[Former] Harvard University President Claudine Gay

[Oscar_Kipling]

Today 2/2/24 Harvard University President Claudine Gay resigned her position stating "It is with a heavy heart but a deep love for Harvard that I write to share that I will be stepping down as president". The full resignation letter can be found here:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/02/us/claudine-gay-resignation-letter-harvard.html

I hadn't paid an extraordinary amount of attention to this whole situation, but I was aware enough to sense that she appeared to be the prima facie face of the elite academia anti-Semitism controversy of late (at least in my news feeds). Anyway I just wanted to see if anyone had any thoughts on her in particular or this entire situation in general i.e. the congressional hearings, anti-semitism in academia or really anything you might think or have to say about any of this business.

[RabbiKnife]

Since I left formal academia more than 20 years ago, I have paid it very little attention other than a brief 5 year stint as an adjunct.

I knew then that academia had lost whatever mind it once had.

That was ten years ago and already the roots of the current insanity were growing strong

[Oscar_Kipling]

Since I left formal academia more than 20 years ago, I have paid it very little attention other than a brief 5 year Stiner as an adjunct.

I knew then that academia had lost whatever mind it once had.

That was ten years ago and already the roots of the current insanity were growing strong

Thanks for the response. It isn't clear to me what current insanity you are referring to and what precursors you saw while you were still in academia. I'm not asking for a discussion with me, but I would really appreciate it if you elaborated on what you mean when you say that academia had lost its mind 10 years ago and how that relates to what you see today, and if you are feeling especially generous a bit on what exactly you see today as the current insanity would be great. Either way, thanks for taking the time.

[RabbiKnife]

The focus on DEI at the expense of meritocracy

The dismantling of classic capitalism for the benefit of shareholders (owners) in exchange for giving g power to every pig at the trough to the detriment of shareholders

The minority thought being elevated simply because it is a minority viewpoint

Globalism destroying national and corporate structures

Racism rampant in the name of anti racism

The sexualization of everything

The absolute dearth of knowledge of history, classical philosophy, or actual science

The emphasis on feeling over thinking

It goes on and on.

All of this was rampant 10 years ago, but fairly well hidden

Now it is out front and militant
My contract was not renewed because I insisted on teaching Adam Smith and Milton Friedman theories of economics and corporate governance… and they were in the text book that the Dean chose for the class without my input!

[Oscar_Kipling]

^^ Thanks for elaborating, I appreciate it.

[tango]

I read an interesting article that said E would be the death of DI.

Diversity and Inclusion are good things. It's good to seek equality of opportunity, such that the person who is truly best suited for something has the best chance of achieving it. There are all sorts of statistics about the percentage of white men in positions of power even as the country becomes less white and has been more or less 50% female pretty much since there were females. It takes time for people who aren't white men to filter into the top positions and diversity and inclusion would require that, sooner or later, that would happen.

The problem with the E is that it so often seeks to create equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity. It so often focuses on perceived injustices and righting them that it loses sight of the reason people are put in a position in the first place. The CEO of a company needs to have a good business head and understand a thing or two about running a company. Whether the best candidate is black or white, male or female, gay or straight, should be irrelevant in the quest for the best candidate for the job. Trying to introduce some vaguely defined notion of equity into the process ends up overlooking the white male candidate in favor of the black female, regardless of whether she is the best person for the job.

Look at Joe Biden's apparent obsession with selecting a black female candidate for key roles. The requirement that a candidate be black and female is racist and sexist - it rules out white and Asian candidates purely on the basis of their race while ruling out male candidates purely on the basis of their gender. It is no less racist and sexist than insisting that only a white man can be suitable for the job.

I remember a black guy I worked with some years ago who, even then, hated all the assorted programs to try and hire more black people. He said it left him constantly wondering whether he had been hired for his skills or because he got to be the token black guy on an otherwise all-white team, the one everybody reluctantly tolerated but knew didn't really belong there.

Interestingly some of the left-leaning press is already howling about the new tactics of the political right to drive black people out of positions of power. Perish the thought that this particular black person might have done things that indicate they don't actually belong in such a position.

[Oscar_Kipling]

I read an interesting article that said E would be the death of DI.

Diversity and Inclusion are good things. It's good to seek equality of opportunity, such that the person who is truly best suited for something has the best chance of achieving it. There are all sorts of statistics about the percentage of white men in positions of power even as the country becomes less white and has been more or less 50% female pretty much since there were females. It takes time for people who aren't white men to filter into the top positions and diversity and inclusion would require that, sooner or later, that would happen.

The problem with the E is that it so often seeks to create equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity. It so often focuses on perceived injustices and righting them that it loses sight of the reason people are put in a position in the first place. The CEO of a company needs to have a good business head and understand a thing or two about running a company. Whether the best candidate is black or white, male or female, gay or straight, should be irrelevant in the quest for the best candidate for the job. Trying to introduce some vaguely defined notion of equity into the process ends up overlooking the white male candidate in favor of the black female, regardless of whether she is the best person for the job.

Look at Joe Biden's apparent obsession with selecting a black female candidate for key roles. The requirement that a candidate be black and female is racist and sexist - it rules out white and Asian candidates purely on the basis of their race while ruling out male candidates purely on the basis of their gender. It is no less racist and sexist than insisting that only a white man can be suitable for the job.

I remember a black guy I worked with some years ago who, even then, hated all the assorted programs to try and hire more black people. He said it left him constantly wondering whether he had been hired for his skills or because he got to be the token black guy on an otherwise all-white team, the one everybody reluctantly tolerated but knew didn't really belong there.

Interestingly some of the left-leaning press is already howling about the new tactics of the political right to drive black people out of positions of power. Perish the thought that this particular black person might have done things that indicate they don't actually belong in such a position.

Thanks for taking the time out to reply, I appreciate it. Both you and Rabbi introduced topics into this thread that I believe warrant further discussion on their face and I also believe that there is a sort of meta discussion that is also worth having regarding why the topic of Gay's resignation prompted you both to present DEI as being particularly central to the topic. I would like the thread to accumulate some more viewpoints/takes  though before I even attempt to drill down on anything you've said considering how haywire these things can go given my history of turning people off of discussion. All that to say i'm interested in what you've posted for quite a few reasons , but i'd like to see how or if this topic develops before I go stomping around in it. So if you have additional thoughts on other aspects of this topic i hope you feel free to keep adding them to the thread.

Aside from that, I really would like to continue our discussion on "doing peace" in the Generational divide on Israel vs Hamas thread as I thought that it was just starting to cook before the holiday break  imo, I hope you can find the time and motivation too get back to it in the near future. Anyway thanks again for your contribution.

[tango]

I read an interesting article that said E would be the death of DI.

Diversity and Inclusion are good things. It's good to seek equality of opportunity, such that the person who is truly best suited for something has the best chance of achieving it. There are all sorts of statistics about the percentage of white men in positions of power even as the country becomes less white and has been more or less 50% female pretty much since there were females. It takes time for people who aren't white men to filter into the top positions and diversity and inclusion would require that, sooner or later, that would happen.

The problem with the E is that it so often seeks to create equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity. It so often focuses on perceived injustices and righting them that it loses sight of the reason people are put in a position in the first place. The CEO of a company needs to have a good business head and understand a thing or two about running a company. Whether the best candidate is black or white, male or female, gay or straight, should be irrelevant in the quest for the best candidate for the job. Trying to introduce some vaguely defined notion of equity into the process ends up overlooking the white male candidate in favor of the black female, regardless of whether she is the best person for the job.

Look at Joe Biden's apparent obsession with selecting a black female candidate for key roles. The requirement that a candidate be black and female is racist and sexist - it rules out white and Asian candidates purely on the basis of their race while ruling out male candidates purely on the basis of their gender. It is no less racist and sexist than insisting that only a white man can be suitable for the job.

I remember a black guy I worked with some years ago who, even then, hated all the assorted programs to try and hire more black people. He said it left him constantly wondering whether he had been hired for his skills or because he got to be the token black guy on an otherwise all-white team, the one everybody reluctantly tolerated but knew didn't really belong there.

Interestingly some of the left-leaning press is already howling about the new tactics of the political right to drive black people out of positions of power. Perish the thought that this particular black person might have done things that indicate they don't actually belong in such a position.

Thanks for taking the time out to reply, I appreciate it. Both you and Rabbi introduced topics into this thread that I believe warrant further discussion on their face and I also believe that there is a sort of meta discussion that is also worth having regarding why the topic of Gay's resignation prompted you both to present DEI as being particularly central to the topic. I would like the thread to accumulate some more viewpoints/takes  though before I even attempt to drill down on anything you've said considering how haywire these things can go given my history of turning people off of discussion. All that to say i'm interested in what you've posted for quite a few reasons , but i'd like to see how or if this topic develops before I go stomping around in it. So if you have additional thoughts on other aspects of this topic i hope you feel free to keep adding them to the thread.

Aside from that, I really would like to continue our discussion on "doing peace" in the Generational divide on Israel vs Hamas thread as I thought that it was just starting to cook before the holiday break  imo, I hope you can find the time and motivation too get back to it in the near future. Anyway thanks again for your contribution.

I find it interesting that in the modern left-leaning mindset it seems that racism is bad, unless the people you dislike are Jews in which case it's good. Islamophobia is bad, which is why Jews are bad. And any black person in a high position can only have got there through outstanding merit and hard work because oppression and racism, so any attempt to remove a black person from a high position is evidence of racism. If a white person in a position of power said anything even remotely upsetting to anyone at any point in their life they need to be removed and forever cancelled but if a black person in a position of power said something last week that is discriminatory then it's OK and maybe even laudable because context, and because oppression, and because privilege, and trying to get them removed is therefore racist.

It's nothing all that new, although it's more prominent these days. Back in 2008 during the election between McCain and Obama people on the left were quite rightly calling racism in response to the people whose attitude was some variation of "I don't want no (expletive) (racial slur) in the White House" and yet were quire happy with "It's about time we had a black president". Voting against someone based purely on the color of their skin is no less racist than voting for someone based purely on the color of their skin.