The Golden Gag Awards

Say No to Mom

2005-05-06T16:59:00.000-04:00

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/06/AR2005050600605_pf.html

COLUMBUS, Ga. -- A high school student was suspended for 10 days for refusing to end a mobile phone call with his mother, a soldier serving in Iraq, school officials said.

The 10-day suspension was issued because Kevin Francois was "defiant and disorderly" and was imposed in lieu of an arrest, Spencer High School assistant principal Alfred Parham said.

The confrontation Wednesday began after the 17-year-old junior got a call at lunchtime from his mother, Sgt. 1st Class Monique Bates, who left in January for a one-year tour with the 203rd Forward Support Battalion.

Mobile phones are allowed on campus but may not be used during school hours. When a teacher told him to hang up, he refused. He said he told the teacher, "This is my mom in Iraq. I'm not about to hang up on my mom."

Parham said the teen's suspension was based on his reaction to the teacher's request. He said the teen used profanity when taken to the office.

"Kevin got defiant and disorderly," Parham said. "When a kid becomes out of control like that they can either be arrested or suspended for 10 days. Now being that his mother is in Iraq, we're not trying to cause her any undue hardship; he was suspended for 10 days."

(Hat Tip: Down With Bush )

This is my first nomination for Zero Tolerance award. I think this is ridiculous, outrageous. Obviously, the student should have been penalized for cursing out the teachers, but come on now, when your mother is Iraq, I don't think your school's stupid policy is going to take priority over her phone call. Just not happening. Oh yeah, and a ten-day-suspencion/arrest is a punishment usually given for a fight or for bring drugs or weapons to school, not for taking a phone call. It's a Draconian measure even for using profanity.

Incredulous,
Irina

Let Freedom Ring!

2005-04-27T12:03:00.000-04:00

http://movies2.nytimes.com/2005/04/27/movies/27cat.html?pagewanted=all
April 27, 2005
MOVIE REVIEW | 'CASUISTRY: THE ART OF KILLING A CAT'

A Self-Proclaimed Artist and an Inexplicable Act of Cruelty
By DANA STEVENS

n May 2001, three young men in Toronto tortured and killed a cat and - for reasons that remain unclear - videotaped themselves doing it. When another resident of the house where the incident happened found the skinned and decapitated cat in the refrigerator, she alerted the police. A trial and animal rights protests followed.

The incident and its aftermath are the subjects of "Casuistry: The Art of Killing a Cat," a new documentary by the Canadian director Zev Asher, which opens at the Two Boots Pioneer Theater in the East Village today and runs through May 3. "Casuistry" takes its title from a word for specious reasoning that rationalizes dubious behavior; as Jesse Power, the ringleader of the cat killers and a self-proclaimed artist, observes in an interview, he discovered the word in a dictionary directly above "cat."

"Casuistry" consists mainly of talking-head interviews - with animal rights advocates, art gallery owners and two of the three accused young men - intercut with news clips about the event, shots of Mr. Power's disturbing artwork, and extreme close-ups of a variety of cats (all of whom, pet lovers will be relieved to know, remain alive and well throughout). The offending videotape is never seen, but the entire film is built around its absence. Periodically, the film returns to a written police account of the video, which scrolls up the screen, documenting the animal's suffering blow by blow to the sound of ominous music.

Two of the cat's assailants come off as bored, alienated and none-too-bright young men seeking a nihilistic thrill. The third, Mr. Power, is a more complex figure, an intelligent and well-spoken but possibly psychopathic art student who has long been obsessed with the death of animals (he once took a job in an abattoir, he says, to better understand the suffering of the animals he ate). Among the least sympathetic figures in the film are two local gallery owners who seem callow and pretentious as they refuse to judge Mr. Power for his actions. Though it clearly takes the position that the animal's death was a crime, Mr. Asher's film is likely to leave viewers eager to discuss the limits of artistic freedom and the extension of human rights to animals.

Casuistry: The Art of Killing a Cat

Opens today in Manhattan.

Written, directed and edited by Zev Asher; directors of photography, Mr. Asher and Linda Feesey; music by Roughage; produced by Ms. Feesey; released by Rough Age Projectiles. At the Two Boots Pioneer Theater, 155 East Third Street at Avenue A, East Village. Running time: 88 minutes. This film is not rated.

I wrote about this incident on my other blog a few months ago... but now that it has come up again, it made me think. It made me think that PC, and Witch Hunts, and Academic Bias, are only some of the examples of moral relativism which keeps us all gagged, silenced, mute. We're afraid to speak out against the most outrageous of incidents, afraid that someone will accuse of being undemocratic, of not being liberal enough, of disrespecting the First Amendment. "Justice", rudimentary ethics, somehow get lost in the process. It's so ironic that in pursuit of freedom of speech, we lose our freedom of thought... and we lose that freedom of speech. Relativism can very easily lead to the most cynical nihilism, as in the article above.

I decided to create a new category to include relativistic action for the sake of "artistic freedom" or other high-minded ideas. It'll be called "Anything Goes", and will deal with the most outrageous instances of once-unpardonable behavior. The "artists" above are a good illustration, and deserve the first nomination in that category.

Speechless with horror,
Irina

We See What We Want To See strong>

2005-04-25T09:59:00.000-04:00

http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/worldwide/story/0,9959,1466774,00.html

Lecturers vote for Israeli boycott

Polly Curtis
Friday April 22, 2005

The Association of University Teachers today voted to boycott two Israeli universities over their failure to speak out against their government.

Delegates at a conference in Eastbourne voted, against the wishes of the executive, for an immediate boycott of Haifa University, which they accuse of restricting the academic freedom of staff members who are critical of the government, and of Bar Ilans University, which has a college in the disputed settlement Ariel.

The boycott, which is now official union policy, will follow a plan prescribed by a group of 60 Palestinian academic and cultural bodies and non-governmental organisations, which calls for British academics to severe links with Israeli institutions but to exempt Israelis who speak out against their government's policies towards the Palestinians.

The executive had asked delegates to defer the debate until the facts of the cases included in three motions were confirmed. A third boycott, against the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, was dropped as delegates queried the evidence of accusations it had evicted Palestinian families to build dormitories.

There were cheers as the motions were passed. Shereen Benjamin, from Birmingham University, one of the authors of the motions, told EducationGuardian: "It is a much better result than we'd dared to hope for. What it does is put the issue on the agenda at a higher profile than it's ever been.

"As an educator I applaud that people are discussing this ... We think the boycott of Haifa will send a clear message about academic freedom in Israel."

At the end of the vote, delegates angrily demanded to be able to voice their opposition to the new policy and to the cutting short of the debate, due to lack of time, so that no opposition other than from the executive was heard.

Alastair Hunter, a delegate from Glasgow, speaking from the back of the Winter Gardens conference hall, where the debate took place, called the motions "divisive". He said: "I am disgusted we were not given a chance to debate fully."

There were four non-union campaigners against the boycott outside the hall. Gerald Adler, a retired academic, told EducationGuardian: "It is a very, very retrograde step. It certainly isn't going to help dialogue, and it certainly isn't going to help people get closer. It separates them."

Sally Hunt, the general secretary of the union, refused to comment as she left the hall.

Sally Hunt, the general secretary of the AUT, said in a statement that the union would issue members guidance on the boycotts.

She said: "AUT council today decided to boycott Haifa University and the Bar-Ilan University.

"The executive committee will issue guidance to AUT members on these decisions.

"Council delegates also referred a call to boycott the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and the executive committee will investigate the background to this and will report in due course.

Council delegates also agreed to circulate to all local associations a statement from Palestinian organisations calling for an academic boycott of Israeli institutions."

The president and provost of University College London, Malcolm Grant, condemned the vote as a threat to freedom of speech.

He said: "I am dismayed by the motions passed today. My view is that they are completely at odds with the historic mission of universities.

"Academic boycotts for political ends are in direct conflict with that mission, and betray a misunderstanding of our function.

"The freedom of speech that we cherish in universities, and which is absolutely fundamental to the global dissemination of knowledge, is under threat as a result of the AUT's action."

Thanks to Jack's Shack for the link. I've already nominated this council for an award, but this is a development of the story, worth watching.. I can bet you anything that one day they'll regret it... but it'll be too late. Sometimes I wonder whether there are limits to human blindness... apparently there are not. That's the problem with idealism... when unrestrained, it takes hold of your mind... and pushes all your thoughts in one direction. That was the problem with the United States Cold War policy, which blinded us to other ways of thinking, and cost us with trouble in the Middle East... and now, the same problem can be observed with the left, seeing victims and empires everywhere... despite the obvious facts. I hate to be a Cassandra, but those with such an attitude usually end up very badly.

Foretelling,
Irina

Say Hello to Bias

2005-04-21T09:08:00.000-04:00

The following story can be found at www.totallyjewish.com:

Boycott Backlash

by Alex Sholem - Apr 20

Nearly 200 academics this week put their names to public letters criticising calls for Britain’s university teachers’ union to boycott Israeli universities.

Delegates at the Association of University Teachers annual conference in Eastbourne will vote tomorrow on whether to support motions urging all links to be cut with Israeli academia.

But the proposals, introduced by Open and Birmingham universities, were attacked in two separate letters, signed by a total of 178 British lecturers.

The first, signed by Dame Ruth Deech, the independent adjudicator for higher education, and 95 other academics, stated: “Academic channels can strengthen empathy and dialogue, as well as successfully confront stereotypes, not reinforce them as a one-sided boycott inevitably does.”

Earlier in the week, the AUT national executive came under fire from its Palestinian equivalent over a separate motion calling for dialogue between Israeli academics and those working in the occupied territories.

The Palestinian Federation of Unions of University Professors and Employees stated: “The ‘problems’ facing the Middle East do not arise from misunderstandings, negative stereotypes, or lack of communication or empathy. The real obstacle to the achievement of a just settlement of a historic conflict continues to be the system of colonial apartheid erected by Israel.”

Meanwhile, the National Union of Journalists annual delegate meeting passed a motion attacking the British government for supplying arms to Israel.

The motion stated: “The daily killings and horror of life for Palestinians under the illegal occupation by Israeli troops in Gaza and the West Bank are mostly going unreported by UK media.”

Thanks to Curlew for the link.

ALl right, so this bias by the journalists is not exactly academic. And maybe they are quite sincere about it, not just playing lip service to PC of the left. Still, it's obvious that they have the chutzpah to lie about the coverage of the conflict... we all know how biased BBC is. It's even got kicked out by Israel because of its extremely hostile and one-sided stories. I've read coverage by some of these "journalists". Objective they are not. Who do they think they are, bloggers? ; ) It's sad to see the fourth estate degrade to such a state. And it's with a heavy heart, rather than glee, that I nominate the National Union of Journalists for a PC award... though at this point, PC has crossed the boundary into regular bias.

Disturbed,
Irina

A Dubious Honor

2005-04-18T12:51:00.000-04:00

I could not resist posting this. This is not a nomination for any category, but I think that the idea of naming disgusting creatures after human beings one strongly dislikes is simply great! Although I may not discover any separate species anytime soon (unless it's some mysterious subcategory of Democrats), I could name separate entities (slugs, flies, earthworms, rats) after the Golden Gag Award winners - as a prize. What do you think?

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/04/14/bush.beetle.ap/index.html

Bush has slime-mold beetle named after him

ITHACA, New York (AP) -- Not just anybody can say he has a slime-mold beetle named in his honor. But George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald H. Rumsfeld can.

Entomologists Quentin Wheeler and Kelly B. Miller, who recently had the task of naming 65 newly discovered species of slime-mold beetles, named three species after the president, vice president and defense secretary.

The monikers: Agathidium bushi Miller and Wheeler, Agathidium cheneyi Miller and Wheeler, and Agathidium rumsfeldi Miller and Wheeler.

According to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, the first word of a new species is its genus; the second word must end in "i" if it's named after a person; and the final part of the name includes the person or persons who first described the species.

Naming the beetles after Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld was intended to pay homage to them, said Wheeler, who taught at Cornell University for 24 years and now is with the Natural History Museum in London.

"We admire these leaders as fellow citizens who have the courage of their convictions and are willing to do the very difficult and unpopular work of living up to principles of freedom and democracy rather than accepting the expedient or popular," he said.

Wheeler and Miller, who was at Cornell and now is a postdoctoral fellow at Brigham Young University, published the names in the March 24 issue of the Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History.

How would you feel if you had a slimer or two named after you? Rate this prize as a possible award for the Golden Gag Award winners!

Still laughing,
Irina

And don't choke!

2005-04-08T09:28:00.000-04:00

This delightful item can be found on CNN... Thanks to Running For The Right for the link.

Has Cookie Monster given up sweets?
'Sesame Street' advocates healthy eating habits

NEW YORK (AP) -- Something must be wrong in the land of Muppets.

First PBS announced that "Sesame Street" would kick off its 35th season this week with a multiyear story arc about healthy habits. No problem there; childhood obesity rates are soaring. Then I learned of changes that turned my "Sesame Street" world upside-down.

My beloved blue, furry monster -- who sang "C is for cookie, that's good enough for me" -- is now advocating eating healthy. There's even a new song -- "A Cookie Is a Sometimes Food," where Cookie Monster learns there are "anytime" foods and "sometimes" foods.

"Sacrilege!" I cried. "That's akin to Oscar the Grouch being nice and clean." (Co-workers gave me strange looks. But I didn't care.)

Being a journalist, I did the only thing I knew how to do. I investigated why "Sesame Street" gave Cookie Monster a health makeover.

The answer would lead me into a world where television producers worked with health experts and politicians, a place where Cookie Monster does care about his health, and by association, the health of children.

The first place I headed was the Internet. On the Sesame Street Web site, little had changed. There was Cookie Monster, in all his blue furriness. He was holding a plate of cookies. He was chomping on a cookie. He still looked the same. But as we all know, looks can be deceiving.

So I searched the site for news on Cookie Monster and up popped a press release about the show's "Healthy Habits for Life" emphasis. Buried near the bottom was a one-sentence mention about Cookie Monster eating fewer cookies.

But what did that mean? Scarfing one plateful instead of two?

Talking vegetables
I picked up the telephone. "What's going on with Cookie Monster?" I asked the "Sesame Street" press office. "Why are you doing this?"

They sent me to Dr. Rosemarie T. Truglio, the show's vice president of research and education.

She said the show changes every year, focusing not just on teaching numbers and letters but also emotional and physical health. With the rise in childhood obesity, Truglio said "Sesame Street" is concentrating on the need to teach children about healthy foods and physical activity.

This season, each episode opens with a "health tip" about nutrition, exercise, hygiene and rest.

Truglio said "Sesame Street" also will introduce new characters, such as talking eggplants and carrots, and offer parodies, such as "American Fruit Stand." Even guest stars will address healthy activities, such as Alicia Keys talking and singing about the importance of physical activity.

Even politicians have gotten into the act, filming public service announcements with "Sesame Street" residents. In one taping, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist taught Elmo to exercise -- jumping up and down. In another, Sen. Hillary Clinton and the small red monster discuss the various textures and tastes of foods.

But what about their position on Cookiegate?

"Even Cookie Monster is learning to control his cookie cravings," Frist told me by e-mail. "His sage advice opened our eyes to the simple joys of a tasty cookie and now reminds us that moderation is the key to healthy living."

Cookie Monster was not available for comment. (I'm hoping he hasn't gone too Hollywood.)

"We are not putting him on a diet," said his spokesman, Truglio. "And we would never take the position of no sugar. We're teaching him moderation."

'Sometimes food'
The furry one also plans to try different kinds of cookies (read: healthier cookies) rather than his just staple, chocolate chip.

But will he still scarf his food? Yes, plus the occasional object, Truglio said.

But isn't that unhealthy? Her reply: He's still Cookie Monster.

Cookie Monster appears to be happy with the new "sometimes food" song, because at the end he warbles: "Is sometimes now?"

"Yes," he's told.

So there it is. Cookie Monster still gobbles cookies, he's just a healthier version of his old self. His eyes are still googly, his fur is still scruffy and he's still messy.

Even "Sesame Street" recognizes that we all need guilty pleasures.

Another great nomination for the Political Correctness award. The great minds behind this idea have succeeded in outmoralizing the moralizers. Does everything we do now have to be GOOD for you? Goodness gracious, but they'll only succeed in creating self-conscious, guilty little neurotics who feel guilty every time they eat something they like. And then we wonder where eating disorders come from.

Guys, how about advertising *sports* and *exercise* for a change? And isn't a healthier attitude to try different thing but in small portions? Don't be a piggy and you won't look like one! And guys, SOME of us have a very different type of metabolism, and even if we functions as Carb Machines, it won't hurt us! I might be taking the children's show too seriously... but only because the geniuses who come up with these things are taking themselves too seriously. And ruining the fun.

Next Up: A proposal to give out fruit at Halloween, because candy cause FATNESS.
(Yes, I'm making it up... but I'm sure someone will actually take it seriously).

Disgusted,
Irina

Divestment from Common Sense

2005-04-07T11:14:00.000-04:00

Boycott call resurfaces

The campaign by some academics against Israeli universites will intensify at the Association of University Teachers' annual council this month. Polly Curtis reports

Tuesday April 5, 2005
The Guardian

Every day, all over the world, thousands of bundles of research grant applications make their way by airmail from author to funding council to academic reviewer and back again. Some are successful, while others, frustratingly, are not. To be reviewed, to review, or even just to be asked, can be an honour. But when the Israel Science Foundation, the biggest government funder of Israeli research, approaches a European academic there is a political cloud hanging over the process.
In recent weeks, the foundation has received two rejections from British academics to review an application. In one, received last month, the unnamed academic describes his "utmost respect" for the academic whose grant he's been asked to review, but refuses on the basis that it is Israeli money and he disapproves of their government's actions towards the Palestinian people. "I hope you understand this is nothing personal," he adds.

The second, also received last month, again says the author won't review the proposal. "I support the academic boycott of Israeli academic institutions, as a means of registering my protest against Israelis' lack of respect for human rights and continuing illegal occupation of Palestinian land."

Almost three years ago to the day, moves towards an academic boycott of Israel began in earnest when a moratorium on European funding for Israeli research was suggested by Steven and Hilary Rose and 120 other academics, in a letter to the Guardian. The issue has burst on to the front pages intermittently: when Umist's Mona Baker sacked two Israeli linguists from a translation journal she edited; when Oxford's Andrew Wilkie refused a place to an Israeli PhD student; and last year, when the School of Oriental and African Studies hosted a conference on the subject entitled Resisting Israeli Apartheid: Strategies and Principles.

Behind the scenes, its leading campaigners in the UK, France, the Occupied Territories and Israel, have been refining what an academic boycott is, what the arguments are, and whose support they really have. That debate, which has existed mainly in email exchange groups, obscure online publications and weblogs, is about to be aired very publicly. In two weeks time, in Eastbourne, the Association of University Teachers will debate, once again, whether to adopt a form of the boycott as official union policy.

Bosses at the AUT would be forgiven for having the jitters. There are plenty of other issues on the agenda at their annual council. Not only are they going to have to decide what to do about a year-old pay deal that many universities have failed to implement, but there will be the first vote on whether to merge with Natfhe. But ahead of council, some of the most serious political manoeuvring has focused on the international debates and, specifically, what to do about Israel.

The boycott motion, jointly proposed by Birmingham and Open universities, seems relatively mild compared with the one they submitted two years ago, which called for a full boycott and was defeated after an intense debate. The new motion asks the AUT to recognise two key developments in the past six months: the establishment of the British Committee for Universities in Palestine (Bricup), with a renewed call for the boycott that excludes Israelis who are critical of their government's actions; and the publication by around 60 Palestinian academic unions and non-governmental organisations of a statement of support for the boycott.

But rather than committing the union to a boycott, the only action the motion requires is that the full text of the Palestinian call be circulated to all AUT members. The final motion is significantly softened compared with previous drafts, which called for a full boycott.

"It's a tactical attempt to get it through," admits Birmingham's Sue Blackwell, one of the motion's authors. "We've got to be a bit more sophisticated. We are now better organised. One of the reasons we didn't win last time was that there was no clear public call from Palestinians for the boycott. Now we have that, in writing."

There are three further motions which make allegations against three Israeli universities. One, against the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, claims it confiscated land from Palestinian families to expand its buildings. The charge is vigorously denied by the university. Another motion claims that Haifa University is restricting the academic freedom of researchers whose theses were critical of the Israeli state. The allegation is also strongly denied by the universitiy which says it is "unequivocally supportive of the rights of academic freedom". In the third motion, Bar Ilan University is said to be supervising degrees in partner colleges in the disputed West Bank. Education Guardian had been unable to get a response by the time it went to press.

The facts are likely to be contested in the debate at the union's annual council. All three motions call for the AUT to boycott the institutions until they change their policies. If all three are passed, three out of eight of Israel's universities, including the biggest and arguably most internationally renowned, would be boycotted.

Blackwell says: "To call for a general boycott of all Israeli institutions, without specifying the reasons, is harder for people to swallow."

The union's executive, which, two years ago, refused to recommend the boycott call to conference, independently tabled its own motion on the subject - before the OU/Birmingham move - pointing out the recent ceasefire and offering support to Palestinian academics working in difficult and dangerous conditions. But, in what sounds like a warning, albeit shallow, to both the Israelis and the members who want a boycott, it adds: "Council also recognises that the peaceful resolution of the problems facing the Middle East will not be brought about by the erection of barriers, but by open dialogue."

It's an issue that threatens to divide the union at conference this year. Two years ago, an out and out boycott was rejected by a majority of about two to one. Blackwell is hopeful of winning over another third with the changes made this year, not least with the support of the Palestinian call for a boycott, which, she argues, adds legitimacy.

That call does seem to have the backing of Palestinian academics. An internal survey of staff at the Palestinian Al-Quds University, seen by Education Guardian, reveals that 75% support a boycott. Some 76% agreed that working with an Israeli would compromise the boycott, and 73% said that such co-operation was "against their national interest".

Omar Barghouti, one of the founders of the Palestinian campaign, says that support is replicated at other Palestinian universities, but that there is still a debate about whether they are going about it the right way. "Most of the debate is pragmatic - does this help us or not? Will isolating Israel make it more aggressive? Should we try to win over Israelis by trying to collaborate?"

The effect so far on Israeli institutions is just as complicated. "There hasn't been much actual boycotting yet. We're hoping the AUT will break new ground there," says Barghouti.

"But the psychological impact is substantial. If we take things in perspective, it has not been widespread, but the very idea of boycotting Israel has shocked the academic milieu and made many people think."

Blackwell says that over the past three years the boycott has been as active as ever, but on a quiet and individual level - "a covert boycott where people are quietly getting on with it. It's a passive boycott that dares not speak its name".

Dr Tamar Jaffe-Mittwoch, director of the Israel Science Foundation (ISF) says that passive boycott has been "very painful".

"We've had about a dozen people refuse to work for us, in the previous two years there were more. It wasn't big, but, conceptually, it was a shock. The shock is that the academic world is being contaminated with politics. We feel academia is something that should be pure."

It could be that there were fewer rejections in this year's round of grant application reviews, but it could also be that they've stopped approaching people who have already refused. "We don't go back to someone who has refused to cooperate with us. As time goes by, we might get the courage - the chutzpah as we say - to go back and ask them again," says Jaffe-Mittwoch.

The ISF's rejection letters aren't grand gestures. Nearly all begin with a polite "thank you for the invitation, but ..." before concisely setting out the author's backing for the boycott.

Hilary Rose, the co-author of the original boycott call, says: "One of the reasons we have to recognise is that we're out of a period of huge collectivism and into this individual action; under that, there is a massive boycott going on. Trade unions still have a vigorous and important place, but it's simply not as strong as it was."

Professor Nachman Ben-Yehuda is dean of social sciences at the Hebrew University, one of those targeted by the AUT motions. He also says there have been isolated cases of boycott-style actions against the university over the past two years. A full boycott against the university would be "enormous" he says.

"It would be damaging. There would be severance of all relationships, and there is lots of crossover from the UK to here. It would be enormous."

He acknowledges that there is a broad debate within Israeli institutions: some who support a boycott; many who, like Jaffe-Mittwoch, don't think politics has a place in academia; and others who believe it to be an attack on Jewish people and the state of Israeli.

His own opinion is clear: "It's very unfortunate. If they do call for it and it's successful, then what problem would that solve? I think it's right to criticise a country or university if it does something wrong, I think we should be criticised for things we shouldn't be doing. But to say we won't talk any more goes against something very very basic. We solve problems through dialogue."

A boycott could also have unintended consequences, he adds: "What will happen is that it will make us lean more and more on the United States. Personally, I think that would be very disappointing."

Bhargouti, naturally, disagrees: "The academic boycott has a significant importance. Israel gains a lot of legitimacy through its academic work through Europe and the US. The academic relationship gives a lot of legitimacy to them, it has a symbolism which is very important."

· April 2002 Call for withdrawal of European funding from Israeli universities in a letter to the Guardian signed by 120 academics

· May 2002 Association of University Teachers backs call for moratorium on European funding of Israeli research

· June 2002 Mona Baker, an academic at Umist, sacks two Israeli academics from a small translation journal she edits

· May 2003 AUT conference rejects calls for an outright academic boycott of Israel

· October 2003 Oxford suspends Andrew Wilkie, the don who told an Israeli applicant for a PhD course: "I am sure you are perfectly nice at a personal level, but no way would I take on somebody who had served in the Israeli army."

· December 2004 School of Oriental and African Studies (Soas) holds conference on academic boycott. Launch of pro-boycott British Committee for Universities in Palestine and publication of a call for a boycott from a federation of Palestinian academics

· April 2005 AUT due to debate the academic boycott

Thanks to Dave Ray's Bulletproof Dandy for the link.

If this is not a clear example of bigotry, I don't know what is. Therefore, it's with a clear conscience that I nominate the participants in the boycott for the Academic Bias award. It's interesting that they are not calling for the divestment from the many real tyrannies out there. Well, they are only hurting themselves.

Again, thanks to The Bulletproof Dandy for the link.

When I just started this blog, I was expecting to limit myself to the United States. However, it's obvious that human stupidity is universal. Divestment may be a democratic way of expressing one's outrage, but it's probably doing more harm than good. Moreover, there is something else these geniuses in Britain forgot - there are other countries (such as the good old U.S. of A!) who are much more interested in good research than in empty declarations. Even Columbia's President, Lee Bollinger, declined a divestment petition against Israel.

And I thought that science was supposed to transcend politics. Clearly, some people don't have a drop of human decency left if they are willing to sacrifice all those who could have profitted in health from Israel's research for the sake of appearing "righteous". Well, they aren't fooling anybody.

The nomination in Academic Bias is theirs quite deservedly.

Almost speechless,
Irina

The Red Scare

2005-04-05T08:45:00.000-04:00

This story appeared on CNN today, though I've been hearing rumors about it since my high school days, hanging out in the Social Studies office.

Red ink falling out of favor with teachers

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Of all the things that can make a person see red, school principal Gail Karwoski was not expecting parents to get huffy about, well, seeing red.

At Daniels Farm Elementary School in Trumbull, Connecticut, Karwoski's teachers grade papers by giving examples of better answers for those students who make mistakes. But that approach meant the kids often found their work covered in red, the color that teachers long have used to grade work.

Parents objected. Red writing, they said, was "stressful." The principal said teachers were just giving constructive advice and the color of ink used to convey that message should not matter. But some parents could not let it go.

So the school put red on the blacklist. Blue and other colors are in.

"It's not an argument we want to have at this point because what we need is the parents' understanding," Karwoski said. "The color of the message should not be the issue."

In many other schools, it's black and white when it comes to red. The color has become so symbolic of negativity that some principals and teachers will not touch it.

"You could hold up a paper that says 'Great work!' and it won't even matter if it's written in red," said Joseph Foriska, principal of Thaddeus Stevens Elementary in Pittsburgh.

He has instructed his teachers to grade with colors featuring more "pleasant-feeling tones" so that their instructional messages do not come across as derogatory or demeaning.

"The color is everything," said Foriska, an educator for 31 years.

At Public School 188 in Manhattan, 25-year-old teacher Justin Kazmark grades with purple, which has emerged as a new color of choice for many educators, pen manufacturers confirm.

"My generation was brought up on right or wrong with no in between, and red was always in your face," Kazmark said. "It's abrasive to me. Purple is just a little bit more gentle. Part of my job is to be attuned to what kids respond to, and red is not one of those colors."

Purple's popularity
Three top pen and marker manufacturers -- Bic, Pilot Pen and Sanford, which produces Papermate and Sharpie -- are making more purple pens in response to rising sales. School leaders and teachers are largely driving that demand, company representatives say.

"They're trying to be positive and reinforcing rather than being harsh," said Robert Silberman, Pilot Pen's vice president of marketing. "Teachers are taking that to heart."

The disillusionment with red is part of broader shift in grading, said Vanessa Powell, a fifth-grade teacher at Snowshoe Elementary School in Wasilla, Alaska.

"It's taken a turn from 'Here's what you need to improve on' to 'Here's what you've done right,"' Powell said. "It's not that we're not pointing out mistakes, it's just that the method in which it's delivered is more positive."

Her students, she said, probably would tune out red because they are so used to it. So she grades with whatever color -- turquoise blue, hot pink, lime green -- appeals to them.

That is a sound approach, said Leatrice Eiseman, a color specialist with a background in psychology who has written several books on the ties between colors and communication.

"The human eye is notoriously fickle and is always searching for something new to look at it," she said. "If you use a color that has long been used in a traditional way, you can lose people's attention, especially if they have a history of a lot of red marks on their papers."

Purple may be rising in popularity, Eiseman said, because teachers know it is a mix of blue and red. As she put it: "You still have that element of the danger aspect -- the red -- but it's kind of subtle, subliminal. It's in the color, rather than being in your face."

In Charles County, Maryland, reading and writing specialist Janet Jones helps other teachers lead their lessons. The students at Berry Elementary School in Waldorf, Maryland, use colored pencils to edit each other's papers. By the time teachers get to grading, Jones said, the color they use isn't that important.

"I don't think changing to purple or green will make a huge difference if the teaching doesn't go along with it," Jones said. "If you're just looking at avoiding the color red, the students might not be as frightened, but they won't be better writers."

It's a clear example of high-minded, idealistic liberalism, and deserves a nomination in the Political Correctness category. The fact that red corrections are easier to see obviously doesn't count these days. I remember going to school as a child. What differentiated the teacher from the students is that she could use red ink and we couldn't. I don't remember a single person being traumatized because of red ink. You're going to tell me that the younger generation is somehow more fragile than my own??? Who in the world is frightened of a red pen? These days you'll see students scribbling with all sorts of bright colors - gel pens - in their own notebooks. The educational system is making a laughingstock out of itself. It's not afraid of "frightening" students. You know what? Nowadays, it's the students who can be rather frightening!

Disturbed by the latest developments,
Irina

Righteous Outrage

2005-04-01T09:42:00.000-05:00

For an excellent critique of Columbia's disastrous report, click here.

A Sad Joke

2005-03-31T13:13:00.000-05:00

Columbia Panel Reports No Proof of Anti-Semitism
By KAREN W. ARENSON

Published: March 31, 2005

Hiroko Masuike for The New York Times
Lee C. Bollinger, Columbia University's president, ordered an investigation into allegations of anti-Semitic harassment by faculty members.

An ad hoc faculty committee charged with investigating complaints that pro-Israel Jewish students were harassed by pro-Palestinian professors at Columbia University said it had found one instance in which a professor "exceeded commonly accepted bounds" of behavior when he became angry at a student who he believed was defending Israel's conduct toward Palestinians.

But the report, obtained by The New York Times and scheduled for release today, said it had found "no evidence of any statements made by the faculty that could reasonably be construed as anti-Semitic."

It did, however, describe a broader environment of incivility on campus, with pro-Israel students disrupting lectures on Middle Eastern studies and some faculty members feeling that they were being spied on.

It said that Columbia's failure to address various student complaints quickly had had a "deeply negative impact" on the university as a whole, had led to an "acute erosion of trust between faculty and students," and had left Columbia vulnerable to criticism from outside groups with their own agendas.

The committee was formed during the winter at the request of Columbia's president, Lee C. Bollinger, after the release of a videotape in which Columbia and Barnard students said they had been intimidated by professors of Middle Eastern studies both in and out of class. The tape sparked widespread concern among Jewish groups, alumni, trustees and activists concerned about academic freedom.

Pro-Israel students said they made the video because they had been unable for several years to get administrators to take their complaints seriously. The film was backed by the David Project, a pro-Israel group based in Boston.

Mr. Bollinger called the report "thorough and comprehensive" and said that he endorsed its findings. He said that within the next few weeks he would announce the steps Columbia planned in response.

Many have already questioned the makeup of the ad hoc committee, pointing out that several members have expressed anti-Israel views. The committee included Farah Griffin and Jean E. Howard, professors of English and comparative literature; Lisa Anderson, dean of the School of International and Public Affairs; Mark Mazower, a history professor; and Ira Katznelson, a professor of political science and history and the committee's chairman.

Floyd Abrams, the First Amendment lawyer, was an adviser.

Some of the report's harshest criticism was directed at Columbia itself, for not having clear processes that would have allowed earlier action on faculty and student complaints.

"As a result of these failures," the report said, "outside advocacy groups devoted to purposes tangential to those of the university were able to intervene to take up complaints expressed by some students."

The report (which is to be posted on Columbia's Web site today) noted that although often combative exchanges occurred between pro-Palestinian professors and pro-Israel students, no students received lower grades because of their views.

But the committee said that after meeting with 62 students, faculty members, administrators and alumni, and reading written submissions from more than 60 others, they were most concerned with three alleged instances of intimidation, all from the 2001-02 school year before Mr. Bollinger took office.

The most credible, the committee found, was an incident involving Professor Joseph Massad, who was teaching a class on Palestinian and Israeli politics. According to the report, a student, Deena Shanker, recalled asking if it was true that Israel sometimes gave a warning before a bombing so that people would not be hurt. She said the professor blew up, telling her, "If you're going to deny the atrocities being committed against Palestinians, then you can get out of my classroom!"

The report said that the professor had "denied emphatically that this incident took place" and had told the committee that he would never ask a student to leave his class. And it said that others in the "particularly tense" class differed about whether the incident, which was never formally reported, had taken place.

But the committee said that in the end, it found the account "credible" and concluded that the professor's "rhetorical response to her query exceeded commonly accepted bounds by conveying that her question merited harsh public criticism."

Reached last evening, Professor Massad said he had just finished reading the report and was still trying to figure out what it meant.

"I clearly disagree with their findings," he said. "I deny the allegations. I do not know on what basis they found them credible. It was a he-said she-said thing. It is unclear on what basis they made the determination that one claim was more credible than the other."

He added that there had been a lack of due process.

The committee said it could not reach similar determinations about two other troubling episodes.

One involved an Israeli student's account of an off-campus lecture by Professor Massad. The student, Tomy Schoenfeld, told the committee that after he identified himself as a former Israeli soldier, the professor asked him twice how many Palestinians he had killed. According to the committee, Professor Massad said that he had no recollection of the event and that he had never met Mr. Schoenfeld. In the end, the committee concluded that the incident fell "into a challenging gray zone, neither in the classroom, where the reported behavior would not be acceptable, nor in an off-campus political event, where it might fit within a not unfamiliar range of give and take regarding charged issues."

The final incident involved the course "Introduction to Islamic Civilization" taught by George Saliba. The report said that a student, Lindsay Shrier, claimed the professor told her after class that she was not a Semite because she had green eyes, and therefore had "no claim to the land of Israel."

The professor told the committee that the student might have misunderstood an argument he often made about the absurdity of making historical claims for land based on religious premises. The committee concluded that "however regrettable a personal reference might have been, it is a good deal more likely to have been a statement that was integral to an argument about the uses of history and lineage than an act approaching intimidation."

The committee recommended that Columbia institute accessible and transparent grievance procedures "geared to the speedy resolution of complaints and the appropriate protection of privacy." It said the procedures should be well publicized. It also called on the university to improve its advising system, and stressed the responsibility of both faculty and students to maintain civil discourse.

"One major lesson for us," Mr. Bollinger said, "is that if you do not have adequate grievance procedures, problems you could have dealt with cascade into bigger problems." But a second lesson, he said, was that the conflict "was not only about the claims of intimidation, but also about the actual debate over the Middle East."

The full report can be found here.

I have written about this issue before, on my other blog, The Ignoble Exeperiment, a.k.a. Live Dangerously! Even then, I did not believe for a moment that this ad hoc committee was appointed in good faith or that the results would reflect a just and unbiased attituded. The article in the NY Times failed to mentioned that some of the members of this group were inextricably linked to MEALAC, that one of them co-taught a class with Mossad and one was a former member of MESA. It is quite clear to me that the report deserves a nomination for the Academic Bias category. And despite his claims, it's quite obvious that Bollinger deserves one too.

The ad hoc committee was a sham. I think to anyone who read the article it should become obvious how hypocritical that report came out to be - just as I expected. Orwellian is but a mild term for such straight-faced lies. Reminds of analogous situations in FSU, when the victims were villified and blamed for their own troubles. Then again, as the joke goes, Columbia is the last bastion of communism. I must say, everyone who values true academic freedom, freedom of speech, the democratic, tolerant, and pluralistic character of our country should speak out against this outrage in the harshest possible terms. And please show your support for Columbians for Academic Freedom. I admire their courage to speak up when the entire academic world seems to be against them. Good job, guys!

I think students from other universities should unite in support of an independent committee in Columia and for academic reform in general. History has shown how active and influential college students can be in all sorts of revolutions and violent causes, so why not work for something peaceful and practical for a change?

As far as the actual article is concerned, the author, despite her attempts to stay objective, appears to be siding with the conclusions of the administration. There's another reason for concern here. Columbia seems inclined to keep the report undercover. I wonder why? I think freedom of any kind, be it academic or political, above all requires a reasonable amount of transparency. Lack thereof may lead to allegations of dishonesty and corruption. Does Columbia really want this kind of reputation? Probably not. However, to an outsider, it may appear that these students were not the ones lying, covering up, or stirring up trouble. They are not the ones who deserve an Academic Bias award nomination.

Hey, Columbia, what do you say, how many people have you gagged today?

Sarcastic,
Irina

Sick of Good Manners

2005-03-24T18:41:00.000-05:00

This may seem like re-hashing of the same old story.

washingtonpost.com
Why Can't A Man Be More Like a Woman?

By Tina Brown

Thursday, February 24, 2005; Page C01

Perhaps in the wake of the Larry Summers debacle at Harvard it's time for a study of the missing social gene in men. It's amazing how many executive disasters are caused by the way otherwise smart males crash around in the thicket of interpersonal relations.

There were so many blunders of tone in the first Bush term it needed Condi Rice in her Jackie O pearls to go and suck up to wounded European leaders in advance of the presidential visit. By the end of the week Mr. Bush's diplomatic cholesterol will have spiked from having to feast on the foie gras of Old Europe. Social cluelessness was the root of Howell Raines's problems at the New York Times. All his Big Thinks about Times strategy and Flooding the Zone got torpedoed not by Jayson Blair's plagiarism, which he could have survived, but by his mulish refusal to once in a while stroke the working stiffs who toiled in his newsroom.

Then there's James B. Stewart's new scorcher about Disney. The glory days of Michael Eisner's rescue of the moribund mouse house have been soured by recurring outbreaks of unchecked masculine pathology. In Disney's case, all the jostling male egos seem to have killed each other off. There are more dead bodies at the end than in "Coriolanus."

The new study about men should focus on the epidemic of testosterone poisoning in the executive suites of America.

As with Raines at the Times, the storm now drenching Summers at Harvard is not really about PC politics. It's an insurrection about his manners. If his pleasingly polite predecessor in the job, Neil Rudenstine, had made some offhand comments about the innate abilities of women in a closed meeting, faculty members would have shrugged it off.

The presidency of Harvard has only magnified characteristics Summers was just barely able to get away with in Washington. Young Turk economists in the Treasury Department could handle the cut and thrust of Summers's ongoing seminar with himself, but academics are more sensitive souls. In Tuesday's meeting with several hundred Harvard professors to discuss faculty criticisms of Summers's stewardship, Caroline Hoxby, one of two tenured women in economics, told Summers the ties between scholars, their mentors and students is a "great shimmering web." "Every time, Mr. President, you show a lack of respect for a faculty member's intellectual expertise, you break ties in our web."

Poor, preposterously brilliant Larry Summers put his web foot in it all the time. He even made enemies for himself during such tension-free occasions as "Memorial Minutes," the short remembrances at faculty meetings of Harvard colleagues who have passed away. According to Richard Bradley in his new book "Harvard Rules," Summers infuriated everyone there by "closing his eyes and drumming his fingers -- as if honoring the dead were keeping him from more important tasks."

Hard-charging men are often stunningly oblivious to their own behavior or their own motivations. Summers is notorious at Harvard for leaving meetings that went horribly, thinking they went really well. Al Gore seemed utterly unaware of his own passive aggression when he endorsed Howard Dean without giving his ex-running mate, Joe Lieberman, a heads-up. It was obvious to everyone but Michael Eisner that when he appointed his best friend and rival Mike Ovitz president of Disney it would turn into an antler-clashing contest to the death.

One of the side effects of testosterone poisoning seems to be an uncontrollable longing to be properly understood. Throughout the Sturm und Drang he unleashed when he forced out Jeffrey Katzenberg and later fired Ovitz, Eisner was always writing to the two of them about his trampled feelings.

He frequently mourned the death of Frank Wells as the only Disney executive he felt knew how to be his real partner, just as Ovitz, at the recent hearings in Delaware, went on about how much he missed and needed Ron Meyer, his old partner and co-founder of Creative Artists Agency, to help him make decisions. Yet both Eisner and Ovitz spent the last 10 years trying to prove to themselves they alone were responsible for their own success. (Eisner may get the Oscar for screwed-up responses when he thought after firing Ovitz that he could still host his 50th birthday party.)

Some of the almost touching obliviousness of smart men may trace to the fact that their gender has narrower options than women for role-playing. Samurai or wimp are the only parts they get offered. Women, by contrast, get a crack at boss lady, taskmaster and office power woman along with mistress, wife, geisha, doormat, chatelaine, vixen, goddess, nursemaid and she-devil -- all in the course of one day.

A woman playing any of these roles is perfectly in her element; a man playing a role feels unmanned. It's easy for Condi to switch from standing on Putin's corns to gazing into Chancellor Schroeder's eyes and laughing coquettishly at his Germanic jokes. That kind of thing is harder for Bush -- and off the table for Rummy.

This suppleness with roles in a fast-changing corporate environment is why women are now doing so well running studios in Hollywood. Stacey Snider at Universal, Nina Jacobson at Disney, Amy Pascal at Sony, Elizabeth Gabler at Fox 2000 and, until five minutes ago, Sherry Lansing at Paramount are more willing than men to acknowledge that they are supported by a team. Not for them the lose-lose mud wrestling with their enemies in public. They find other ways. Everybody in Hollywood can do an imitation of Sherry Lansing calling you "honey" right before she inserted the knife. Still, with all the leg-crossing and lash-batting that went with it, it somehow hurt less.

Harvard now needs to appoint a committee of women to figure out how to redress the innate differences in emotional intelligence by which men feel compelled to shoot themselves in the foot.

©2005, Tina Brown

(Thanks to Whispering Campaign for the link).

However, this article brings up several interesting points.

And the central issue is, of course, Form over Function. Not Form Follows Function, but over it. Form is given as much importance, if not more, than substance. Now, I've got to admit, form plays a crucial role in the instances when there IS no substance. In the cases, when substance is there, form adds an extra touch of class. Who doesn't like suave approach, good manners, genteelity? Who doesn't like razzle-dazzle Broadways shows, and fake smiles, and pleasant conversation (a.k.a. "small talk")?

However, is form the essence of our society? If it is, then there is not much substance to it, is there? All that glitters is not gold... The author of the article seems to be of a different opinion.

And in her analysis, she follows her own advice - gives form its due, without paying sufficient attention to substance.
The superficiality of the article is evident in the way she inducts an "epidemic of testosteron" out of a few renown examples. Are several famous people indicative of a national trend (even if we assume that her characterization of them is true)? Gee, we would need more than one article to prove that, wouldn't we?

What's even more interesting is that her characterization of the examples she uses is based on other people's and publications' descriptions of her subjects. I would have liked her to have used personal interviews with at least one of those people. Would her opinion of their behavior been the same had she talked to them in person? Maybe, maybe not, but that we'll never know, will we? As a matter of fact, the more is said about these symbolic figures - Summers, Eisner,& Co. - the less I'm inclined to believe all the rumors. At this point there are so many theories circling around these characters that, I'm afraid, they've been elevated far above the understanding of us common mortals.

Finally, an equally superficial point of analysis is generalization. Women are granted many roles, whereas men are demonstrated to be rather two-dimensional characters, safe only in their own territory - that of brusque aggression. Hey, who knows, for the most part that may be true, but generalization of this kind is crude and unconvincing.

Reminds me of a completely different story, but with the same psychology behind it. A (female) member of the Israeli Knesset proposed a bill, mandating the presence of at least one woman in order for (international) negotiations to be considered legitimated. The reason for this drastic gesture, she claimed, was that women are more flexible, diplomatic, and compassionate, and therefore would be more productive at negotiations. This line of reasoning I'm all too familiar with. How often do I hear that "if only women were in power, there would be no wars, no conflicts, and everything would be great". I don't know WHOSE reality the proponents of this idea (mostly women) are living in, but I can tell you that when "regular, average" women get together in a group, eventually you're going to get a cat-fight.

Why should it be any different on the governmental level? (Not that anyone's preventing women from getting to "power", whatever it is!) Sounds shallow and un-PC? Not any more so than some of the statements above, that's for certain. Flexibility is a great trait in diplomacy, when we're arguing with France over certain potatoes should be called "French fries" or "freedom fries", but when you're dealing with a nutcase in power, you cannot afford to be so "compassionate" as to appease him (or her or them). That's the reality, for all our wishful thinking.

Getting back to the "substance" of the article, I'm surprised whether anyone cares whether the President of a university or a CEO of a company smiles has social graces or not as long as he is efficient, effective, and improves the image of that university/company. In fact, I think most people really don't. I honestly think this is all malarkey, intended to distract from the substance of the real issues. Social graces are all in the eye of the beholder, and personal distaste is not reason enough to raise ire over certain powerful figures. Good old envy, perhaps?

Anyway, this is as good a candidate for PC as any. We all know how PC functions nowadays - as a cover for things most people agree with but are afraid to say, and therefore feel obliged to attack.

Next!

Bored,
Irina

A Call for Freedom

2005-03-21T18:42:00.000-05:00

Well, looks like it's the beginning of the end for us bloggers. Simple - or perhaps all too complicated - campaign regulation rules have a potential for sliding down the slippery slope of on-line limitations, possibly endangering the First Amendment.

If this is indeed the case, I'm not even sure what category to nominate it for. "Witchhunt" for bloggers is certainly a possibility. I'm against censorship and I support our freedom of press and expression. I came from an area infamous for its oppressive climate, its suppression of dissenting voice. I'm against limitations on blogging. It may not be true journalism, but it's certainly an important way of expression and show of discontent. (This is coming from an ardent defender of the PATRIOT Act.)

The Orwellian possibilities seem endless. I'm sure you can imagine where even the most basic suppression of freedoms can lead. However, before we panic, we should look at this proposed bill objectively.

First of all, bloggers are not all alone in the world. There exists a Committee to Protect Bloggers. So if worst comes to worst, these people can be notified and perhaps they'll be to help.

Secondly, let's examine the bill itself. How far do regulations go? According to the article above, that part seems rather nebulous, and is yet to be defined and interpreted in more clear terms. Until then, let's not jump to conclusions. Would a few restrictions dealing with technical campaign details really affect the entire blogging world? Maybe, maybe not. It all depends on how extensive they are. Perhaps we would need to register before we get permission to link to the political candidate, perhaps we'll have to pay. Perhaps we'll need to put disclaimers, etc. Let's not forget that if we want to keep our campaigns fair and responsible, we should follow a clear set of rules, Internet included. If there are ways to rob banks using computers, they can be ways to cheat in campaigns online, and we should recognize that such a problem can come up.

Thirdly... somehow I doubt that McCain's intentions are as devious as it may seem to be. I doubt he really intents to shut up all the bloggers, since such a gesture would harm his many conservative supporters. In other words, this bill is probably going to be formulated in a much more specific way before it passes. If it even passes.

I understand the temptation for hysteria a notion of such a bill raises. Nevertheless, I believe that the blogging community is numerous and powerful enough to successfully resist any attempts to infringe on our rights. And the (perhaps imaginary) Big Brother will certainly take that into account before making any steps. Bloggers are voters.

I urge everyone to research the bill and its intentions before taking any action. My own statement is such: I love the freedom that the blogging world offers. I love the blogging community and my ability connect to many interesting people I would never have known otherwise. I love the efficacy we're afforded, the grassroots ability to affect the world around us. I love the alternative sources of information, the numerous view points, the craziness, the wit, the sarcasm, the spirit, the courage of people who open their souls and their minds to others every day. I love the determination and the strength behind these amateur - or professional writers. I love all the outlets that the blogging world can give. It is a truly democratic tool. And I love democracy. I may have said "love" one too many times, but it correctly expresses the passionate feeling I have for this community and for all the opportunities it gives. I'm ready to defend what I love. I'm ready to fight for it. Who's with me?

Challenging,
Irina

The Blame Game

2005-03-17T12:47:00.000-05:00

Maybe PC, maybe it isn't... Who's to say?

culturebox
Girl Fight
The marginalized debate over female opinion writers.
By Dahlia Lithwick
Posted Wednesday, March 16, 2005, at 2:04 PM PT

Everyone here at Slate kept hoping that the dustup over the number of female opinion writers on the editorial pages of the nation's newspapers would just go away—none of us really wanted to dignify Susan Estrich's ad hominem attacks on Mike Kinsley, our former boss, with a response, for one thing, or felt that her charges would lead to a truly fruitful debate. But the controversy has mushroomed yet again this week, as the country's foremost female columnists began to speak out on the issue. What's emerged is hardly a consistent point of view or—in some cases—the dispassionate analysis for which these women are usually known: A surprisingly vulnerable Maureen Dowd made the very nice point last Sunday that women opinion journalists are often lambasted as emasculating bitches for savaging male subjects; and the wonderful Anne Applebaum is so utterly annoyed by others' claims that she is a "token" woman over at the Washington Post that she considers today's column on the subject to be both necessary and a waste of her time. Yesterday saw Deborah Tannen making the important observation that perhaps "attack journalism" shouldn't be the only mode of opinion-writing featured on editorial pages. (I don't believe she's correct in suggesting that all opinion writing is of the attack-dog variety, by the way; I take Slate as an alternate example of smart, non-vicious, opinion journalism.)

The fact that all these brilliant female opinion writers feel compelled to come forward whether or not they want to (Applebaum went so far as to tell us about the political column she didn't write today) speaks volumes about the real problem. And while both Howard Kurtz at the Washington Post and James Rainey at the Los Angeles Times have done fine reported pieces about the dearth of women opinion-writers, I can't seem to find—beyond a short blurb by Slate’s Jack Shafer—a single opinion column by a single male columnist on the subject. (I don't count Jonathan Turley's scathing column on the personal nature of Estrich's attack, since he does not get to the merits of her claims.) In fact, the most rigorous and systematic thinking by men and women about the apparent underrepresentation of female voices on the editorial pages is taking place in the blogosphere. Really great posts by both sexes on the debate can be found here, and here, and here, and here, just for starters.

What do they conclude? Many bloggers point to the gender disparity among the nation's top political bloggers to illustrate the point that even where there are no barriers to entry—no consciously or unconsciously prejudiced gatekeepers barring the doors—women may simply choose to stay away from certain types of media. And just as women may not be producing opinion journalism at the same rates as men, they may not be consuming it all that much either. In short, there may be an interesting market problem at work here: I know an awful lot of smart, accomplished women who avoid both the op-ed pages and the Crossfire-style "screaming shows" because that is simply not the type of discourse they seek out or value.

I can also swear to the fact that as an editor, the number of pitches I receive from men outnumbers the pitches I see from women by several orders of magnitude. I can add, again purely anecdotally, that women largely send in pitches for reported pieces, and are far less inclined to frame a piece as an "argument"—which may prove Tannen's point that argument is not necessarily a comfortable or natural mode of communication for women (a phenomenon I observed in law school as well). This is, in short, an insanely interesting thought problem to which we are applying very little interesting thought.

There are at least a dozen ways to parse and think through the acknowledged underrepresentation of women opinion writers, and yet—to the extent that we are having a national conversation on the topic—it is a conversation so far almost wholly lacking the voices of men. (I insert here the obligatory disclaimer that but for Michael Kinsley I would probably not have a job in opinion writing today.) The smartest male columnists in the country—people willing to reconfigure the Social Security system in 800 words and able to dissect the Middle East peace process in a single afternoon with their laptops—are not willing to turn that massive store of their brainpower to the equally hard issue of what an opinion page is meant to represent; whether the gender discrepancy here is due to prejudice, socialization, or innate differences between men and women, or some combination thereof; and whether, beyond the crude tools of affirmative action, there is any useful remedy.

Perhaps male columnists are just not interested in this issue because it doesn't represent the sort of "hard news" they're used to commenting on. More likely, they are terrified to opine on the debate because the inquiry is so fraught with the possibility of career-terminating levels of politically correct blowback—à la Larry Summers—that they deem it better to hold their tongues and wait for the storm to pass. Imagine a man writing, as Dowd just did, that women want to be "liked" whereas men don't care. I can already smell their scorched Dockers. ... Imagine a man writing, as did Applebaum, that this is all a storm in a teacup; the sort of trivial bean-counting that is insulting and degrading to women. (Clarence Thomas is routinely characterized as beyond loathsome for making that argument against affirmative action.)

And so a clutch of women are left on the pink margins of the page, to wring our hands and, well, discuss among ourselves. The subtext will thus remain that anyone choosing to speak out on this is somehow hysterical or overemotional; that this is not a "serious" problem since serious people (i.e., men) aren't addressing it. All of which practically guarantees that nothing will be done about defining, measuring, or redressing the issue in the long term. Claims that no man wants to step on the landmine of political correctness, gender stereotyping, and identity politics should not justify bowing out of the conversation. Maureen Dowd, Deborah Tannen, and Anne Applebaum are smart, serious people. They have taken the time to initiate a conversation. They deserve serious responses from men and women alike.

Dahlia Lithwick is a Slate senior editor.

Article URL: http://slate.msn.com/id/2114926/

This raises another interesting question: why NOW? Women have been working as op-ed writers for years... So why is it now, all of a sudden, that they are complaining that there are so few of them?

And why does anyone care?
Seriously. If this were a discrimination issue, we'd be hearing a lot more about it for a long time. We'd have many rejected applicants speaking up, we'd be hearing about lawsuits, etc. So perhaps we're not talking about the policies of the newspapers. Newspapers like NY Times have many female journalists in their various sections, so we're not to worry about a Ron Burgundy-like regress.
Yet, op-ed writers, such as Maureen Dowd, seem to feel women are somehow discouraged from writing for that particular section.
First of all, does it mean that the women who DO write for it and who complain about dearth of women, are lonely? Why is it necessary for them to have companions of their own sex? After all, neither Dowd nor any of the ones complained about their treatment at work, so why not do their own thing and forget about who else is writing what? I, for instance, couldn't care less whether the op-ed writer is female or male or anything in between as long as the op-ed is well-written and/or makes interesting points. Is it the whole "Woman Power" thing rising like a phoenix from the ashes? (Riding the coattails of the Summers controversy). Power in numbers, that is? Is it really necessary for woment to be many in a certain sphere in order to be powerful?

I don't necessarily agree. Better to have a few strong-voiced women as described in the article than a myriad wannabees just for the sake of "equality" and "diversity". Since quantity doesn't necessarily imply quality, I would concentrate more on the content of op-ed writing than on who is writing it.

Addressing the point made in the article, it's interesting to explore WHY women may be less interested in op-ed writing. Several possiblities here:
1)They may prefer other media, such as blogging.
I for one LOVE reading op-ed pieces, I like the style. But I wouldn't want to be a columnist for a newspaper. I enjoy expressing my opinion in the more independent atmosphere of the blogging world, however informal it may seem. Moreover, it is not my goal to attract thousands of readers necessarily. I prefer the intimacy of an involved conversation of a few loyal readers, the ability to address each one's comments personally, to explore the individual personalities of my readers, and to learn from them.

In other words, although I like the idea of an opinion-piece writing, I imagine something more like an on-line salon, a la the kind made famous by many Enlightenment women, than an impersonal, detached column. [Notice the address of the link: another interesting coincidence!] The fact that this type of environment was once made famous by women may certainly imply something about their preferences to this day... or may turn out to be simply a curious coincidence.

2) Men and women are different. Why is it necessary for them to be the same, to have the same achievements in the same areas? Doesn't true diversity imply freedom of both genders to choose their own interests and what suits them best? Apparently, however, some of the women complaining about the quanitative inequality don't agree. Is it realistic to expect the numbers of op-ed columnists ever be strictly 50-50? Is it fair to anyone? I don't see the newspaper *readers* complaining much about lack of intellectual diversity. In fact, I don't see anything wrong with the columnists being all men or all women or all white or all black, as long as the multiplicity of viewpoints is represented. And yes, it is quite possible for the two genders to support and be interested in "reciprocal" issues.

Does this mean I'm dismissing Dowd, Applebaum, and the others as "hysterical" and "overemotional"? Not at all. But I'm trying to understand their reasoning at a time that gender inequality in the workplace has been aggressively addressed. And frankly, I have a problem with understanding that reasoning. Critiques indeed become suspect to political correctness if and when only numbers are concerned. In fact, that part of the issue I'm very much inclined to nominated for the Political Correctness category.

However, there's more to the story, and it is the second part which gives me some concern. The Slate article refers to a Maureen Dowd article from last Sunday, in which she mentions that men take criticism coming from a woman more personally, that "as a woman" she wants to be liked, not attacked, and that men enjoy verbal dueling. Apparently the latter statement, implies that women don't. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, in this particular articl Dowd herself engages in the very inexcusable stereotyping and generalizations which she vehemently attacks. Do men *tend* to be more aggressive than women? What do you think? However, does that men that ALL men are very aggressive and love sparring, and that an insignificant number women likes arguing and wants to be liked? Um, just look at the law school statistics, and the answer may become a little more clear. Anyway, I don't like being told even by another woman what defines or should define me as a woman or as an individual.

Our personalities aren't just shaped by the level of our hormones and inherent aggressiveness or lack thereof. Intellectual inquisitiveness may also be a factor in one's approach to argumentation, as well as the process of socialization, habits, etc. My own personality has changed drastically through the years, as did personalities of many other people, so I don't think it's productive to generalize who likes sparring and who doesn't. It's simply not true anymore. One can like arguing even without being aggressive, just as most people apreciate being liked even if they are generally aggressive and enjoy arguing. One doesn't necessarily contradict the other, but Dowd's article polarizes two personality styles into two extremes.

Moreover, Dowd implies that women who write in a sharp, sarcastic, critical style are often labeled as "emasculating man-haters", whereas men who write in the same style don't. I'm not going to deny that somewhere out there exists a vast number of chauvinists and extraordinary jerks who are very insecure in all possible respects. That is the case. But isn't it the point of the op-ed columnist to raise some ire, to attack those very insecurities, to offend, question, and uncover? Sarcasm, satire, wit are all great tools to criticize weaknesses in one society. And the effect of one's style is evident in whether people get insulted or not.

If they do, it usually means they took your words to heart, they are taking you seriously, they don't want to listen to you, but can't help it. Deep inside they are reexamining their perspectives. Isn't it what every op-ed writer (or even blogger) wants to do? So why is Dowd complaining? I, for one, would have felt extremely satisfied, and would have gotten a good laugh out of the pathetic fools who have no other arguments except ad hominem. But then again, not all of us want to be "bones stuck in the throat of the world". Perhaps, the profession of an op-ed writer is indeed not for everybody.

Dowd ends with the words that we need to find and nurture those women who would bring grace and guts to the Op-Ed pages. My bet is, women with personalities for that type of writing don't need any nurturing. They'll find their own way. PC, oh so PC!

Another "emasculating man-hater" (but in a more universal sense)
Irina

Coda

2005-03-16T12:34:00.000-05:00

Why should I be surprised? I open the NY Times today, and found this:

Professors, in Close Vote, Censure Harvard Leader
By SARA RIMER

Published: March 16, 2005

AMBRIDGE, Mass., March 15 - The Faculty of Arts and Sciences at Harvard approved a resolution on Tuesday expressing a lack of confidence in the leadership of the university's president, Lawrence H. Summers, citing longstanding dissatisfaction with his management style and, to a lesser extent, his remarks in January about women in math and science.

The vote was 218 in favor and 185 opposed, with 18 abstentions.

At an intense and sober meeting, Dr. Summers's supporters accused his opponents of political correctness while his critics emphasized that their concerns had nothing to do with political correctness but were about Dr. Summers's leadership, as well as his remarks concerning a lack of women in science.

Passage of the resolution was largely symbolic because only the Harvard Corporation, which governs the university, has the authority to dismiss the university's president.

The corporation reaffirmed its support for Dr. Summers in a statement released after the meeting by James R. Houghton, senior fellow of the corporation. "The members of the Corporation fully support President Summers in his ongoing efforts to listen thoughtfully to the range of views being expressed by members of the university's faculties, and to work collegially and constructively with them to address the important academic matters facing Harvard," Mr. Houghton said in the statement.

The vote of no confidence, believed to be the first in Harvard's history, was a blow for Dr. Summers, who has been trying for weeks to repair relations with his faculty.

Dr. Summers spoke briefly at the end of the meeting on Tuesday, saying he had been trying to learn from people at the university in the last few weeks and would keep trying.

At a statement released after the meeting, Dr. Summers said he had done his best "to hear all that has been said, to think hard, to learn and to adjust."

"I will continue to do that," he said. "I am committed to doing all I can to restore the sense of trust that is critical to our work together, and to re-engage our collective attention with the vital academic issues before us."

The vote was taken by secret ballot, and when the results were announced, about halfway through the meeting, "people gasped," said Prof. Mary C. Waters, chairwoman of the sociology department.

"Everyone was in shock," said Professor Waters, who said she voted for the no-confidence resolution. "People did not expect it." At that moment, Professor Waters added, "I felt sorry for Larry."

But others took a harder line. J. Lorand Matory, a professor of anthropology and African and African-American studies, told reporters after the meeting that Dr. Summers should step down. "There is no noble alternative for him but resignation," said Professor Matory, who introduced the resolution.

As a possible compromise, some members of the faculty had put forth a second resolution, expressing regret at Dr. Summers's management style and his remarks about women. But the faculty passed the harsher no-confidence resolution first. It then approved the second measure, with a larger majority, 253 to 137.

"This is not even about just style anymore," said Professor Waters, who has criticized Dr. Summers for what she describes as a pattern of intimidating faculty members and squelching debate. "There is widespread dissatisfaction with his substantive decisions as well as style."

Dr. Summers, an economist and a former United States Treasury secretary, has been meeting individually with faculty members throughout the Faculty of Arts and Sciences over the last several weeks, apologizing for his remarks about women and for any other offense he might have given and asking for their support so he could move forward.

Now in his fourth year as president, Dr. Summers has ambitious plans to expand the campus to Allston, across the Charles River; to reinvigorate the undergraduate curriculum; and to put a new emphasis on big science.

Claudia Goldin, an economics professor who is a strong supporter of Dr. Summers, said she was disappointed by the vote but added that it represented a "bare majority of those who were there" among the 802 voting members of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences.

"I still think he's taking the university in the right direction," Professor Goldin said. "There are clearly people who don't like the direction for one reason or another. Some feel threatened."

David Ward, president of the American Council on Education, a nonprofit advocacy group of college presidents and chancellors, expressed astonishment at the vote of no confidence.

"It is such an unprecedented event that it's very hard to anticipate the immediate consequences," said Mr. Ward, former chancellor of the University of Wisconsin at Madison. "It indicates perhaps a level of seriousness that I had not anticipated. I knew there was a problem. I thought people would have a little more patience to see if this could be worked out."

Mr. Ward said he could not answer the question of whether Dr. Summers could continue to govern effectively. "That really depends on how he feels about the vote and the degree to which other parts of the university share the feelings that are expressed at this time," he said.

Professor Waters and other professors have said in recent weeks that they had been concerned about Dr. Summers's leadership for some time and that his remarks in January suggesting that "intrinsic aptitude" might be an explanation for women's lack of success in science had brought the concerns out.

Despite differences of opinion over Dr. Summers, faculty members took pains to talk with one another after the meeting in a demonstration of collegiality, Professor Waters said.

The article speaks pretty much for itself. Some of the sentiments voiced there clearly support my decision to nominate the Summers story for the "Witch Hunt" category, rather than for "PC". Yet, it also raises several interesting questions.
For instance, I didn't realize that Summers was a former U.S. Treasury secretary. Did his history affect the way people felt about him? In other words, can plain old envy be a factor in the excessively harsh reaction? It probably can, just like anything else. But how MUCH of a factor it was, is the real question.

The reaction of Professor Goldin clearly demonstrates that not all women were insulted by the "villain's" words. So how to account for the discrepancy? Is it the simple fact that some women are more sensitive than others? If someone's sensitivity is the sole factor in determining what counts as acceptable and what doesn't, we're all in trouble. I recall a while ago, back in high school, one of my teachers defined "sexual harrassment" in the following terms: it's only harrassment if the woman gets insulted. Very objective. Very fair.

For those of you still not convinced, let's look at it differently. Let's suppose, the President of Harvard was a woman, who said that men have less of an innate ability in verbal skills than women. What do you suppose the public reaction would have been? Sure, a few people might have voiced their outrage, but others would either have laughed it off - or didn't say anything at all. That's my prediction. Now, if any female President of a college wants to take on my challenge and say this in public, I'll be very grateful, and am sure to mention her on my blog. But truthfully, I doubt anyone will care for any such experimentation.

According to the article, the professors blamed the no-confidence vote more on Summers' style than on the latest episode. It's interesting that until he said what he did, everyone kept silent. Yet the incident is completely unrelated to the idea of "stiffling debate". Moreover, not a single specific instance of Summers' supposedly outrageous behavior as a President is given as an example to support these sentiments. Why didn't the journalists ask for a specific example, and found these ambiguous generalizations sufficient?

Media bias? Oh no, we are not supposed to say these things. Certainly, it's interesting to entertain the notion that maybe Summers was not such a horrible President after all, and maybe people simply disliked him personally. He was a bone stuck in *their* throats. One can draw very interesting political parallels, which ended in a relatively close vote, with the results unparalleled in history, and which demonstrated a similar rage of passions, not always supported by concrete grievances. However, such parallels would probably be counterproductive, and so I will restrain and leave it to my readers' imaginations.

It's very clear that at least in some cases, these professors find that no punishment is too harsh for such a diabolical, Machiavellian figure as the democracy-stiffling Dr. Summers. It is not sufficient for these liberal minds (very far from the bleeding-heart stereotype in this instance, mind you) that the President of the Univesity spends weeks going around and apologizing, promising reform, and trying to make up. Some of them, as the article shows, want him to step down. Such a reaction seems to be unreasonable to someone like me.

It goes beyond restorative justice into the gray area of revenge. It is not enough for these people to gain a benign climate and a humbled President. They want to get rid of his very person. Sure tells you something about them, doesn't it? Apparently they care more about their personal sentiments than about what is the right and the logical thing to do under the circumstances. They want their pound of flesh. And it is to their greatest of disappointments that the Harvard Corporation backs this man.

Now, let's look at it a little closer. Summers has two options before him now. Either he steps down or he doesn't. If he steps down, his enemies... er, pardon me, *opponents* will be satisfied, even gloating. Their sense of self-righteousness and *security* will be restored. It's all about feeling secure, isn't it? They fear Summers, he's a threat to them. I don't know WHY, maybe it's all in their imagination. But that's the only reason I can give to explain their ridiculous reaction not only to the much-discussed incident, but to his plans for Harvard and tenure overall. What will happen to Summers' career will be then open for speculations. The second option is for him to remain "in power".

Somehow I have a bad feeling about that. I would be all for Summers' asserting himself, if even for a moment I thought that's what he'd do. So far, however, he has shown himself to be more than humble apologizing to people who clearly didn't need it, and who showed disdain for his attempts to restore good relations. So he'll have to deal with more than half the faculty hating his guts. Now, if someone like *me* were in his place, that person would probably relish the idea of antagonizing this jackals. I, for instance, would enjoy the idea of pushing my plans through, and the inward humiliation of those who were counting on getting me kicked out or at least under their heel. But something's telling me that's not the case with Summers. He will continue his tenure in the shadow of the utter humiliation which was this vote of no-confidence.

If he hadn't asserted himself yet, he probably never will. He will continue trying to make good with his colleagues, only to earn more disdain. No matter what he does, it will be viewed in the setting of the preceding events. He can only restore his respect if he acts in a very determined, even aggressive manner, but I doubt this will happen. My guess is, IF Summers remains in place, he'll be more stooge-like than anything else. Or at least, it's going to be very, very difficult to get anything accomplished, and whatever he does get done, probably wouldn't really be worth all the efforts wasted. I hope I'm proven wrong.

Does my pessimistic prognosis mean that I advocate for Summers to leave, holding on to the last shreds of dignity? No. I think it would mean he's giving in to these people, who clearly weren't acting in good faith. Then again, unless he's planning to make a brilliant, assertive come back, the next few months at least, will probably be a torturous ordeal.

So what do you think: will he go or stay? And if he stays, will we see a good little boy catering to the faculty or a decisive President who does what he thinks is the best for the university?

Glum,
Irina

Amid Summers' Nightmare

2005-03-15T09:36:00.000-05:00

OK, that did it. The headline says: "Harvard Faculty Voting Tuesday on Confidence in President". Let me begin by stating that I really, *really* didn't want to write about this. I mean, my personal opinion is these people should have someone voting confidence on them - they are only ruining the university's reputation with all this fuss. However, no one's asking me, so I'll stick to my blog. The reason why I didn't want to write about Summers and his remarks is very simple: both have been overcovered just as much by mainstream media as by my fellow bloggers. I didn't think I had anything more to say (especially not after the Blogger just ate an eloquent post on the subject). We all had a good laugh at the super-PC hysterical feminists, who instead of studying the clear biological differences men and women DO have, as well as the more ambugous ones to try to prove Summers wrong, acted in a way that only conforms the misogynist stereotype. Time to move on, you would think.

In short, just a few weeks ago, I would have placed this story along with other Political Correctness Nominees, and forgot about it. However, something was a little different about this particular story. The amount of coverage it has received is clearly disproportional to its importance. It has sparked a debate even among those who don't usually pay much attention to academic politics. Nevertheless, political correctness tends to blow things out of proportion to the point of it absurd, so in that respect the story fit in quite easily. The thing is, I'm not really sure whether it's just about PC anymore, or whether it's something else, a new category waiting to be created. As time passes, and the dead horse continues to be flogged (and Summers continues to be hounded by his critics), I'm beginning to see an *aim* to the kerfuffle raised around the President of Harvard.

Methinks, these feminists are after a bigger fish. I don't think they really care about Summers' comments. Or the University. Or the diversity. Or women's progress. Or achievements in science and math. Nope, they are out there for themselves. For their own personal power. And they want Summers out of there, and they will stop at nothing until he's GONE. Otherwise, they would have been satisfied with his numerous apologies and promises of reform. What many people, inlcuding these bloodthirsty harpies (both female and male) don't see but I do, is that they are overdoing it.

By bringing so much attention to this issue, they make Summers come off more and more as a victim of a witchhunt than a villain. The faculty should take care lest they make a completely unnecessary martyr out of him. We have somewhat of an Orwellian scenario unveiling before us. The faculty accuses Summers of "stiffling open discussion". (So far, no clear examples have been provided). That accusation is quite ironic, considering that it is the faculty which successfully shut up their President for making a "controversial" remark, in-quotes I say, because there's absolutely nothing controversial or misogynist in saying that men are women, though equal, are not the same, that they have different strengths, which can complement each other to create a balanced and well-functioning society. In fact, I'm beginning to think that even the most passionate of feminists know that. However, the issue here is political. It has been imbued with layers of meaning which do not exist, just to attract attention and sympathy to Summers' "victims".

These victims have shown that they are more than capable of defending themselves. Immediately, we see the accusations of discriminations rising, that supposedly during Summers' tenure as the President, fewer women have been hired. A few weeks ago I would have simply exclaimed that they might not be hired because the applicants happen to be less knowledgeable or experienced, that quality is more important that superficial diversity. But now I see that the issue is deeper than that and I say: Good! If those are applying are as nitwitted as the ones we've heard from so far, maybe everyone's better off without them.

By now, Summers' words have been turned into a caricature of themselves, and Summers' public trial has turned into a farce. What can I say, but that this incident is filling me with shame. I think by now Summers has found himself in a rather humiliating position, having to apologize over and over again, taking back his words, making public statements full of promises no one cares about. I hate to say what it reminds me off, but readers acquainted with certain histories of certain countries can draw a very easy parallel. It's not about the imperfect human being that Summers is anymore. He has now been turned into a symbol. That's my problem with this whole situation. When human beings are turned into symbols for whatever purpose, injustice is bound to follow. I think by now Summers has done more than enough to atone for whatever grievances he may have caused knowingly or unknowingly, and that further hounding of him can only be counterproductive.

By all means, teach your lessons. But know when to stop. This vote has overstepped any boundaries separating propriety from the absurd which may have remained. In my opinion, if the Harvard faculty was so dissatisfied with their president, they should have done away with him quietly. It would have been a quiet and sensible thing to do, considering that Summers has a reputation as an accomplished economist. If we treat all our experts like this, who will we have left after the witchhunt is over? (I'm not sure I want to know). Secondly, besides being a humiliating experience for Summers himself, it is much more so for the University as a whole. You just do NOT make a laughingstock out of your own president, because eventually it will look very bad for you. And the faculty has made Harvard to some extent a laughingstock for the Harvard students themselves, for other college students, for future applicants. They've done more harm than good by raising a ruckus over a minor incident.

But perhaps... just maybe, it was a clever maneuver to distract public attention for the deeper, darker issues lurking beneath the surface?

Anyway, I have decided to create a separate category for nominees of this sort. I'll call it very simply: "The Witch Hunt Award". It is related to political correctness, but has much more destructive consequences and aims.

Ever watchful,
Irina

Morality Play

2005-03-12T19:22:00.000-05:00

So we have our first nomination.

Category: Political Correctness

Item: People who accuse fast food chains of making them - or the "disadvantaged" others - fat.

Thanks to Evolver for the story.

Whereas the actual lawsuits have already received nominations (and quite possibly, awards)by the Stellas (awards for the dumbest lawsuits), I think it is the mindset of the plaintiffs that deserves special attention.

The idea that someone is "kept down" by the food industry is a great illustration of political correctness gone too far. Poor people now are "exploited" by the unhealthy food industry.

Never mind that food industry is actually more expensive than the healthier options one might choose. Never mind that in other countries, "poor" and "fat" is an oxymoron. Never mind that no one is forced to do anything, and besides, a good complement to even the unhealthiest of diets is exercises.

Exercise, my dear readers, is free. You do not need to pay money or special permits to swim in the ocean or a river in the summer or to jog in the morning. You do not neet to pay a singly penny to do your morning jumping jacks. And nobody is EVER forcing you to order super-size portions of the food you're supposedly being forced to it. If you see it's oily, and that you're gaining fat from it, eat *less*. Seems common sense to me.

But we're turning food into morality play. Soon it'll be considered immoral to give your children apple juice, because it's been linked to chubbiness in children. Never mind other contributing factors - lack of exercise, junk food, other sources of carbohydrates. Carbohydrates are carbohydrates. They are neither good nor bad, but your own behavior makes them so.

It seems so easy to pass value judgments on something just because we don't like it. I'll be the first to admit it - I do it very often myself. But the level of absurdity this "victim psychology" is gaining is indeed, very unhealthy. Instead of blaming oneself, we blame the others.

Is it really about morality, however, or is morality just an issue for the middle-class liberals? Methinks the actual litigants were more concerned about getting lots of $$$, and were glad to exploit the "food guilt" the aforementioned parties are prone to. So who's really getting exploited here? The people who are taxing the system or the people who are allowing themselves to be taxed? Greed is the issue here, greed from the other end now.

In another context, I discussed the exploitation of the weakness by the weak. Bullying the "strong". And it's politically correct nowadays for the strong to take the beating, just because they are strong. Cases such as above are the prime example.
I'm not sympathetic.

Seeing through the act,
Irina

The Race Begins

2005-03-11T15:07:00.000-05:00

Hi, everybody.

Today marks the beginning of the race towards the much (un)coveted, politically (un)prestigious, in all senses offensive, THE GOLDEN GAG AWARDS!

The Golden Gag Awards will be awarded for particularly noteworthy achievement in the following areas:

I Zero Tolerance

* A school or legal policy designed to "protect" the society, but in reality, excessive to the point of the Absurd. Winds up doing more harm than good, to the loud snickering of the "victimized" society.

II Academic Bias

* An exhibition of rudeness or bigotry with respect to the origin, beliefs, political ideology, or viewpoints of a student or a faculty member on campus.

III Polical Correctness

* A policy designed to promote equality and diversity - but resulting in the exact opposite.

Who is eligible? Just about anybody.

HOWEVER...

If your source of information is a Current Events Story (i.e., in the news), you need to provide a link to that source of information. Otherwise, you need to come up with credible evidence to support your nominee. You can send your suggestions to my e-mail, sicat222@gmail.com. The deadline for the nominations eligible for the 2005 Awards will be February 10th, 2006.

I will post all submissions on this blog.

I will announce the nominee finalists on February 11th, 2006.

The winners will be announced on March 11th, 2006.

I look forward to hearing from you!

The Judge,
Irina