Sunday News

by Cliopatria

Julian Sanchez has a fascinating piece in Reason critiquing the rise and fall of neoconservative ideology.

FIRE co-founder Harvey Silverglate is, as usual, on target, in outlining the speech that Larry Summers should have given in the aftermath of his NBER remarks controversy. Peter Berkowitz similarly faults Summers' insufficient defense of freedom of inquiry.

In the LA Times, Tim Rutten condemns the Western media's silence about assaults on their Arab colleagues.

Eugene Volokh on one of the more bizarre pro-gun laws, from VA, seeking to deny pediatricians the right to question about guns in the home.

President Yoweri Museveni has been reelected in Uganda, in a contest marred by allegations of fraud; TNRanalyzes how one of the hopes for a new, democratic Africa became another dictator.

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

Robert KC Johnson - 2/27/2006

But, of course, the faculty vote of no-confidence came before the Shleifer affair. And regarding this particular issue, what exactly was Summers supposed to do? A tenured professor who he knew well was charged with wrongdoing, on a matter tangentially related to his Harvard responsibilities. If he recused himself, he would have been accused (as he was) for giving his friend special treatment. If he intervened actively and failed to defend the professor, he would have been accused for failing to stand up for faculty prerogatives and leaving a tenured member of the university to fare for himself. This was a no-win situation, and, at least based on the facts that are in the public domain, it's hard for me to see how Summers acted improperly.

Brian Flynn - 2/27/2006

What Summers' defenders conveniently overlook--because it does not play into their p.c. bashing--is the serious charges regarding Summers' handling of the Shleifer affair. Although Summers' comments on women and science, his comments about Israeli disinvestment, and his treatment of Cornell West certainly seemed to alienate a significant portion of the Harvard faculty, it should be remembered that he survived these incidents. Summers' claim that he was unaware of basic facts about this case were viewed--correctly one can only conclude--as an outright lie. Of course questioning why a professor, and friend of Summers, charged with fraud is not disciplined does not fit so neatly into those who want to use this story as an attack on the alleged forces of political correctness overtaking universities.

Robert KC Johnson - 2/26/2006

That Silverglate repeats arguments raised by others doesn't necessarily make his piece unpersuasive. Of course, had Summers given the speech that Silverglate recommended, he would have faced even more of a faculty uproar--though I support each of the proposed suggestions (reducing student life positions, ending all speech codes, and even establishing an academic freedom chair).

Jonathan Dresner - 2/26/2006

It's remarkable how many pundits subsist on simple recycling: Silvergate's piece just restates every anti-anti-Summers argument ever made, regardless of their merit or the lack of evidence that Summers had a coherent vision of academic values or management. Sanchez's is just exposition on Fukuyama's statement that "In the formulation of the scholar Ken Jowitt, the neoconservative position articulated by people like Kristol and Kagan was, by contrast, Leninist; they believed that history can be pushed along with the right application of power and will. Leninism was a tragedy in its Bolshevik version, and it has returned as farce when practiced by the United States" and it's a bit dishonest of him not to quote that specifically.