What he said has scientific merit and support so I don't know why people are so uptight. Peoplehave different strenghts and weaknesses. We should stop bickering and start celebrating our differences! Life's too short man. Just relax and enjoy it while we can!

There have been far too many hints of financial impropriety.

1. Harvard Fund managers have been overcompensated.

Summers has been much to cozy with Professor Shleifer and his wife even though this couple may have exposed the university to millions (maybe at worst hundreds of millions of dollars of financial liability).

Is Summers getting kickbacks? In view of some of the malfeasance that has occurred in recent years at BU, it is not an unreasonable question. He either is or is not. The numbers of dollars involved are so large that one might have to consider Summers stupid if he is not getting a payoff of some sort. In any case, the questions about fiduciary propriety since Summers became Harvard President have to make all potential contributors concerned that their largess might end up in somebody's pocket instead of benefiting Harvard.

2. Summers has a double standard that amounts to racism.

He had a problem with some of the nonacademic activities of Cornel West but had no similar problem with comparable activities by virulent anti-Arab anti-Muslim activists like Ruth Wisse and Alan Dershowitz. Apparently, ethnic Ashkenazim on the faculty may make outrageous and extremist statements in the support of Zionism and the State of Israel, but an African American like Cornel West may not engage in relatively ordinary political activism.

3. Summers' commitment to racist ethnic Ashkenazi tribalism takes precedent over his commitment to free academic discourse.

He condemned the Divestment movement at Harvard for being anti-Semitic in effect if not in intent. Yet he did not give a clue to the Harvard community how to express criticism of Israel without being anti-Semitic in effect. Obviously, Summers is unwilling to tolerate criticism of Israel or of Zionism.

4. Summers panders wealthy racist ethnic Ashkenazim.

Martin Peretz is an extreme racist ethnic Ashkenazi, who believes in the superiority of Jews over Arabs
because he asserts that the historical, ethnic or national rights of Jews to Palestine are superior to the human rights (including residence rights and property rights) of the native population and
because he assumes that the Jewish settler population should be privileged over the native population.

Ruth Wisse is a second rate Yiddish scholar, who litters her published works with anti-Arab and anti-Polish comments. She has accused one of the preeminent Yiddish scholars of the 20th century of thinking with his dick because he wanted to develop Yiddish studies in Poland.

Yet it was okay for Martin Peretz to fund a professorship for Ruth Wisse.

In contrast, Arabs may not contribute to fund a professorship in Islamic studies at the Harvard Divinity School. Summers effectively prevented Sheikh Zayed from contributing to the University because of right-wing racist ethnic Ashkenazi Zionist complaints that a Larouchite had given a talk at a think tank (apparently one of many) funded by Sheikh Zayed.

Larouchites have occasionally given talks at the Pentagon apparently by invitation of ethnic Ashkenazi Neoconservative advisors to the President. Larouchites may be looneys, but they are often well-informed looneys, and sometimes knowing what the lunatic fringe is saying is worthwhile.

In effect, Summers allows racist ethnic Ashkenazim to contribute to the University and therefore have an effect on University policy, but apparently wealthy Arabs may not.

Because contributing gives influence, we can expect that during the Summers administration, Harvard will become a preserve of wealthy racist ethnic Ashkenazim. The rest of the world (especially Blacks, Poles, Arabs or Muslims) need not apply.

5. Summers does not have a clue about scientific thinking.

Even though he is supposed to know something about statistics, mathematics, the social sciences and science in general, his beliefs about gender differences in the sciences seem based on irrational prejudice and bigotry.

Not only will Summers create a University environment explicitly hostile to women in the sciences, but Summers' complete lack of understanding of scientific reasoning underscores the ridiculousness of his attempt to reform Harvard education to increase the amount of science training that Harvard undergrads receive.

Harvard undergrads need to learn to think scientifically (something that Summers apparently never learned). Taking more science courses just means that Harvard undergrads will have a large body of knowledge that will be obsolete within a few years of graduation.

6. Harvard needs to rid itself of Summers.

Not only is the mere presence of Summers at Harvard exceptionally divisive, but the presidency of Summers also threatens the ability of Harvard to raise funds and to attract the best of students and scholars throughout the world. A vote of no confidence is the first step to end the Summers era of darkness and bigotry at Harvard University.

If Dean Summers succeeds in wresting control from the corrosive elements who seek to stifle and suppress with political pressure and tantrums, those ideas which they cannot dispel with reasoned argument and logic, he will have refocussed the mission of Harvard to its primary task and the institution will owe him an immense debt of gratitude.

Now, might I be so bold as to suggest a small offering by one of Harvard's own alums. Do not write further on this topic until you have read the following:
http://www.paulgraham.com/paulgraham/say.html

Aaron,
So you feel he didn't grovel hard enough while saying it? o_O

What I note is that the sentence you quote indicates that he had consulted the person who had asked him about what it was that person wanted. That hardly sounds arrogant to me. So your arguement against Mr. Summer boils down to 2 points:

1. "Duh! We don't like the way he talks. Duhhh!"

2. "Boohoo! Boohoo! We don't like the topic he picked. It was mean of him to pick that topic. How dare he? Wahhhhhhh!"

Neither of those points encourages me to believe that his tormentors are the towering champions of academic truth and justice you seem to think they are. In seeking to condemn him they have only censured themselves instead.

He asked if perhaps there should be some more research into why math and science are dominated by men. Some feminists went faint, and the faculty decided it was time for a new president. Here's wh...

Setting aside his arrogance, this is also about leadership. The role of a college president is to talk about the things we can do, rather than the things that we cannot change. Regardless of whether innate differences exist or not, there clearly are other factors involved with the prevalence of women in science (compare across countries, for example.) These are things that we can affect. Summers could have focussed his speech on that, but he didn't. Look at the first sentence of his speech:

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.

That's not leadership; it's overweening laziness. Apparently, talking about fixing the problem bores him. He'd rather be provocative.

I don't agree with the no confidence vote. Summers is a smart guy and has the opportunity to do some much deserved shaking up of things. Beyond that, he deserves a chance to learn how not to be a dick. But, right now, he's failing in his role as a university president and as a leader.

So here you have women, using their superior reading (and writing) skills, to exact revenge, because they're pissed they can't do math.

It is noteworthy that many of those who wish to condemn Summers are very likely those who would argue that Ward Churchill's 'right to free speech' should not be attenuated . What about Summers' right to free speech ? Why no defense for him

BUT, after all, this is from the Faculty of Arts and Sciences at Harvard -- and what can one expect -- second rate minds at a second rate university.

I think we need to get past the notion that different means inferior. I think science is showing more and more that men and women think differently-women bring certain strengths to the table and men bring certain strengths to the table (in general-we all know with humans there always exceptions to the trends), instead of deciding who is better or worse, we should use both stengths together, since they are actually complementary.

I think Summer's is being shafted, and I agree his mistake was apologizing, instead of clarifying.

Yes, introductory courses are tiring -- the material is unfamiliar to you and too-familiar to the instructor. But, if you are serious about a field, what you see in the introductory course is the toolset you will be using for the rest of your life. Scientific inquiry without these tools is merely idle speculation.

This is (sadly) correct - Summers should never have started his orgy of apology to begin with, but rather should have forcefully rebutted his pathetic critics. (Ie: See the recent LAT kerfuffle)

Why? It's certainly supported by most available evidence, not to mention most empirical outcomes.

Yet, because there is always some "but" to be raised , possible alternate explanation, potential (invisible) structural discrimination present, etc. - the opposite conclusion is the only one a "decent" person can draw. Heh.

It doesn't help that the required (large) introductory courses are also designed to suck any joy whatsoever out of scientific inquiry.