the best and the brightest (aka you're not special)

a recent new york times article sent me on a journey of mental self-discovery - mostly made up of complaining to anyone who would sit still about how pissed off i was about the whole affair. so maybe "self-discovery" is a bit of a stretch. even so.

the topic: a so-called 'elite' education, and what that means to the individuals who go to schools such as harvard and yale. the times article asks the question "why are so many ivy-league graduates going to wall street?" the article fails to really answer that question because, like so many articles in the times of late, it is poorly-researched and has little to no structure. too harsh? suck it, times. teach your writers to use this crazy thing i call a "transition." research would also not hurt, while you're at it. the writers basically selected seemingly at random a handful of harvard seniors whose main similarity seems to have something to do with how much they enjoy hearing themselves talk to, shockingly enough, talk about their struggles to do something different from the hedge funds and i-banking all of their friends are going into. the writers did not, of course, interview anyone from any of the public service organizations on campus. one of the students in the audio slideshow segment actually had, as his plans for the coming year, NOTHING. i think that was supposed to inspire me to be bold like him and not sweat the whole 'job' thing, but i'm guessing he has someone else paying his rent while he does the whole "i'm too deep to be corporate and too rich to get a job like you commoners" thing.

i digress. i'm not actually here to rant about what a shitty job the times does of researching for articles, or the questionable merit of their interview subjects. the basic question still stands, and i think a few other people have done a better job of answering it than the times did, so i'd like to share some thoughts with you.

William Deresiewicz, in a better article (admittedly long, but i think worth it) starts out a bit awkward with an attempt to blame his own lack of social skills on yale, but goes on to turn that uncomfortable anecdote into a pretty interesting analysis. he talks about the constant repetition that you are the best and the brightest, the elitism at every turn, the vast amount of support you get from the institutions, and the notion of "entitled mediocrity." read the article for the nuance, but the main points i think are twofold:

1) entitlement: going to a school like harvard teaches you that you DESERVE to do a shitty job and still get an A, you DESERVE a six-digit starting salary your first year out of college, and you DESERVE all the praise you get. even more, you deserve those things because of something innate within yourself - that you got where you are because you really are the best, and not because of any privileges you may have had along the way. and most people, by the time second semester of freshman year rolls around, have begun to completely take every benefit they get for granted to the point that they would readily argue that an A- in a class they worked hard in proves there is no grade inflation, and that 3-week extension they got on a paper because they got sick is in no way out of the ordinary. by the time you graduate, your grip on reality has a 3.5 year head start, and you'll probably never recapture it.

2) expectations: harvard grads, and the parents of harvard grads, seem to expect not so much the development of the mind, as Deresiewicz puts it, but of the career. specifically, a high-paying corporate career. Deresiewicz calls it a lost opportunity, barack obama calls it a 'poverty of ambition.' it all amounts to the same thing: in a part of the world where you can afford to do pretty much whatever you want and still live a comfortable life, the "best and the brightest" don't consider 'anything you want' to be within the realm of acceptable careers. i know literally one person who did the teaching certification program through harvard, even though i knew tons of people who loved teaching and wanted to teach - my theory: you don't want to look as though you're "wasting" your ivy-league education on something you could have learned for less money. you don't want to look as though you failed to be all you can be. and while you're trying so hard not to fail, you're failing to realize that you're wasting your education instead on a career path that only requires you go through the motions: take test prep classes and AP classes in high school, get into an ivy league school, take uninteresting but easy classes to keep your gpa up, do e-recruiting for a major consulting firm, start in on a career you had never even heard of before you got to college, and that requires absolutely none of the education you had available to you but probably didn't take advantage of in your four years of college. talk about failure.

in the context of this discussion, jk rowling's recent commencement address seems pretty relevant. in her speech, on "the fringe benefits of failure," she explained that if she had not failed to succeed on the path chosen for her by parents, school, etc., she would never have had the courage to try doing what it was she actually wanted to do. and to me, that's the real answer to the question posed by the times. why are so many ivy-leaguers going to wall st? because it's ridiculously easy. you can get an entry-level job at an investment bank or a consulting firm with literally no knowledge at all, they'll train you on the job, and then pay you an absurd amount of money to just continue on the path they've set you on. once you're in, it's difficult to fail. whereas not taking that job forces you to think about what you actually might want to do, and in the process of trying to figure that out, more likely than not you'll realize your harvard education didn't prepare you for it (either that or you wasted your harvard education trying to fit in with future i-bankers and now its too late to go back and take that class at the school of public health), and you're no better-equipped to live your dream than you would be if you had gone to a different school. basically, you're not special, you're young, and you have a lot to learn. and coming hard on the heels of "you're the best and the brightest," "you're not special" just doesn't have that same magical ring. most people don't want to hear it.

so they don't hear it, they go get that i-banking job they've never dreamed of, and if they take the time to read shit like my blog, they get indignant because they have about 25 ready-made rationalizations for why i-banking was the career that made the most sense to them (and strangely enough, everyone they know). poverty of ambition is actually the perfect term for this. if i ever meet barack, i'll have to thank him for that.

anyways, to end this needlessly long post on a happy note, big shout out to all my people who are doing, or in the process of finding, whatever it is they want to do. there's a lot of those people too, and no one ever writes an article about them. dag.

economics can bite me.

i'm sure it has its benefits, but at harvard, "economics" means you don't have to learn anything EXCEPT economics. aka you will turn out an idiot with a fancy degree to make you think you're smart.

i'm trying to blog less about harvard because, well, i've moved on. and i think its best if harvard knew that and stopped trying to call. but its sort of difficult to let go completely when harvard just keeps making an ass out of itself. every once in a while i'm inspired (aka someone points me to a crimson article) and i feel compelled to say something about it. this is one of those times.

the subject: "a crack in the glass ceiling" written by, surprise surprise, someone without much experience, knowledge, or writing skill.

ok so as usual i have too much to say. i will try to break it down into a brief summary, followed by bullet points (or maybe numbers. i have yet to decide). that way you can just read the ones you want, but i still get to say everything i feel like saying.

summary: in an attempt to spin the democratic primary race in a new way (admittedly hard to do these days), sophomore brian j. bolduc has written an article which (possibly unintentionally) is really quite racist and sexist. the point he is TRYING to make (i think?) is actually one i kind of agree with: that electing a black man or a white woman president will probably not end racism or sexism. the points he actually manages to make with the body of his article are that jim crow wasn't a big deal, black people are oppressed because they don't get married enough, japanese people have superior work ethic to blacks and whites (but no political will/skills), and women would have equal standing in society if they would just stop having babies.

ah. i love it when people try to make complex arguments without even thinking at all, much less reading anything outside of the ec assignment that clearly inspired the article. it makes my job almost TOO easy. i almost don't even want to argue with this dude. but i will.

ok point 1 (say, i decided to go with numbers!): the pregnancy thing - no duh women have babies. and yes, the fact that they often have to take time off from work to do this contributes to their earning less/getting promoted less/getting fired more. congratulations on figuring this out, i don't think anyone has ever thought of it before. no, no wait, that can't be right. oh yes, its all coming back to me now: turns out there are actually ways to NOT punish a woman for giving birth. there are also ways of allowing the husband or partner of a new mother to participate in the whole "taking care of a baby" process so the woman who physically gave birth is not the only person legally able to take time off work. wow. crazy. i'm not even going to get into the fact that i think this dude referred to procreation as a "lifestyle choice" in his article. i guess i'm just glad that for once he wasn't talking about the gays?

2: for someone who seems so gung-ho about economics and statistics and empirical proof, i feel that this sentence feel somehow a tad short: "Married couples share certain qualities that make them more likely to succeed." ah. so when barack obama says “…many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow,” that's a generalization and a confusing of the facts. but when you say married couples are more likely to succeed, that just makes sense. the consistency literally astounds me. i'm speechless. i need to go lie down.

3: i realize i could go on for days about these little things, so let me address the major problem in the article - its complete incoherence. he's trying to make a distinction between political success and economic success, but is confused. pointing out that the economic situation of blacks improved before civil rights legislation was passed is an interesting factoid, but what does it mean? is he trying to suggest that there is no relationship at all between economic standing and social standing? is he confusing "politics" to mean pretty much anything that is not economics? does he believe that proving two things are not directly correlated proves that they are completely separate? honestly, i'm asking. because nowhere in the article does he make this clear. if i were to guess, i'd say he's trying to say that "political" forces, aka social forces, aka racism, have nothing to do with economics. and in order to prove that fact, he's tried to reduce the complex history of race in this country to an interaction (or lack thereof) of two very narrowly defined forces. obviously there's more going on - education, the economy of the nation, various social and political movements, and changes in the housing economy to name just a few things, but to try and address the interplay of these issues would be impossible in a one-page article. so instead, just write something that makes no sense!


the most irritating thing about this article really, is just that its another in a string of articles for as long as i've been reading the crimson that are just bad: they don't make sense, they're poorly written, and they contain various forms of racism and misogyny lightly veiled as 'science.' i get that its a college newspaper and that people without that much education are writing for it, and i get that learning how to be a journalist is just that - a learning process. but i fail to see how anyone can become a better writer through producing shit like this and having an editor just give it the green light with no criticism. the crimson needs to really start holding its writers to higher standards - the paper would improve, and the writers would actually learn something. which, clearly, they're not doing in class. so it may be their only hope.

job'in.

I know I should do this in comments, but I'd like to point out to everyone that there are definitely employment opportunities that lie somewhere between the realm of public service and finance. They are often called "regular jobs." I have one such mythical job (which I am sitting at right now, oh the wonders of the internet and a reasonably liberal company that doesn't block all fun sites) and I find myself making enough money to live, save, and oh you know, go out from time to time.

Don't let Harvard fool you, you can have all sorts of jobs and futures!

Okay that was my rant. Damn, it's time to go home.

P.S. (To Kaya) Did you know that Virgin Megastore in Times Square has a whole "Gay & Lesbian" section? Food for thought. Guess where your Christmas present is prooobably going to come from..

rationalizing your way to a fortune

I don't like to blog about harvard TOO much, because i don't like to remember harvard too much. but since the black community lists don't seem to be taking up the issue, i feel like i have to put it SOMEWHERE on the internet...

here's what happened: the Harvard Crimson ran a 3-part series entitled "Living by Harvard's Rules." The series is a focus on now-senior Bryan C. Barnhill, an active member of the black community, and soon-to-be i-banker (or perhaps consultant). I'll do my best to make my summary quick, since 3 articles is a lot to get mad about:

basically the articles are broken down like this:
article 1 talks about how Bryan came from a very poor neighborhood in detroit. harvard gets a quick shout-out for being so financially diverse (can you believe that 1 in every 4 students comes from a family making less than $80,000 a year? wow, i feel normal already!) the article talks about how Barnhill, and many others, feel disoriented when they arrive at harvard. Bryan makes a decision to drop the do-rag and baggy pants, and take up a collared shirt.

article 2: barnhill finally finds a feeling of inclusion in the Harvard Spee (for those who don't know, the spee, and other final clubs are kind of like frats. except way more steeped in racism, sexism, and classism). he doesn't feel tokenized, even though he sometimes can't afford to hang out with the rest of his "brothers." his parents, when they visited, were impressed by the spee's rich history (of rich white men). article 2 ends by noting that people from bryan's neighborhood are not jealous of his success, they're proud.

article 3 (my favorite): is about how bryan came to harvard with a desire to change the world. to "dismantle capitalism," even. but he soon realized that doing good is for crazy people. no, more to the point, its only for rich people apparently. barnhill felt "hoodwinked" by campus liberals who told him he didn't have to be an i-banker. "they didn't seem concerned about their wallets," he said. but bryan (unlike the rest of us) has responsibilities back home. he needs to be able to help his family out, to take them on vacations, to help his brother go to college. for that, he needs i-banking. and he hopes to give back to his community first by becoming a personal success, and then sharing the wealth.


ok, so not a super-short summary. sorry. ANYWAYS, since you know i love bullet points, here are my concerns. and i'd like to note, first, that i'm sorry in advance if any of this comes off as mean. i know bryan, and i like him. but i heartily disagree with his point of view on this matter, and i'm offended that he agreed to let this story be published about him. here goes:

- the most offensive part of this to me was the part where he implies that those of us who go into public sector work do it because we don't need money as much as he does, because our families don't need us, or because we're just rich. if someone could please tell that to my checkbook, that would be great. because i don't see the riches he's implying. i do see a salary i can survive on, and even save a bit to help out family members who might need it, but no - the harvard mantra is to never settle for "fine" when you could be making 80,000 or more a year. like yes, obviously i-banking pays better than public interest. no duh. but i am SO offended by the implication that public interest careers are a privilege that people from working-class backgrounds can't afford. if you really want to help out your community, why don't you go teach their children? no salary in the world is so high that it's going to lift your old community out of poverty, so dont kid yourself into thinking you're "giving back," when you're just "giving a bit." and don't kid yourself into thinking you're doing this for someone else, when you're doing it for yourself. (and like i said, not to be mean. this isn't me yelling at bryan, its me yelling at every single harvard student who uses the same rationalization i'm seeing in this article).

- the article is right, harvard is NOT very welcoming if you don't come from money. joining a final club will not make it more welcoming. sure, you'll have friends. and maybe they really aren't tokenizing you, although i doubt it. but how in the world does that make the situation better for anyone else? again, don't kid yourself into thinking its about someone other than yourself.

i could go on for days, but then you would stop reading. so, in conclusion: this article is a shocking example of the entire reason i was constantly angry when i was at harvard. what bothers me most is a) that its about a member of the black community, and b) that NO ONE IN THE BLACK COMMUNITY IS TALKING ABOUT IT. seriously, for those of you reading this, what the fuck? are you scared people won't like you anymore if you disagree with one of the 'popular' kids in the black community? do you all just agree? or is this just not an issue anyone is even interested in?

this is one of those times i'm so glad to have graduated. even if it does mean having to live in the "real world" on a less than phenomenal public interest salary.

madame president

i have to say - i wasn't planning on going to Drew Faust's installation this past week, but I'm glad I ended up there. in my experience Harvard University is not the most enjoyable place as a minority or as a woman, but i actually felt a little bubbling of optimism inside me as i stood in the rain and watched Harvard's first female president in 371 years accept the responsibility that comes with that heavy load. i think you may know by now that i'm not one for optimism, but what can i say? i think i have a bit of a crush.

President Faust really went all out making sure her installation was focused less on tradition and more on positive change. all of the food and materials for her installation weekend were locally made and grown. she requested that her procession be led in by the pan-african dance troupe. she invited all of her teachers from elementary school on to be a part of the "president's division" at the ceremonies, because each of them helped her get where she is today. i mean seriously. what DIDN'T she think of? she's fabulous.

her speech was also clearly well thought-out. she challenged criticisms of higher education today: "Those who long for a lost golden age of higher education," she pointed out, "should think about the very limited population that alleged utopia actually served." she was humble but inspiring. and she ended on a humorous note:

"Last week I was given a brown manila envelope that had been entrusted to the University Archives in 1951 by James B. Conant, Harvard’s 23rd president. He left instructions that it should be opened by the Harvard president at the outset of the next century “and not before.” I broke the seal on this mysterious package to find a remarkable letter from my predecessor. It was addressed to 'My dear Sir.'"

my point: for once i'm not feeling particularly rageful. i think the coming years will bring improvements at Harvard, especially for those of us who felt less than welcome under the slightly less inspirational figure of Lawrence H. Summers.

My dear Madame, welcome to Harvard.

black tie means white lady

sometimes i hear things about harvard that make me feel amazed i came out of that place alive. this is one such time.

a friend pointed this posting on craigslist out to me (in case the link goes dead, here it is):

Harvard senior seeking female companion - 22

My final club has a reunion this fall, and my relationship of two years ended disastrously earlier this summer. I have an invitation for myself plus one, and am willing to show you a great time. It is a private party, in an extremely classy setting. There is no real way to describe how ornate the club is, but I guarantee that it will be the most upscale experience of your life. Think back to your high school prom, take away the terrible music, and multiply the experience by ten.

You must be white, 5'6" - 5'9", young, blonde, attractive, and intelligent. You must be in school, preferably Tufts or Wellesley but BU and BC are acceptable (definitely not MIT).

You should be able to hold a conversation, know when to be quiet, and polite in all your behavior. I have seen unruly guests embarrass members before, and I hope this won't be a problem. This event is black-tie, and I am willing to procure an evening gown for you.

I hate to sound so harsh, but I have expectations to live up to. No Black, Asian, overweight, or unattractive women please. Ages 18-22 only.

Picture required.

so... what to say, what to say?

i mean this can't be only a harvard problem, and i'm not trying to say it is, but i WILL say that harvard was the first and thus far only place I have ever had to live in which you are surrounded by the kind of people who think this kind of thing is in any way ok. to begin with, you should already be ashamed of yourself for being a member of a final club - for those readers who don't know, they're all-male, predominantly white (no matter what anyone might try to tell you) remnants of those glory days when harvard didn't let in poors, women, or minorities. so you're in this club that just promotes all kinds of inequality and throws parties which are frankly often unsafe for women, and you're so fucking pleased with yourself for being a part of that fucked-up world that you'll do anything to stay in it, even solicit an "appropriate" date off of craigslist in that shameless way only the most privileged of assholes could ever think is ok.

i don't even want to touch how offensive the qualifications are in this guy's mind for who makes a "classy" date to a black tie event. i mean i guess the sad thing is its true. remember that scene in borat when he brings a pile of shit to the table and they're all like, "oh he's foreign he doesn't understand," and then he brings a black woman to the table and the party's over? yup. they probably all went to harvard. and hopefully you didn't miss the part where he said you need to know how to be a nice quiet woman. ugh. still want YOUR kid to get an ivy league "education?"

i mean, really.

Greetings from Cape Breton, Nova Scotia! I’m hanging out here with my family, but something came to my attention that was worth braving the dial-up internet to rage about. You guessed it: True Love Revolution.

For those who don’t go to Harvard, or for those who do but try to avoid contact with other people who go to Harvard (wise choice), I may have to explain what exactly True Love Revolution is. Basically it’s an abstinence society “not affiliated with any religion.” Which, in itself, is fairly amusing given that the founders seem to both be fairly big fans of the Catholic faith, and according to a recent New York Times article (dial-up won't let me put in the link, so you'll have to copy-paste like a caveman: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/29/education/edlife/abstinence.html), like to let their faith “enrich” their opinions. So you know, not a religious society. Just a society heavily enriched by Catholicism. All are welcome.

Anyways, the point of this post: the NY Times article: I mean really. First of all, since when does a student group merit an article in the New York Times? Or rather, since when does a student group merit an article solely based on the fact that it exists? Sure, I would read an article in the New York Times about the BSA’s new public service initiatives, but I would never find an article like that in the Times. There are too many more important stories to be told. Like how Sarah Kinsella and her boyfriend are both virgins. Hm, but actually I don’t recall the article ever stating that as a fact. But maybe hypocrisy, like news, is not really newsworthy anymore.

The article basically seems to be pointing out the existence of such clubs in campuses across America. Its not so much that I find that to be uninteresting, because I think it’s actually a very fascinating trend, but I do wonder how exactly THIS, out of all the various exciting things I saw happening on campus, got picked up by the New York Times. And I also wonder about the tone of the article, which seems fairly unquestioning of some of the ridiculous statements coming out of “Ms Kinsella” and “Mr Murray’s” mouths. Such as the thought that the “awesome effects” of oxytocin create a special bond with the person you sleep with, making the possible end of relations with that person a sad time for you. As if a) someone who has been in a 1.5 year-long “chaste” relationship has, by avoiding sex, also managed to avoid heartbreak if the relationship should end, b) everyone who ever has sex has an orgasm, and the “awesome effects” of such an event are the root of all the subsequent emotion, or c) sadness is something you can eliminate from your life simply by avoiding sex. if only we were all so lucky as Ms Kinsella and Mr Murray that possible sadness due to sex was our greatest concern in life.

I also take obvious issue with the implicit suggestion that the respect the TLR founders show for each other is something unusual. Oh my god, they ask each other how they’re feeling? People who have sex NEVER do that.

I mean basically the whole idea of the group is just fundamentally ridiculous. A “non-religious” group led by two Catholics who are dating about how you should save sex til marriage “because you’re worth it.” If you don’t want to have sex, great. Cool. But its not “because you’re worth it.” Its because you don’t want to. Which is a good enough reason. Let’s not dip into the crazy bucket to try and make our beliefs sound more trendy. And let’s not judge other people’s decisions for that reason either. I’m psyched for Sarah and Justin that they have a relationship they’re both happy with, but there’s no reason for them to suggest that their way of doing it is better than anyone else’s. Although if we ARE going to start making judgments like that, I have to point out that if after living in Harvard Square for 4 years you’re still going to Border Café on dates, your relationship is probably doomed. Maybe not doomed to fail, but definitely doomed to not be delicious.

you may now begin your lives.

We just graduated. Please forgive our lack of updates for the next few days (potentially week for me) due to the fact that we are attempting to transition our lives. As soon as we find some really interesting social situation/event/puppy to write about, you can be sure that we will begin typing away.
A few words on commencement: Fun, sad, at last, too soon, friends, family, anxiety.
This past week has been full of more emotions than probably any other. And cutely enough, one thing I noticed was that despite all of the things that I've been through at Harvard, even though I didn't feel as connected as I thought that I should have felt to faculty or staff or tutors or even in some cases my class mates, despite the fact that I have gone through immense personal changes and have become a completely different woman... I feel like things have come full circle. In some cases quite literally.

I'm grateful for the times I've had and the family I've gained. If you are reading this and know me, please know also that you have- in your own individual way- moved and shaped my life. It is because you are that I am.

And I think that's enough for now.

two words, tenure track, two professors, coming back?

oh snap. that was clever.

but i digress. word on the street is that Marcyliena Morgan, the professor who was denied tenure a few years ago and left with husband Lawrence Bobo for Stanford, has been offered a tenured position here. Morgan and Bobo's departure was a pretty big blow for the department, and coming shortly after the departures of Cornel West and K. Anthony Appiah, and shortly before the departure of Michael Dawson, i for one was beginning to lose all hope. i swear. not a day goes by when i don't kick myself for not taking Dawson's class freshman year. if only i had known.

but i digress again. the point is that many of us seniors had to live through what i'd call the dark ages of Harvard as far as af-am goes. West left right before we got here, and many of us took Af-Am 10 when it was in it's abandoned child phase, before it got picked up this year by Skip Gates and Evelyn Higginbotham (i audited it even though i had already taken it, so i wouldn't feel robbed). But now i'm feeling hopeful again. not for myself, it's too late for me. but for all the young'uns out there. The Af-Am department has made a tremendous comeback on a number of fronts, and this news about Morgan and Bobo is the icing on the cake.

i'll just take a moment to drool over how much i would have loved to take a class with Morgan. she is the founder of the hiphop archive, author of Language, Discourse and Power in African American Culture, and is currently working on a book entitled The Real Hiphop - Battling for Knowledge, Power, and Respect in the Underground . damn. like seriously. she studies discourse and power within hip-hop, race, class, and gender, identity, media representations... *wistful sigh*

anyways, i guess that's all. i hope they come back. it sort of amazes me that there aren't more people studying hip-hop in academia today. i could write like, 10 books on it and i haven't even done any research. its fascinating.

so i'll leave you with this parting thought: if you didn't catch the reference in the title of this post, that's cool because now you have a great song to listen to. and if you did catch the reference, my question for you is have you seen the VIDEO? i think this is one of the more clever video's i've seen in a while. i have a special place in my heart for kanye. :-)

"welcome to physics 101: negroes not allowed."

so a good friend over on quench was clever enough to pick up on something really awkward during the whole crimson/quad/racism fiasco. that something was that one of the more offensive posters (who i do have to give some respect to for not posting anonymously) is actually a professor of physics here at harvard. Lubos Motl has posted several comments on the crimson website, including this one:


Dear Lucy,

I agree with you and admire your courage. Many reactions above make it very clear that your courage is highly non-trivial.

Someone said that there was racism because it was assumed that the people couldn't have been students. I think that it is indeed sensible to think that people who behave a little bit like animals could be someone else than Harvard students, after all. While this assumption may occasionally fail, it is still more reasonable than to assume that someone must be a Harvard student just because he or she is black.

If the party were white and the noise were similar, police would arrive, too. The intercultural foundation would complain that it is a proof of apartheid that the white people were not instantly dismissed from Harvard.

Keep on smiling and writing so well,
Lubos Motl

Posted by Lubos Motl | 5/21/2007 3:42:22 PM |

------------------
he also posted THIS on his own blog about the incident:

Wow. If someone makes a huge mess in front of the buildings where some of the smartest young people on the planet are supposed to study, it is illegitimate to call police because it is a black people's party and everyone - the whole community of Harvard students - is instantly accused of racism and the director of the "intercultural foundation" is black, too.

Counter's "foundation" is clearly meant to be a tool to intimidate students and other members of the community, politicize all questions, and make sure that a pathetic hypocritical ideology is more important than a tolerable atmosphere during the reading period and other values that used to be associated with the world of Academia.

-----------------
and on the quench post about him, he left these gems:

Don't worry. I couldn't live with far left-wing pseudointellectual garbage like yourself for more time so I will be leaving.

You know, I have lived in a country where this ideological trash has intimidated people for 45 years. It has transformed the 10th most prosperous country in the world to a country that was nearly outside the really developed world. It has destroyed the economy and people's moral values.

I know how people like you think, how complete power over the society people like you want to have, I know why people like you are so dangerous, and I don't want to live in a society where scum like yourself is intimidating fair people on a daily basis.

Let me say that I think that your mode of thinking is identical to the Gestapo informers. If it were up to you, you would be instantly trying to create personal problems for someone because he or she disagrees with your idiotic ideology.

Informing departments, Gestapo, or PC police at all levels - that's what you like to do, isn't it?

Sorry but I have always considered people like that to be moral trash, I still consider them to be moral trash, and I will always consider such people to be moral trash.

This is not just about your believing an idiotic ideology. It is also about the methods you choose to defend it.

----------------------

whew. alright, there's a lot there to take in, i know. i mainly just wanted to blog this to get the word out, because i think this is a little bit preposterous. aside from the fact that his comments are wildly offensive, ignorant, racist, etc. etc., his posts are also extremely unprofessional. as a harvard PROFESSOR, it seems like a fairly terrible move to post such strong views on common community forums for a couple of reasons.
1. any black, female, or otherwise minority students in his classes will no doubt feel very unwelcome (more unwelcome than they already do) after reading the things he's written here.
2. as a professor, you are expected to hold yourself to a higher standard of professionality than students. just as dr. counter responded to the article about the foundation in a carefully thought out op-ed, any other professor or administrator at harvard wishing to express his/her opinions about the subject has avenues other than the anonymous comments section of the crimson, and should use them

ok now on to a couple of quick comments about what he actually SAID

so a) i cannot BELIEVE that a harvard professor just claimed that a group of black students he has never met nor interacted with "behaved like animals." like honestly, i just can't even believe it. this goes WELL beyond unprofessional into the "horribly offensive" "criminally racist" "extremely damaging" sort of categories. would you want this man teaching you?!?

b) (if you haven't noticed by now, i'm a fan of lists) little did i know that a "tolerable atmosphere during reading period" was higher on the list of Academia (with a capital A)'s values than intercultural and race relations. well damn. let's just cancel all the social sciences and turn william james into a library for physics majors. why dont we also cut out everyone's voiceboxes so as not to disturb the math. i assume tolerable atmosphere is also more important than human rights, yes?

c) ooooh. a Gestapo reference. how original. now all of a sudden i see that i am so wrong i'm practically a nazi, whereas you are right. oh wait...

d) the whole "i've experienced the oppressive forces of the left because of communism" argument is like, really old and really ridiculous. i'd like to think that intellectuals at one of the most esteemed universities in the world would be able to think critically enough to know that being against racism is not the same thing as being for dictatorship. but um...clearly that would be expecting too much.

ok this post is going on too long. so in conclusion, i am wildly pissed at how much racism has been going on at harvard lately, i find it ridiculous that a harvard professor would think it was appropriate to act in this manner, and i think that regardless of your field, if you accept the position of professor at ANY university, you need to hold yourself to certain standards in terms of how you present yourself to the public. that includes respect for your students and peers and respect for the other disciplines within the university.


ADDENDUM: upon further research, it seems (although i don't know that this is confirmed) that he has "resigned" slash been asked to resign from harvard because of unprofessional attacks on other professor's writing. so that's awkward for him. but gives me a little more faith that harvard DOES in fact hold its faculty to some standards of respect.