Shots In The Dark
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Bring Back Day Games
In the Bangor Daily News, columnist Ron Brown writes about an issue that I think everyone agrees with but I haven't seen much written about: The fact that the World Series games went so late, they were almost impossible to watch.
Seemed to me that the first pitch generally started around 8:40, and so the games pretty much went past midnight.
Because it was such a dull World Series, I didn't stay up for any last outs, but there are a lot of people wandering around Boston this week who need to catch up on their sleep.
(Also, get a life, but that's a separate issue.)
More important, these late games make it impossible for children to watch...so how will baseball cultivate its fans this way?
The game I'm writing about, the 1978 Yankee-Red Sox playoff, started at 2:30 PM. And the starting time was one reason why it became such a memorable event for so many people roughly my age—it marked a break in their schedule. Schools let out early, some kids watched in their school auditoriums....
But as Bucky Dent said to me when I interviewed him (take that, Sox fans), how different would it have been if that had been a night game?
If not day games, how about at least a 7:30 start time next year?
Seemed to me that the first pitch generally started around 8:40, and so the games pretty much went past midnight.
Because it was such a dull World Series, I didn't stay up for any last outs, but there are a lot of people wandering around Boston this week who need to catch up on their sleep.
(Also, get a life, but that's a separate issue.)
More important, these late games make it impossible for children to watch...so how will baseball cultivate its fans this way?
The game I'm writing about, the 1978 Yankee-Red Sox playoff, started at 2:30 PM. And the starting time was one reason why it became such a memorable event for so many people roughly my age—it marked a break in their schedule. Schools let out early, some kids watched in their school auditoriums....
But as Bucky Dent said to me when I interviewed him (take that, Sox fans), how different would it have been if that had been a night game?
If not day games, how about at least a 7:30 start time next year?
Please Stop Singing
IvyGate's "Worst Ivy League A Capella Tournament" rolls on; apparently there is no shortage of candidates.
Featured today are the Brown Jabberwocks, the Princeton Roaring 20, Cornell's Absolute A Capella, and Yale's Living Water. Listen as the Cornel group takes a classic Oasis song...and makes you never, ever want to hear it again!
(Plus, what are they doing with their bodies? It's as if they all have some sort of contagious nervous tic syndrome.)
Even the names are excruciating....
Featured today are the Brown Jabberwocks, the Princeton Roaring 20, Cornell's Absolute A Capella, and Yale's Living Water. Listen as the Cornel group takes a classic Oasis song...and makes you never, ever want to hear it again!
(Plus, what are they doing with their bodies? It's as if they all have some sort of contagious nervous tic syndrome.)
Even the names are excruciating....
Why Yale Is More Fun
Yale Dean Amerigo Fabbri has apologized for mistakenly calling the cops and breaking up a university-sanctioned party, the Pierson Inferno.
(Ah, yes, I remember it well....)
(Actually, I remember parts of it well.....)
“Had I known about the nature and occasion of the event, by no means, I assure you, would I have called the police!” Fabbri wrote.
That's the spirit.....
(Ah, yes, I remember it well....)
(Actually, I remember parts of it well.....)
“Had I known about the nature and occasion of the event, by no means, I assure you, would I have called the police!” Fabbri wrote.
That's the spirit.....
The Hoxbys in California
The San Jose Mercury-News takes note of Caroline and Blair Hoxby's arrival in California.
"I think that Stanford is on the top of its game as regards outreach," said Hoxby, "and this means better recruiting, better faculty, and - in the end - greater success all around."
"I think that Stanford is on the top of its game as regards outreach," said Hoxby, "and this means better recruiting, better faculty, and - in the end - greater success all around."
You Know Apple is Surging When...
A Windows user tries to make the case that Macs aren't good computers.
The Macintosh computer is the emasculated plaything of the effete, limp-wristed parlor liberals who have too much money and too little sense. Hopefully, when reality hits, it will go the way of POG caps, Beanie Babies, and Pokémon. Sure, it’s cute. It is, after all, just a very expensive paperweight.
The author, Harvard sophomore Eugene Kim, argues that Macs are too expensive, insufficiently powerful, don't have enough games made for them, and break easily. (Huh?)
Hmmmm. Try telling that to my friend whose couple-months-old Dell just died on her. She spent four hours on the phone with a guy in India. His advice—which, gasp, she followed—was to erase her hard drive and everything on it.
And she wasn't even using Vista!
Now, Mr. Kim is comping the Crimson, so he must be forgiven a little hyperbole. But do we really need a little gay-baiting ("effete, limp-wristed...) in there?
And, oh, by the way, Mr. Kim—I just installed Leopard on both my Macs, and it's running beautifully. How's that Vista thing working for you? (Whichever version you shelled out for....)
The Macintosh computer is the emasculated plaything of the effete, limp-wristed parlor liberals who have too much money and too little sense. Hopefully, when reality hits, it will go the way of POG caps, Beanie Babies, and Pokémon. Sure, it’s cute. It is, after all, just a very expensive paperweight.
The author, Harvard sophomore Eugene Kim, argues that Macs are too expensive, insufficiently powerful, don't have enough games made for them, and break easily. (Huh?)
Hmmmm. Try telling that to my friend whose couple-months-old Dell just died on her. She spent four hours on the phone with a guy in India. His advice—which, gasp, she followed—was to erase her hard drive and everything on it.
And she wasn't even using Vista!
Now, Mr. Kim is comping the Crimson, so he must be forgiven a little hyperbole. But do we really need a little gay-baiting ("effete, limp-wristed...) in there?
And, oh, by the way, Mr. Kim—I just installed Leopard on both my Macs, and it's running beautifully. How's that Vista thing working for you? (Whichever version you shelled out for....)
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
It's Going to be to an Interesting Off-Season
Will Joe Torre and Don Mattingly coach together again in Los Angeles?
The Yankees hire Joe Girardi. (I think it's the right choice.)
Will the Mets sign A-Rod? (Hilarious. Just what a jinxed organization needs—a jinxed player.)
Will the Yankees sign Mike Lowell? (I hope not. Too old, and he'll never have a better season than he just did.)
Are the Red Sox the new Yankees?
Everyone blasts A-Rod and Scott Boras:
Murray Chass:
So goes the sincerity of a player whose personality at first blush is so engaging that he can dupe experienced reporters, as he did me 10 years ago. I have since learned that he is not what he appears to be on the surface, and whether he allows Boras to manipulate him or agrees with his strategy, he comes across as disingenuous.
The Yankees hire Joe Girardi. (I think it's the right choice.)
Will the Mets sign A-Rod? (Hilarious. Just what a jinxed organization needs—a jinxed player.)
Will the Yankees sign Mike Lowell? (I hope not. Too old, and he'll never have a better season than he just did.)
Are the Red Sox the new Yankees?
Everyone blasts A-Rod and Scott Boras:
Murray Chass:
So goes the sincerity of a player whose personality at first blush is so engaging that he can dupe experienced reporters, as he did me 10 years ago. I have since learned that he is not what he appears to be on the surface, and whether he allows Boras to manipulate him or agrees with his strategy, he comes across as disingenuous.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Pushing Your Luck
I don't mean to joke about this, because it's actually kind of a touchy issue for me, but should a player whose number is 13 and who is said to bring bad luck to every team he plays for really be buying a jet?
Down with A Capella
IvyGate is having a competition to determine the worst a capella group in the Ivy League.
One is tempted to answer all of them....
Given that Harvard apparently has too many student groups, and that no one likes a capella groups except for the people who are in them...perhaps there's a natural solution here?
One is tempted to answer all of them....
Given that Harvard apparently has too many student groups, and that no one likes a capella groups except for the people who are in them...perhaps there's a natural solution here?
Boatloads of Babes?
Your latest Jeffrey Epstein news (it never seems to end):
Epstein - soon to cop a plea to soliciting sex from teen hookers at his Palm Beach estate - is being sued by a drug-addicted, transgender model who claims he/she was pressured into having sex with Epstein at the age of 16.
Sources say the former math teacher, who owns the lush, tropical island of Little St. James, off the coast of St. Thomas, regularly ferried boatloads of young women there.
Epstein's spokesman, Howard Rubenstein, wouldn't comment on whether Epstein has imported platoons of young babes.
Epstein - soon to cop a plea to soliciting sex from teen hookers at his Palm Beach estate - is being sued by a drug-addicted, transgender model who claims he/she was pressured into having sex with Epstein at the age of 16.
Sources say the former math teacher, who owns the lush, tropical island of Little St. James, off the coast of St. Thomas, regularly ferried boatloads of young women there.
Epstein's spokesman, Howard Rubenstein, wouldn't comment on whether Epstein has imported platoons of young babes.
Congrats to Red Sox fans
You have now caught up to the Florida Marlins.
Seriously, the Sox were obviously great and deserved to win; the Rockies were clearly overmatched. I still question why anyone has to play anyone else other than the Yankees and the Sox, though. Would have been so much more interesting than this dreadfully dull World Series. Did the Rockies lead once?
The funny thing was that, even though they weren't playing in the World Series, the Yankees still upstaged it; when Fox went to its reporter to break the news that A-Rod is going to opt out of his contract, you could feel the relief from Tim McCarver and Joe Buck—at last! Something interesting!
That Scott Boras is no dummy; he has a sense of dramatic timing.
Me, I'm not so sad about A-Rod. Yes, he had an amazing season. But he never really fit in in New York, and let's be honest, he's a complete head case. Check out those post-season stats, beginning with the 2004 ALCS: in four series, averages of .258, .133., .071, and .267. A whopping six RBIs in 20 games.
And then there was that infamous ball-slap against the Sox....his blond friend, which prompted the New York Post to dub him Stray Rod....his classy wife, who wore a t-shirt that declared "Fuck You" on the back to a Yankee game, where she happened to be sitting in front of a small child....his hanging out in illegal gambling clubs.....
Once before in his career, A-Rod chose the most money over the best situation, when he went to Texas. You'd think that he'd have learned from his mistake....
The question is really, Should the Red Sox sign him? He'd hit about 70 homers at Fenway. But would he be worth the trouble? And can you just go sign one of the most reviled Yankees?
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Rockies Rolled?
Will it end tonight? Please?
I'm sure that this is satisfying for Sox fans, but this World Series is frigging boring.....
An ALCS between the Yanks and the Sox would have been much more fun—and much more competitive. The Yankees seem to be the only team that's not intimidated by Boston's lineup....
I'm sure that this is satisfying for Sox fans, but this World Series is frigging boring.....
An ALCS between the Yanks and the Sox would have been much more fun—and much more competitive. The Yankees seem to be the only team that's not intimidated by Boston's lineup....
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Rockies in a Hard Place
They're down, 2-0, having lost a slugfest and a pitching duel. Will the thin air of Coors Field help them? Will David Ortiz playing first base help them? Will the collective will of millions upon millions who agree that the Red Sox are the new evil empire help them? (Let us not forget that the Red Sox resurgence has coincided with the presidency of George W. Bush.)
Go Rockies!
(If only to make this a more interesting World Series....)
Go Rockies!
(If only to make this a more interesting World Series....)
The Proliferation of Clubs
In the Globe, Linda Wertheimer writes that the number of student groups at Harvard has soared.
Harvard now recognizes nearly 400 clubs, up from 240 a decade ago, while the number at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has doubled to 508 over that period. Dartmouth College has more than 200 groups, a 25 percent jump.
Sounds like a good thing, right? Not necessarily. It's possible that some kids are starting groups just because they'd rather run something than be just one member of a group. Some of the organizations are redundant, and they all put pressure on the finite amount of funding for student groups.
"The high-achieving students come here and want to run something," said Judith Kidd, Harvard College's associate dean of student life. "What I try to tell students is: 'Most of you will not be Bill Gates. You need to learn how to work within an organization.' "
That is just a fascinating quote. I would have thought that a college dean might be sending the message, "You can be whatever you want to be, you're a Harvard student." Which is, after all, pretty much the way the college markets itself.
I'm not saying that Kidd is wrong, but it's curious to hear a dean tell students that not all of them were meant to be leaders, some are supposed to be followers.
Not sure if that argument would really work on your Harvard application essay....
Wertheimer fails to note one stunningly obvious reason for the growth in clubs: the Internet, and, in particular, Facebook, which allows for much easier student communication and cohesion than was possible in the pre- e-mail, pre-social networking days.
Harvard now recognizes nearly 400 clubs, up from 240 a decade ago, while the number at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has doubled to 508 over that period. Dartmouth College has more than 200 groups, a 25 percent jump.
Sounds like a good thing, right? Not necessarily. It's possible that some kids are starting groups just because they'd rather run something than be just one member of a group. Some of the organizations are redundant, and they all put pressure on the finite amount of funding for student groups.
"The high-achieving students come here and want to run something," said Judith Kidd, Harvard College's associate dean of student life. "What I try to tell students is: 'Most of you will not be Bill Gates. You need to learn how to work within an organization.' "
That is just a fascinating quote. I would have thought that a college dean might be sending the message, "You can be whatever you want to be, you're a Harvard student." Which is, after all, pretty much the way the college markets itself.
I'm not saying that Kidd is wrong, but it's curious to hear a dean tell students that not all of them were meant to be leaders, some are supposed to be followers.
Not sure if that argument would really work on your Harvard application essay....
Wertheimer fails to note one stunningly obvious reason for the growth in clubs: the Internet, and, in particular, Facebook, which allows for much easier student communication and cohesion than was possible in the pre- e-mail, pre-social networking days.
John Tierney Goes Nuts
In the Times yesterday, John Tierney attacked the Harvard School of Public Health for giving an award to Michael Bloomberg due to Bloomberg's fight against the use of trans-fats in New York City restaurant food.
How much good Mr. Bloomberg has done for New Yorkers’ health is debatable. But there’s no question he’s been good for the Harvard School of Public Health by promoting the trans-fat notions of its researchers, notably Walter Willett, the epidemiologist who has been the leading critic of trans fat.
Tierney goes on to say that maybe trans fats aren't so bad for you after all, and he quotes at length—it's actually a block quote—Elizabeth Whelan, the head of a group called the American Council on Science and Public Health.
How many deaths from heart disease will be prevented by the restaurant ban on trans fat? Our best guess is zero.
What Tierney doesn't bother to mention, though, is that both Whelan and her group are generally considered less than credible sources.
For one thing, it receives some of its funding from the fast food industry, which heavily fought the trans fat ban.
Some of the commenters point this out, and Tierney responds to them quite disdainfully—until Eric Schlosser, the author of Fast Food Nation, also chimes in, and Tierney doesn't bother to respond to him.
Here is a rule about journalism: If you make a mistake, it's better to admit it than to stonewall, whether you work for the New York Times or Podunk Weekly. And definitely don't compound it by mocking the people who point out your mistake. (Tierney actually asks readers to discuss whether he should delete a comment which criticizes him.)
Tierney should admit his mistake. And even better, the Times should hire Eric Schlosser as a columnist.
_______________________________________________________________
P.S. A footnote: I've just read through all the comments, which are pretty lengthy. They absolutely destroy Tierney's argument—to the point where his column now seems not just wrong, but irresponsible.
That New York Times has some pretty sharp readers.
How much good Mr. Bloomberg has done for New Yorkers’ health is debatable. But there’s no question he’s been good for the Harvard School of Public Health by promoting the trans-fat notions of its researchers, notably Walter Willett, the epidemiologist who has been the leading critic of trans fat.
Tierney goes on to say that maybe trans fats aren't so bad for you after all, and he quotes at length—it's actually a block quote—Elizabeth Whelan, the head of a group called the American Council on Science and Public Health.
How many deaths from heart disease will be prevented by the restaurant ban on trans fat? Our best guess is zero.
What Tierney doesn't bother to mention, though, is that both Whelan and her group are generally considered less than credible sources.
For one thing, it receives some of its funding from the fast food industry, which heavily fought the trans fat ban.
Some of the commenters point this out, and Tierney responds to them quite disdainfully—until Eric Schlosser, the author of Fast Food Nation, also chimes in, and Tierney doesn't bother to respond to him.
Here is a rule about journalism: If you make a mistake, it's better to admit it than to stonewall, whether you work for the New York Times or Podunk Weekly. And definitely don't compound it by mocking the people who point out your mistake. (Tierney actually asks readers to discuss whether he should delete a comment which criticizes him.)
Tierney should admit his mistake. And even better, the Times should hire Eric Schlosser as a columnist.
_______________________________________________________________
P.S. A footnote: I've just read through all the comments, which are pretty lengthy. They absolutely destroy Tierney's argument—to the point where his column now seems not just wrong, but irresponsible.
That New York Times has some pretty sharp readers.
Friday, October 26, 2007
Whose Intelligence is Worse to Insult?
...women's or African-Americans'?
That James Watson has just resigned as chancellor of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory within days of making remarks skeptical of Africans, while Lawrence Summers lingered at Harvard for over a year after his comments, suggests that the answer is the latter...
In the roster of offensive remarks, race apparently still trumps gender....
Why, I wonder?
That James Watson has just resigned as chancellor of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory within days of making remarks skeptical of Africans, while Lawrence Summers lingered at Harvard for over a year after his comments, suggests that the answer is the latter...
In the roster of offensive remarks, race apparently still trumps gender....
Why, I wonder?
K
Finally figured it out—my old friend, Karin, who was in London at the time; hence the 1:35 AM text. Sweet of her to remember! Also, someone at the K School should give her a job. She's brilliant.
Friday
Sorry about the light posting lately, folks, especially because there's lots to talk about—James Watson, Jeffrey Epstein, the Princeton lawsuit.
But I am, at the moment, deathly ill, and my head feels like someone bored a(nother) hole in it and filled it with Corning fiberglass insulation. Plus, the Red Sox aren't helping things.
So I will post as health permits....
But I am, at the moment, deathly ill, and my head feels like someone bored a(nother) hole in it and filled it with Corning fiberglass insulation. Plus, the Red Sox aren't helping things.
So I will post as health permits....
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Thanks!
Many thanks to those who wished me a happy birthday yesterday; much appreciated.
Also, would "k" who texted me at 1:35 AM please tell me who she is?
Also, would "k" who texted me at 1:35 AM please tell me who she is?
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Giuliani's Mistake
I think Rudy Giuliani has just made a major mistake in saying that he would root for the Red Sox.
As a poster below points out, New Hampshire-based Sox fans will smell a/the rat.
And the New York media is playing this big.
CNN, for example, headlines, "Giuliani Stuns New York." (And CNN is New York media, these days.)
The Post calls him a "Red Coat," and the Daily News calls him a traitor and—I like this one!—"the Yankee flipper."
He really is an awful human being.
As a poster below points out, New Hampshire-based Sox fans will smell a/the rat.
And the New York media is playing this big.
CNN, for example, headlines, "Giuliani Stuns New York." (And CNN is New York media, these days.)
The Post calls him a "Red Coat," and the Daily News calls him a traitor and—I like this one!—"the Yankee flipper."
He really is an awful human being.
Rudy Giuliani, Traitor
Rudy Giuliani yesterday proved what an untrustworthy little rat he is: He announced, "I'm rooting for the Red Sox."
Nonononnonono, Rudy.
I know you say that you're rooting for the American League, and if it were any other team involved, that would be fine.
But this is different; this is the Red Sox. As any real Yankee fan will tell you, one's antipathy to the Red Sox vastly outweighs one's allegiance to the American League. (I mean, please. Who really cares that much about the AL versus the NL anymore?) And if the places were reversed, Sox fans would say the same, I have no doubt.
Rudy, you are a snake.
I mean, we already knew that, but this provides the damning photo evidence.....
Rudy Giuliani: snake, rat, and traitor.
Nonononnonono, Rudy.
I know you say that you're rooting for the American League, and if it were any other team involved, that would be fine.
But this is different; this is the Red Sox. As any real Yankee fan will tell you, one's antipathy to the Red Sox vastly outweighs one's allegiance to the American League. (I mean, please. Who really cares that much about the AL versus the NL anymore?) And if the places were reversed, Sox fans would say the same, I have no doubt.
Rudy, you are a snake.
I mean, we already knew that, but this provides the damning photo evidence.....
Rudy Giuliani: snake, rat, and traitor.
Meet the New Sox
Has winning taken all the fun out of rooting for the Red Sox? Are they a more boring team than they used to be? Wouldn't it be better to go back to the old ways?
Brian McGrory asks these very important questions in today's Globe.
The first order of business is to admit it to ourselves: 2004 was more meaningful. Back then, and in the 86 years that preceded it, we knew who we were. We were hapless, though never hopeless. We were the ones that always had something to overcome - a curse, a seemingly in surmountable deficit, a little-brother syndrome.
... what have we become?
And here's the answer we know but dread: Another free-spending, big market team that buys its way into the postseason with every expectation that it will win.
Is it possible that the Yankees have become the likeable underdogs while the Sox have become the soulless machine?
It is!
Brian McGrory asks these very important questions in today's Globe.
The first order of business is to admit it to ourselves: 2004 was more meaningful. Back then, and in the 86 years that preceded it, we knew who we were. We were hapless, though never hopeless. We were the ones that always had something to overcome - a curse, a seemingly in surmountable deficit, a little-brother syndrome.
... what have we become?
And here's the answer we know but dread: Another free-spending, big market team that buys its way into the postseason with every expectation that it will win.
Is it possible that the Yankees have become the likeable underdogs while the Sox have become the soulless machine?
It is!
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
An October Gem?
Tim Marchman in the Sun thinks this World Series has all the makings of a baseball classic.
Meanwhile, two depressed Yankee fans I know think the Sox will sweep.... As one put it, Josh Beckett=two automatic wins, meaning that the Rockies would have to win four of five otherwise.....
The same depressed Yankee fans also think that the Sox might have the makings of a dynasty here......
arghargharghargharghargharghargh, etc.
Meanwhile, two depressed Yankee fans I know think the Sox will sweep.... As one put it, Josh Beckett=two automatic wins, meaning that the Rockies would have to win four of five otherwise.....
The same depressed Yankee fans also think that the Sox might have the makings of a dynasty here......
arghargharghargharghargharghargh, etc.
Jeffrey Epstein Is Having a Bad Year
Here is my favorite lede in recent memory (and don't pretend it wasn't on purpose, you crafty Crimson folks):
For billionaire investor Jeffrey Epstein, charges of illicit sex practices just keep coming.
Let me go on record as saying that I'm now starting to feel sorry for Jeffrey Epstein. The guy clearly has a problem. But he never forced anyone to do anything, and the lawsuit that the Crimson article describes sounds like a complete crock to me. And Crimson, are you sure it wasn't first reported in the New York Post, not by ABC News?
After all, the Post has been doing top-notch reporting on the Epstein case. Today, for example, it reports that ...
The stunning model wannabe who says she was pressured into a hush- hush affair with billionaire Jeffrey Epstein when she was only 16 has an even bigger secret - she's a man.
The young woman used to be a young boy, then went under the knife.
"I'm a spoiled bitch and really mean," her MySpace page says.
Now, I'm just guessing, but given that it was Alan Dershowitz who dug up dirt on some of the other accusers by checking out their MySpace pages, could Professor Dershowitz have possibly fed this delicious little item to the Post?
Maximiliana (nee Maximilian) Cordero.
For billionaire investor Jeffrey Epstein, charges of illicit sex practices just keep coming.
Let me go on record as saying that I'm now starting to feel sorry for Jeffrey Epstein. The guy clearly has a problem. But he never forced anyone to do anything, and the lawsuit that the Crimson article describes sounds like a complete crock to me. And Crimson, are you sure it wasn't first reported in the New York Post, not by ABC News?
After all, the Post has been doing top-notch reporting on the Epstein case. Today, for example, it reports that ...
The stunning model wannabe who says she was pressured into a hush- hush affair with billionaire Jeffrey Epstein when she was only 16 has an even bigger secret - she's a man.
The young woman used to be a young boy, then went under the knife.
"I'm a spoiled bitch and really mean," her MySpace page says.
Now, I'm just guessing, but given that it was Alan Dershowitz who dug up dirt on some of the other accusers by checking out their MySpace pages, could Professor Dershowitz have possibly fed this delicious little item to the Post?
Maximiliana (nee Maximilian) Cordero.
Monday, October 22, 2007
A Woman on Women in Science
In the Globe, Cathy Young updates the discussion on women, science and gender.
THE DEBATE over women's place in science, which proved to be the downfall of Harvard President Lawrence Summers after he suggested that male preeminence in the field could be due at least partly to biological traits and personal choices, remains a lightning rod for controversy. Earlier this month, the subject was tackled in two different symposiums - one at Harvard, the other at the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington-based right-of-center think tank.
(Can we trust a writer who makes an egregious mistake in the very first sentence of her story?)
Young, who is a libertarian, is most concerned about government intervention in the debate.
The discussion of gender and science is not mere theory. It has to do with practical plans to remake the scientific establishment in a woman-friendly image. Many proposals are innocuous enough, and some are being implemented at many schools: extending the tenure clock for new parents and other measures to help combine scientific careers with family responsibilities. But there is also talk of programs to eradicate subtle and unconscious biases (which sounds like a prescription for politically correct witch hunts) and of invoking Title IX of the Civil Rights Act to bring down the wrath of the federal government on institutions that are purportedly too slow to correct inequalities in science.
Invoking Title IX? I haven't heard of this, but I'll take Young's word for it. Nothing could be more damaging to women scientists, of course, than affirmative action not of socioeconomic status, but of the mind.....
THE DEBATE over women's place in science, which proved to be the downfall of Harvard President Lawrence Summers after he suggested that male preeminence in the field could be due at least partly to biological traits and personal choices, remains a lightning rod for controversy. Earlier this month, the subject was tackled in two different symposiums - one at Harvard, the other at the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington-based right-of-center think tank.
(Can we trust a writer who makes an egregious mistake in the very first sentence of her story?)
Young, who is a libertarian, is most concerned about government intervention in the debate.
The discussion of gender and science is not mere theory. It has to do with practical plans to remake the scientific establishment in a woman-friendly image. Many proposals are innocuous enough, and some are being implemented at many schools: extending the tenure clock for new parents and other measures to help combine scientific careers with family responsibilities. But there is also talk of programs to eradicate subtle and unconscious biases (which sounds like a prescription for politically correct witch hunts) and of invoking Title IX of the Civil Rights Act to bring down the wrath of the federal government on institutions that are purportedly too slow to correct inequalities in science.
Invoking Title IX? I haven't heard of this, but I'll take Young's word for it. Nothing could be more damaging to women scientists, of course, than affirmative action not of socioeconomic status, but of the mind.....
Maybe It Wouldn't Have Made a Difference
...but can I just point out that Kenny Lofton was clearly safe?
So who has the advantage here, Boston or Colorado? And what will they do if it keeps snowing in Colorado?
So who has the advantage here, Boston or Colorado? And what will they do if it keeps snowing in Colorado?
Monday Morning Karma
Remember Richard Mellon Scaife, the conservative billionaire who's spent hundreds of millions of dollars bankrolling moralistic conservative thinktanks and newspapers? The one who couldn't spent enough money trying to prove that Bill Clinton was an adulterer?
Well, turns out he's...an adulterer!
And not only that, but his choice of consort is, well, a former consort. Or, as the Washington Post puts it, Social Register material she is not.
The two usually met each other twice a week, for months, at the motel, says an employee of the motel. Scaife would show up in a chauffeured car, dressed in a suit, wearing cuff links, always bearing flowers. Vasco would be waiting in same room every time, Room 5 on the ground floor, facing the parking lot, said the employee. Mr. Dick, as he was known at the motel, would stay for two hours or so, then get back in the car, which had been waiting, and leave.
Now Scaife's wife, Ritchie, is suing for divorce. And—ooops—they don't have a pre-nup. Even before the case has been ruled on, she's getting $725,000 a month from her husband by court order.
All of this, by the way, comes from documents which were supposed to be sealed, but a court clerk mistakenly posted to a public section of the court's website. Whoops!
What will happen to the Heritage Foundation, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review and others if Scaife loses half his money?
Well, turns out he's...an adulterer!
And not only that, but his choice of consort is, well, a former consort. Or, as the Washington Post puts it, Social Register material she is not.
The two usually met each other twice a week, for months, at the motel, says an employee of the motel. Scaife would show up in a chauffeured car, dressed in a suit, wearing cuff links, always bearing flowers. Vasco would be waiting in same room every time, Room 5 on the ground floor, facing the parking lot, said the employee. Mr. Dick, as he was known at the motel, would stay for two hours or so, then get back in the car, which had been waiting, and leave.
Now Scaife's wife, Ritchie, is suing for divorce. And—ooops—they don't have a pre-nup. Even before the case has been ruled on, she's getting $725,000 a month from her husband by court order.
All of this, by the way, comes from documents which were supposed to be sealed, but a court clerk mistakenly posted to a public section of the court's website. Whoops!
What will happen to the Heritage Foundation, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review and others if Scaife loses half his money?
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Sunday Morning Zen
Four-year-old Yang Yang swims with a five-year-old beluga whale in a Qingdao aquarium.
Four-year-old Yang Yang swims with a five-year-old beluga whale in a Qingdao aquarium.
Hilariously Bad Journalism
Remember Socks, the Clinton's cat? Well, at the end of the Clinton presidency, they gave Socks away to presidential assistant Betty Currie.
Now the Times of London reports that the Clintons' treatment of Socks could hurt Hillary's chances of winning the presidency.
Some believe the abandoned pet could now come between Hillary Clinton and her ambition to return to the White House as America’s first woman president.
... Clinton’s treatment of Socks cuts to the heart of the questions about her candidacy. Is she too cold and calculating to win the presidency? Or does it signify political invincibility by showing she is willing to deploy every weapon to get what she wants?
Hmm.....
Who are these "some" who believe that Sox could doom Hillary?
Well, other than an idiotic article by Caitlin Flanagan in the November Atlantic, nobody.
And how exactly does giving a cat to a friend who can presumably take better care of it mean that you "abandoned" your pet?
Now the Times of London reports that the Clintons' treatment of Socks could hurt Hillary's chances of winning the presidency.
Some believe the abandoned pet could now come between Hillary Clinton and her ambition to return to the White House as America’s first woman president.
... Clinton’s treatment of Socks cuts to the heart of the questions about her candidacy. Is she too cold and calculating to win the presidency? Or does it signify political invincibility by showing she is willing to deploy every weapon to get what she wants?
Hmm.....
Who are these "some" who believe that Sox could doom Hillary?
Well, other than an idiotic article by Caitlin Flanagan in the November Atlantic, nobody.
And how exactly does giving a cat to a friend who can presumably take better care of it mean that you "abandoned" your pet?
The Great Bathroom Debate
American University is changing its men's and women's bathrooms to gender-neutral bathrooms, so that transgender students won't have to face "an anxiety-ridden decision," according to the LA Times.
At least 17 schools, including Ohio State University and the University of Vermont, have pledged to include gender-neutral bathrooms in new buildings, said Stephanie Gordon, director of educational programs for NASPA, an association of student affairs administrators.
Who are the losers here? Well, Larry Craig, of course, because gender-neutral bathrooms are generally designed for one person.
More seriously, women—because we all know that men are slobs.....
At least 17 schools, including Ohio State University and the University of Vermont, have pledged to include gender-neutral bathrooms in new buildings, said Stephanie Gordon, director of educational programs for NASPA, an association of student affairs administrators.
Who are the losers here? Well, Larry Craig, of course, because gender-neutral bathrooms are generally designed for one person.
More seriously, women—because we all know that men are slobs.....
Yale Wins Again
The Bulldogs trounced Penn yesterday, winning 26-20. In three overtimes. After Penn couldn't score from first and goal on the 1. Yale is now 6-0, 3-0 in the Ivy League.
Oh, and thanks to some execrable pitching by Cleveland, a baseball team from a small New England town narrowly eked out a victory last night.
Oh, and thanks to some execrable pitching by Cleveland, a baseball team from a small New England town narrowly eked out a victory last night.
Friday, October 19, 2007
Joe Torre: The Contract Was an "Insult"
Appearing relaxed and good humored at a press conference in Westchester this afternoon, outgoing Yankees manager Joe Torre said he rejected the team's one-year contract offer yesterday because he considered the length of the contract and the incentives an "insult."
Up to $8 million for one season?
Up to $8 million for one season?
Yale's Top Model
Ivygate has an interview with Victoria Marsham, a Yale '09 history major who apparently just got booted off the reality show "America's Next Top Model."
Turns out..she's incredibly charming!
...[Do] you think your elimination was based on television, not modeling?
VM: No. I mean, my cactus picture wasn't very good. I don't consider myself very pretty. Most high fashion or editorial models aren't that pretty in real life, anyway. I'm too pale, too gangly, and have too weird a face to ever be considered sexy. But the show's definitely geared toward a certain kind of girl, and at the end of the day, I did go on as a joke.
Reality still trumps "reality"!
Ivygate has an interview with Victoria Marsham, a Yale '09 history major who apparently just got booted off the reality show "America's Next Top Model."
Turns out..she's incredibly charming!
...[Do] you think your elimination was based on television, not modeling?
VM: No. I mean, my cactus picture wasn't very good. I don't consider myself very pretty. Most high fashion or editorial models aren't that pretty in real life, anyway. I'm too pale, too gangly, and have too weird a face to ever be considered sexy. But the show's definitely geared toward a certain kind of girl, and at the end of the day, I did go on as a joke.
Reality still trumps "reality"!
Does James Watson Have Nobel Syndrome?
Isn't it sort of fascinating how James Watson, who in his book, Avoid Boring People, defends Larry Summers for his women-in-science remarks, now finds himself on a similar hot seat for remarks impugning the intelligence of black people?
And (sort of) just as Summers would lose his job in the extended aftermath of those remarks, so has Watson been suspended from the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory?
Now a clever article in the Telegraph (those Brits! nothing if not clever) suggests that Watson is afflicted with Nobel Syndrome, an ailment that comes to the very intelligent who become so infatuated with their intelligence that they abandon the intellectual rigor which won them the Nobel in the first place.
Nobel Syndrome often emerges after retirement. ...Remove a great mind from this ultra-sceptical environment, then replace it with friends, family and colleagues who are happy to nod and smile when you go old coot, and it is easy to see how a pop star of science ends up talking drivel.
And did you know that winning a Nobel has been found to add two years to your life? I suspect that Watson just gave those two years back....
And (sort of) just as Summers would lose his job in the extended aftermath of those remarks, so has Watson been suspended from the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory?
Now a clever article in the Telegraph (those Brits! nothing if not clever) suggests that Watson is afflicted with Nobel Syndrome, an ailment that comes to the very intelligent who become so infatuated with their intelligence that they abandon the intellectual rigor which won them the Nobel in the first place.
Nobel Syndrome often emerges after retirement. ...Remove a great mind from this ultra-sceptical environment, then replace it with friends, family and colleagues who are happy to nod and smile when you go old coot, and it is easy to see how a pop star of science ends up talking drivel.
And did you know that winning a Nobel has been found to add two years to your life? I suspect that Watson just gave those two years back....
Creepy
I'll bet that the 13,000 people who sold their Patriots tickets on Stubhub never realized that Stubhub could be legally forced to turn their names over to the team, which may now revoke their season tickets...
Patriots, this is a very, very, very bad move. Keep people from reselling their tickets, fine. But gathering names? Creepy, creepy, creepy. (Cue fascistic music in background.)
The Patriots even collected the names of people who merely bid on the tickets.....
Patriots, this is a very, very, very bad move. Keep people from reselling their tickets, fine. But gathering names? Creepy, creepy, creepy. (Cue fascistic music in background.)
The Patriots even collected the names of people who merely bid on the tickets.....
HBSC Ponies Up
The Harvard Business School Club of New York has given $1 million to five area charities, its largest gift ever....
The Sox Are Alive
How about that Josh Beckett? I think maybe he should win the Cy Young....
Meanwhile, after 12 years and 12 post-seasons, the Joe Torre era with the Yankees is over. I will blaspheme, but I don't think this is the end of the world. Torre is a lovely guy who's obviously great with his players, management, and the media. The lack of controversy during his tenure has been a joy and a relief to Yankee fans.
But he has never been the most skilled tactician, and—I know Sox fans will find this hard to believe—he was a better manager when Don Zimmer was his bench coach.
Also, I think Torre looks petty turning down a one-year, $5-million deal with incentives that could have brought the total to $8 million.....
Scott Boras, the agent for Damon and Alex Rodriguez, told The Associated Press that Torre would have lost respect among the players if he had taken a pay cut.
Meanwhile, after 12 years and 12 post-seasons, the Joe Torre era with the Yankees is over. I will blaspheme, but I don't think this is the end of the world. Torre is a lovely guy who's obviously great with his players, management, and the media. The lack of controversy during his tenure has been a joy and a relief to Yankee fans.
But he has never been the most skilled tactician, and—I know Sox fans will find this hard to believe—he was a better manager when Don Zimmer was his bench coach.
Also, I think Torre looks petty turning down a one-year, $5-million deal with incentives that could have brought the total to $8 million.....
Scott Boras, the agent for Damon and Alex Rodriguez, told The Associated Press that Torre would have lost respect among the players if he had taken a pay cut.
“It is difficult, near impossible, to accept a salary cut,” Boras said. “Successful people can afford their principles. They understand if they accept the position, there is a great risk the message to all under him is dissatisfaction.”
Does he think that any other team is going to pay a manager more?Thursday, October 18, 2007
Sox Fans Viciously Turning on Each Other
In the Globe, Dan Shaughnessy already starts apportioning blame.
Theo Epstein is in for his share of finger-pointing if the Sox are eliminated by the Tribe. It's never a good thing when your $143 million payroll bites the dust against a team with a $61 million payroll. Dan Duquette assembled half of the 2004 champs, but what we are looking at today is almost exclusively Theo's team and it's his most recent acquisitions who have been exposed thus far in October.
I'm going to stick up for fellow Eli Theo here, and not just because he went to a fine school in a lovely New England town (have you been there lately?), with a kick-ass football team, but because it's an indirect way of sticking up for the Yankees.
Whenever the Yankees lose a playoff, you hear some pundits say, as Shaughnessy just did, How dare a team with a fill-in-the-blank payroll lose?
To which I've always said that beyond a certain point, your payroll bears a diminishing correlation to the excellence of your team.
The Yankees, for example, consistently overpay for free agents; their payroll could probably be 20% smaller than the 200 million or whatever it is and they'd still field basically the same team.
But in any case, there are lots of other factors involved in a team's success besides being able to pay players the most amount of money (as the Red Sox are finding out).
Team chemistry, young players, finding the right young pitchers—none of these things are guaranteed by having a big checkbook, and one could argue that sometimes having a lot of money to spend works against these intangibles.
Granted, on balance having a huge payroll gives a team a significant advantage in being able to sign the players it decides are essential.
Nonetheless, I think that the correlation between payroll size and winning is less automatic than Yankee (and now Sox) critics like to assume.
If you look at the Yankees now, for example, the most exciting players (Chamberlain, Hughes, Cano, Cabrera) are the ones being paid the least, and the most underperforming players (Clemens, Giambi, Mussina, perhaps Damon) are being paid in the eight-figures....
That said, I do enjoy Sox fans turning on each other like starving, rabid dogs.
Theo Epstein is in for his share of finger-pointing if the Sox are eliminated by the Tribe. It's never a good thing when your $143 million payroll bites the dust against a team with a $61 million payroll. Dan Duquette assembled half of the 2004 champs, but what we are looking at today is almost exclusively Theo's team and it's his most recent acquisitions who have been exposed thus far in October.
I'm going to stick up for fellow Eli Theo here, and not just because he went to a fine school in a lovely New England town (have you been there lately?), with a kick-ass football team, but because it's an indirect way of sticking up for the Yankees.
Whenever the Yankees lose a playoff, you hear some pundits say, as Shaughnessy just did, How dare a team with a fill-in-the-blank payroll lose?
To which I've always said that beyond a certain point, your payroll bears a diminishing correlation to the excellence of your team.
The Yankees, for example, consistently overpay for free agents; their payroll could probably be 20% smaller than the 200 million or whatever it is and they'd still field basically the same team.
But in any case, there are lots of other factors involved in a team's success besides being able to pay players the most amount of money (as the Red Sox are finding out).
Team chemistry, young players, finding the right young pitchers—none of these things are guaranteed by having a big checkbook, and one could argue that sometimes having a lot of money to spend works against these intangibles.
Granted, on balance having a huge payroll gives a team a significant advantage in being able to sign the players it decides are essential.
Nonetheless, I think that the correlation between payroll size and winning is less automatic than Yankee (and now Sox) critics like to assume.
If you look at the Yankees now, for example, the most exciting players (Chamberlain, Hughes, Cano, Cabrera) are the ones being paid the least, and the most underperforming players (Clemens, Giambi, Mussina, perhaps Damon) are being paid in the eight-figures....
That said, I do enjoy Sox fans turning on each other like starving, rabid dogs.
I'm Your Girl
The Globe reports* that Hillary Clinton has been playing up her feminine side lately, "increasingly portraying herself more as motherly and traditional than as trailblazing and feminist, sometimes playing up the differences between men and women."
...On "The View," a daytime TV talk show aimed at female viewers, Clinton criticized people who focus on her haircut or clothes, yet she joked about the differences between her and her male rivals: "Well, look how much longer it takes me to get ready."
And at the AFL-CIO Democratic forum in Chicago in August, the most memorable moment was Clinton's buoyant declaration to the union faithful that if they wanted a winner, "I'm your girl."
One understands Hillary's dilemma; apparently many voters still see her as too "strident," and she has to walk the line between being "strong" and being "feminine," which is of course a bogus dichotomy.
But still...
I'm your girl?
___________________________________________________________
* Incidentally, the reporter is our old friend, the M-Bomb, Marcella Bombardieri. We miss you, Marcella!
...On "The View," a daytime TV talk show aimed at female viewers, Clinton criticized people who focus on her haircut or clothes, yet she joked about the differences between her and her male rivals: "Well, look how much longer it takes me to get ready."
And at the AFL-CIO Democratic forum in Chicago in August, the most memorable moment was Clinton's buoyant declaration to the union faithful that if they wanted a winner, "I'm your girl."
One understands Hillary's dilemma; apparently many voters still see her as too "strident," and she has to walk the line between being "strong" and being "feminine," which is of course a bogus dichotomy.
But still...
I'm your girl?
___________________________________________________________
* Incidentally, the reporter is our old friend, the M-Bomb, Marcella Bombardieri. We miss you, Marcella!
Quote of the Day #2
"The fact that [Harvard] was actually paying for unsupervised drinking is simply stupid and shouldn't have been happening in the first place. Kids have far too easy access to alcohol as it is, and they didn't need their university's help to get it.''
—David Rosenbloom, 63, the chief investigator of the federally funded Youth Alcohol Prevention Center at Boston University's School of Public Health.
—David Rosenbloom, 63, the chief investigator of the federally funded Youth Alcohol Prevention Center at Boston University's School of Public Health.
Drew Faust in the FT
She gave an interview to the FT's Rebecca Knight in which she said that her priorities are, in this order:
1) making Harvard more affordable to lower- and middle-income students
2) to "make Harvard operate as one university"
3) to advocate for the arts
Ms Faust said the fact that she is the first woman to lead Harvard "matters enormously".
1) making Harvard more affordable to lower- and middle-income students
2) to "make Harvard operate as one university"
3) to advocate for the arts
Ms Faust said the fact that she is the first woman to lead Harvard "matters enormously".
"My appointment was stunningly meaningful to women and men across the world. I find this moving; I find this a responsibility. I'm proud to play that role."
Does anyone else get the feeling that Faust's appreciation of her status as HFWP (Harvard's first woman president) has actually grown since she was chosen?Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Quote of the Day
“We’re not going to give up. We’re just going to go, play the game and move on. If it doesn’t happen, so who cares? It’s always next year. It’s not like the end of the world.”
—The Red Sox' Manny Ramirez
—The Red Sox' Manny Ramirez
Time to Get Out of the Market?
Harvard alum Ray Soifer has a theory about when it's time to ditch your stocks: Anytime 40% of a year's HBS graduating class goes to Wall Street, as it did this year....
Mr. Soifer advises investors to sell stocks any time that more than 30% of graduates from Harvard Business School choose to work for brokerage firms, private equity shops, or hedge funds. The thinking holds that if so many bright young people choose to do such mind-numbing tasks as crunching numbers, preparing Power Point presentations, or pricing collateralized debt obligations, that's a sure sign of a market top.
Mr. Soifer advises investors to sell stocks any time that more than 30% of graduates from Harvard Business School choose to work for brokerage firms, private equity shops, or hedge funds. The thinking holds that if so many bright young people choose to do such mind-numbing tasks as crunching numbers, preparing Power Point presentations, or pricing collateralized debt obligations, that's a sure sign of a market top.
Sticking Up for Tactlessness
Everyone's dumping on UC president Ryan Petersen for giving a speech at Drew Faust's inauguration that took a couple of mild shots at the Harvard College administration. Now the Crimson edit board joins in:
...the fiery speech that Undergraduate Council President Ryan A. Petersen ’08 delivered criticizing the College administration was inappropriate and wholly out of character with the spirit of the occasion. Charged with speaking on behalf of students at the College and all of the graduate schools, Petersen’s tactless rhetoric undermined the many legitimate points he made and rendered us embarrassed to be among the constituency that he purported to represent.
Embarrassed to be among the constituency that he purported to represent? That's a bit harsh, no?
If I may offer a word in Petersen's defense....
I love Harvard students, really I do. I had a fantastic time teaching them back when I was a TF, I learned a ton interviewing them for Harvard Rules, and hell, I even work for two of them. They're great guys, and I'm not just saying that so they'll give me a raise, though that's fine too. Harvard students are, to me, the most inspiring thing about the university, and there are many inspiring things about Harvard.
But there are times when the modern generation of Harvard students seems so conformist, so desperately afraid of rocking the boat, that one wants to shake them to see if they're really alive or if they're instead just some sort of Stepford student.
Heaven forbid that students protesting a heavy-handed and unresponsive administration do anything impolite or tactless. That would be nuts, right? Because in life, the best way to get ahead is to conform, play by the rules, suck up to your superiors, and toe the line. After all, you're all part of the same power establishment, right?
Harvard's presidential installation is on one level a celebration of the university, true. But on another level, it's a deeply political event, a coronation of sorts. It's about power, and it harnesses all the resources and heritage of the university to get everyone affected to buy in.
The Crimson editorial board has obviously drunk the Kool-Aid. The paper says he "implicitly rejected the mutual responsibility of the student citizenship he represented." I'm not so sure. Couldn't it be argued that part of the responsibility involved is to remind the Harvard administration that its students aren't just smiling suck-ups waiting for a pat on the head? That they are more than neatly dressed drones in capitalism's assembly line?
(But...oh no! There may be some bumps on the road to Wall Street. Disaster!)
Ryan Peterson threw a stick in the spokes of Harvard's best-laid plans. He reminded the community that students do have strong opinions and that some of them aren't afraid to express those opinions. He committed a political act during a political event.
More power to him, I'd say. Twenty years from now, I'd rather have a Crimson alum manifest that kind of we're not gonna take it attitude than the hush-hush, be good now posture of the Crimson's editorial board.
...the fiery speech that Undergraduate Council President Ryan A. Petersen ’08 delivered criticizing the College administration was inappropriate and wholly out of character with the spirit of the occasion. Charged with speaking on behalf of students at the College and all of the graduate schools, Petersen’s tactless rhetoric undermined the many legitimate points he made and rendered us embarrassed to be among the constituency that he purported to represent.
Embarrassed to be among the constituency that he purported to represent? That's a bit harsh, no?
If I may offer a word in Petersen's defense....
I love Harvard students, really I do. I had a fantastic time teaching them back when I was a TF, I learned a ton interviewing them for Harvard Rules, and hell, I even work for two of them. They're great guys, and I'm not just saying that so they'll give me a raise, though that's fine too. Harvard students are, to me, the most inspiring thing about the university, and there are many inspiring things about Harvard.
But there are times when the modern generation of Harvard students seems so conformist, so desperately afraid of rocking the boat, that one wants to shake them to see if they're really alive or if they're instead just some sort of Stepford student.
Heaven forbid that students protesting a heavy-handed and unresponsive administration do anything impolite or tactless. That would be nuts, right? Because in life, the best way to get ahead is to conform, play by the rules, suck up to your superiors, and toe the line. After all, you're all part of the same power establishment, right?
Harvard's presidential installation is on one level a celebration of the university, true. But on another level, it's a deeply political event, a coronation of sorts. It's about power, and it harnesses all the resources and heritage of the university to get everyone affected to buy in.
The Crimson editorial board has obviously drunk the Kool-Aid. The paper says he "implicitly rejected the mutual responsibility of the student citizenship he represented." I'm not so sure. Couldn't it be argued that part of the responsibility involved is to remind the Harvard administration that its students aren't just smiling suck-ups waiting for a pat on the head? That they are more than neatly dressed drones in capitalism's assembly line?
(But...oh no! There may be some bumps on the road to Wall Street. Disaster!)
Ryan Peterson threw a stick in the spokes of Harvard's best-laid plans. He reminded the community that students do have strong opinions and that some of them aren't afraid to express those opinions. He committed a political act during a political event.
More power to him, I'd say. Twenty years from now, I'd rather have a Crimson alum manifest that kind of we're not gonna take it attitude than the hush-hush, be good now posture of the Crimson's editorial board.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Drew Faust in the Crimson
In the Crimson, columnist Alexandra Petri writes of the societal pressure on women to look good and how it affects their happiness. In this context, she says, Drew Faust is a breath of fresh air.
I have great expectations for the new Harvard president. For when I think of Drew Gilpin Faust, “effortlessly hot,” is not the first phrase that springs to mind. Nor is it the second, third, or tenth.
In this context, Faust shines like a beacon of hope. Perhaps her election will inspire more of us to set down the make-up bag and toe buffer—or whatever that horrifying-looking implement is—and find more productive ways to spend our time.
I'll leave it at that....
I have great expectations for the new Harvard president. For when I think of Drew Gilpin Faust, “effortlessly hot,” is not the first phrase that springs to mind. Nor is it the second, third, or tenth.
In this context, Faust shines like a beacon of hope. Perhaps her election will inspire more of us to set down the make-up bag and toe buffer—or whatever that horrifying-looking implement is—and find more productive ways to spend our time.
I'll leave it at that....
Greetings from Miami
Where I have to catch a plane in a couple of hours, and so write only to suggest that the Red Sox are in a bit of trouble now....Even the Yankees beat Jake Westbrook!
(Small consolation, but still....)
(Small consolation, but still....)
Monday, October 15, 2007
The Craziness at Columbia
Being president of Columbia really seems like a tricky job sometimes.
The New York Sun reports that an Iranian scholar there has accused Lee Bollinger of "mind-numbing racism."
Hamid Dabashi, a professor of Iranian studies and comparative literature, writes in an article published this week in an Egyptian newspaper, Al-Ahram, that the introduction Mr. Bollinger extended to the visiting Iranian leader included "the most ridiculous clichés of the neocon propaganda machinery, wrapped in the missionary position of a white racist supremacist carrying the heavy burden of civilizing the world."
The Columbia president's opening statement, Mr. Dabashi writes, is "propaganda warfare … waged by the self-proclaimed moral authority of the United States."
I'm no neo-con, but how do such purveyors of agitprop get tenure?
I mean, really, that is just terrible writing.
The New York Sun reports that an Iranian scholar there has accused Lee Bollinger of "mind-numbing racism."
Hamid Dabashi, a professor of Iranian studies and comparative literature, writes in an article published this week in an Egyptian newspaper, Al-Ahram, that the introduction Mr. Bollinger extended to the visiting Iranian leader included "the most ridiculous clichés of the neocon propaganda machinery, wrapped in the missionary position of a white racist supremacist carrying the heavy burden of civilizing the world."
The Columbia president's opening statement, Mr. Dabashi writes, is "propaganda warfare … waged by the self-proclaimed moral authority of the United States."
I'm no neo-con, but how do such purveyors of agitprop get tenure?
I mean, really, that is just terrible writing.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Monday Morning Song
Just slightly early, as I'm traveling to an 02138 event in Miami. Anyway, this is Ceu, a Brazilian singer I've been listening to a lot in the past few months. See what you think....
On Physicality
Let me address some posters below who suggest that I am "obsessed" with physical appearance because a) I live in New York, b) I'm sexist, c) I'm shallow, and d) just cuz.
All of the above may be true, but I don't think so; in fact, I don't even buy the premise that I'm obsessed with physical appearance.
What I have seen over and over, however, is that in every leadership environment one can imagine, physical appearance matters. Whether it's LBJ using his height to intimidate, Kennedy just, well, being Kennedy, Reagan using his twinkly eyes to charm, Derek Bok looking straight out of central casting, Larry Summers taking a different tack, Steve Jobs in blue jeans—the way that a leader physically presents him or herself affects the reception of his or her program. Remember Hillary Clinton's haircuts? Jimmy Carter in running shorts?
Another example: I am quite convinced that Al Gore will not run for president. Why? Because he's gained a lot of weight. Does that make me shallow? No. It just suggests to me that Gore enjoys his current life too much to conform to the sacrifices demanded of a presidential candidate. (After all, when was the last time a fat person ran for president? Because, well, what would that extra weight signify in a leader, really? Indiscipline? Sloth? Or just bad genes?)
I know that in Cambridge this is an unpopular theory, as it's more appealing to believe that ideas, people, and programs succeed on merit alone. This is, of course, nonsense. Perhaps things shouldn't be this way, but to point out a truism of the human condition does not make the observer shallow, sexist, and so on. Is it any coincidence that many of Harvard's best-known professors happen to be beautiful dressers? Do not Steve Pinker, Malcolm Gladwell and Albert Einstein all brand themselves in a particular way, and is this not relevant to the way in which they are perceived?
Now, you folks may fault me for discussing the physical makeover Drew Faust underwent in the last eight months—snazzier clothing, more jewelry, new glasses, better haircut, whiter teeth (I think). But hey, if I'm wrong just to remark upon it, then isn't she more wrong for doing it? Because she obviously thinks that appearance matters, or she wouldn't have done these things.
And let's be honest—you folks think so too. When I was reporting Harvard Rules, the one comment that I heard most about Larry Summers by far was criticism of his physical appearance—his untucked shirts, his dirty ties, his eating habits, and so on.
And this was, in fact, a perfectly legitimate thing to comment upon, as Summers' sloppiness suggested to many of you a disrespect to the community. Whether or not that impression was accurate or fair, it did have a tangible impact on Summers' ability to lead that community; he should have cared more about what he wore and how he looked. This was a mistake that Derek Bok surely never made.
And this is a lesson that Drew Faust seems to have learned, and there is nothing wrong in pointing that out, unless you want to close both your eyes and your critical faculties.
Now, tell me the truth: Imagine the (let's be honest, and no offense intended) slightly more drab Drew Faust on that stage the other day, instead of the more youthful, more spruced up Faust we all saw.
I'm sure it wouldn't have affected your reaction to her speech. You are, of course, bigger than that. But perhaps you'll concede that some people might have been more inclined to think positively of her because she looked great? Particularly all the non-academic types....
The point is, Harvard has a leader now who is in the process of evolving from one identity—the academic—to another: a national educational leader.
That process of transformation is going to be very important to her ability to do her job, and so it's interesting and worthwhile to take note of the various signs of ways in which she is changing. (Flashes of the spirit, an old professor of mine might have called them.) They suggest that she is either taking to her new identity, her new persona, or not. (In this case, I'd say, yes, she is—and that's probably a good thing for Harvard.)
Are they the most important ways in which she is changing? Probably not. But they are significant; they reflect her own self-consciousness about the demands of the leadership role she now has. She is playing a part, and the part demands a costume. When one reviews a play, does one not remark upon the wardrobe? There is no difference.
Remember, for example, that powerful scene in Elizabeth when Cate Blanchett acknowledges her transformation from an ordinary woman into the Queen of England by painting her face thick with white make-up? Is it so terrible to point out the parallels as another woman ascends to another throne?
The degree is different, the principle the same. One must look the part one is chosen to play, if one wishes to play it well.
A community of scholars—scholars, not cheerleaders—should not be so anxious about the delineation of transformation. If you are blind to these changes, you may one day be blindsided by them.
All of the above may be true, but I don't think so; in fact, I don't even buy the premise that I'm obsessed with physical appearance.
What I have seen over and over, however, is that in every leadership environment one can imagine, physical appearance matters. Whether it's LBJ using his height to intimidate, Kennedy just, well, being Kennedy, Reagan using his twinkly eyes to charm, Derek Bok looking straight out of central casting, Larry Summers taking a different tack, Steve Jobs in blue jeans—the way that a leader physically presents him or herself affects the reception of his or her program. Remember Hillary Clinton's haircuts? Jimmy Carter in running shorts?
Another example: I am quite convinced that Al Gore will not run for president. Why? Because he's gained a lot of weight. Does that make me shallow? No. It just suggests to me that Gore enjoys his current life too much to conform to the sacrifices demanded of a presidential candidate. (After all, when was the last time a fat person ran for president? Because, well, what would that extra weight signify in a leader, really? Indiscipline? Sloth? Or just bad genes?)
I know that in Cambridge this is an unpopular theory, as it's more appealing to believe that ideas, people, and programs succeed on merit alone. This is, of course, nonsense. Perhaps things shouldn't be this way, but to point out a truism of the human condition does not make the observer shallow, sexist, and so on. Is it any coincidence that many of Harvard's best-known professors happen to be beautiful dressers? Do not Steve Pinker, Malcolm Gladwell and Albert Einstein all brand themselves in a particular way, and is this not relevant to the way in which they are perceived?
Now, you folks may fault me for discussing the physical makeover Drew Faust underwent in the last eight months—snazzier clothing, more jewelry, new glasses, better haircut, whiter teeth (I think). But hey, if I'm wrong just to remark upon it, then isn't she more wrong for doing it? Because she obviously thinks that appearance matters, or she wouldn't have done these things.
And let's be honest—you folks think so too. When I was reporting Harvard Rules, the one comment that I heard most about Larry Summers by far was criticism of his physical appearance—his untucked shirts, his dirty ties, his eating habits, and so on.
And this was, in fact, a perfectly legitimate thing to comment upon, as Summers' sloppiness suggested to many of you a disrespect to the community. Whether or not that impression was accurate or fair, it did have a tangible impact on Summers' ability to lead that community; he should have cared more about what he wore and how he looked. This was a mistake that Derek Bok surely never made.
And this is a lesson that Drew Faust seems to have learned, and there is nothing wrong in pointing that out, unless you want to close both your eyes and your critical faculties.
Now, tell me the truth: Imagine the (let's be honest, and no offense intended) slightly more drab Drew Faust on that stage the other day, instead of the more youthful, more spruced up Faust we all saw.
I'm sure it wouldn't have affected your reaction to her speech. You are, of course, bigger than that. But perhaps you'll concede that some people might have been more inclined to think positively of her because she looked great? Particularly all the non-academic types....
The point is, Harvard has a leader now who is in the process of evolving from one identity—the academic—to another: a national educational leader.
That process of transformation is going to be very important to her ability to do her job, and so it's interesting and worthwhile to take note of the various signs of ways in which she is changing. (Flashes of the spirit, an old professor of mine might have called them.) They suggest that she is either taking to her new identity, her new persona, or not. (In this case, I'd say, yes, she is—and that's probably a good thing for Harvard.)
Are they the most important ways in which she is changing? Probably not. But they are significant; they reflect her own self-consciousness about the demands of the leadership role she now has. She is playing a part, and the part demands a costume. When one reviews a play, does one not remark upon the wardrobe? There is no difference.
Remember, for example, that powerful scene in Elizabeth when Cate Blanchett acknowledges her transformation from an ordinary woman into the Queen of England by painting her face thick with white make-up? Is it so terrible to point out the parallels as another woman ascends to another throne?
The degree is different, the principle the same. One must look the part one is chosen to play, if one wishes to play it well.
A community of scholars—scholars, not cheerleaders—should not be so anxious about the delineation of transformation. If you are blind to these changes, you may one day be blindsided by them.
Globe,Get Me Rewrite
Manager Terry Francona had already shot his wad of reliable bullpen arms by using Manny Delcarmen, Hideki Okajima, Mike Timlin, and closer Jonathan Papelbon (for scoreless innings in the ninth and 10th).
—The Globe, today
—The Globe, today
Saturday, October 13, 2007
The Speech, Part II
Re-reading the post below, I fear that I may have come across as too hard on Drew Faust's installation speech. So let me add that, on the whole, I think it was a fine speech, generally gracious and eloquent, laying out some important and relevant themes. Was it ambitious? Not really. But maybe that's not what the university needs right now; perhaps a cautious leader is appropriate for this moment in Harvard's history. Someone who will soothe the troubled waters...and that takes time.
In any case, Drew Faust continues to interest in an entirely different way than Larry Summers did. She is harder to read than Summers, much more subtle, much more below the surface. But so far, she really hasn't made any mistakes, and given the immensely delicate situation she landed in, that may be enough. For now, anyway.
In any case, Drew Faust continues to interest in an entirely different way than Larry Summers did. She is harder to read than Summers, much more subtle, much more below the surface. But so far, she really hasn't made any mistakes, and given the immensely delicate situation she landed in, that may be enough. For now, anyway.
The Speech
Some thoughts on Drew Faust's installation speech:
* Speaking generally about the import and values of the university, rather than detailing a specific agenda, was probably a sound strategic move; there is no question that Faust has learned from the experience of her predecessor.
At the same time, it wouldn't have made much sense for her to talk grandly about her agenda, because as far as we know, she doesn't have one beyond the one she inherited. Moreover, just because this was not the occasion to detail her agenda doesn't mean that such an occasion does not exist. This may not have been the time for a "State of the Union" speech...but Faust needs to deliver such a speech sooner rather than later.
* "As our colleagues in anthropology understand so well..." Faust began one paragraph. That is a line one would never have heard coming from Larry Summers' mouth, and I suspect the humanists within FAS took note. Was the shout-out deliberate and political? Almost certainly. Will the humanists eat it up? Absolutely.
* The strongest part of the speech was Faust's detailing of the "state of paradox" in which higher education finds itself. Americans' ambivalence about their elite universities is an important puzzle to address.
At the same time, Faust's analysis of this paradox was lackluster. Quoting from a PBS special? For most people, that's an insignificant point of reference. (Ah, but Faust went on PBS' "News Hour.") Faulting the Bush administration? Few take seriously the Bush administration in any regard, including higher ed. It's a straw man, designed to please the base, which includes the editorial pages of the Globe and the Times, which will surely respond with their approval.
Harvard's larger and more difficult challenge is to identify and assert its values in what the New York Times Magazine tomorrow calls "the Second Gilded Age," and that is a subject about which Faust was conspicuously silent. I know it's a difficult subject to raise, given that many Harvard alums are participants in this new and worrisome money culture, and that many Harvard students go to Harvard primarily so that they can join it, and that some Harvard schools promote it. But is there any greater threat to the values that Faust was discussing in reminding her audience of what a university truly stands for?
(For more on this subject, see Andrew Hacker's essay in the current NYRB, "They'd Rather Be Rich, which raises issues that feel to me more urgent, if less politically palatable, than the ones Drew Faust raised yesterday.")
* I was struck by Faust's repeated use of the phrase "Harvard and its peers," which seemed both winningly modest and an attempt to establish a community of universities. Two good notes to strike.
* I continue to think that Faust needs to lay off the references to herself as a symbol of Harvard's progress. "My presence here today...would have been unimaginable even a few short years ago." Maybe, maybe not. I know that she is trying to congratulate Harvard, but it is impossible to make this remark without sounding self-congratulatory. Moreover, there are real dangers in equating yourself with the university; what goes up can come down, as my old college president, Bart Giamatti, learned when striking workers made him the personification of all that they disliked about Yale.
Everyone present knew that this was a historic day; everyone in the press was going to lead with it; how elegant it would have been for Faust to speak to this point with her presence rather than with her rhetoric.
To be fair, one can understand Faust's inclusion of the subject. It surely is a big deal to her, and some of her new constituencies feel passionately about the gender issue and would have expected her to take note of it. A tough line to walk.
* I think that Faust struck a wrong note by quoting James Bryant Conant's letter to "be opened by the Harvard president at the outset of the next century." (Faust "broke the seal," she says—but wouldn't Larry Summers have been the one to open this letter?)
Because Conant's letter began, "Dear Sir," Faust got a big laugh—the audience "erupted" in laughter, according to the Crimson—as she surely expected she would; there was no substantive reason to mention the fact. A Harvard president born in 1893 was sexist? Shocker.
But poking fun at the shortsightedness of a past Harvard president is a cheap shot. As Faust reminds us, she is a historian, one whose biography of a Southern slave owner depended on understanding the anachronistic attitudes of the past. From a scholar's perspective, this was not her finest moment. Was it a sign, no matter how small, that she is leaving behind her old identity, her old values, as a historian? Making the transformation from a scholar to a university president?
In such carefully considered writing, the inclusion of the unnecessary is always telling, and to me the fact that Faust went out of her way to chastise Conant suggests one thing: that underneath her placid exterior, Faust still carries an anger about the way women have been subjugated in the past, and that this anger will continue to show itself. Faust isn't going to avoid the subject of her distinctive status—Harvard's first female president—because it matters to her a lot, and because she's pissed about the sexism she encountered back in Virginia and, probably, everywhere else.
Good! She is more interesting as a result.
And here is another possible interpretation: That this was a subtle, very subtle, reminder of her predecessor's women-in-science remarks. You see? it says. When it comes to Harvard presidents and science and sexism....well, there's some history there. Faust reminds people of the discriminatory attitudes of past Harvard presidents, but she carefully avoids explicitly referencing one sitting on stage with her.
* Here's something else that makes her more interesting. I hesitate to point it out, because the same people who got mad when I mentioned that a college classmate considered Tamara Rogers a "knockout" (or whatever it was) will rise to the occasion again here.
But...as one looks at the photos of yesterday's event, it's impossible not to note the physical makeover that Drew Faust has undergone. Different hair: She's grown it out, got a better haircut, new, blonder coloring, carefully blown out; lipstick; new glasses; pearl earrings; good make-up. (And maybe more? Hmmmm....)
There were some pictures of Faust on Harvard.edu (in Memorial Church, for example) in which I almost didn't recognize her.
Am I wrong to bring this up? Maybe. But since Drew Faust herself keeps bringing up her gender, and for women in positions of power, such cosmetic adjustments are invariably a political act, this subject strikes me as fair game.
(In the new issue of 02138, for example, we ran an interview with a woman who wrote a book about the pro-feminist implications of a woman letting her hair go gray. So I am clearly not the only one thinking about this topic. Sample question from the female interviewer: Would you dye your hair if you were running for president? Author: "I think having gray hair would be a competitive advantage for me—a signal to the electorate that I was telling the truth.")
Don't misunderstand me; I see nothing wrong with Faust wanting to pay more attention to her appearance, and those of you who follow this blog will know that I have commented on the relationship between physical appearance and leadership skills regarding men at least as often as with women. (LHS, WAM) And, of course, the Harvard community was obsessed with the physical presentation of Larry Summers. What's good for the gander is good for the goose, right?
But what is interesting about Faust's transformation is that she looked younger and prettier yesterday in a more stereotypically feminine way than in any previous image of her I've ever seen.
For some people, that's feminist; for others, that's anti-feminist. The political labels are less interesting than the possibilities.
One could say simply that she learned from her predecessor—well, from all three of her most recent predecessors, really— that there is a correlation between the ability to lead and self-presentation.
One could say that her new power and fame has filled Faust with a flush of self-confidence and vitality that she wants her personna to reflect.
One could say that she concluded that her previous stark, minimalist look might not go over well with Harvard's moneyed alums.
One could say that men get cut more slack in this regard than women do, and that women are judged on their looks more than men are, and Faust is smart enough to know that.
One could say that she wanted to look nice on her big day.
I draw no conclusions; I just think it's interesting. And probably smart, and certainly understandable. We all might upgrade our presentation a bit if we were anointed president of Harvard.
There are no more fascinating people to watch than those in the process of self-transformation. For Harvard, that process may be more important than anything Drew Faust said in her speech yesterday.
Now:
Then
* Speaking generally about the import and values of the university, rather than detailing a specific agenda, was probably a sound strategic move; there is no question that Faust has learned from the experience of her predecessor.
At the same time, it wouldn't have made much sense for her to talk grandly about her agenda, because as far as we know, she doesn't have one beyond the one she inherited. Moreover, just because this was not the occasion to detail her agenda doesn't mean that such an occasion does not exist. This may not have been the time for a "State of the Union" speech...but Faust needs to deliver such a speech sooner rather than later.
* "As our colleagues in anthropology understand so well..." Faust began one paragraph. That is a line one would never have heard coming from Larry Summers' mouth, and I suspect the humanists within FAS took note. Was the shout-out deliberate and political? Almost certainly. Will the humanists eat it up? Absolutely.
* The strongest part of the speech was Faust's detailing of the "state of paradox" in which higher education finds itself. Americans' ambivalence about their elite universities is an important puzzle to address.
At the same time, Faust's analysis of this paradox was lackluster. Quoting from a PBS special? For most people, that's an insignificant point of reference. (Ah, but Faust went on PBS' "News Hour.") Faulting the Bush administration? Few take seriously the Bush administration in any regard, including higher ed. It's a straw man, designed to please the base, which includes the editorial pages of the Globe and the Times, which will surely respond with their approval.
Harvard's larger and more difficult challenge is to identify and assert its values in what the New York Times Magazine tomorrow calls "the Second Gilded Age," and that is a subject about which Faust was conspicuously silent. I know it's a difficult subject to raise, given that many Harvard alums are participants in this new and worrisome money culture, and that many Harvard students go to Harvard primarily so that they can join it, and that some Harvard schools promote it. But is there any greater threat to the values that Faust was discussing in reminding her audience of what a university truly stands for?
(For more on this subject, see Andrew Hacker's essay in the current NYRB, "They'd Rather Be Rich, which raises issues that feel to me more urgent, if less politically palatable, than the ones Drew Faust raised yesterday.")
* I was struck by Faust's repeated use of the phrase "Harvard and its peers," which seemed both winningly modest and an attempt to establish a community of universities. Two good notes to strike.
* I continue to think that Faust needs to lay off the references to herself as a symbol of Harvard's progress. "My presence here today...would have been unimaginable even a few short years ago." Maybe, maybe not. I know that she is trying to congratulate Harvard, but it is impossible to make this remark without sounding self-congratulatory. Moreover, there are real dangers in equating yourself with the university; what goes up can come down, as my old college president, Bart Giamatti, learned when striking workers made him the personification of all that they disliked about Yale.
Everyone present knew that this was a historic day; everyone in the press was going to lead with it; how elegant it would have been for Faust to speak to this point with her presence rather than with her rhetoric.
To be fair, one can understand Faust's inclusion of the subject. It surely is a big deal to her, and some of her new constituencies feel passionately about the gender issue and would have expected her to take note of it. A tough line to walk.
* I think that Faust struck a wrong note by quoting James Bryant Conant's letter to "be opened by the Harvard president at the outset of the next century." (Faust "broke the seal," she says—but wouldn't Larry Summers have been the one to open this letter?)
Because Conant's letter began, "Dear Sir," Faust got a big laugh—the audience "erupted" in laughter, according to the Crimson—as she surely expected she would; there was no substantive reason to mention the fact. A Harvard president born in 1893 was sexist? Shocker.
But poking fun at the shortsightedness of a past Harvard president is a cheap shot. As Faust reminds us, she is a historian, one whose biography of a Southern slave owner depended on understanding the anachronistic attitudes of the past. From a scholar's perspective, this was not her finest moment. Was it a sign, no matter how small, that she is leaving behind her old identity, her old values, as a historian? Making the transformation from a scholar to a university president?
In such carefully considered writing, the inclusion of the unnecessary is always telling, and to me the fact that Faust went out of her way to chastise Conant suggests one thing: that underneath her placid exterior, Faust still carries an anger about the way women have been subjugated in the past, and that this anger will continue to show itself. Faust isn't going to avoid the subject of her distinctive status—Harvard's first female president—because it matters to her a lot, and because she's pissed about the sexism she encountered back in Virginia and, probably, everywhere else.
Good! She is more interesting as a result.
And here is another possible interpretation: That this was a subtle, very subtle, reminder of her predecessor's women-in-science remarks. You see? it says. When it comes to Harvard presidents and science and sexism....well, there's some history there. Faust reminds people of the discriminatory attitudes of past Harvard presidents, but she carefully avoids explicitly referencing one sitting on stage with her.
* Here's something else that makes her more interesting. I hesitate to point it out, because the same people who got mad when I mentioned that a college classmate considered Tamara Rogers a "knockout" (or whatever it was) will rise to the occasion again here.
But...as one looks at the photos of yesterday's event, it's impossible not to note the physical makeover that Drew Faust has undergone. Different hair: She's grown it out, got a better haircut, new, blonder coloring, carefully blown out; lipstick; new glasses; pearl earrings; good make-up. (And maybe more? Hmmmm....)
There were some pictures of Faust on Harvard.edu (in Memorial Church, for example) in which I almost didn't recognize her.
Am I wrong to bring this up? Maybe. But since Drew Faust herself keeps bringing up her gender, and for women in positions of power, such cosmetic adjustments are invariably a political act, this subject strikes me as fair game.
(In the new issue of 02138, for example, we ran an interview with a woman who wrote a book about the pro-feminist implications of a woman letting her hair go gray. So I am clearly not the only one thinking about this topic. Sample question from the female interviewer: Would you dye your hair if you were running for president? Author: "I think having gray hair would be a competitive advantage for me—a signal to the electorate that I was telling the truth.")
Don't misunderstand me; I see nothing wrong with Faust wanting to pay more attention to her appearance, and those of you who follow this blog will know that I have commented on the relationship between physical appearance and leadership skills regarding men at least as often as with women. (LHS, WAM) And, of course, the Harvard community was obsessed with the physical presentation of Larry Summers. What's good for the gander is good for the goose, right?
But what is interesting about Faust's transformation is that she looked younger and prettier yesterday in a more stereotypically feminine way than in any previous image of her I've ever seen.
For some people, that's feminist; for others, that's anti-feminist. The political labels are less interesting than the possibilities.
One could say simply that she learned from her predecessor—well, from all three of her most recent predecessors, really— that there is a correlation between the ability to lead and self-presentation.
One could say that her new power and fame has filled Faust with a flush of self-confidence and vitality that she wants her personna to reflect.
One could say that she concluded that her previous stark, minimalist look might not go over well with Harvard's moneyed alums.
One could say that men get cut more slack in this regard than women do, and that women are judged on their looks more than men are, and Faust is smart enough to know that.
One could say that she wanted to look nice on her big day.
I draw no conclusions; I just think it's interesting. And probably smart, and certainly understandable. We all might upgrade our presentation a bit if we were anointed president of Harvard.
There are no more fascinating people to watch than those in the process of self-transformation. For Harvard, that process may be more important than anything Drew Faust said in her speech yesterday.
Now:
Then
Here She Is....
The Times: Drew Gilpin Faust, Harvard University’s first female president, was inaugurated Friday and offered a spirited defense of American higher education against demands that it quantify what it is teaching and focus primarily on training a global work force.
The Globe: Rather than give a list of priorities for Harvard in her address, Faust defended American colleges against attacks on their quality and said Harvard and other universities should become leaders in national conversations about education.
The Crimson: As expected, Faust explicitly avoided laying out a road map for her tenure in her 30-minute
The Times: Drew Gilpin Faust, Harvard University’s first female president, was inaugurated Friday and offered a spirited defense of American higher education against demands that it quantify what it is teaching and focus primarily on training a global work force.
The Globe: Rather than give a list of priorities for Harvard in her address, Faust defended American colleges against attacks on their quality and said Harvard and other universities should become leaders in national conversations about education.
The Crimson: As expected, Faust explicitly avoided laying out a road map for her tenure in her 30-minute