This is hardly the worst thing about this statement, but I can't get over the fact that the president of Harvard sounds like a 6th grade teacher. To give a sense of the decline, here is a speech from a Harvard president in 1961 saying roughly the same thing about free speech:
Nathan Pusey, president of Harvard 1953–71, opens the speech with this letter from an alumnus worried about subversives on the faculty: “When a whole Harvard department is so strongly promoting measures leading to totalitarianism, it seems I would be weak-minded to support it.”
“Harvard is a complex, lively, and involved institution. Now as always she includes many kinds and conditions of people—people of different interests, views, and opinions; and this grows increasingly so, the more the University becomes a world institution. But this is good, for diversity of opinion makes one think. As much as anything, it may set one on the path toward truth.
But never has Harvard tried to teach a single narrow orthodoxy in any field, nor does she now. From the time our first president, Henry Dunster, was dismissed for unorthodoxy, it has been her chief purpose to call men to think for themselves. Again and again there has been difficulty about this. Henry Dunster did not meet the conditions of the Massachusetts theocracy, but Harvard respected him for his courage and conviction and in time named a House for him.
Harvard still honors courage, conviction, and independent thought in her main and central thrust. As William James said in his much quoted address at Commencement fifty-eight years ago this month, ‘The day when Harvard shall stamp a single fast an hard type of character upon her children will be that of her downfall.”
“Our world is full of divergencies of opinion and unlimited perils. Granted. And this has made us all abnormally apprehensive. But surely the way to cope with this situation is not to begin by saying there is some simple, easily recognizable right to which we must adhere, and that all other views are wrong. Nor, let me add in fairness to my critic, is there any need to assume that any single individual who talks most frequently, or most conspicuously, or most assertively, must necessarily therefore be right or even in any degree representative. We all learned in the first discussion class we ever attended that this is not so.
Our world is full of divergencies of opinion, and so is Harvard.”
“What is the sum of these few brief remarks? It is simply that in my judgment there is one thing Harvard men must be agreed about. This is the recognition that truth is not something easily identifiable or simply stated, and that, this being so, those other qualities for which we all care so much—integrity, concern, and courage—these qualities make serious demands for understanding upon us all.”
Evan Barker’s disillusioned Democrat memoir (out today) has some priceless firsthand observations of the modern Left:
“Almost all Democratic operatives, regardless of their type, parroted the same lines to each other. It was common for us to call Republicans racist almost daily, convincing each other that the ‘alt-right’ was ‘absolutely’ terrifying, a force that wanted to literally murder us.”
The woman who wrote these emails disparaging Barker as an “entitled white woman” is the child of immigrants from Bangladesh:
“This is not the first time an entitled white woman has spoken to me disrespectfully and I supposed it will not be the last… Like I'm some angry brown woman and she has done nothing wrong. But of course, you don't see that. Look, I highly suggest that both of you take diversity, equity and inclusion training.”
Are these people mentally okay?
“Once, she told me she went to see a shaman, and when the shaman gave her hallucinogens, she said she saw her brown ancestors and they were kind, gentle people, but when she saw the white side of her family in Europe, she felt pure terror. There was darkness all around, and she was crying hysterically, wanting to get away from the evil white people, her body writhing in disgust.”
“An American Dilemma” is a perfect example of foundation-led social science because Myrdal splashed around so much money to other scholars for “research.”
“When the generosity of the Carnegie Corporation became known… black academics were demanding salaries of $10,000 or more.”
Naturally, giving away all that money guaranteed good reviews from the relevant experts.
“As his staff member and confidant Guy Johnson put it, ‘If you hadn't involved all these people and spent all this money … the reception [of the book] might not have been as enthusiastic.’”
Gunnar Myrdal originally thought he should have at least one white Southerner read the manuscript, but he couldn’t find a suitably friendly person so he gave up.
How do Russians think about their demographic crisis? This author sat in on a lecture in a demography class at a provincial university and got the standard history. The lesson starts with “the Russian Cross,” the graph showing the moment in 1991 when deaths outpaced births.
“Already in the 1970s and especially the early 1980s, Soviet demographers began to be concerned with the shrinking population… To prevent the decline, the Soviet state introduced a series of ‘paid motherhood’ policies.” These policies had some success in halting the decline.
“And then in 1992 came Gaidar. Do you remember him? He's the guy who told you, go forth and multiply, only at your own expense… In the Soviet Union, the state took partial responsibility for childbearing. And then Gaidar and his cronies came to power.” Births cratered.
Great Feminization, Soviet-style: In 1968, demographer Boris Urlanis published a bombshell article, “Save the Men!,” arguing that men were the second sex with higher mortality rates. Since nearly 80% of Soviet doctors were female, he said, it was up to women to save the men.
Women were 36 percent of Soviet professionals in 1940, 59 percent in 1980. Universities became majority female in 1976. Technical schools were 57 percent women. “In 1978, 26 percent of Leningrad brides said yes to less-educated grooms; two decades ago only 5 percent did.”
The “Save the Men!” phrase became a cultural landmark and prompted a flurry of responses. It even became a movie in 1982. Marfa Petrovna runs a research institute, hates cooking, and bosses her husband around. Can he reclaim his masculinity and avert their divorce?
Soviet law is hilarious. A factory manager was imprisoned by the NKVD as a “Trotskyist” and sentenced to a labor camp, but then Yezhov fell and he was one of the political prisoners released. He got his job back—and sued for back pay for the months he was in prison. Successfully.
This poor widow with a young daughter deserves legal relief from the bad housemate who is trying to get the house to himself by driving them out with obnoxious behavior, but her husband was an officer in the White Army so the Soviet court will do nothing for her.
Misha Dresher lied to get into college, concealing that his parents were “class enemies.” When his secret was revealed, he was sentenced for the crime of “swindling” (financial fraud), later reversed on grounds that Misha had made himself “essentially” a worker by good conduct.
Good piece with a simple thesis: The girlboss lifestyle would not exist if it were not massively subsidized.
Cheap immigrant labor to do their cooking, cleaning, and child care; student loans and the whole higher ed sector; email jobs that don’t need to exist; etc.