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

Remove all ads!

I absolutely agree with that. The effective control on this is that if you refuse to employee people based upon non-job performance related factors then you are accepting the risk that your competitors will be able to hire these employees and thus obatain a competitive advantage.

I completely disagree with government intervention in cases like this as well as any group based quota systems.

 

Ok, now you are argung something different here. They are obligated by the expectations set on both sides. Of course, this is only a point of honor here and not really a legally binding contract in any sense. Whenever I'm hired for a job, I always ask what the expectations are for continued employment.

Usually, I get a straight forward answer, and a copy of an employee handbook that outlines what those expectations are. If the requirements are reasonable, then I can enter into an agreement. I'm sure it was the same for you, that your situation was not much different. If I were to interview and the company said: "oh yes, and we require all of our employees to vote Republican, then I would not pursue any further. Does this make sense to you? I hope so.

Perhaps instead of a drug test, they might have a political affiliation test. Does that sound appealing to you? I didn't think so. Yet, here you guys are arguing about how unfair the "liberal" Harvard elites are for firing some guy. Please, spare me the double standard (I'm not referring to you, BTA, in this instance, since you seem pretty consistent here). I thought an employer had the freedom to "fire at will" - indeed. But, I would ask those of you who thought that this particular women should be fired, how you found yourself arguing against the principle of politcal freedom in the first place.

 

We are not comparing apples to apples here folks. There is a difference between terminating someone for a cause and terminating them for an unjust cause. If an employer believes that an employee is no longer needed, or that they can hire someone else who will do a better job, then they should by all means terminate. However, if someone is doing they job, and meeting the expectations of the position, and they are fired for political expedience (assuming that this is not a detraction from the value of the employee), then it is wrong. Is it legally wrong? Depends on where you reside. Is it morally wrong, you bet! Diversity in the workplace has been proven to provide synergies that far out weight its costs. Unless your actions have a detriment to your employer, it is in their best interests to keep you around. Regardless of any legality, the reputation of employers who terminate employees for frivolous reasons gets around, forcing them to increase the amount they have to pay to retain qualified staffing, so they are paying a price one way or another.

That said, I believe that Summers is under contract, and from what I have read, to interpret this latest action that he is drawing so much fire for as a breach of some "do not bring shame to Harvard" clause in his contract is a bit of a stretch. I think that Summers, if Harvard attempts to void his contract, will have an excellent case against the school for breach. Of course Harvard can dismiss him as long as they pay out his contract, and then the only damage to Summers is to his reputation.