One is that Sommers' opinion has some factual backing whereas Churchill's does not. The other is that Sommers didn't say anyone deserved to be murdered, unlike Churchill. If Sommers said women deserve to die then I would agree he should be fired.

__________________
All you need to know about the energy crisis:
ANWR Exploration Republicans: 91% Supported. Democrats: 86% Opposed.
Coal-to-liquid R's: 90% YES. D's: 78% NO.
Oil Shale Exploration R's: 90% YES. D's: 86% NO.
Outer Continental Shelf Exploration R's: 81% YES. D's: 83% NO.
Increased Refinery Capacity R's: 97% YES. D's: 96% NO

SUMMARY: 91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of America’s own oil and gas. 86% of House Democrats have historically voted against.

http://www.ryunlv.com/news/2005/02/1...v-860094.shtml

Because he said something the gay community didn't want to hear. Didn't stop them from calling for his firing (or the school to try and pursue it).

__________________
All you need to know about the energy crisis:
ANWR Exploration Republicans: 91% Supported. Democrats: 86% Opposed.
Coal-to-liquid R's: 90% YES. D's: 78% NO.
Oil Shale Exploration R's: 90% YES. D's: 86% NO.
Outer Continental Shelf Exploration R's: 81% YES. D's: 83% NO.
Increased Refinery Capacity R's: 97% YES. D's: 96% NO

SUMMARY: 91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of America’s own oil and gas. 86% of House Democrats have historically voted against.

I'll point out again that I agree that calls for Sommers to resign over this one incident are overblown and uncalled for.

All I said was, he was open to at least *some* criticism. Not calls that he be fired or resign; but criticism. What he said could be totally, provably true, and yet it might still be criticizable for what it implies about how he goes about his job.

My wife's main beef is that Sommers is in charge of recruitment of both students and faculty at Harvard. If he believes there are innate differences between men and women, is he really going to work hard to try to overcome that achievement gap? Why waste time trying to solve a problem that can't be solved? That's why who he is is as important as what he actually said. From her perspective, he's providing an excuse for the current state of affairs.

On a purely theoretical level, we should be able to recognize that individual differences trump group tendencies, and thus even *proving* that women are less adept at science should prove no hindrance to *individual* women, who ideally would be judged on their own merits, not the overall merit of their group.

But as we all know, humans rely on stereotypes for a staggering array of life decisions. Realistically speaking, it would be difficult not to be influenced by that knowledge, and to view all women as generally less adept in science. Women would not get the benefit of the doubt.

Suppress the science? Of course not. Criticize people who note the science without noting that individual differences outweigh any group tendency? Yes. *Really* criticize them when the person involved is in charge of not just hiring and firing, but also admission to one of the nation's elite colleges? Even more emphatically yes.

What Sommers actually said was he felt biological and familial factors played a bigger role in keeping women out of science than discrimination and gender roles. That's not really what the science says, as I understand it. If nothing else, it appears he was guilty of carelessly lumping together "biological" and "familial" factors.

So he was in for some criticism. Should he be fired? No. Not unless his comments were the final straw in a string of incidents that caused Harvard to lose confidence in him. That doesn't appear to be the case.

__________________
Man up.

He was giving an explanation to one component, not saying he had no plans to try and overcome it. I think that's a big leap to just assume he won't try and overcome it.

__________________
All you need to know about the energy crisis:
ANWR Exploration Republicans: 91% Supported. Democrats: 86% Opposed.
Coal-to-liquid R's: 90% YES. D's: 78% NO.
Oil Shale Exploration R's: 90% YES. D's: 86% NO.
Outer Continental Shelf Exploration R's: 81% YES. D's: 83% NO.
Increased Refinery Capacity R's: 97% YES. D's: 96% NO

SUMMARY: 91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of America’s own oil and gas. 86% of House Democrats have historically voted against.

First I heard of it. Hardly a cause celebre among liberals, it appears.

In any event, the guy's tenured, he's not going to be fired. Tickles me pink to see that the ACLU is defending him, however.

__________________
Man up.

So, politicians should move with whatever the current PC winds are? Ignore facts. Dismiss data. What do people want to hear. Is that it?

The best post I've read in this thread so far is the one by Catzmeow on the first page. I've often disagreed with her. But after reading that, I wanted to give her a little sock on the arm and say, well, you're alright.

I understand ivory tower types are a little different. But whether we're talking about Harvard grads (professors or presidents), or someone with a certificate from the NASCAR School of Motor Buildin', anyone who is so delicate that they can't handle the truth (or a troubling theory)... what good are they? What Catz described is how it is... at least in business. No one is going to stroke your ego (unless they want something from you). No one is going to make excuses for your shortcomings. And when you're down, that is exactly when people will line up to kick you. I believe that's why people like MacKinnon, Brownmiller, Wolf and the rest of that bigoted, rag-tag bunch talk so much, but have little to say.

''I think it's an outrage that certain questions -- that real, important questions -- can't be raised in an academic atmosphere, that research that's well-known can't be presented without some sort of hysterical response," said Linda S. Gottfredson, a psychologist at the University of Delaware. We need a clapping hands smilie.

People find success when they learn to play up their strengths and overcome their weaknesses... whether they're nature or nurture based. One thing from my past that I cannot overcome: weak, sniveling people make me ill. And to Catz I have to give a

__________________
"Tweeter was a Boyscout before she went to Vietnam and found out the hard way... nobody gives a d@mn."

jp5 wrote It's because us men do not Realize that there are different "shades of black" therefore if we pull out the wrong shade of black socks we hear " you're not wearing those socks with those pants, are you?. Answer, "well yeh I was until I found out that this "shade" of black does not go with that shade of blue". Well another case of WGAS !!!

I have two boys and two girls. I absolutely believe that they were born with certain propensities. Sure my boys were born making car noises and my girls loved to play with their dolls. My boy/girl twins were together almost 100% percent of the time, so how coud they be so different?
All of my kids excel at math, but there the similarities end. My girls are far more creative than my boys. My boys are also far better at test taking. They seem to not be distracted as much or made to be nervous on timed tests. I think they are all equally good at storing facts, but the boys are more likely to answer the question first.
When I try to analyze the differences, I come up with one answer... the male ego. Whether it's society or Dad or Mom or some unknown factor, the fact is even pre-school boys have a male ego. Girls on the playground simply are not going to start a conversation with, "My Daddy can beat up your Daddy." Don't try to simplify it by calling it competition - it's far more than that.

__________________
Do you know what it's like to fall in the mud and get kicked... in the head... with an iron boot? Of course you don't, no one does. It never happens. It's a dumb question... skip it.

True 12th Man. And I think little boys have it tougher in school as far as having to "prove" themselves. We moved a lot.....and each time our son would be picked on as the new kid who was small for his age. I don't think girls get picked on as much. Eventually my son studied Karate......since he was 8 years old. He has a Black Belt and I've seen him put guys 250 lbs on the floor in nothing flat. (in tournaments) Karate gives lots of confidence. I remember being so proud when he was just a young teenager when he was taking his Black Belt test and was asked the question during his test: What has Karate done for you? His answer was: "It's given me the confidence to know I could turn and walk away from a fight." Only once did he have to use it in the "real world." He got jumped by 3 guys in a parking lot.....and took care of all three. Some school friends witnessed it...and for a while he was called the "Little Bruce Lee." There's a lot more to Karate than I ever imagined....and I would highly recommend it for anybody who has young boys OR girls, for that matter. A little self-defense instruction never hurt anyone.

__________________
“I’ve been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career. Even before I was an elected official, when I ran Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it, and we appreciate your work.” — Barack Obama, Speech to ACORN, November 2007

BTW, Are you familiar with the following study?

I saw it in a finnish science magazine. It was about major scientific or art breakthroughs. If I remember right it showed a clear regularity. These breakthroughs were more likely done by unmarried men, or men at the early phase of marriage. The same people's ability or willingess to make these kind of new innovations decreased quite rapidly after marriage. The study speculated with the unmarried men's increased willingfullness to take major risks and and to prove themselves as an explanation for the phenomenom. And the underlying motivation was to impress women. With the same logic married men had no need to take risks or to prove themselves.

- BtD

__________________
"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."
[George Orwell, 1984]