Talk:Lawrence Summers

Personal attack

I removed this:

In January 2005, Summers gave a speech at an NBER conference which explained the reasons that tenure offers to females at Harvard have been dropping steadily under his administration. It appears that Summers is a misogynist who goes so far as to use anecdotes about his own daughter to denigrate the potential of women.

I consider this to be entirely POV. Feel free to describe the issue, but an introduction followed by a conclusion, with no evidence, is not what Wikipedia needs. — PhilHibbs | talk 16:19, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

More on 2005 talk

I question whether this news blurb about the talk in 2005 deserves coverage in an encyclopedia. It was a few comments at a closed conference attended by a small collection of scholars. The NYTimes article mentions that no transcripts were recorded because the conference was intended to be off the record so that people could say controversial things without being misunderstood. Consequently, the public only has some idea of what he actually said, and very little idea of the context. I move that the paragraph and external link be removed. MOE37x3 17:23, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It was very widely reported (just check http://news.google.com/ ) and therefore noteworthy in the context of an article about the man. The fact of being off-the-record comments widely publicized or taken out of context is not relevant; there have been many such cases in history that have become newsworthy. It deserves a single, balanced paragraph. -- Curps 17:52, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Not everything that is very widely reported for a day belongs in an encyclopedia entry about a person's life. This is something that would probably not even make it into a biography of the man, much less an encyclopedia entry. I think that this will only be "newsworthy" in an encyclopedic sense if it has some impact beyond a bunch of people complaining about it and a bunch of newspapers reporting about it for a day. MOE37x3 21:04, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

On the contrary, any biography would almost certainly mention it. The remarks put him at odds with some of his own university professors, and any biography chapter on his time as Harvard president could hardly avoid mentioning it. He has a reputation for speaking frankly and boldly and risking misinterpretation on occasion (eg, the Summers memo), and for not shying away from confrontation (Cornel West). Any biography would explore this side of his personality and analyze the episodes involved.

You seem to be arguing that people made too much of the remark and it wasn't really a big deal. I tend to agree that it shouldn't have been a big deal, except people did make a big deal out of it and it thereby became noteworthy. Often things like this take on a life of their own. Again, it deserved a brief, balanced mention. -- Curps 21:48, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Pinker

Huangdi: Your one-word justification for removing Pinker's strong defense of Summers, "mischaracterized" is cryptic and unhelpful. Can you explain why this deserves to be removed? MOE37x3 15:19, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I reinserted a copyedited version pending a real reason for its removal. jdb ❋ (talk) 19:19, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Controversies

I realize that Summers is a controversial figure but I find it incongruous that an encyclopedia biography should devote almost twice as much space to "controversies" as it does to the rest of his life and career. The body of the article is virtually a stub. Shouldn't his life be expanded and, most particularly, the controversy section edited down? I'm not suggesting deleting material, just editing it. I don't want to do this without some comment. WBcoleman 02:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Party Affiliation

Larry Summers has worked in both the Clinton and Reagan administrations. Does anyone know what his official party affiliation is? 152.17.125.18 18:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Religious affiliation

Is he a jew (since his uncle apparently is)? -- 129.13.186.1 23:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Race Card"?

The article states: "In 2002, Summers controversially used the race card, stating that a campaign by Harvard and MIT faculty to have their universities divest from companies with Israeli holdings was part of a larger trend among left-leaning academics that is 'anti-Semitic in effect, if not in intent.'" How is this "[using] the race card"? Are Jews a distinct race? Can he not critique such a policy without concern as to race? It makes no sense.