Comments

Resign?

Tom - you are the constant advocate of all things women - WE understand your target market of women and China/India. How is that bias different than Larry stating the facts about placement levels at Harvard University? LIBERAL SHOULD EMBRACE ALL VIEWS.

Posted by John at March 1, 2005 11:28 AM

To all the 'Johns' of the world: Liberal doesn't equate with undermine.

Perhaps Larry doesn't need to leave Harvard, but perhaps stepping down from his post to work for a woman may be a change in the right direction.

Posted by EC Stewart at March 1, 2005 11:37 AM

Not sure I agree with you, great one.

Why is resigning an appropriate response? How does walking away help address this problem? Somewhere along the way, resignation (instead of hari kari or paying a fine or begging) became the appropriate blue state response to scandal.

I think Larry is doing women plenty of good staying right where he is.

Posted by seth godin at March 1, 2005 11:59 AM

Is it really the messanger that needs to resign or the message...

A quote from Larry's speech that inflects his own personal opinion with what the science reflects...

So my sense is that the unfortunate truth-I would far prefer to believe something else, because it would be easier to address what is surely a serious social problem if something else were true-is that the combination of the high-powered job hypothesis and the differing variances probably explains a fair amount of this problem.

Posted by Brian at March 1, 2005 12:29 PM

Maybe the question shouldn't be whether Larry Summers should resign because of the contents of his comments, but because he made the comments he did, when and where he made them. I think this is question of judgement. I understand that he was trying to be provocative, and I understand that there are a lot of arguements on both sides of the issue, but putting his personal "theory" out there the way he did seems - for lack of a better term - stupid to me.

This man is the head of the most prestigious university in the US and probably the world for that matter. His willingness to show such poor judgement in his personal theories about gender, gives me pause to ask what other theories he has about other things, like how students should be educated and how research funds should be allocated. If I had a child who was looking at colleges to attend and Harvard was on the list before Larry made his comments, I'd encourage them to find somewhere where the person in charge was a little more grounded.

Does Harvard need to shake things up? Probably? Is this a case of gender bias? I'm not sure, but I think it is. Are the comments that Larry Summers made grounds for calling for his resignation? Maybe. Is his lack of judgement in saying what he said an even better reason? You bet.

Tom, this is a very round about way of saying I absolutely agree with you.

Posted by Andrew Hayden at March 1, 2005 12:47 PM

read the transcript and thought larry made some very interesting points - like those on work commitment demands from organizations and I thought his conclusion was worth reading for balance to the time piece:

"Let me just conclude by saying that I've given you my best guesses after a fair amount of reading the literature and a lot of talking to people. They may be all wrong. I will have served my purpose if I have provoked thought on this question and provoked the marshalling of evidence to contradict what I have said. But I think we all need to be thinking very hard about how to do better on these issues and that they are too important to sentimentalize rather than to think about in as rigorous and careful ways as we can. That's why I think conferences like this are very, very valuable. Thank you"

Posted by Dave at March 1, 2005 1:05 PM

Seth, Great One, not sure I agree with me either. Summers has a mouth. As I recall he barely escaped professional death at the World Bank years ago when he argued that support for the poor just generated more poor, or some such. You must begin by understanding how much I hate economists. Smug F****** who believe that rational analysis is the "first 100%." I think women have fought a very good fight against male-defined society for a century or three now. Lar is doubtless "right," but I just don't think we need this shit from the Prexy of Haaaavaaad. (Frankly, I'm no Harvard fan, so I actually love their agony. They define Absolutely Nothing for me. Now STANFORD ... another story.) Anyway I don't see this as a debate about "analytics," but a gut shot at Women who have clawed their way to/toward the top in male-delineated society for decades now. For God's sake, "we" only gave "them" the vote a few years ago (the perspective of a 62-year-old).

Posted by tom peters at March 1, 2005 2:18 PM

What Seth said.

Full disclosure: I went to Harvard as an undergrad, and I've seen Mr. Summers speak in person (summer 2003, shortly after he became President). He's pretty intellectually rigorous.

Hysteria tends to inhibit constructive discussion. I don't think the media coverage has really advanced the national debate in this case.

Not that I don't like Tom's use of !!!!

Posted by Mike Duffy at March 1, 2005 3:17 PM

The scary thing to me is that the rule of science has become consensus. Anyone who bucks the trend is branded a heretic. Another problem is that presentations are being boiled down into sound bites that don't serve as accurate microcosms of their origins.

Seems like we have a clash of the brands. Brand Woman, Brand Harvard, and Brand Larry Summers. What you're saying is Brand Harvard needs to dump Brand Larry Summers or Brand Woman is going to eat them alive. Looks like due diligence loses again.

Posted by Dustin at March 1, 2005 3:32 PM

Tom, as a woman planted firmly in a big blue state, I'm so very disappointed. If he should resign, let it be for four years of failing to reconcile fractious faculty groups; for a dreadful record of hiring women faculty; for inspiring deep resentment instead of offering charismatic leadership; even for poor judgment. But ask him to resign for making intellectually challenging remarks that he himself admitted were deliberately provocative? No.

Between this tempest and all the drama over Carly Fiorina ("Fired for Being a Girl! Film at 11!"), it's as though feminism never happened. If we ask people to resign, let's do it because they did an old-fashioned Bad Job - as she did - rather than because they say something shocking (to some) that is nevertheless still the subject of serious academic debate.

Posted by Jennifer Warwick at March 1, 2005 4:05 PM

And Tom - it is always the moderates like Larry and Mr. Rumsfeld that you go after - the far left skates free here.

Posted by Sean at March 1, 2005 5:28 PM

Dan Rather is gone, effectively. I have long been a very vocal Rumsfeld fan--though I was furious about his not signing the death letters. And I don't have the same Kofi Annan animus that some of you seem to have. Does every damn remark made about any human being in this country have to be parsed through a left-right filter? Lord, that gets tiring. It is the only negative about blogging, having to worry incessantly about left-right crap, which ordinarily doesn't register on my radar screen from one day to the next. Excuse my ire, it's been a long couple of weeks of capitalist speech-giving and awful travel.

Posted by tom peters at March 1, 2005 6:10 PM

FYI, last I heard LS is a card=carrying "leftie" Democrat; hey, he was Bill Clinton's Treasury Sec, right? (Speaking of Bill, I'd pick Rubin & Summers at Treasury over O'Neill & Snow in a flash.)

Posted by tom peters at March 1, 2005 6:12 PM

Okay I promise to lighten up - I get it.

Posted by Sean at March 1, 2005 7:19 PM

Hey, Sean, we're cool on this. I greatly value your comments. I'm just short on sleep!

Posted by tom peters at March 1, 2005 8:03 PM

C'mon tom ... if he'd said that women are better at something than men are would you expect him to resign? Or if he'd said that men are not as good at something would you expect him to resign? aren't these two the same? Political correctness does not address problems ... it often just makes them become ignored for fear of retribution. The normal distribution rules in most arenas, like it or not!

Posted by Duke at March 1, 2005 10:06 PM

As Brad suggested, I read Summers' complete transcript including the Q&A. I knew very little about his views and reputation prior to all the publicity surrounding these remarks. If one reads these remarks and has no other information on which to form an opinion on Mr. Summers' fitness to lead Harvard University, they should be favorably impressed. He is clear about the value of diversity, he repeatedly makes the point that his remarks represent a hypothesis and are intended to be provocative, he suggests the need for research to investigate and test the hyptothesis.

Most interestingly to me is his point about the variability of many attributes being greater for males than females. He suggests there is clear evidence of this. If this is so, his hypothesis that at the very highest levels of expertise/performance/skill/achievement it is natural to see more males is very valid (as a hypothesis). It is also an equally valid hypothesis that at the very lowest levels of expertise/etc that we would see more males.

If the anger at Mr. Summers is based solely on these remarks it is misplaced and unwarranted.

Posted by Preston at March 2, 2005 1:03 AM

Tom, I never expected to hear "thought police" remarks from you. If you hadn't spent a career expressing controversial positions, I highly doubt you'd have half the loyal following you do (and I proudly count myself as one of your loyal followers).

Why, exactly, should Larry Summers resign? For postulating a politically-incorrect theory? I think your comments on this topic were over-the-top.

Posted by chuck at March 2, 2005 1:40 AM

Geez, you are a Democrat. Now I believe it.

Posted by AH at March 2, 2005 2:06 AM

Tom:

The only woman got it right! Jennifer W. said it: fire the guy for doing a bad job- don't fire him for making provocative remarks. His remarks about women are far less offensive than the fact that he hired very few of them. Unless you believe that this was his justification.

Posted by Bob Niederman at March 2, 2005 2:51 AM

Oh OK Bob "the only woman got it right" - just what we need gender bias against being men "and hiring few women".

Posted by John at March 2, 2005 7:39 AM

I think your comments are basically correct, and that I should back off. (Learn from blogging!) I have indeed made a career from being un-PC.

I am, politics aside, and I don't consider this political, a feminist. My reading of history reveals a thousands of years old conspiracy by males to demean & shortchange women. Some say it's a struggle more poiignant than slavery. In the last 100 years women have made exceptional progress, politically and professionally. Today the struggle for women's freedom in Islamic countries is paramount; the progress in Afganistan & Iraq is heartening. And there's an interview in the current Time or Newsweek with the Saudi Foreign Minister supporting women's votes in municipal elections; he even says he thinks women will be more thoughtful voters than men.

The Generic Global Women's Struggle is a Big Deal to me. Should Larry Summers resign for un-PC remarks? No! I object as I said to the "innocence" of the economist's way of framing issues; it's almost like that old line, "They know the price of everything and the value of nothing."

Harvard's president, and I am no fan of the institution (training ground for the privileged, mostly), is a World Leader. I appreciate his efforts to be provocative in an institution that needs it. I simply wish he hadn't stirred up a hornets nest around this issue. It was a "clever" set of remarks that would have better been left unsaid in my opinion. And he does have a long history of smug intellectual arrogance that should be constrained upon occasion.

I am considered outspoken, and I do speak my mind in this Blog. I assure you in my public utterances on stage, which people call provocative, I censor myself with great regularity--it's called being civilized and dealing with the sensibilities of the times.

I am delighted at this debate. I am thrilled at your responses, particularly the critical ones, I am learning from you--who on earth could ask for more!

Larry won't resign, he may learn to watch his mouth a little, and the debate he started will perhaps be useful. Please don't forget my opening line: Read the useful Time cover story this week; I'd like to hear your comments on that. Women are going to college and staying far more than men, and taking more science collectively than we are. In this age of "intellectual capital," there is now a legitimate fear that boys may be drifting toward irrelevance and marginalization. I surely do not welcome that. Maybe Summers ought to be worried about it.

I do not like to think that equality is a political issue. Democrats may have of late (Roosevelt, Johnson) been more activist, but let us never forget that America's greatest champion of Equality was a pioneering Republican, the signer of the Emancipation Proclamation & Savior of the Union, Abraham Lincoln.

Posted by tom peters at March 2, 2005 7:45 AM

Thanks Tom for the summary. "Affirmative Action" though has been a big divider in the USA - choosing gender and color/ethnicity rather than talent and professionalism - basically discounting white/Asian USA males.

It is amazing World-wide though - especially under Islam and in many African nations how women are discounted and demeaned.

Posted by John at March 2, 2005 11:51 AM

"My reading of history reveals thousands of years old conspiracy by males to demean and shortchange women. Some say it's a struggle more poignant than slavery." -- Tom Peters (see above)

Wow.

"The most likely explanations, he [Summers] said, are that 1) women are just not so interested as men in making the sacrifices required by high-powered jobs, 2) men may have more "intrinsic aptitude" for high-level science and 3) women may be victims of old-fashioned discrimination. "In my own view, their importance probably ranks in exactly the order that I just described," he announced" -- Time Magazine, Amanda Ripley, Who Says A Woman Can't Be Einstein

Hmmmm ....

Tom, the biography of Madame Curie by Goldsmith you gave me to read and I just finished, sheds a great deal of light on how it "used to be" -- maybe still is -- if you are the unfortunate combination of a scientific genius AND a woman. Everyone should read it.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0393051374/qid=1109777469/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-7376246-6417718?v=glance&s=books

I'm at Harvard next week to meet up with Gerhard Sonnert, who's research is specifically about Women In Science -- can I wait to comment more on this later? He's brilliant and sympathetic to these issues, and ironically studying quietly in the middle of the Harvard tornado.

All I would say now is that I am almost thankful for Summers foot-in-mouth comments, just as we were thankful that Ronald Reagan's illness brought Altzheimer's disease and stem cell research right into the spotlight, center stage.

As you and I both know, the National Science Foundation takes this subject VERY SERIOUSLY and has funded The National Center For Women And Information Technology (www.ncwit.org) to study it and make necessary change happen. As you are on their Executive Advisory Council and I'm their Writer-in-Residence, we both know there's no going back now. These questions have to be asked, have to be answered.

What I want is to have a heated and INFORMED discussion about it. As you have said, if only from a business and innovation standpoint, the notion that women are not embracing and not being embraced by high tech, biotech and all the other sciences for that matter, is very disappointing for our country and for the world.

Posted by Halley Suitt at March 2, 2005 11:58 AM

BTW, when I ask for a heated and INFORMED discussion, I don't mean in any way to say these comments are lacking -- hardly -- I think they are great. I think rather the general public is dragging this story from pillar to post and using it in many ways and for many purposes, and not taking time to really read the new research and see what the real issues are.

Posted by Halley at March 2, 2005 12:10 PM

Far be it from me to not post in a gender-related debate. I've read more about the aftermath than the actual speech (I read the speech just now). I have to agree with those who think Summers should stay (at least, he shouldn't leave for this incident alone). He reminds me a bit of Martin Sheen's President on the West Wing--he actually has an opinion, despite having brilliant minds surrounding him. Only in this case, he didn't have a press secretary screen them. I would have been disappointed if he diluted his statements, which stemmed from a concerted research effort and true opinion, to please the crowd.

Now, on a completely different topic, which I think is getting mixed into the speech much like Al Quaeda was stirred into Iraq, he's apparently a sucky leader. He's offensive and brash, and perhaps all of the hullabaloo over this speech is the public/faculty's way of getting Summers fired. They are, in effect, pulling the guy over for having bad license plates in an attempt to catch him on a much larger charge.

Posted by Jory Des Jardins at March 2, 2005 1:13 PM

If you're going to fail... fail big. And publicly.

Whatever the stance on it, it's the first time I recall women-in-business actually being talked about in the press with any urgency in quite a while.

Posted by shua at March 2, 2005 1:41 PM

I have worked in two continents - NA in US and Asia in India. I worked in large consulting companies in both the countries.. and my group had more women than men (approx. 60% were women). Its been a greater fight for women in a country like India than US.. however, they had the right to vote in India much earlier than they did here (1947).. interesting!

My personal belief is that both the sexes do NOT have to be "equal".. this simply and AGAIN.. puts women on a "male-constructed" pedestal. Let us learn to enjoy the "diversity" in the sexes.. or do we want to "WAL-MART-IZE" the world of gender too!!!

In my biology class back home in my high school, I was taught that women as a species are more advanced... why? because as the species have advanced .. their body systems get more defined and therefore more differentiated (amoeba vs a reptile).. eg in this case: reproductive and excretory systems of women are segregated as opposed to men's.

Now having said that, "we" the men, need to back off a little bit!! Women need to find their own place in this big wide world.. and they will do it.. without our help! They are capable... and they have done it time and again.. they do NOT need anyone's patronizing. least of all.. of her prosecuters over the centuries!!

- desh
www.deshkapoor.org

Posted by desh at March 2, 2005 3:26 PM

I think the discussion about why women have less natural qualities for science is absolutely viced. It supposes scientific work depends exclusively on rational work with data. Women, they say, have less physiological qualities to persist in scientific work and succeed. I think this is false for many different reasons. Here go some:

- We all know that many of the most succesful discoveries happened just by chance. They were lucky happenings, such as Penicilin. Recently, I read an interview to an investigator of AIDS vacune and he said it´s very probable that the vacune will be the result of a failed experiment or just the result of a chanceful connection.

- Despite women and men are different organically it is a very limited thought to isolate just some qualities of the cerebral mechanism to say that success in scientific work depends solely on the development of those characteristically male traits. It´s just to limit reasoning to an isolated group of characterisitics which cannot explain the whole output of a working activity.

Posted by felix gerena at March 2, 2005 5:41 PM

I thought I would connect some dots here on a discussion that happened while back about a piece Halley wrote called Girlism. It happened over in Shelly's place.

http://weblog.burningbird.net/archives/2002/11/25/girlism/

Chris Locke chimed in with this:

"The salient line for me in what Halley wrote is “It’s about power…” As a statement of fact and widespread practice, I think that’s right. Sadly. We have reduced ourselves to commodities subject to supply and demand.

Desire has been harnessed to the engine of commerce and the result is volunteer slavery among the walking sandwich-board people advertising themselves at such and such a price. This breeds violence as much as coke or smack or guns, but the trade is not across international borders, it’s across the living room, the dance floor, the cube farm, the web. Girlism is patriarchy turned on its head (and Halley, I know you know this). A simple inversion of who’s on first. As Carol Gilligan points out, its the “archy” as in hierarchy that’s the problem – it just happens that The Father (think God) is currently in the missionary-position saddle. Putting Mom or Britney there doesn’t change a goddam thing.

The opposite of a hierarchy is a network. Not top-down, but bottom-up and outside-in. No masters, no slaves, no beasts of burden or domineering goddesses. As I once wrote somewhere, we are audience to each other. As Eminem says, to the actual point, find your voice."

I popped in with this:

"You don’t fight male domination with female domination.

We need to educate or stop the perpetrators not cheer on the underdog. That creates another set of problems.

People who are full tilt discriminators without valued awareness need to be cut."

My thoughts were adapted and massaged from a book from Jonar Nader entitled "How To Lose Friends and Infuriate Your Boss."

Just connecting dots here...

Posted by Jonathon Mays at March 2, 2005 7:09 PM

Pardon me if I missed it referenced above, but the most recent issue of the Atlantic Monthly has an article about how "getting in isn't as hard as getting an education once you're there." Truly compelling stuff. This--and all the comments on this blogpost--only adds to the sentiments of a friend of mine who is a baseball front office executive, who recently spoke to a group of Harvard Business School students. He was astonished at how "bookish" (read "unrealistic"; being nice here) the students thoughts and questions were. What's going on around Hahvahd Yahd?

Posted by Lee H. Igel at March 2, 2005 7:36 PM

Invest in yourself so the Free Agent Nation lives on.

Posted by Sean at March 2, 2005 8:01 PM

Compared to Wacko Jacko and lazy boy Kobe Bryant settling with his victim - the Larry story is a snoozer.

Posted by Sean at March 2, 2005 8:42 PM

What's happening, Tom? This is just blatant political correctness, the kind one would expect in acedemia. Do we make improvements by pretending that we are already getting the result we desire? How can a group of people brainstorm about an important issue, if they are not allowed to speak about these issues. I am afraid you may need to relook at this one. I am no fan of Mr. Summers, be he is being served up in the name of PC--and that doesn't help anybody.

Posted by S. Anthony Iannarino at March 2, 2005 10:56 PM

If I had to do it all over again, I wouldn't change a word. I am probably wrong, but I am very excited about the debate!

Posted by tom peters at March 3, 2005 2:34 AM

Once there was a Mr. Smith - who was jumping around waving his hands wildly and running on streets of London in gay abandon. He soon hit Ms Wilson on her nose who started to bleed. He was caught and produced before the Magistrate. His defense was: "I am a free man in a free country, My Lord, I can do WHATEVER I like!"

"Agreed" said the magistrate, "but your freedom STOPS where someone else's nose STARTS!"

To me, that is a good definition of freedom. ANY freedom - like freedom of speech and expression also.

The problem however, is that we have created little boxes for ourselves - red & blue, left & right (heck, we create a new "pair" of boxes every season!!)- and the noses of people representing each of the boxes have grown too long... such that there is little free expression. It is often difficult to say a word these days without offending anyone!

Guys, lets get it right.. women are a higher species.. in our next evolutionary stage, we men, will be "them", and because of that evolutionary backwardness.. we are different! Now in what areas and what measures.. good debate!

Summers' problem was Mr. Smith-like.. he waved a little too wildly... probably forgot discretion for a bit. Maybe deliberately? Nevertheless, he did a favor and brought this topic in to the limelight like never before!

Posted by desh at March 3, 2005 7:30 AM

If you take the time to read the entire transcript -- as Brad suggested -- it's difficult to see this as anything other than the press making this out to be more than it is. Political Correctness roars it's silly head again.

My understanding is that there is a factual basis to back up many of Larry's assertions. Should he be the scapegoat because he dared to discuss this issue?

Everyone advocates their core group today -- and watch out if you offend them in any way. The "Crazy About You" teddy bear dressed in a straight jacket offends mental health advocacy groups; the "Road Kill" gummy bears are pulled after animal rights activists complain, and so on and so on.

Women have reason to complain about how they've been treated in the past. They have reason to complain of any current bias that is preventing them from achieving the highest ranks possible in all fields of business.

Calling for Larry's resignation solves nothing. Instead, let's forget political correctness, look dispassionately at the facts, and do what's necessary to promote deserving women in all areas -- including science and engineering.

viagra generic paypal

Al

Posted by Al Nye at March 3, 2005 10:01 AM

Bravo Trevor! I totally agree. We can run this debate around in circles all we want. It's not a red state or blue state issue, it is about the future and how we, as business people are going to compete.

To Tom's original point, if you read the Time article there may be a thread of truth to some of what Larry said, but the reality is that we need more women in all professions and vocations. Not that men or women are necessarily better at things, but that our combined talents and inate characteristics are a whole lot more effective than one alone.

The bad news for some of you guys is we NEED more women around us to compete and win, to give us their insight and to strengthen our/their businesses.

Posted by Andrew Hayden at March 3, 2005 11:04 AM

Wonderful Andrew - my point entirely - and very eloquently put.

Thanks for your support.

I am all for fairness, equality and diversity .... but we are adults for god sake.

When I hear 'political correctness gone crazy' I am reminded of my great old professors latin expression 'CUI BONO' - translation - 'for whose benefit?'

Trevor

Posted by Trevor Gay at March 3, 2005 12:27 PM

I try not to be biased ...until it comes to football (soccer)

Manchester United are the best team in the world - now that is bias!!!

Keep up the banter

Posted by Trevor Gay at March 3, 2005 1:36 PM

The real free enterprise community tunes into family, community, faith, and homeland.

Posted by Sean at March 3, 2005 9:06 PM

Trevor, I agree with you that women are much better than men at the "relationship stuff" and that this will continue to (appropriately) become more important in business. There will also be those businesses that over-react and in their attempt to improve the relationship dimension of their activities fail to perform at an acceptable level in the "task" dimension of their activities. As usual the winners will be those that can find the right balance between relationships and tasks.

This whole furor over Summers' remarks can be attributed to our "generalizations". Generalizations are probabilistic statements that while they may be true for a population as a whole are not true in every individual instance. It is a generalization to say that "women are better at relationships" and I believe it is true that women are on average better at relationships. That does not mean that any individual women is better than any individual man at relationships. It is an interesting observation to state the generalization but if I am hiring a relationship manager should I only interview women because the odds are better and my search will be more efficient? I hope not. The bottom line for me is that generalizations are dangerous. Let's assess the individual, this country has historically celebrated individuality. This has been and can be a competitive advantage. It is also an attitude that can help remove the bias that we are all (Summers included) acknowledging still exists against women in too many areas.

Posted by Preston at March 4, 2005 12:42 AM

It's funny watching the leftists fry one of their own.

Modern academia is a perfect example of how the left hates free speech. Or you can look at countries like Canada, France, and Germany for leftist thought-police laws.

Posted by roy batty at March 4, 2005 10:09 AM

Well said Roy.

Posted by Ted at March 4, 2005 11:34 AM

Tom, I agree wholeheartedly with your comment on March 1 about the left/right filter... Tom said, "Does every damn remark made about any human being in this country have to be parsed through a left-right filter? Lord, that gets tiring." I say, why does everything have to be so black/white??!! What's wrong with grey!

Posted by Jeff P at March 4, 2005 5:12 PM

Thanks for that feedback Preston - appreciated

I agree with you - individuality must never be compromised by generality - amen to that my friend.

At the same time I do really think women are better at relatinship stuff than men but as per my original post I have had fabulous bosses of both sexes!!

Why oh why can we not see the individual as central instead of always trying to 'herd individuals' into groups?

Great discussion

Greetings again from over the ond

Trevor

Posted by Trevor Gay at March 4, 2005 6:25 PM

I think this is a topic to be discussed by everybody but to decide if LS has to be fired has to come from the faculty and students of Harvard. Since when did Harvard become the government and the Harvard president have to undergo a national impeachment for some 'controversial' comment he made!btw Tom, dont know if u like Harvard or not..you wouldn't pay this close an attention if it din't hit the headlines on CNN or FOX or if it happened in a college down in Louisiana!!
My arguement: How hard is it for a group of Harvard professors to put their heads together and figure out if LS's comments are substantiated with research publications and if not, why would he want to make a PUBLIC commment on it? He made the comment as the president of the university and hence, needs to be taken off the position if his remarks are not substantiated!ELSE keep him right there and dont listen to the anybody who can talk bout anything ones..

Posted by Mahesh at March 6, 2005 11:29 AM

cheap female viagra

TOM:
I am surprised that you did not put emphasis today (March 8th) on Women's International Day. Even Google changed their logo for the day!

Posted by Serge Labelle at March 9, 2005 12:20 AM