I am delighted to read that UC Irvine chancellor Michael Drake reversed course after the national uproar about his hiring-then-firing of Edwin Chemerinsky and that now Prof. Chemerinsky is firmly back in the fold as the founding UCI law school dean. Whatever bizarre machinations in-or-out of Drake's mind he is saved from an almost certainly ungainly exit, at least for today.
Academic freedom lives!
Then there is this nugget from the UC System:
UC yanks speaker's invitation: Controversial ex-Harvard president was scheduled to address regents Wednesday
...
After a group of UC Davis women faculty began circulating a petition, UC regents rescinded an invitation to Larry Summers, the controversial former president of Harvard University, to speak at a board dinner Wednesday night in Sacramento. The dinner comes during the regents' meeting at UCD next week.
Given my strong views about academic freedom, I dislike this action even though I share the concerns of women everywhere about what Summers said. I invite your responses in a poll.
For example, I am no big fan of John Yoo, professor of torture constitutional law at UC Berkeley. However, unless he is convicted of war crimes, under the aegis of academic freedom I cannot argue against his being there. I can only assume that the academic marketplace of legal research will render an appropriate verdict on Prof. Yoo and marginalize him.
I am no big fan of Douglas Feith, who was hired on at Georgetown to some considerable controversy last year by a self described liberal dean. However, while questioning that dean's judgement I would again not advocate running Feith out of town unless he is convicted of war crimes or the like. I do also accept the partial explanation of the dean that there is intellectual value in hearing from someone who was involved in an administration whose actions you may find wholly objectionable. There is a considerable question about Feith's overall competence for such a position, but I again trust the decisions that will be madke here by the scholastic and intellectual market-if Feith doesn't teach well, and if he argues poorly in academic circles, he will not make it.
There is the case of Norman Finkelstein at DePaul. There is no question that his critiques of Zionism raised hackles and gained him the considerable attention of Alan Dershowitz and he was denied tenure. This case troubles me greatly on the merits. Those most in a position to know about the tenure candidate's credentials (Finkelstein's departmental colleagues) were overruled by the administration who claimed that Dershowitz played no role in their decision despite his high level of activism on the matter. In a related case, Dershowitz is apparently going after Barack Obama because of the support by Prof. Zbigniew Brzezinski of Johns Hopkins (the famous advisor to Jimmy Carter and a senior advisor to Obama) for the critical examination by Mearsheimer and Walt of the influence of the Israel lobby on American foreign policy. Without knowing all the details, the appearance of these efforts by Dershowitz are to attempt to silence what are potentially necessary discussions about the role of the Israel lobby. Whether you agree or not, in an academic environment these discussions should be allowed.
So, now, Summers is disinvited from a speaking invitation to the UC Regents. What Summers said about women and their math/science skills was, for this scientist, wince producing. Deeply wince producing. A few chats with some of his distinguished faculty, like Howard Georgi (who has mentored many women into leadership positions in the physics community) would have dissuaded Summers from making what appeared to be poorly thought out remarks. These faculty could have told Summers, for example, of the vast cultural differences that belie his remarks (if womens supposed deficit of representation in the sciences/math is innate, why are there order 30-50% women in phyics in France, Italy, and Latin America, vs. 10-20% in Germany, the UK, and the USA?). Summers deserved the massive backlash he got for his unfortunate remarks.
This said, Summers is a very serious intellect and has been the leader of what is arguably the world's premier research university. The incident happened over two years ago. He quit his position at Harvard over this and other rather heavy handed actions on his part.
So the question at the heart of this diary: did he deserve this?
UCD professor Maureen Stanton, one of the petition organizers, was delighted by news of the change this morning, saying it's “a move in the right direction.”
“UC has an enormous historical commitment to diversity within its faculty ranks, but still has a long way to go before our faculty adequately represent the diversity of our constituency, the people of California,” said Stanton, professor and chairwoman of the section of evolution and ecology.
When Stanton heard about the initial invitation to Summers, she was “stunned.”
“I was appalled that someone articulating that point of view would be invited by the regents,” she said. “This is a symbolic
invitation and a symbolic measure that I believe sends the wrong message about the University of California and its cultural principles.”
Stanton and other women on campus began circulating a petition Tuesday night by e-mail to colleagues at several campuses in the UC system. In two days, they had collected more than 150 signatures.
“None of us go looking for a fight,” Stanton said. “We were just deeply offended.”
I agree that a meeting of the regents is a far more political affair and than an academic lecture.
I agree that Summers made a boneheaded remark (though he did issue a very public apology) which deservedly offended many of my female colleagues in academia.
I agree that the regents would have probably been well advised to talk to faculty at the host campus prior to inviting Summers, and that this might have led to no invitation for Summers. Their invitation without asking reflects an unfortunate disconnect between the faculty and the uber-powers of the university (ultimately the regents).
However, Summers was invited, and I will also repeat that Summers is a formidable economist, and was the leader of Harvard. I find the response of the regents to the petition risk averse and somewhat chilling.
Overall, I come down on the side that the appropriate response would have been to balance Summers with the invitation of a scholar distinguished on the issues to which Summers mis-spoke -- perhaps someone like Lillian McDermottfrom the University of Washington or the aforementioned Georgi. This might have had the effect of having Summers disinvite himself, as he may wish to go through no more episodes which even obliquely resemble the wearing of a hair shirt, but that action would have been at least his choice.
My problem with the way that it was done is that it leaves a very bad taste about belief in academic freedom from the left side of the political aisle. The approach seems heavy handed and ill considered (not unlike Summers actions that led to his dismissal).
I wish that it was otherwise.