Larry Summers v Ward Churchill - why the disparate treatment?

Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by Orson, Feb 21, 2005.

Loading...
  1. Orson

    Orson New Member

    It is really interesting to read & listen to the academy argue for unlimited, unencumbered, unquestionable freedom of speech rights for tenured faculty member Ward Churchill, and then turnaround and excoriate Larry Summers for not being properly sensitive for how his opinion might be received.

    You'll forgive me if I completely fail to understand how saying that the people who died on 9/11 deserved to die deserves a higher level of protection than Summers pronouncement that maybe-perhaps-possibly there is some innate reason that there are fewer women than men in hard sciences.

    I find the re-education of Larry Summers to be all about assertion of power by a group who had their shibboleths questioned.

    [quoted from http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/005186.html]
     
  2. Orson

    Orson New Member

    I'm a newly hired scientist at Harvard, and I have been amazed by the fact that almost all of my colleagues agree that this hypothesis (that biological differences contribute to the persistent discrepancy between the numbers of men and women in the natural sciences and mathematics) should not even be considered. To let politics direct scientific inquiry undermines the integrity of the research process, and I warn my colleagues here that they need to rethink their policy very carefully.

    One reason why they should rethink this policy of not considering a biological-differences hypothesis is because in many cases, the most obvious, parsimonious, and best supported hypothesis for gender differences in behavior is that men and women are -- on average -- "wired" differently. Looking at violent behavior, there is ample evidence that men are simply more violent than women, and it has a lot to do with the way they think and their continual production of androgens. No matter what culture or time in history, men are more likely to be in prison for violent crimes, have almost exclusive possession of seats on death rows, and are much more prone to using violent methods when committing suicide than women. There has been only one female serial killer in the U.S., and she was lesbian. When you administer testosterone to baby chicks, they start fighting each other (as well as grow combs and start crowing); this is a common demonstration in animal behavior classes.

    My suspicion is that liberal politics have not eliminated a biological-differences hypothesis entirely, just when it makes women look bad. Thus, not only have scientists here let politicians tell them what hypotheses they can investigate, they have let politicians destroy their intellectual consistency.

    Posted by: brett on February 20, 2005 [from above]
     
  3. Orson

    Orson New Member

    I walk about constantly amazed, nowadays. Gays are said to be biologically predisposed to their orientation (though if they weren't, their civil liberties would precipitate the same politics by another route). We're asked to accept this as uncontroversial; indeed, to controvert it is to invite charges of homophobia. But let Summers suggest that there may be differences between men and women, and all hell breaks loose. We're obliged to accept notions of radical genetic distinctions within gender, but it seems we're as obliged to deny any distinctions between genders. As far as I can tell, the world is insane.

    Posted by: rasqual on February 20, 2005 [ditto]
     
  4. qvatlanta

    qvatlanta New Member

    First of all, what's the disparate treatment? Warch Churchill was forced to resign from his post and will probably be fired from his university. Larry Summers has come under a lot of criticism, but that's about it so far.

    Second of all, Summers' remarks were just plain stupid. Are there genetic differences between men and women? Of course there are. How do those genetic differences translate into intellectual endeavors? That's an extremely complicated question that needs to be handled with care and scientific rigor. As a parallel example, racial differences... are there a genetic differences between blacks and whites? Of course there are. Then when you examine the answer more closely things become very complicated. Patterns of human migration mean that there is actually less genetic diversity outside Africa than there is within Africa, which means that a Japanese and Norwegian might be more close genetically than an Ethiopian and a Khoisan are. Implications for physical health issues are hard to determine because many diseases disproportionately affecting native-born African-Americans don't affect some of their closest genetic relatives -- recent West African immigrants.

    Larry Summers' simply made a stupid, off-the-cuff comment and has since apologized and explained that the issue was much more complicated than he made it out to be.

    Lastly, I thought it was a libertarian principle to defend any kind of freedom of speech. Either of those two people were perfectly free to make any kind of comment they see fit to make, and the general public and their employers should be equally free to react to those comments. It's you who seem to have the double standard.
     
  5. Tom57

    Tom57 Member

    The problems with Summers go much deeper than the latest scandal. Many of the faculty object to his corporate style of management. They object to his push to centralize the decision making process. They also objected to his initial refusal to release transcripts of what he said. Many felt that once he did, his words didn't seem so inflammatory.

    While I understand your comparison to the gay issue, there is a subtle distinction you've left out in order to make your point. The gay issue is usually expressed in terms of whether gays "choose" to be gay or not. The question of nature versus nurture (genetic) is more controversial and much harder to prove. The empirical evidence for choice versus no choice is overwhelming. All you have to do is ask 5,000 or so gays, and the absolutely overwhelming response is that he/she always felt that way - from earliest memories. Gays do not choose to be gay, no matter what sort of idiocy the religious right tries to put forth. Thinking folk without a religious/bible thumping/hell doctrine to push accept this. Those of us who are not gay have our own experience to back this up. I for one don't ever remember choosing to be attracted to women. I don't find it particularly comforting, uplifting, or intellectually persuasive to imagine that gays are such strange animals that they choose to be gay out of some sort of sinful perversion.

    The choice argument is the one you are asked "to accept...as uncontroversial". Is that such a stretch? The nature versus nurture argument is the one that runs parallel to the gender/science issue. Both of those are still up in the air, though the evidence seems to be tilting towards nature on the one and no real gender differences (at least at a young age) on the other.
     
  6. qvatlanta

    qvatlanta New Member

    I have to disagree with you on this... not in a major way, just to say that the issue is more complicated than nature vs. nurture. It is not an either/or equation. Your genes affect the way you look. The way other people react to you is often based on the way you look. The way other people react to you helps to form your personality. That's just one example of how you can't really separate the two.

    I also think that there are true, mental genetic differences between men and women, even at a very young age. There was a recent documentary I saw about a famous case from the 60s. A horribly botched circumcision resulted in a severely castrated baby boy. The parents took the advice of a famous psychologist and raised him as a girl. Unfortunately, the boy grew up to be very angry and depressed, had a bad relationship with his parents and eventually decided to get a sex change and live as a man. On the other hand, there are cases of men and women who are genetically really born men and women (no chromosomal rarities) that decided they were born the wrong sex and have had sex changes. Their decision FELT like an overriding physical necessity, but studies so far have not proven any reliable physical difference.

    The very basic differences between men and women are simply that men tend to be taller and have more upper body musculature, less body fat, different hormone levels and (obviously) different genitals. There are also mental differences between men and women. However, these mental differences CANNOT, at the current stage of science, be traced back to any complex of genes. Some of them have to do with testosterone vs. estrogen, some of them have to do with the way men and women are raised. Also there is a continuum of gender. The average man may be stronger than the average women but there are plenty of women stronger than the average man. I think it is insanely stupid to look at a quick survey or poll and state the conclusion as "men are inherently better at science than women!" or "women are genetically more tender and caring than men!" Genetic differences are extremely subtle and complex and express themselves in a cultural -- not biological -- environment. I love reading accessible books about cognitive science and genetics written for non-scientist readers and one of the things I have learned is not to trust anyone who makes any claims about finding genetic differences unless they are experts in the subject, incredibly cautious and rigorous -- and only trust them unless they say "and I could be wrong on this..."
     
  7. little fauss

    little fauss New Member

    Summers is just unwise to make such comments in his position; his job is to be an goodwill ambassador, glad hand the rich alums, raise $$$ for Harvard, and avoid controversy--not create it. And by the way, I think what he said is perfectly fine and reasonable fodder for debate; men and women are different in virtually ever other way, why should we assume there aren't some things women tend to do slightly better than men and vice-versa? The faculty uproar is juvenile and hilarious.

    Churchill's problem is more deep-seated: I think the guy's a deeply disturbed and severely ethically-challenged individual. He can't write much better than the average student in my community college class, he prints outright lies and supports them with fictitional cites or cites that say precisely the opposite of his thesis, and he even allowed the name of his degree-granting college to be misspelled on his own faculty webpage: "Ward, it's Sangamon State, not Sangaman."

    This guy doesn't belong in academia, and the reason has little or nothing to do with his controversial views.
     
  8. Tom57

    Tom57 Member

    Yes, I agree with you re the complex relationship between genetics and environment. It is very difficult to sort out true genetic differences from the cultural environment in which they may be observed. There may be a whole range of factors involving environment, genetics, societal etc. Figuring out where one leaves off and another one starts is difficult. However, many of the studies that I have read re the abilities of women in math and science seem to indicate that any genetic differences are probably dwarfed by environmental factors that subtly and not so subtly discourage girls from scientific pursuits. The matter is hardly settled though.

    The argument about gay choice remains, however, and it is completely resolvable based on empirical evidence. The evidence is in and the matter is, for all intents and purposes, decided: gays do not choose to be gay. End of discussion on that point.
     
  9. uncle janko

    uncle janko member

    Perhaps, but white Ward Churchill chose to "be" First Nations. Kinda like Michael Jackson chose to be, uh...
     
  10. uncle janko

    uncle janko member

    Perhaps, but white Ward Churchill chose to "be" First Nations. Kinda like Michael Jackson chose to be, uh...
     
  11. scross

    scross New Member

  12. Guest

    Guest Guest

    While I think Jackson is one of the most talented entertainers in the history of pop music, I feel his is definitely a pedophile.

    Anyway, your comments reminded me of a Leno joke.

    Leno said he was called as a witness in the Jackson trial (This is true.).

    He then added, "Us white guys gotta stick together."

    Very funny.
     
  13. Guest

    Guest Guest

    The peacenik Churchill, who oposses the War in Iraq, talks about violence against Native Americans, etc., attacked a reporter with a newspaper and looked as if he was going to beat him up.

    Typical peacenik hypocrisy. This is one of the main reasons I became disgusted with the majority of Vietnam War protestors, and I was one, and many on the left.

    They talked about peace, love, and brotherhood and were about the most violent people in American society at that time.
     
  14. Tom57

    Tom57 Member

    Jimmy, you have a charming way of citing an individual case, and then slipping into generalizations, before finally ending with hyperbole.

    I don't follow Churchill, but you have sort of equated his defense of violence against Native Americans with "looking" like he was going to beat up a reporter. And of course attacking him with a newspaper. I know I hate it when I am accosted with the funny pages!

    Instead of perhaps legitimately accusing Churchill of hypocrisy, you suddenly extrapolate this to the "majority" of Viet Nam war protesters that personally disgusted you. They numbered in the millions, so I am to assume that you knew many millions and that they were all violent?

    And to top it all off, we have your ending rhetoric that "they" are about the "most violent people in American society." They would be more violent than Charles Manson, and also the serial killer you actually knew that you started a thread about? Is that what you really meant to say?

    I respect your opinion, but c'mon, lighten up on the sloppy assertions.
     
  15. little fauss

    little fauss New Member

    That's horse manure, Tom, evidence is absolutely not established conclusively on either side. Pure bull.
     
  16. little fauss

    little fauss New Member

    Let me soften that, Tom...

    I understand your motives and they're admirable: you want to be open-minded, egalitarian; few want to think that their friend who happens to be attracted to members of the same sex just chose it out of the blue; few want to think that such a behavioral pattern is wrong, even if certain members of society--you'd say ignorant, bigoted members--condemn it.

    If such could be shown to be the product of pure genetic chance, then presumably it takes some of the steam out of the "ignorant" critics' arguments, and your homosexual friend can be accepted as on par with the heterosexual, their choice to engage in sex with likes no more inherently right or wrong than your choices about sex, because on some level, they didn't choose their prediliction any more than you.

    All I'm trying to say is that it's far from established either way that sexuality is most definitely not a matter of nurture or that sexuality can be influenced by nurture. I don't think anyone, not even the most vociferous anti-gay activists, is arguing that an 18 year old boy or girl wakes up one day and makes a conscious choice to be gay or straight or what-have-you. What the opponents of your point of view are arguing is that nurture can affect sexuality, and while there is evidence that suggests a genetic link to homosexual behavior, there is also evidence to suggest a nurture component. The APA used to openly admit this before they became, shall we say, agendized in this matter?

    All I'm saying is that there are arguments, studies, evidence that goes both ways, you can't just dismiss the other side, even if your open-minded nature strongly compels you to.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 1, 2005
  17. Tom57

    Tom57 Member

    I agree with you that the nurture question is still open. However, you can't ignore the empirical evidence. Ask 10,000 gays about the development of their sexuality, and 99.9% will say that they were attracted to the other sex as far back as they can remember. The question of choice is thus decided. If it turns out that nurture plays a huge part in the process (which seems doubtful in this case), then the question of choice may be relevant for the PARENTS of gays (or the nurturers, as the case may be). Perhaps it's a lack of vitamin C, or not enough sunshine, or exposure to liberals which causes homosexuality. If that's the case, then nurturers can wipe out homosexuality by giving their kids vitamin C, taking them out in the sun, and by moving to red states.

    So even if nurture is the cause, the air still comes out of your argument. Are you going to continue to punish and discriminate against gays for circumstances essentially outside their control. If you believe the nurture argument, and feel the need to rid the world of homosexuality, you should be attacking the parents of gays. They were the ones who screwed up, after all.

    The anti-gay crowd is so invested in keeping the "choice" issue open, because they want to continue to punish the rest of the world for something they find morally repugnant. You say, "...and your homosexual friend can be accepted as on par with the heterosexual...". You make it sound like it's some sort of contest, or that there is a natural hierarchy. How incredible, to think that gays might think they're actually on "a par" with straights!

    Does the nurture argument even matter, after all? Again, if it turns out there is "something" that parents are doing to their kids that makes them gay, then what do we do? Do we outlaw that "something"? Homosexuality is found in almost every species on earth. Do we start regulating what mother deer can do to their fawns? Should gay turtles be sent to some distant island where their repugnant behavior doesn't have to be witnessed by the rest of us. Are straight emus outraged that gay emus might feel on a par with them?
    You write, “I understand your motives and they're admirable: you want to be open-minded, egalitarian;” Well, yes. What is it that the anti-gay crowd wants to be? Is it that it’s ok to be closed-minded and bigoted as long as the “evidence” is still not conclusive? It’s as if a murder has been committed, and the anti-gay public is waiting for the DNA evidence to “convict” the murderers.

    You get the idea. It's a silly argument to hold on to. Time to live and let live. If the anti-gay crowd feels they are so fortunate to be straight because it means they are aligned with God, then why don't they spend their time rejoicing and celebrating their good luck (or good nurturing) and give up condemning the ones who are not so fortunate in their book?

    Just a thought.
     
  18. aic712

    aic712 Member

    I lost 3 family members in 9/11, 1 who spent 3 weeks in the hospital before dying of severe burns to most of his body.

    He has a special place reserved in hell, as do the people who committed the act.

    Freedom of speech is freedom of speech, but he is preaching hate and nothing more, honestly, he is lucky to just be losing his job, I am sure there are plenty of people that would like to end his life.
     
  19. little fauss

    little fauss New Member

    Please remember, at least with my subsequent post, I wasn't trying to take a side in this argument. I was just saying that nature v. nurture is a very open debate. We're talking about reality, whether it's actually true that sexuality is influenced by nurture or not; we're not talking about what we'd like something to be.

    And it does very much seem to me that the nature-nurture question is being kept alive by the pro-homosexual side, to equate behaviors, not being kept alive by the anti-homosexual side, to ensure that the behaviors are not equated.

    There simply aren't conclusive studies discounting nurture, and the studies suggesting nature have been hotly contested by scientists--not just religious zealots; many have been rejected as hopelessly flawed. The evidence just isn't overwhelmingly in favor of nature. Nurture is very much still in the lead here from the standpoint of psychological and scientific evidence; it's not the detritus of a sinking ship to which only a handful of ignorant religious fools cling.

    Also, asking 10,000 gays whether or not they can remember ever not being homosexual is evidence of little but what 10,000 homosexuals would be willing to say to a pollster. You might also ask 10,000 homosexuals if they had an emotional disconnect with their same sex parent, if they've ever been sexually abused as a child, if they've had same-sex experiences while their sexuality was still forming as an adolescent, etc., and determine if there's a higher incidence of this behavior among homosexuals than heterosexuals and draw inferences there.

    The argument that sexuality is not a choice and not influenced by environment certainly flies in the face of the experiences of thousands who have gone into prison very much straight and exited very much gay. I'm not talking about a 1:1 correlation here, but if only one single person in the history of incarceration changed their predilection, that would make the point of the nurture crowd.

    Now, I know you're not saying nature v. nurture is settled, your post makes that clear. You're saying that even if nurture, why don't we blame the ones--if blame's appropriate--who caused these nurture factors? I suppose if blame's appropriate here, then yes, I'd absolutely agree with you. But remember, I never mentioned blame at any point, I'm not even taking a stand here as to whether I think homosexual activity is inherently right or wrong.

    I do know this much: that we didn't choose our inherent predilections, so we shouldn't be blamed for them. The question, however, is: Should we be blamed for how we act thereupon? Irregardless of whether due to natural predilection, wild animals occasionally attack their young, irregardless of whether I--strictly due to natural predilection--occasionally feel the impulse to ball up my fist and punch my child, that wouldn't make my acting upon the predilection any less wrong. Again, I'm not making the statement that homosexual behavior is wrong; I'm just saying that appeals to natural impulse as evidenced in nature or genetic predisposition cannot by themselves spring you clear of blame for actions--if indeed blame's warranted.

    I have no problem with a live-and-let-live mindset, I'm not even addressing that issue. I do have a problem, though, with brushing reality aside because it fails to support a live-and-let-live paradigm. Reality is seldom a gentle tap on the shoulder, it's more commonly a howling reproach; if it's the case that homosexual behavior is at least in some measure a result of nurture--this is almost indisputably supported by the evidence--then it is what it is. That doesn't make homosexuality more right or less right, but it certainly means if we're interested in the truth, we sure shouldn't jettison it when it fails to support our position. And of course, the same applies to me.
     
  20. uncle janko

    uncle janko member

    Hi Myles:
    Thank you for bringing this thread (horribly) back on topic. I am sorry to hear of the suffering and death inflicted on your family.
    Janko the Mad Priest
     

Share This Page