Links

I haven’t had as much time to really dive into this as I’d like, but that happens sometimes. Last month, Royce pointed out Harvard President Lawrence Summers’ remarks about women and their aptitude for sciences and asked me what I thought.

I wasn’t sure, but I ended up offering a limited defense of Summers — though not of what he said, for the simple fact that at the time there was no transcript, and all the reports were simply operating on second- or third-hand reports.

Well, a transcript of the session has been released, and from skimming it over, I’m more convinced than I was before that Summers was being a goob. Looks like I erred a bit too far on the side of caution on this one (though I’ll stand by that error — I’d far rather look at what someone did say than what someone else says that they said).

From the New York Times, via Daily Kos:

At that point, the Harvard leader suggested he believed that the innate aptitude of women was a factor behind their low numbers in the sciences and engineering.

“My best guess, to provoke you, of what’s behind all of this is that the largest phenomenon – by far – is the general clash between people’s legitimate family desires and employers’ current desire for high power and high intensity; that in the special case of science and engineering, there are issues of intrinsic aptitude, and particularly of the variability of aptitude; and that those considerations are reinforced by what are in fact lesser factors involving socialization and continuing discrimination,” Dr. Summers said, according to the transcript.

Slate’s William Saletan, who had what I felt was a good look at the original furor, has also come back to take another look at Summers’ remarks.

For more than a month, critics have accused Harvard President Larry Summers of using genetics to explain away sexism in society and academia. They’ve demanded that he release transcripts of the remarks in question, delivered at an academic conference on Jan. 14. On Thursday, facing calls for his resignation, Summers released the transcript. It shows his critics misconstrued or misrepresented him on numerous points. It also shows what he got wrong and why.

[…]

In short, Summers got a bum rap. So was his analysis of biological and cultural factors sound? The transcript answers that question, too. The answer is no. Summers grossly overreached the evidence, and he made a couple of glaring logical blunders.

Summers proposed “that in the special case of science and engineering, there are issues of intrinsic aptitude, and particularly of the variability of aptitude, and that those considerations are reinforced by what are in fact lesser factors involving socialization and continuing discrimination.” In other words, biology outweighs environment. No evidence he presented justifies this hypothesis.

[…]

Why did Summers make these mistakes? The transcript suggests two conflicting reasons. One is that he’s stubborn and argumentative. […] The other is that once he offers a hypothesis, he’d rather defend and extend it than listen objectively to the alternatives. He’s got an open mind but not an open heart.

I suspect this, rather than sexism, is the root of Summers’ errors, because a sexist wouldn’t have said what he said while displaying a second intellectual flaw evident in the transcript. Again and again, Summers warned his listeners to be skeptical of what they’d prefer to believe. We all want to believe socialization explains differences in male and female outcomes, he observed. Therefore, he reasoned, we should distrust that hypothesis and look for evidence to the contrary. He was so busy being skeptical of the popular explanation that he forgot to be skeptical of the unpopular one. He overstated the case for innate sex differences not because he wanted to believe it, but because he didn’t.

Whatever his reasons or justifications, now that we know what was said, it’s clear that Summers hasn’t been facing an undeserved controversy. It’ll be interesting to see how this plays out in the long run.

A very interesting thread popped up on MetaFilter yesterday (though I just found it this evening) after Las Vegas weatherman Rob Blair fumbled during a broadcast:

KTNV-TV, Channel 13, fired weekend weather anchor Rob Blair on Sunday, a day after he made an on-air racial slur about Martin Luther King Jr.

Jim Prather, vice president and general manager of KTNV, said Blair “stumbled” during a weather update at 7:55 a.m. Saturday but added that “this kind of incident is not acceptable under any circumstances, and I’m truly sorry that this event occurred.”

Blair was delivering the extended forecast when he said, “For tomorrow, 60 degrees, Martin Luther Coon King Jr. Day, gonna see some temperatures in the mid-60s.”

About 20 minutes later, Blair told viewers at the ABC affiliate, “Apparently I accidentally said Martin Luther Kong Jr., which I apologize about — slip of the tongue.”

He offered a full apology during Saturday’s 6 p.m. and 11 p.m. newscasts.

At 6:11 p.m., co-anchor Christina Brown, who is black, announced, “Right now we want to pause for a program note. Rob?”

Blair, seated at the news desk with co-anchors Brown and Shawn Boyd, said, “On a weather report earlier this morning, I made an accidental slip of the tongue when talking about the Martin Luther King holiday, and what I said was interpreted by many viewers as highly offensive. For that I offer my deepest apology. I in no way intended to offend anyone. I’m very sorry.”

MetaFilter user wbm\$tr posted a link to the story under the title “Unforgiveable Dumbness“:

Weatherman fired for on-air MLK day racial slur. I hope someone has video because I wouldn’t mind seeing this dood go out like a sucka.

From the start, there were two basic ways of interpreting the event, neither of which were very easy to verify without being able to see a video of the incident in question in order to attempt to determine just how egregious the slip-up was. Either it was a Freudian slip indicating nascent racism on Blair’s part — and fairly obviously, this was wbm\$tr’s assumption — or it was nothing more than a verbal fumble, replacing the ‘j’ in ‘Junior’ with the ‘k’ in King and recovering partway through.

Discussion on MeFi went back and forth…

I kind of doubt he intended to say it. Who would think they could get away with it? Who would do it to make a point? Nobody, really. Seems like an honest, unfortunate slip of the tongue. The apology was definitely warranted, but it sounds a bit reactionary to just fire him. I guess I’d have to hear the audio to be sure, though.

— Hidalgo

From the article “I made an accidental slip of the tongue when talking about the Martin Luther King holiday, and what I said was interpreted by many viewers as highly offensive. For that I offer my deepest apology. I in no way intended to offend anyone. I’m very sorry.””

I love how no one actually admits anything anymore (there was a recent ask metafilter post about this). There is a difference between saying “I said something offensive and I’m sorry” and “what I said was interpreted by many viewers as highly offensive… I’m sorry” (emphasis added).

I love that we’ve come to this. The message suddenly becomes “I said something that some people found fault with, and for just those people, I’m sorry if you were offended.” Real big of him.

— mathowie

As much as I suspect it slipped out because he uses that term in private, I should mention it is possible that he joined “king” and “junior” and caught himself midway. I once called an (Asian) friend a ‘gook’, because I blurred ‘geek’ and ‘goof’. I assure you, I was mortified, and until I clarified (and I think my horror made him believe me) he wasn’t too happy either.

— John Kenneth Fisher

God forbid if I ever said something I didn’t mean too.

It is certainly reasonable to think that he wouldn’t do this on purpose. Can you imagine how you would have felt to realize that not only did you screw up, but that you just said what you did on television on this holiday?

I am sure he was miserable. And, I would be too.

— UseyurBrain

I love how some people can be so sure this guy is a racist because of an article that gives no indication of whether the slur was intentional or a slip of the tongue. Without a video (or some corroborating evidence of him being a racist in some other facet of life), there is absolutely no way to tell whether he is deserving of the label.

The Closest I came was, “Martin Luther Jing Kunior”

But what about “Martin Luther Kun– (i mean) King Junior.” Need video evidence, and I tend to suspect it was innocent.

— rooftop secrets

At this point, it probably would have just eventually petered out, with some people convinced that Blair was a closet racist, and others equally convinced that it was an unfortunate slip of the tongue (for the record, I fell into the “unfortunate slip of the tongue” camp, being quite prone to similar slip-ups on a not irregular basis).

Then another MeFite came forward — and this time, it was someone who actually had some “insider knowledge” of the incident.

It’s interesting how quickly folks are willing to assume the worst without having seen the video clip. Our PR guy (who is black and gay, for what it’s worth) is the weatherman’s best friend. He is in the process of writing an op ed piece in defense of his friend which I will post when it is ready. Briefly here is the version I was told by our PR guy: This was the weatherman’s first on-air job. He is part American Indian and was raised going to black churches. He didn’t say what he was accused of saying, he simply got momentarily tongue-tied and wasn’t even aware that there was a problem until the station received one (1) phone call complaining. He then apologized on three separate broadcasts. The first he heard of being fired was when he opened the Sunday paper that morning.

— [agatha_magatha]

As promised, here is the op ed piece from Linton Johnson Chief Spokesperson, Department Manager, BART Media & Public Affairs. I would post a link, but it hasn’t been published yet.

As a black person, I am stunned, outraged and completely appalled with these so-called “African-American leaders” and everyone else who is joining in to call Rob Blair everything short of a racist. And I know Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. would be appalled, too.

During Dr. King’s “I have a dream” speech, he said that he wanted his children (and everyone else) to “…not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character…”

Well, as the son of a family heavily involved in the civil rights movement, and the nephew of a board member of the national NAACP, and most importantly, as a close and longtime friend of Rob Blair, I know the content of Rob Blair’s character. I can attest to the fact that he embodies the spirit of Dr. King, Jr. 

The baseless outrage people are expressing is a classic example of reverse racism. I say baseless, because people, including these so-called black leaders, are condemning Rob based on an incident even they admit they never saw!

They presume Rob is a racist, or harbors racist feelings based only on what a few people thought they heard him say.

First of all, if you look at the tape, it’s impossible to even understand what Rob said when he stumbled over Dr. King’s name.

But because Rob looks white (for the record, he’s part Native American) they rushed to judgment and automatically assumed that Rob said the word, “coon.”

Then they rushed to judgment once again and are now saying that clearly anyone who says “coon” must either be racist or harbor racial issues.

Think about it! Had a black person stumbled over the same word, do you think anyone would’ve heard “coon?” What’s more would they demand the black person’s termination? No!

Why should it be any different for Rob? Everyone who knows him can attest to the fact that Rob Blair embodies the spirit of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

If you knew Rob, you’d know he grew up singing gospel music in a black children’s choir.

If you knew Rob, you’d know he’s a man who most of his life has worshiped in Black churches.

If you knew Rob, you’d know he’s a man who made not one, but two trips to Jamaica to help rebuild the country after Hurricane Gilbert destroyed parts of it in 1988.

If you knew Rob, you’d know he’s a man who as a radio personality in Indiana, worked on projects to help bridge the racial divide in schools.

That is the content of Rob’s character. Judge Rob by the content of his character, not by the color of his skin. I assure you, Dr. King would.

— agatha_magatha

Being able to have someone with actual knowledge of an event like this happens all too rarely, and I’m very glad that agatha_magatha was able to come forward with the information they did. While the thread dies out soon afterward, there was at least one MeFite able to come forward and apologize for jumping to the wrong conclusion earlier.

well, based on what agatha_magatha has reported, i regret my earlier condemnation of the man.

it’s just that i’ve seen far too many people make “slips” like this and then swear up and down that b/c they’re friends with a few black people that they couldn’t possibly be racist or ever think any racist thoughts. which is absurd: i’ve yet to meet a person who is truly free of biases based on the construct known as race. so i’ve stopped giving people the benefit of the doubt with regard to this sort of thing, though, as always, if someone apologizes and is sincere, i’m ready to move on.

anyway, if it means anything, a_m, here’s one mefite (and black, though not a leader) who will look in the general direction of las vegas and say, “i apologize for unjustly convicting you in the court of public opinion, mr. rob blair.”

— [lord_wolf]

As of when I’m posting this, wbm\$tr has yet to make another appearance on the thread.

”Sunchyme (Sash Extended)“ by Dario G from the album Sunchyme (1997, 5:40).