Ok, somebody explain to me why Larry Summers should be fired

Remove all ads!

The following quote is from:http://boortz.com/nuze/200503/03162005.html#summers

The imbeded story about the no confidence vote:
http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2005/03/16/summers_gets_vote_of_no_confidence/

So Ward Churchill's highly inflammatory speech, which is not rooted in any generally accepted principles or widely researched studies is protected in such a way that it protects his position with the University of Colorado, while Lawrence Summers' comments, comments about a commonly researched topic, are so outrageous that he must be fired?

Something is wrong here.

 

"Ok, somebody explain to me why Larry Summers should be fired"
3 poss reasons
i guess sometime he gave someone with the power to get rid of him a pain in the ass so they are using this opportunity to do so;
alternatively there's a current cull of non pc types going on and he missed his saving throw,
perhaps he's done some ropey things generally and now people want rid of him (divine justice)
now you answer my question...
why do you care about it?

 

Sad. The ones who are doing the true disservice are those who keep their heads in the sand about this issue, and refuse to let it be addressed. But that's the heart of PC-ness, isn't it?

 

@ Darkwolf,
For the particular sentiments he expressed regarding women in science, I don't believe he should be fired. (And maybe I missed something, but the article says the votes have no official impact and should therefore be worth didly-squat)
Despite his slightly aggresive turn of phrase, Ik has probably hit the nail on the head as Sumners has also been described as "dictatorial and autocratic." by the person who put forward the motion he's obviously pissed some people off.

Alas I have no idea about Ward's comments so won't pass judgement.

 

His comments, had they been made by someone obviously committed to non-discrimination, were not very inflammatory and were made in an academic setting with the full intent of causing discussion. Unfortunately, Summers has a history of discrimination. Because of his history, his comments appeared to be part of an agenda (one where sexual discrimination is okay). He should be fired.

Churchill's comments were made in much the same way -- used to stimulate a response. And he got one, not necessarily the one he wanted. He will also be fired -- although it will come with a significant severence package.

 

Ik,

I care because I am your friendly roaming paladin, with a ring of +20 on all saving throws (except against those with an automatic win on such throws, namely anyone here with the title Admin or Mod), +20 full plate armor (with the same limitation as the ring), a Long Sword of Truth (with a slight chaotic trait that tends to get me in trouble ) and a shield that Tal has identified as a Tower Shield of Stone Deaf , who hates to see injustices such as this occur.

I also, with my wisdom rating of 18 realize that there are a lot of people here who have a knowledge about issues that I do not, some of which cannot be readily found by chanting incantations to the Divine Goddess of Google, or from any of her Googlite Priests (Dog Pile, IWON, Yahoo etc). So once in a while I like to throw a d4, see if I roll a 2 or better and find out if any of the adventurers on this plane can provide me with any additional information.

Did I put that in terms you can understand?

You really don't get the point of the Alleys yet do you.

T2Bruno,

I wasn't aware of any history Summers had of previous discrimination. Thanks for the info, I will have to do a little more research in that direction.

 

Hi Darkwolf,
Sorry to get off on the wrong foot, it was not my intention to offend. Hopefully now I can make a more socially acceptable post. I think I was trying to amswer this question and also to elicit a response as to why the issue of this man's possible fall from grace was important to you. I can appreciate you have a wish to support those who may become a victim of injustice and perhaps that is reason enough indeed for a paladins interest. I can also appreciate that it was none of my business to require such a thing.
The point now is that I did not intend to be confrontational, and I would like you to know that.
If you would like to elucidate further on your interest in this topic beyond the injustice I alluded to that would be fine, or if not I shall take no offence, farewell for now.

 

I know - isn't that some freakin' sorry BS? I read an article a while back about a woman who was fired from her job in Georgia because she had a John Kerry bumper sticker on her car. It seems her ****head boss was a supporter of King George, so he fired her because of her politcal views. And it is supposedly perfectly legal. Maybe next time the Iraqis will return the favor and bring some freedom to the US.

 

Freedom of speech protections are only there to protect you from the government. Nobody else. Just ask the Dixie Chicks.

That is one of the things I dislike about the U.S.'s discrimination laws. They say who you can discriminate against and who you can't.

I would find the entire Summers/Churchill debate quite amusing if it wasn't so tragic. As with almost all highly polarized situations, each side is convinced they are right and the other side is wrong. The funny thing is that each side is using the other sides arguement depending on whom they are attacking or defending.

From the context I have read of Summer's dialogue he wasn't being inflammatory. He was asking a legitimate question. Could it be a genetic difference between the sexes? It very well could be. I make no claim either way as I've never researched it. He was well within his rights to say so. Without a doubt the "liberal establishment" at Harvard is using this as an excuse to pull him down.

From what I have read of Churchill's comments the man is moron (my personal opinion). He was well within his rights to say so. Without out a doubt the "vast right wing conspiracy" is using this as an excuse to pull him down.

In both situations one side claims moral outrage and the defense is freedom of speech.

The unintentional comedy rating is very high.

 

Yes, any business resides, and does its business in a community. If the community believes in political freedom, which a great many Americans do, then any business should be obliged to uphold what the rest of the community has agreed upon. In this instance we are speaking of political freedom. It is the same way for us, as individuals; we never actually put the laws we obey into place, yet because we reside in a given community, we "agree" that we will abide by them as citizens. Many businesses "buy" their way out of this agreement.

Keep this in mind, BTA, when speaking of what an employer "pays" for: Anyone who contributes, and thusly, brings income into a business "pays" his own way, with his work. So, the payment is reciprocated; both the employer and the employee are "paid" when a transaction occurs. One of the grossest distortions in American business is that the employer does all the paying in a business. It is the free market - the marketplace itself - that "pays" both the employer and the employee.

But there will always be those who don't agree with liberty and political freedom. Americans will know them by their tyrannical actions. And history will record them as the tyrants that they are.

 

Ik,

I was really just having a little fun with you. You really seem to like the D&D analogies, and while I have not played on paper in a long time, I still like some of the PC games (IWDII and NWN), so I still know some of the terminology. I really have no vested interest in Summers or Churchill, other than I like to discuss certain moral and social points. I really am not all that good at it, as I am more of a specialist in finance and economics, so I usually end up learning far more than I give back in this arena. Just so you know where I stand politically, I am a fiscally conservative (arch conservative according to some) and socially moderate/liberal, which leaves me as a man without a party (and sometimes ally).

Welcome to the board. I have a feeling that you have the potential to be a formidable presence!

Back to the topic,

Fired for a Kerry bumper sticker? That is over the line. However if in her capacity of representing her employer she made derogatory comments about the President (or anyone else for that matter) or was actively campaigning for someone, and it in any way detracted from her employer's business, she is fired, no prob.

Here is the thing that bothers me about Churchill/Summers. Churchill, from what I have read, did not present his view that America was at fault for the 9/11 attack, and that we are an evil nation in a scholarly way. He presented it to his class as factual material in a degrading and hostile manner. This does not encourage the broadening of the mind, in fact it does just the opposing, polarizing and setting mindsets one way or the other.

Summers on the other hand, in this case presented his politically incorrect view in a scholarly manner. However, as T2bruno pointed out, sexual discrimination may be a consistent behavior that Summers has historically demonstrated.

It also irritates me that many people (not here, but in general) are arguing that since Churchill is a public employee, read government employee, his right to free speech protects his job. This couldn't be further from the truth in my opinion. If he is fired in this case, no one has denied his free speech, he can go to the public square and equate the victims of the 9/11 attacks to Nazis if he likes. However, in his position as a professor, he has failed to provide for a proper academic environment, and can be fired for this. Our employers can hold us all to a higher standard for our actions in the completion of our jobs, even gov't employees. We have considerably more freedom in our personal lives.

Summers on the other hand has to be looked at from a perspective of his long-term behavior. If this statement is part of what appears to be a sexist agenda, then by all means he should be dismissed. However, if this is what it appears to be, simply scholarly debate, then the PC reaction to it is inappropriate.

Sorry, I know this one kind of rambles. I am at work trying to post this quickly.

 

I read about this in the context of how much an employer can control your life when you are not on the job, or doing job related work. The main point of the article was that employers are firing people for their "lifestyles" - smoking, outside of the workplace, their political views, thier diets, etc.

When an employee enters into a workplace if these are the standards, then they should be made known upfront. There should be certain expectations on both sides that need to be met. In this instance, the employer should have made it clear upon hiring that person, that all his employees are expected to share his political views, and that he is opposed to political freedom. It would have been the fair thing to do. But fairness would be the last thing I would expect from someone who has contempt for political freedom anyway.

 

Most of us in the American work force are 'at will' employees -- this means we can be fired for any reason or even no reason. An employer cannot fire individuals in a protected status such as minorities, disabled, elderly, etc., without cause. However, cause can be anything really -- showing up 15 minutes late can be grounds for dismissal.

A lot of inexperienced workers tend to think if they put in their eight hours, the job should always be theirs. They're wrong. Most employers, small businesses especially, view co-workers as a second family or trusted friends. Everyone must get along and contribute -- those individuals causing friction hamper the ability of the group to succeed. A lone democrat in a workplace of staunch republicans may cause friction if that person is vocal and persistent in their views. The group suffers, the business suffers, and the individual should find a different place to work (yes, fire her ass). This is all about making money and selling a product -- ANYTHING that slows the process needs to be eliminated. A very important part of any job: learn what pisses your boss off AND DON'T DO IT.

I believe Summers was a contracted employee (most regents have contracts). He would have had something in his contract about upholding the integrity of Harvard (very common in those jobs). Even if he did not have a history of discrimination the public's perception of him has diminished the perceived integrity of Harvard. He violated his contract and can be forced to resign.

Churchill is tenured. That's a lot tougher nut to crack. You pretty much need to have committed a crime to get fired. Hence, the university is in negotiations with his attorney for a voluntary resignation (with a huge early retirement package).

 

As I mentioned, there will always be those who dislike political freedom, whether in America or anywhere else. But generally speaking, Americans are lovers of liberty and political freedom, fairness, and equality. I'm not saying that such passions for those principles don't exsist in the rest of the world. BTW, T2, the point was about conditions "outside the workplace." If you wish to imagine some other scenerio, feel free to do so, but it has nothing to do with the point about what people choose to do "outside the workplace."

 

You missed my point. What someone likes to do is a part of their personality. They may be able to hide who they are for a while, but these traits will eventually show through. If there are significant personality differences, then these differences WILL affect the workplace. This doesn't have anything to do with 'freedom, fairness, and equality.' Who you are is just as important as how well you do your job in many companies.

 

Sorry, my bad. I thought you were referring to the lady who got fired for having a John Kerry bumper sticker on her car. We were arguing past each other here it seems.

 

If Summers were booted, I'm sure he would get a nice golden parachute. I would guess they'll wait out Churchill if they can, and only get rid of him the scrutiny on his career reveals fraud, plagiarism, etc.

I agree with T2Bruno that the Summers affair has much more to do with Harvard politics than his statement in itself, which otherwise would have maybe lead to a few complaints and that's all. The NY Times has an interesting summary...