« Hey, who took my Chardonnay? | Main | Too Late »

September 15, 2007

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b97969e200e54ef323de8834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 12 People:

Comments

I doubt that they were afraid of anything. This is just another example of the full-court press of the right wing against anyone and everyone who isn't a winger and who may move into a position of influence. Witness the non-hiring of Juan Cole by Yale, for example.

EW - While I don't doubt, for the most part, the forming view of what happened here; it still doesn't quite add up. The "OC" powers that be may not be fans of Chemerinsky, but they have never struck me as being this incompetent. I also find it hard to believe that there was not a discussion about this of some sort before the position was offerd to Erwin. When did the shit hit the fan here? When the news went public and national. Now who on the national scene (but who might not have been privy to the OC machinations before the announcement) might have a grudge against Erwin and enough juice to make things turn on their head after the fact? Well, lets put it this way, Chemerinsky's name was front and center on the civil complaint filed by Joe and Valerie Wilson against somebody named Richard Bruce Cheney and I. Lewis Libby.

bmaz

I'm not ruling that out--but I think that'd be more plausible if Chemerinsky had actually WON that lawsuit--or had a chance to on appeal.

But it's clear that whoever ordered the kill, they implemented it not through the Regents (which as Parsky points out, they couldn't do), but through GOP pressure directly on Drake, who owes his career to the GOP.

Btw, I am wondering if the chain of information went something like this:

Drake tells only two people on the Board: Parsky, and Mr. DiFi. Parsky knows he doesn't want Chemerinsky (or knows enough to ask) and he lets the OC network know. They organize an email campaign to make it clear that it's in Drake's best interest to can Chemerinsky, which he does.

As to OC GOP's competence ... I don't buy it. Witness Malcolm's thoroughly incompetent attempt to manufacture some way to make it appear that Chemerinsky was trying to blow off UCI and not vice versa. (And if you click through to the OC Weekly article, it suggests Drake tried to get Chemerinsky to pretend that they had parted amicably.)

I don't have the knowledge to put this together, but am I getting warm: is the "yup" part and Mr. Senator DiFi (alluded to in your last post of this matter) and the "unfiring" dots to yet be connected?

this is an interesting case.
thanks for the detailed informative reporting.

let's see

chermensky attacked

juan cole attacked

walt and mearsheimer attacked

john yoo tenured and promoted

goldsmith tenured and promoted

ken starr not hired.

what others?


with starr we know where the money was coming from

with these others there must have been some money threats coming from somewhere.

earned or inherited corporate money is the most destabilizing force in american democracy today.

obviously while I was typing you more are less connected those dots.

again with the "partisan gunslinger" language! interesting to watch that phrase take hold.

~pockets

Thanks for pointing that out--must be a Novak fan, I was thinking.

doesn't MTpockets' comment cinch it for bmaz's case?

"partisan gunslinger", can only be a calling card from darth cheney.

You may be right; I freely admit I don't know and am offering random thoughts and speculation. I will say this, Antonovich is an idiot; the thought that he caused this is a canard that just can't be. I still think its Bren; but I still maintain he had to have known before they had Erwin sign on the dotted line. Why the abrupt change of heart? As to Cheney, again you may be right; but I see no reason to think that the mere fact that he won that suit would stop hi from laying the wood to people that caused him some grief. Cheney is pathological in this regard and that is why people fear him; and he would do it in a way that, of course, never exhibited his fingerprints. I don't know, but it is a fascinating little vignette.

Ah, now I see your Bren update. Still maintain he had to have known prior; what caused the worm to turn?

I thought the WH completely blindsided the Parsky commission when it appointed the AG's that replaced the "fired" AG's, thus getting Senator DiFi to investigate. Is this somehow connected to that and what was Mr. DiFi's role?

eyes

I don't think this is connected. Same culture of incomptent hackery, but a different incarnation of it.

WRT the Parsky Commission--I think it possible that the reason they went around Parsky is because Parsky is in some way tied to Lewis (which wouldn't be a stretch at all) and they didn't want him to nominate the guy who would investigate him.

That's what happened in AK, after all: BushCo ignored the two Republican Senators and appointed an outsider to be USA. And voila, that USA proceeded to oversee the rolling up of the GOP party. That wouldn't have happened if Ted Stevens had had a say in the USA position.

-And I guess if Carol Lam had stayed, Parsky would be out of commission?

eyes

This is all just a suggestion--that if the model in AK were true, then maybe DOJ had a reason to bypass PArsky. That said, if he was suspected of something, and it was tied to Lewis, then it'd be USA MDCA, not SD. But then it may well be all connected. I think Parsky has a house in Rancho Santa Fe, the rich digs Cunnigham was trying to get into.

Just what the nation needs - another Regent(s) law school.

I suggest they see if Monica Goodling is available for dean.

I think the Cheney wing is tied in. Chemerinsky's crew had the nerve to do something that every member of Congress has run in fear from - talk openly about subpoenas for Cheneyco. As badly blown as Cheney's ego was to start with, think of the bubble he's been allowed to live in for the last 6 years. More so than Bush even - who is at least forced to meet now and then with non-believers on some part of the stage.

Cheney has been surrounded for years now with the benefits of not only unchecked power, but of unquestioned power. For all the talk of Fitzgerald having his sights on Cheney, that ended up being a fizzle. Instead you had a jury and public who all wondered not so much why Libby, as why Libby if not Cheney, Armitage, Rove & Fleischer. But Chemerinsky/Plame/Wilson kept them all on the front burner - they did put Cheney in their sights and despite not winning initially, I don't know that you can call it over with yet.

You have to wonder, after the hand that has been shown so far, just what kind of students would want to attend, and what kind of professors would want to teach, at the kind of school Drake seems interested in putting together?

It's pretty obviously not one where a Harold Koh would be welcome either.

In addition to the Cheney thing, I do think that the Republican party as a party is looking at the stats on teen and young adult Americans and wanting to make sure that they get as much koolaid down as many throats as possible, as soon as possible.

I read the LAT article earlier today (along with each of the 350+ comments at that point). Someone at fdl commented that s/he was disturbed by the comments but I found most?many of them to be spot-on.......there were even self-identified conservatives who decried the "unhiring". Yes, Virginia, there is some evidence of sanity even among conservatives.

I taught in higher ed for three decades and served on a number of search committees for candidates (faculty and administrative) at various levels of the university. Speaking from personal experience, such searches go on forevaaaaaaar with the final decision engraved in stone (unless the selected candidate withdraws his/her name). Until the UCI debacle I would have said there is NO WAY something like this could happen; now, just another illustration of the power the goopers have acquired in this country.

I can only hope Drake gets what he so obviously deserves........a job at some appropriate reich wing institute of nonexistent learning.

From around the news -- who is and who isn't: Bernanke is not a "partisan gunslinger"; Ryan Crocker (US ambassador to Iraq) is not; Democrats don't think Chris Wallace is; but we shouldn't be surprised if Bush's next Attorney General turns out to be.

The phrase has legs: though it's often connected to Novak's column, it gets around on its own

pockets - those are all post Novakula though; how much did it get around before his Plame column?

Can someone explain to me why this isn't the focus of these stories:

Making Chemerinsky the head of the law school "would be like appointing al-Qaida in charge of homeland security," Michael Antonovich, a longtime Republican member of the county Board of Supervisors, said in a voicemail left with The Associated Press.

Won't the Dems be demanding that the Republican presidential candidates repudiate that remark? Will Tony Snow be asked about it at the gaggle tomorrow? Surely, Tim Russert will bring it up on MTP.

No? Well, can we at least have a Blogger Ethics Panel? Somebody call Atrios.

WO

I was trying to think of a new name for Godwin's law, now that we seem to need one for OBL. But thanks for mentioning it, bc I had intended to.

ramblin: A websearch engine produced a few links, one proved to be a bluster right website, where a commenter suggested an intrigue like one would expect in old Oxford, namely, an intercampus rivalry with UCI's neighbor UCR, competing for which of the two would receive the plum of the state's new lawschool campus; I have yet to peruse the lexis in the perennial UCR proposal to launch its regional lawschool, caveat 11 MB. The remarks of other commenters regarding State supreme Ch.JusticeG, reminded me of his long list of ultraconservative shifts of that august bench. The CA governor who preceeded Wilson was also, like ChJGeorge, a polemicist for capital punishment, which was a wedge issue in the 1980s in CA; that governor was named Deukmejian, a denizen of SoCA. As a legislator Deuk harangued about the merits of capital penalty and following his election as governor, he continued his diatribes, directing them personally at three supremes including the ChJustice, who had records more moderate than Deuk would have preferred. The CA ballot system for CA state supremes requires reaffirmation of their tenure, so although there was no formal recall for the three justices against whom Deuk waged a wingnut campaign based on his advocacy for more capital punishment in CA, the net effect was the same, when in 1986 the three moderates were disapproved by voters. While all this is contextual, I continue to favor the elaborations AP and ew et al are developing. LAT would enjoy the fleeting increase of readership putting in a dig at its neighbors in OC, but LAT I believe will observe editorial silence about most of the essentials, having taken a recent turn toward being more of the conservative sheet it was in the 1970s.

Q: What does a unanimous vote in the MI Senate have in common with today's Michigan-Notre Dame football game?

A: Both are decided 38-0.

joejoejoe

And in this day and age, both are almost unheard of ... wait a minute!?!?!

Next thing you know Michigan will have a budget.

bmaz, I'd assumed Novak had coined "partisan gunslinger" but what's interesting is that it is now growing legs as a phrase applied to someone other than Armitage. But it would be interesting to know if Novak really coined it, or if it had circulated in Washington circles before his column.

epockets - I dunno; was hoping you would tell me that. Heh heh.

UC Regents trip up again:

"Former Harvard head Summers nixed as UC regents dinner speaker"

"The decision to dump Summers as the speaker at the dinner was abrupt. His name was on the dinner invitation that went out Aug. 31..."

link: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/09/15/BAULS751G.DTL&tsp=1

And yet this same crowd that is so outraged by this Dean's appointment being blocked was greatly happy when the recent President of Harvard was removed for "nothing" by a Liberal Mob.

Apparently stains are not the only things emanating from you posterior; you have also produced this comment. FYI, I was fairly ambivilent about Summers; some of him was commendable, some not so much. I was, however, appalled at the manner in which he was ousted. Irrespective of whether you considered his remarks at issue to be impolitic, they were supported by some data and did constitute a legitimate discussion point scientifically from my understanding. If I have this wrong, I am sure that emptypockets will set the facts right. I see no basis for your idiotic statement and, in fact, it is needlessly provocative asinine statements like that which result in people loathing your presence.

Horton remarks are there. It might be interesting if the former SFrancisco mayor Brown had some insights, or a blog on which to post them in this matter; he served ex officio on the board of regents for some time while state assembly speaker; the link I put is a flyer from 2003 to a UCI fundraiser in which he participated.

EW, thinking of your comment earlier today, "culture of incomptent hackery", read this over at Harpers:

The Remarkable ‘Recusal’ of Leura Canary
DEPARTMENT No Comment
BY Scott Horton
PUBLISHED September 14, 2007

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/09/hbc-90001209

there's probably some clever thing to say using "canary," but its late....

EW -- I read TNH daily, especially for your articles and thoroughly enjoyed Anatomy of Deceit.

But, I have to point out that one of your sources in this article has got his facts wrong. You cite Scott Horton who says Drake is known for supporting the GOP because of his opposition to prop 209.

Contrary to what Horton says prop 209 was supported by the GOP (prop 209 eliminated affirmative action, a typical GOP position -- for more on prop 209's supporters [right-wing think tanks] and opponents [ACLU, feminist majority] see wikipedia). Drake definitely opposed prop 209, as shown by this description of the ACLU suit against implementation of prop 209 which Drake supported (search for Drake's name -- he's listed as an educator at UCSF supporting ACLU's suit for retention of affirmative action).

Horton's description of prop 209 as "softer affirmative action" is hog wash. The people who supported prop 209 were not attempting to create softer affirmative action, they were attempting to end affirmative action.

It could still be the case that on other issues Drake was supported and promoted by conservatives, but if your only source is Horton's single claim about prop 209, then you haven't made the case -- Drake's position on prop 209 (the only thing Horton cites) was the opposite of the GOP position.

bmaz,

Harvard was an institutional power play that worked. It was those who favored the status quo against the designated champion for change. Faculty against Administration. When an opening was seen, when the seam in the defense opened up they struck and scored. Nothing wrong with the replacement though not as esteemed as President Summers.

But my point stands! The same people outraged about this Law Dean were happy about the Harvard President.

Therein is the real problem, the real paradox.

... and if the truth rankles, then so be it.

I'm suprised Jodi didn't say Clinton did it, too but then again, maybe that's exactly what Jodi is saying....

Shorter Jodi: SO WHAT if it happened to Chemerinsky, it happened to Summers. (There's your equivalency.) And yet, we know how Jodi feels about the Summers' job loss - Jodi thinks it was unjust. But Jodi's attitude about Chemerinsky is not that it was unjust but that he deserved it because it happened to Summers.

I wonder if it happened to Chemerinsky first whether Jodi would approve the tit-for-tat - Summers loss of his Harvard Presidency too.

No? I don't either. Her petty logic falls flat on its face when its turned on its head.

Neil -- Jodi the minder whines about Summers' release from Harvard being equivalent to that of Chereminsky's non-hire/unhire.

Wrong. Summers had already been doing damage, on the job, at a school that receives federal monies; he also wasn't advocating or supporting an ideology in doing so, but exercising his management of the school with a bias against women.

Jodi apparently forgets that there are women across the entire political spectrum; maybe she ought to look under her skirts for a reminder.

"I agree with Brian that this undercuts Horton's argument about Drake as a GOP stooge angle.."

Like blogs and websites, there is more than one level of Republican stoogery... there's passive, active and pro-active stooges, so imho (Ok, so I've never had a humble opinion)I wouldn't necessarily drop the label, but maybe consider Drake an "intermittent stooge" or "occasional stooge" of a lesser degree than some of the more pro-active Republican stooges....

bmaz, I would urge you to look up the commentary by Ben Barres published in Nature (vol. 442, July 13, 2006, p. 133-136) for an excellent discussion about the legitimacy of the data you cite. I would be willing to bet that you would be uncomfortable referring to any discussion of the inherently limited intellectual abilities of a particular race versus that of whites as a legitimate discussion. Unfortunately, women are subjected to this second class intellectual status all of the time. And the unequal treatment of women in our universities is backed up by data (lower pay, fewer tenured positions, fewer administrative positions, etc.).

the people of orange county are a strange lot. they believe in decorum and those in the minority are the intellectual drivers of the county. UC Irvine was a unique member of the UC system. It was laughed at for decades because it didn't have sports teams of note. At the same time, it exceeded all other academic aspects and created new schools that have become icons. It is an oasis of thought in an area now devoid of it. The people of OC believe life is good, yet they know there is no water, and they live under a few converging fault lines.
This story is one of the ones that convinces you that fascism is clearly alive and well in America. an LA supervisor trying to influence the law school hiring of a university 40 or 50 miles even from the city of LA, 35 from the county line, and yet.......

for those of us that once lived in this hell hole but have left, we see your despair with amusement and sadness. We know some day it will be gone from an earthquake, and our thousands of friends and neighbors will be gone. So what do they worry about? the dreams of an everyday housewife. They ignore reality as they try to craft it's replacement.

oldtree, i am a relic of the OC, too.
an odd, odd place with a history of the john birch
society made up of USC dentists from the day when
SC had no general ed. req's...narrow minded wackos.
with loads of money and then you add karl karcher,
grandpa knott et al. yikes!
but back to the regents: i went to school during reagan's
fights with UC. i'm indifferent now, even tho colleges
are my livelihood. the top is so bloviated with $$ in
an effort to attract good managers, it is a system WAY
out of control. and so FU's like this happen when money,
not rational thought, is the currency of higher ed.

There are serious people who collect data on differences in male and female cognition, but the differences are complex and Larry Summers is not one of those serious people (and he wasn't referring to this data in his talk, he was just spitballing ideas). If he had said what he said in a scholarly manner, in the context of the field, I think the response may have been different. Either way, the Larry Summers case is a good anecdote to show that there are tight constraints on what ideas a high-level administrator can toss around (discussed in a worth-reading column from Chron Higher Ed here). But -- and this is key -- I don't think anyone is saying that Chemerinsky was going to have a Larry Summers moment. Apparently they were afraid of how donors would respond to Chemerinsky's scholarship, not his lack of it. The already-tight noose on speech for university deans and presidents just grew even tighter.

A must read article, IMO, in connection with this discussion, is the latest diary by Marjorie Cohn at marjoriecohn.com. She sees the un-hiring of Chemerinsky as the latest post-9/11 assault on academic freedom. However, she also provides some history, including the formation of ACTA in 1995 by Lynne Cheney and Joe Lieberman (grayslady's read: an organization formed to use trustees and alumni to force Cheney and Lieberman's ideological purity on the universities), and ACTA's spinoff, Campus Watch, which, as far as I can tell, is designed to monitor any university courses or literature that might be critical of Israel (Campus Watch lists William Kristol as one of its Middle East experts--puhleeease!). Seems like those of you who suspected a Cheney connection here might be on to something.

OC likes toll roads in a state which banned them as a democratic policy originating in the time when more stratified societies elsewhere in the US were opting to preserve distinctions separating class. I would imagine Rep.Issa to be enjoying the UCI fiasco at present. o'Tree captured a lot of the roots of the kultcha in that part of CA in a remark above; yet, a presence like Chemerinsky's would have been a world class draw for students as well as an attraction for faculty. Occasionally on local NPRadio there is a nonCommercial commercial advertising the conservative IrvineCo whose website image, link, appears to present a brand of tasteful integration of tracthomeBuilder conservatism and resource conservation. I wonder if the fallback plan for EC would be to continue to enjoy the beautiful environs of Durham, NC. ~pockts is saying some useful stuff, but this remark prescinds from the framework the NudgeMinder subliminates; actually, Horton's invective bordered on some similar overstepping, but was worthwhile in several places. I share the perception of the p209 commenter, but the Republicans are always doing that in CA, as if something in their soul tells them making a din over divisive issues will heal, veritably Rovian. Wierd that creative people could find that attractive, save for cachet and profit$.

Phred - Jeebus. Don't exprapolate me out into areas I wasn't going in the least. When I said I was ambivilent about summers, I meant it. I was not happy about the way he left looked; as it looked very much like a lynch mob mentality was after him. Regardless of which side of the political spectrum such shouts come from, they have always made me uneasy in academic settings. That is my main beef, I just didn't like the feel of it. I asked for correction/clarification from epockets on the role of scientific data in the mess and, thankfully, that was provided. Summers may not have been doing it from the perspective of the clinician/scientist/whatever doing those studies, but the fact is the question he raised (inartfully as it may have been) is one actually being investigated, and legitimately so. So, back to where I started, I am fine with Summers being gone; but the way it played out gave the feel of something a little distasteful. And I was mindful of groups like Campus Watch and ACTA, which grayslady has just mentioned, when I said so. I also carry with me for life the tale of a pretty good friend of my mother, Dr. Morris Starsky. I had the pleasure of assisting at the tail end of his legal travails. Morris was a wonderful chap who was persecuted by just the kind of efforts we have been discussing here. If you have a minute to review it, you will find this fairly brief wiki pretty explanatory of why I am a little hinky about any of these types of ousters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morris_Starsky

bmaz -- I am not talking about the ouster, nor I am referring to the legitimate research into male female differences in cognition. I am narrowly addressing the question of scientific data that supports the notion that women are inherently unable to attain the highest levels of intellectual achievement in science and math. Barres' article is really a must read on this issue and again, I urge you to read it. I do not wish to hijack this thread (and besides the Packer game is on ;) but there are serious flaws with the premise of this hypothesis that Barres lays out quite well. I do believe there are certain parallels with this line of thinking today with the discredited phrenology of the 19th century, and I do suspect that 100 years from now, these sorts of assertions will be equally debunked.

OT
Bill Kristol claims to have learned that George Bush will nominate former federal Judge Michael Mukasey on Monday to be the next Attorney General. CNN now has a similar, though less definitive, report. - Glenn Greenwald link

the fact is the question he raised (inartfully as it may have been) is one actually being investigated

this gives Summers a little too much credit actually (the link phred pointed to provides a good breakdown of where the data is sound and where it is just old prejudices). There are questions relating to differences in how male and female brains work that are interesting and being carefully studied. But they're not really the question he asked, which was more like "maybe women are biologically incapable of excelling at science" -- which is not only unscholarly from a biology viewpoint, but historically unsound to boot. The general pool he waded into is a fair one, but he jumped in at the toxic end.

I shared your ambivalence about Summers -- he said one stupid thing in an unguarded moment, and the world fell in on him, and the online pile-on felt to me like the blogosphere equivalent of OJ Simpson coverage. But, I think the fact was that there were a lot of people at Harvard unhappy with Summers, and this just lit the powderkeg. My (naive) impression -- and I have no connection to the case or anyone in it -- was that if it were someone else who'd said something like that, then an apology and correction would have closed the story. Not only do university administrators need to guard their speech to not upset donors, but (depending on their style) I bet they've got somewhere from 10 to 1000 knives pointed at them from their own institutes, watching for a misstep. Summers was probably more towards the 1000 end of the scale...

I spent the better part of my professional life defending criminals and representing plaintiffs in civil rights cases and other difficult civil cases. I am quite used to people thinking that what i am defending is what I believe when, in fact, that is not necessarily the case. There are too many extremely bright women in science (my mother was one) that I have come across for me to bite off on the underlying premise. My point was not that the studies, in their various forms, were valid or had produce valid conclusions; simply that the correct explanation for clear demographic data was still being formed. Summers stepped in it, the toxic deep end as you put it, and you would hope he would be brighter than to do that, if nothing else. Like I said from the get go, I really don't care that much; its just that any mob mentality action against an academic raises my hair a little, even if they are definitely controversial as Morris Starsky was. And once it is exhibited that a well defined or armed (so to speak) mob cna corner or oust academics, it becomes easier and easier the next time and so on down the road. That is a road I don't necessarily want to see travelled.

GB 35 They Might Be Giants 14
Go Pack!
I don't know if they are being stolen or not; but the defensive signals sure are crossed in Ohio today. Yikes.

bmaz -- I never for a moment thought that your own views were in line with what Summers said. My intention was only to clarify that Summers statement was invalid. Period. Many years ago a friend thought I was a bit tone deaf to sexist comments and she recommended that whenever someone said something potentially sexist, to change the comment from one about gender to one about race. If it then read like a racist statement, the original version should be treated as equally sexist and invalid. It's a rule of thumb that has served me well.

One other thing to think about is why would Summers be inclined to hold this view or even to raise it as hypothetical? Why disenfranchise a large group of people so cavalierly? My own take on this is that such a view would be very appealing to a university administrator as absolving them from doing a better job of training, recruiting, and promoting women in science and math. If you decide they simply aren't good enough, that solves the problem. It always seemed to me that his remark was entirely self-serving in that way.

Finally, I know we are talking at some cross purposes here, since your objection was to thought police stepping in and chucking someone out for not exhibiting "right thinking". However, my recollection of events is in line with emptypockets. Summers had a lot of enemies even before saying something so brainless. In the end, it was NOT his comment that got him the heave ho, that was just the slant given to the situation in the press and it is the way it is remembered now.

bmaz -- One other thing I think I failed to convey, I agree with you except for the one complaint I raised...

And WOO HOO! Go PACKERS! I love football :)

So, I take it then there are defenses playing in OH? I thought both teams were holding offense only scrimmages given the score ;)

bmaz
Rayne

I am a woman, and what President Summers said for the most part is true.
Woman do have more oppositionally opposed choices than men and many times they choose things that don't lead to stellar careers in the Technical fields.

I have never seen a man yet bear a child. I haven't yet had the priviledge myself, but I know that it will take me out of the mainstream more than the man that is the father. It will however affect us both somewhat.

I can tell you that in science, math and engineering, late at night into the morning hours, in school, and at work, there aren't very many women, even single women without chilcren who are striving hard. Yes there are a few, but mostly it is men.
And this occurs both graduate and undergraduate.
I have been there and I have raised my tired head and blinked to clear my eyes, and then looked around and that is what I saw.

This was President Summers point. But he was cleverly caught up in a false accusation about something called innate ability and whatever that means.

Now Chemerinsky doesn't work out to be an exact opposite case but still my point that the same people that were happy about President Summers getting blasted out of Harvard, are outraged at Chemerinsky being shut out of the Deanship.

I think that is proven by the comments made here.

phred,

I had a Dean that had a standing statement that usually a single male 21 to 28 could do the best work in Grad school because he had the stamina, the health, and could devote his life, his waking hours to it. The Dean told me later, that I was the exception that proved his point.
Now looking back with hindsight, I have to agree.

It isn't that women can't do it. It is because generally they don't do it. You can argue all day the reasons, but still they don't do it as much as the men.

And I don't have a problem with that in any way. As long as they have a choice, and they do as far as I saw.

I have a cousin. She played BB in High School and started, but she wasn't as good as I, and she didn't play college ball. She was a honors student but she didn't do as well as I. She has a BA, not in a technial subject, and never thought more than once about Grad School. She has 2 children, and a nice husband who will never be rich but who comes home every night.

I have a lot more money, and my parents can brag on the things I have done and achieved, and where I have traveled, and my positions, but when we get together for those family things, though both of us are happy with our choices, I think I feel a little more envious of my cousin than she of me. I play with my darling little nieces and dream of a time, I hope not too far away, where it is my children I play with. But we each made our choice, and at this point at least, neither would change those decisions.

I send presents a lot, mostly little stuff, because I don't get to see my relatives very much, and I can tell you most of what I send is to the children.
I think my biological clock is sounding an alarm and I am not 30 yet.

That is part of being female, and I think it is a good thing.

Back to the Chemerinsky firing: there's a diary up at My Left Wing that makes this out to be an AIPAC effort because Chemerinsky was part of a brief on a civil lawsuit against Caterpillar about the Rachel Corrie murder. Don't know enough to know what I make of this theory, but I am totally willing to believe that AIPAC carries vengeance to outrageous levels. After all, they've been stifuling a play about that event. One more odd strain in this.

Jodi, the issues you raise are relevant to the real reasons women are underrepresented in the sciences. Summers also raised these points, but they are not the ones for which he came under fire. You may want to read his speech (it's not long).

If you just want the summary, here's his own summary from the speech of what he wants to say:

There are three broad hypotheses about the sources of the very substantial disparities that this conference's papers document and have been documented before with respect to the presence of women in high-end scientific professions. One is what I would call the-I'll explain each of these in a few moments and comment on how important I think they are-the first is what I call the high-powered job hypothesis. The second is what I would call different availability of aptitude at the high end, and the third is what I would call different socialization and patterns of discrimination in a search. And in my own view, their importance probably ranks in exactly the order that I just described.

The ones you're discussing are Hypothesis #1, the reasons he recognizes are the most important. But that wasn't what got him in trouble. The problem was his Hypothesis #2, and the very sketchy evidence he used to support it.

I'd also mention, in light of earlier discussions, that he specifically tries to speak NOT as the Harvard President because he knows that what he's going to say shouldn't come from that office (His first words in the speech are, "I asked Richard, when he invited me to come here and speak, whether he wanted an institutional talk about Harvard's policies toward diversity or whether he wanted some questions asked and some attempts at provocation, because I was willing to do the second and didn't feel like doing the first. And so we have agreed that I am speaking unofficially...") and you see how well that worked out. That problem of being unable to speak any way other than ex cathedra is why I was saying deans and other administrators don't make good public intellectuals; on the other hand, emptywheel makes a good point that that kind of non-rigorous provacateurism is not really what we look for in public intellectuals anyway.

epockets - And therein lies exactly my problems with the Summers affair; although you have finally reduced them and explained them better than I possibly could (that is pretty obvious I suppose). I guess what I feel is that I would rather suffer an occasional bad seed being protected in order to make sure that all the good ones are. This is directly analogous to the underpinnings of our historical due process in criminal law; i.e. that it is better that a guilty man go free than risk an innocent man's loss of liberty. That is why I have steadfastly maintained, and stated here on several differnt discussion subjects, that the process is far more important than any single result. Unfortunately, in both the law and academics, society has tended to focus on outrage in single events rather than the beauty and integrity of the process.

Jodi -- you're an idiot and so apparently was your dean. You really need to get out more. Really please, and leave all your connections to the internet at home so that we don't have to continue reading your insufferable drivel. I have no idea what graduate school you were in, but I'm certain you were not in the hard sciences. Your analytical skills are abysmal and your reading comprehension from what I have seen here is nil. I hope to God you do not reproduce, but I suppose it is inevitable. Do us all a favor, find the nearest hammer and smash your biological clock to smithereens.

phred,

I'm glad you said that. It further reinforces my opinion of you. I hate to make snap judgements.

: )

Yeah well, I haven't seen freepatriot around recently and somebody had to say it. Don't fret about whether or not they are snappy, you don't seem to possess any judgment.

Yeah well, I haven't seen freepatriot around recently and somebody had to say it. Don't fret about whether or not they are snappy, you don't seem to possess any judgment

Phred you da man. Thanks for my morning laugh.


Jodi you sound like some of the people over at JOM, unable or not willing to weigh the pros and cons of an issue.

This just in:
Chemerinsky to return as UC Irvine law dean

By Garrett Therolf, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
10:05 AM PDT, September 17, 2007
UC Irvine Chancellor Michael V. Drake and Erwin Chemerinsky have reached an agreement that will return the liberal legal scholar to the dean's post at the university's law school, sources told The Times this morning.

With the deal -- which is expected to be formally announced by 10:30 a.m., after which the two will hold a joint news conference -- they hope to end the controversy that erupted when Chemerinsky was dropped as the first dean of the Donald Bren School of Law.

Drake traveled over the weekend to Durham, N.C., where Chemerinsky is a professor at Duke University, and the two reached an agreement about midnight Sunday, the sources said.

[rest snipped]

PJE, way to go. Ancient by now is this Duke law prof's supportive and calm analysis in guest mode hosted at blackprof blog. Naturlich, some byzantine Jingoist parsers blast each syntactic turn in her melifluous prose attempting reductio ad absurdam, but the integrity of the piece seems to withstand the kibbitzing. A little to the north, is this archived text of the LawProfThought Scrutinizers, authored by the vice dean and prof at UCLA January 2006, pity, though: that the original woodcut graphic of 3-1/2 'fists' was scrapped when their web archiver stored the articles from their first year online.

Let's hope the UC system skips the minders phase; NYT now charges $5. to view that article by Revkin only eighteen months since publication. Some interesting threads remain to develop, however, including some prominent casework ongoing which comprised part of the two views ew supplied in timely fashion. Corroborating PJE's link, Univ of Cincinnati assoc dean of faculty cites from EC's email this afternoon to colleagues.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad