt by both sides to define Faust within a political box....
Forget, for a moment, that most intelligent people believe in equal rights for women and, like Faust, technically fall under the rubric of “feminist.” Faust has been branded with the F-word by writers who have clearly never read her work....
This is a fascinating issue, I must say, and a slightly tricky one for lefties, who are willing to cheer Faust for being a woman and writing history about women while at the same time saying, Don't worry, she's no "feminist."
Hey, she obviously is a feminist. Her rejection of the "it's a man's world, sweetie," line from her mother—and the centrality of that anecdote to her bio-narrative—establish that.
So what? What's wrong with being a feminist?
Problem is, of course, hardly anyone knows or can agree upon what that word means these days, which is why so many women shun it. But Faust is certainly of the generation that used it; she did graduate from Bryn Mawr in 1968.....
This may be one way that the Summers legacy continues. His presidency—his identity, his Washington experience, his leadership style—politicized the university, and his departure became a tug-of-war between the political left and right, particularly outside 02138.
Now that fight is continuing in an ongoing attempt by both sides to define Faust within a political box....
Ruth Wisse and Her Cleaning Lady
Harvard prof Ruth Wisse has written a curious commentary on Drew Faust for Commentary. It's about how her Brazilian cleaning lady is excited about Faust, and how she tries to explain to her cleaning lady why Faust is bad, bad, bad.
When the Women’s Lib movement started up in America in the 1960’s, I predicted it would do as much damage here as Bolshevism had done in Russia.
To paraphrase the shampoo people, Read. Rinse. Repeat.
When the Women’s Lib movement started up in America in the 1960’s, I predicted it would do as much damage here as Bolshevism had done in Russia.
I admire Professor Wisse's willingness to speak her mind, but, truly, that is absurd.
Or am I wrong?
I felt almost vindicated in my fears when I watched the feminist culture of grievance at Harvard help to topple President Lawrence Summers....
But Wisse's cleaning lady thinks that Faust could be good for Harvard and for women like her. Well, apparently, that's why she's a cleaning lady and Wisse is a professor.
My Portuguese is not up to E.’s English, so I cannot explain to her the difference between a woman and a Women’s Libber....But E. is keen, and she sees from my hesitation that I am not quite as inspired as she is by this appointment.
Well, my English is probably almost as good as Professor Wisse's...and I would love to know the difference between a woman and a "Women's Libber."
(Who even says "women's lib" anymore? I bet if you asked the young women on campus, half of them would have no idea what the term means.)
When the Women’s Lib movement started up in America in the 1960’s, I predicted it would do as much damage here as Bolshevism had done in Russia.
To paraphrase the shampoo people, Read. Rinse. Repeat.
When the Women’s Lib movement started up in America in the 1960’s, I predicted it would do as much damage here as Bolshevism had done in Russia.
I admire Professor Wisse's willingness to speak her mind, but, truly, that is absurd.
Or am I wrong?
I felt almost vindicated in my fears when I watched the feminist culture of grievance at Harvard help to topple President Lawrence Summers....
But Wisse's cleaning lady thinks that Faust could be good for Harvard and for women like her. Well, apparently, that's why she's a cleaning lady and Wisse is a professor.
My Portuguese is not up to E.’s English, so I cannot explain to her the difference between a woman and a Women’s Libber....But E. is keen, and she sees from my hesitation that I am not quite as inspired as she is by this appointment.
Well, my English is probably almost as good as Professor Wisse's...and I would love to know the difference between a woman and a "Women's Libber."
(Who even says "women's lib" anymore? I bet if you asked the young women on campus, half of them would have no idea what the term means.)
Friday Picks of the Week
Almost (gulp) twenty-five years ago, I traveled to Foxboro Stadium, in the middle of Nowhere, Massachusetts, to see a concert on a Sunday evening. A glorious summer night—lovely sunset, perfect temperature. The show? (Brace yourself.) A triple bill featuring A Flock of Seagulls, the Fixx, and the Police.
What the hell, it was the '80s, right? I liked 'em all. The hair, the synthesizers, the ridiculous costumes. That was my third Police show—in the past, I'd slept out for tickets, we used to do that back in those days—and it was brilliant.
Both the Fixx and AFOS are gone now, and that's probably just as well. But when the Police broke up in 1984, that was truly a loss. Five records, each of them fantastic in its own right, each better than the one before it. Live, they were just tremendous—I even saw them in the now blown-up New Haven Coliseum—and though there were only three of them, they could fill an arena like few modern bands. Sting was charismatic, gifted and intense, probably the best English songwriter since Lennon and McCartney; Andy Summers played shimmering swashes of guitar in a way that no one else in rock did; and Stewart Copeland's drumming was so original and propulsive.
But then, after the Synchronicity record, the band broke up, largely because Sting's ego was getting out of hand. (I forgive him this; if I were Sting, I'd have a pretty big ego too.) Still, they were one band whose reunion I really longed for. They quit at the peak of their skills as a band, and no one came along to fill that vacuum. The Police had a distinctive sound, and no band since has equalled it.
Well, sometimes the good Lord provides.
This summer the Police are reuniting and playing a series of concerts. I'll be there for at least one—and if someone out there can help me get tickets to one of the Fenway Park shows on 7/28 and 7/29, more than one. (Please...anyone?)
Who knows if, a quarter of a century later, they can recapture the old magic?
But I am an optimist. This will be the musical event of the summer, without question, and in that spirit, here are my picks of the week.
First, the music.
I love all the Police albums, but the most consistently successful has to be Synchronicity, which is one of the Top 10 rock records of the past 25 years. Ambitious, poetic, melodic, and loud. I remember being so excited about its release that I signed up in advance to purchase it at Trident Records, the local music/head shop. I must have heard "Every Breath You Take" 500 times on car radios, and I never got sick of it.
But why stop there? For a fascinating video record of the Police, check out Stewart Copeland's documentary, Everyone Stares: The Police Inside Out, which uses old Super-8 footage to show what playing in the band was really like.
And what about nighttime reading, you say? Well, of course. I'd recommend Sting's artful autobiography, Broken Music, which takes you through his life before the Police. As a songwriter, Sting turns out to be a pretty good memoirist. And after you've read that, check out Andy Summers' book, One Train Later, the story of how a down-and-out guitar player became one-third of the world's biggest band. Even though Summers was perhaps the least famous of the three, it's an insightful, well-told story. Sometimes it's the little guys who see the most.
I could go on, talk about Stewart Copeland's Rumblefish soundtrack, or Andy Summers' records with Robert Fripp, or which Sting solo album is the best. But isn't part of the fun finding out for yourself?
What the hell, it was the '80s, right? I liked 'em all. The hair, the synthesizers, the ridiculous costumes. That was my third Police show—in the past, I'd slept out for tickets, we used to do that back in those days—and it was brilliant.
Both the Fixx and AFOS are gone now, and that's probably just as well. But when the Police broke up in 1984, that was truly a loss. Five records, each of them fantastic in its own right, each better than the one before it. Live, they were just tremendous—I even saw them in the now blown-up New Haven Coliseum—and though there were only three of them, they could fill an arena like few modern bands. Sting was charismatic, gifted and intense, probably the best English songwriter since Lennon and McCartney; Andy Summers played shimmering swashes of guitar in a way that no one else in rock did; and Stewart Copeland's drumming was so original and propulsive.
But then, after the Synchronicity record, the band broke up, largely because Sting's ego was getting out of hand. (I forgive him this; if I were Sting, I'd have a pretty big ego too.) Still, they were one band whose reunion I really longed for. They quit at the peak of their skills as a band, and no one came along to fill that vacuum. The Police had a distinctive sound, and no band since has equalled it.
Well, sometimes the good Lord provides.
This summer the Police are reuniting and playing a series of concerts. I'll be there for at least one—and if someone out there can help me get tickets to one of the Fenway Park shows on 7/28 and 7/29, more than one. (Please...anyone?)
Who knows if, a quarter of a century later, they can recapture the old magic?
But I am an optimist. This will be the musical event of the summer, without question, and in that spirit, here are my picks of the week.
First, the music.
I love all the Police albums, but the most consistently successful has to be Synchronicity, which is one of the Top 10 rock records of the past 25 years. Ambitious, poetic, melodic, and loud. I remember being so excited about its release that I signed up in advance to purchase it at Trident Records, the local music/head shop. I must have heard "Every Breath You Take" 500 times on car radios, and I never got sick of it.
But why stop there? For a fascinating video record of the Police, check out Stewart Copeland's documentary, Everyone Stares: The Police Inside Out, which uses old Super-8 footage to show what playing in the band was really like.
And what about nighttime reading, you say? Well, of course. I'd recommend Sting's artful autobiography, Broken Music, which takes you through his life before the Police. As a songwriter, Sting turns out to be a pretty good memoirist. And after you've read that, check out Andy Summers' book, One Train Later, the story of how a down-and-out guitar player became one-third of the world's biggest band. Even though Summers was perhaps the least famous of the three, it's an insightful, well-told story. Sometimes it's the little guys who see the most.
I could go on, talk about Stewart Copeland's Rumblefish soundtrack, or Andy Summers' records with Robert Fripp, or which Sting solo album is the best. But isn't part of the fun finding out for yourself?
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Posting Soon
Sorry, everyone—I'm either a) on deadline, or b) emotionally and/or physically exhausted from Valentine's Day.....
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Kudos for Kagan
HLS students held a party for Elena Kagan yesterday to express their support for the dean, who was, of course, passed over for Harvard's top job.
Harvard with a human face—very rare (one law professor said he'd never seen anything like it in 30 years, and that is truly pathetic) and nice to see. What is it about Harvard culture that so discourages such expression of actual human feeling? I suspect that, in a place that's fast-paced and competitive, people are loathe to slow down and make themselves vulnerable by expressing their appreciation for others.
Perhaps this is one area where having a female president may make a real difference—humanizing the institution. If Larry Summers brought the hyper-competive, Type-A culture of the econ department to Mass Hall, Drew Faust may bring the more collegial culture of Radcliffe, and that would be a truly radical and perhaps very pleasant change.
Meanwhile, another constituency rallied around another one of its own, as the faculty gave Drew Faust a warm reception at one of its semi-monthly faculty meetings. The goodwill towards Faust seems to have carried over into warm-and-fuzzies for the new curricular review.
For those of you keeping track, among the places writing about Faust yesterday were WHIOtv of Dayton, Ohio (wire copy), the Georgetown Hoya (whatever Harvard does, we do too), the Daily Princetonian (she practically went here!), the Bi-College News of Bryn Mawr and Haverford (she did go here!), and the Economic Times of India (is Faust good for Hillary?).
(Word is, by the way, that the Globe is sending reporters to Virginia and to Penn to scope out information on Faust's background for a lengthy profile.)
Meanwhile, the blog Gadfly has a quiz for Faust, an attempt to suss out her priorities. It's a useful provocation; we know little about what Faust wants to do, other than promote cooperation between the faculties. That's to be expected—she's only had the job for three days—but it will be interesting to hear whether she has her own priorities or is just following the roadmap laid out by Larry Summers and the Corporation.
Incidentally, has anyone yet found a single FAS professor who blogs? At an institution that's supposed to be on the cutting edge, how can it be possible that out of 700 or so scholars, not one has a blog?
Harvard with a human face—very rare (one law professor said he'd never seen anything like it in 30 years, and that is truly pathetic) and nice to see. What is it about Harvard culture that so discourages such expression of actual human feeling? I suspect that, in a place that's fast-paced and competitive, people are loathe to slow down and make themselves vulnerable by expressing their appreciation for others.
Perhaps this is one area where having a female president may make a real difference—humanizing the institution. If Larry Summers brought the hyper-competive, Type-A culture of the econ department to Mass Hall, Drew Faust may bring the more collegial culture of Radcliffe, and that would be a truly radical and perhaps very pleasant change.
Meanwhile, another constituency rallied around another one of its own, as the faculty gave Drew Faust a warm reception at one of its semi-monthly faculty meetings. The goodwill towards Faust seems to have carried over into warm-and-fuzzies for the new curricular review.
For those of you keeping track, among the places writing about Faust yesterday were WHIOtv of Dayton, Ohio (wire copy), the Georgetown Hoya (whatever Harvard does, we do too), the Daily Princetonian (she practically went here!), the Bi-College News of Bryn Mawr and Haverford (she did go here!), and the Economic Times of India (is Faust good for Hillary?).
(Word is, by the way, that the Globe is sending reporters to Virginia and to Penn to scope out information on Faust's background for a lengthy profile.)
Meanwhile, the blog Gadfly has a quiz for Faust, an attempt to suss out her priorities. It's a useful provocation; we know little about what Faust wants to do, other than promote cooperation between the faculties. That's to be expected—she's only had the job for three days—but it will be interesting to hear whether she has her own priorities or is just following the roadmap laid out by Larry Summers and the Corporation.
Incidentally, has anyone yet found a single FAS professor who blogs? At an institution that's supposed to be on the cutting edge, how can it be possible that out of 700 or so scholars, not one has a blog?
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Katie Couric Likes Drew Faust
On her CBS blog, Katie Couric (what is going on with her face?) gives the thumbs-up to Drew Faust. (Watch the video.)
I may be—heck, I am—old-fashioned about this, but since when did we want to hear the opinions of television anchors?
As you may have guessed, I'm not a huge Couric fan. Pretty much the opposite. (Long story, tell you sometime.) But since when has being a woman ever been anything but helpful for her? And for a feminist, she sure is obsessed with her legs.
Drew Faust's appointment is important, no question. But we don't need—or want—a TV talking head to tell us that.
Katie Couric and fan.
I may be—heck, I am—old-fashioned about this, but since when did we want to hear the opinions of television anchors?
As you may have guessed, I'm not a huge Couric fan. Pretty much the opposite. (Long story, tell you sometime.) But since when has being a woman ever been anything but helpful for her? And for a feminist, she sure is obsessed with her legs.
Drew Faust's appointment is important, no question. But we don't need—or want—a TV talking head to tell us that.
Katie Couric and fan.
Faust in the Media
Yesterday's Times profile of her is the paper's second-most e-mailed story as of this blogging...but otherwise, poof, she's gone. Nothing (that I can see) in the Times, Globe, the Journal, WashPo, LATimes. Not much on the web.
(Am I missing anything? Anyone?)
There is, however, a wire story in The Hindu.
What does this mean? Partly that the way the Crimson and the Globe broke the news last week has diminished press interest after the official announcement.
But partly that there's just not that much interest in Faust: She's an internal candidate little known outside of her field and the world of female academics.
Does this matter? I don't know. You could say that alumni might like a Harvard president with a higher profile, and that this pebble-in-the-ocean effect can't be a good sign for fundraising. Whatever else you wanted say about Larry Summers, his celebrity status did open doors.
But I could argue it the other way, too: Summers' high-profile also meant that his mistakes attracted a lot of attention, made him a lightning rod.
Or I could argue that the world just doesn't care that much about the president of Harvard if she's not a public intellectual with achievements outside the insular world of academe.
All these things may be true. As the cliche goes, time will tell. For the moment, it's just interesting to note that the official announcement of Drew Faust as Harvard's next president—its first female president—has produced exactly one day's worth of news stories.
Make of that what you will.
(Am I missing anything? Anyone?)
There is, however, a wire story in The Hindu.
What does this mean? Partly that the way the Crimson and the Globe broke the news last week has diminished press interest after the official announcement.
But partly that there's just not that much interest in Faust: She's an internal candidate little known outside of her field and the world of female academics.
Does this matter? I don't know. You could say that alumni might like a Harvard president with a higher profile, and that this pebble-in-the-ocean effect can't be a good sign for fundraising. Whatever else you wanted say about Larry Summers, his celebrity status did open doors.
But I could argue it the other way, too: Summers' high-profile also meant that his mistakes attracted a lot of attention, made him a lightning rod.
Or I could argue that the world just doesn't care that much about the president of Harvard if she's not a public intellectual with achievements outside the insular world of academe.
All these things may be true. As the cliche goes, time will tell. For the moment, it's just interesting to note that the official announcement of Drew Faust as Harvard's next president—its first female president—has produced exactly one day's worth of news stories.
Make of that what you will.
How the Media Works
How did Jim Lehrer's "Newshour" land the first TV interview with Drew Faust? (That I know of, anyway.)
Well, of course, the Newshour is a natural place for a substantive conversation.
But it doesn't hurt that Lehrer is close friends with Derek Bok: the two traveled to the Galapagos together, and to a friend's villa in Italy last fall. The trips were inspired by a book club Sissela Bok belongs to...
Well, of course, the Newshour is a natural place for a substantive conversation.
But it doesn't hurt that Lehrer is close friends with Derek Bok: the two traveled to the Galapagos together, and to a friend's villa in Italy last fall. The trips were inspired by a book club Sissela Bok belongs to...
Monday, February 12, 2007
Whoops, Missed Another One
Newsweek education reporter Samantha Hening interviewed a "Harvard expert"—actually, me—at some length about the choice of Drew Faust as Harvard's president-elect. Here's that interview.
Whoops, Missed One
In the stead of a bold albeit tactless social scientist and a former cabinet secretary, Harvard has ensconced a career academic and mid-level administrator culled from the women’s studies henhouse....
Faust has carved out a niche for herself all-too-typical of the intellectual provincialism characteristic of many of this generation’s scholars, having fashioned a career scribbling about vacuous constructions of “gender” and “ritual” during a time period in which they had little acknowledged meaning.
A small sampling of Faust’s bibliography will unavoidably elicit snickers from those outside the confines of the Academy: “The Rhetoric and Ritual of Agriculture in Antebellum South Carolina,” “The Civil War Soldier and the Art of Dying,” and the above-mentioned “Altars of Sacrifice.”
Meanwhile, Larry Summers effectively administered the $11-billion budget of the Treasury Department.....
—Christopher Lacaria, the Crimson
Faust has carved out a niche for herself all-too-typical of the intellectual provincialism characteristic of many of this generation’s scholars, having fashioned a career scribbling about vacuous constructions of “gender” and “ritual” during a time period in which they had little acknowledged meaning.
A small sampling of Faust’s bibliography will unavoidably elicit snickers from those outside the confines of the Academy: “The Rhetoric and Ritual of Agriculture in Antebellum South Carolina,” “The Civil War Soldier and the Art of Dying,” and the above-mentioned “Altars of Sacrifice.”
Meanwhile, Larry Summers effectively administered the $11-billion budget of the Treasury Department.....
—Christopher Lacaria, the Crimson
The Sound of Faust
Harvard Magazine has some solid coverage of Drew Faust, including audio of her press conference yesterday.....
(Why is it that Harvard.edu is so lame for this sort of thing? Hey, guys, remember—it's a university. 1:47 of video? You're supposed to preserve things!)
(Why is it that Harvard.edu is so lame for this sort of thing? Hey, guys, remember—it's a university. 1:47 of video? You're supposed to preserve things!)
An E-mail from Harvard
Harvard historian Timothy McCarthy writes...
Regarding Drew Faust, I honestly think that she's an amazing--the best—choice for the Harvard Presidency at this moment. Remember that, as a scholar, she has redefined the field of Civil War studies. This was a largely male-dominated field when she began her work as a scholar, and she has devoted her distinguished career to understanding how the Civil War--that definitive, transformative, and cataclysmic event in American culture--affected all people who were living in the United States. In other words, scholars had for years understood the Civil War as an event that affected only men (white men), and her impressive scholarship has altered the way we think about that war in such a way as to take into account how women actually experienced the war. Her work has played an indispensable role in producing a sea-change in historical interpretation. Her work has even managed to win over most of the men who once dominated the field. She is a scholar of the highest rank, on a subject of signal importance, and her successful interventions into a male-dominated field--arguably, the most male-dominated field in all of American history—bode well for her ability to make inroads at Harvard.
That said, I want you to rethink your critique of her picture. One of the things that drives me crazy about the "punditry" is the obsession with looks, aesthetics, especially where women are concerned. Drew Gilpin Faust is now the President of the most recognizable, and arguably the most powerful, university in the world. Who cares what she looks like? That's a matter of taste, which is irrelevant in this context. Honestly, she looks friendly, decent, inviting, which is hardly a bad thing, given the past person who occupied this esteemed office. In fact, Drew is friendly, decent, inviting--and this is precisely what will make her a highly effective President of Harvard University.
A telling aside: I was at a fancy cocktail party this past weekend, and the only people who were saying anything negative or skeptical about Faust--all of whom, when pressed, admitted they knew nothing about her (other than that she was a woman)--were white men over the age of 60. Tells you something about how Harvard is changing. Welcome, finally, to the 21st century!
Regarding Drew Faust, I honestly think that she's an amazing--the best—choice for the Harvard Presidency at this moment. Remember that, as a scholar, she has redefined the field of Civil War studies. This was a largely male-dominated field when she began her work as a scholar, and she has devoted her distinguished career to understanding how the Civil War--that definitive, transformative, and cataclysmic event in American culture--affected all people who were living in the United States. In other words, scholars had for years understood the Civil War as an event that affected only men (white men), and her impressive scholarship has altered the way we think about that war in such a way as to take into account how women actually experienced the war. Her work has played an indispensable role in producing a sea-change in historical interpretation. Her work has even managed to win over most of the men who once dominated the field. She is a scholar of the highest rank, on a subject of signal importance, and her successful interventions into a male-dominated field--arguably, the most male-dominated field in all of American history—bode well for her ability to make inroads at Harvard.
That said, I want you to rethink your critique of her picture. One of the things that drives me crazy about the "punditry" is the obsession with looks, aesthetics, especially where women are concerned. Drew Gilpin Faust is now the President of the most recognizable, and arguably the most powerful, university in the world. Who cares what she looks like? That's a matter of taste, which is irrelevant in this context. Honestly, she looks friendly, decent, inviting, which is hardly a bad thing, given the past person who occupied this esteemed office. In fact, Drew is friendly, decent, inviting--and this is precisely what will make her a highly effective President of Harvard University.
A telling aside: I was at a fancy cocktail party this past weekend, and the only people who were saying anything negative or skeptical about Faust--all of whom, when pressed, admitted they knew nothing about her (other than that she was a woman)--were white men over the age of 60. Tells you something about how Harvard is changing. Welcome, finally, to the 21st century!