E-Letter responses to:

editorial: Donald Kennedy Summers and Harvard Science 2006; 311: 1345 [Summary] [PDF]

E-Letters: Submit a response to this article

Published E-Letter responses:

History repeats itself

Ping Li   (22 March 2006)

Kennedy's Analysis of Summers' Resignation Questionable

Jordan Jarjour   (14 March 2006)

History repeats itself 22 March 2006
Ping Li, Professor of Psychology University of Richmond Respond to this E-Letter: Re: History repeats itself	Your letter on Summers and Harvard is insightful. In particular, I found your following statement helpful in understanding a number of cases---not just at Harvard but also elsewhere: "The real story here is a classic tragedy: a brilliant thinker and scholar, capable of great leadership, brought low by flaws of personal style." This statement captures well what has been happening at the University of Richmond since October 2005 -- for a detailed description; see my article, War on Language (Richmond Times-Dispatch, Dec. 11, 2005; http://cogsci.richmond.edu). When history repeats itself, lessons can be drawn. In this case, it seems that great leadership can be significantly compromised if care is not taken to handle interpersonal matters, which sometimes may have nothing to do with the vision and success of the enterprise.
Kennedy's Analysis of Summers' Resignation Questionable 14 March 2006
Jordan Jarjour, Graduate Student, Immunology University of Washington Respond to this E-Letter: Re: Kennedy's Analysis of Summers' Resignation Questionable	As a graduate student, I am in no position to contend with Donald Kennedy's understanding of power struggles in the realm of academic administration, and he is most certainly correct in his conclusion that Summers' failure to consolidate power using lateral diplomacy played a major role in his premature resignation at Harvard. Despite this, I was disappointed in Kennedy's summary on two accounts. First, it seems clear that Mr. Kennedy has not read, or has willfully forgotten, the transcript of Larry Summers' speech at the 'off-the-record' meeting which included, but certainly was not limited to, his hypotheses on gender differences in scientific aptitude. If he had read this then I suspect that he would not have honestly made the claim that "had that possibility been introduced with tact and some reservations, it is doubtful that it would have produced the same furor." In fact this possiblity was introduced with a very high degree of reservation, apology, and skepticism, and I submit that there is no way in which this claim can be introduced that doesn't incite furor from the politically correct academic establishment. Larry Summers' case is de facto evidence that this is a basic truism of academia, and it is disappointing that Kennedy has so naively dismissed the slippery slope of politically incorrect, provocative, or interesting speaking on matters of gender differences. Second, Kennedy's unprofound conclusion, that "it failed not because of political differences or constituency mischief...a brilliant thinker brought low by flaws of personal style" is an admission to discrimination on the basis of character. Can someone be effectively ousted from their position based on "personal style", especially if their perfomance has been exceptional? I can think of a number of individuals with personal styles that have constitutional protection with regard to employment and which I would bet that Kennedy would not dare suggest as an acceptable reason for dismissal. Kennedy would engage his readers more effectively if he would take a position that wasn't bland, hypocritical, and suggestively illegal. The relevance of the true reasons behind Summers' departure is of greater importance than Kennedy admits. Both the academic and scientific communities are worse off by timid excuses riddled by censorship substituting for honest intellectual explanation.