The Tiger Lady
Here is a Wall Street Journal interview with Princeton's President Shirley Tilghman. And as a Princeton alum, there's plenty in the interview that makes me uncomfortable with the University's leader.
Responding to the criticism that she's practiced gender-based affirmative action, Tilghman says,
Implied by such a criticism is an underlying assumption that there aren't talented women out there who would be extremely effective leaders in a university like Princeton. And given that 50% of our students are women, I would have thought this view would have disappeared from Princeton many, many years ago.
That's hardly what the criticism implies. What it implies is that the President of Princeton thinks she has to take special note of gender in making high level appointments. That would seem to mean one of two things: That women can't get the jobs without special consideration, OR that sexism is so ubiquitous everywhere else that it's the reason her choices of women for high level positions looks so unusual. Neither is a healthy message for young women students.
Note also that she has no problem continuing to charge students for full tuition, even though it could be provided free. Why? Because they (or, more properly, their parents) can afford it. Sounds a little "from each according to their ability," doesn't it?
Finally, it's amazing that Shirley Tilghman thinks that because no student has complained to her about liberal bias on campus, it can't be happening. Please. Just from what I read about her in Princeton Alumni Weekly and in interviews like this one, I'd know -- as a student -- that it would probably be at best useless to talk to her about political bias, at worst, potentially risky.
After all, Tilghman wasn't afraid to go after Lawrence Summers when he offended her notions of what's politically correct. Why, exactly, would a lowly conservative student have a chance for a fair hearing from her?
Update: The Manhattan Institute's brilliant Heather McDonald has commented on the article, as well, over at Powerline. (Thanks to emailer Dan for the heads up).
Responding to the criticism that she's practiced gender-based affirmative action, Tilghman says,
Implied by such a criticism is an underlying assumption that there aren't talented women out there who would be extremely effective leaders in a university like Princeton. And given that 50% of our students are women, I would have thought this view would have disappeared from Princeton many, many years ago.
That's hardly what the criticism implies. What it implies is that the President of Princeton thinks she has to take special note of gender in making high level appointments. That would seem to mean one of two things: That women can't get the jobs without special consideration, OR that sexism is so ubiquitous everywhere else that it's the reason her choices of women for high level positions looks so unusual. Neither is a healthy message for young women students.
Note also that she has no problem continuing to charge students for full tuition, even though it could be provided free. Why? Because they (or, more properly, their parents) can afford it. Sounds a little "from each according to their ability," doesn't it?
Finally, it's amazing that Shirley Tilghman thinks that because no student has complained to her about liberal bias on campus, it can't be happening. Please. Just from what I read about her in Princeton Alumni Weekly and in interviews like this one, I'd know -- as a student -- that it would probably be at best useless to talk to her about political bias, at worst, potentially risky.
After all, Tilghman wasn't afraid to go after Lawrence Summers when he offended her notions of what's politically correct. Why, exactly, would a lowly conservative student have a chance for a fair hearing from her?
Update: The Manhattan Institute's brilliant Heather McDonald has commented on the article, as well, over at Powerline. (Thanks to emailer Dan for the heads up).
posted by LadybugUSA at 8:26 PM
6 Comments:
Carol, I know this stuff means a lot to you, but in case you haven't noticed, the Middle East is lurching toward a full-on regional war. And Iraq is sliding toward a level of destabilization that will make our first three years there feel like a picnic.
Despite all your WISHING the networks would show the good things going on in Iraq, the fact remains that the BIG story (or question) is where the country is headed. Yes, we have wonderful citizen soldiers doing great humanitarian things on a one-on-one basis with many of the Iraqis. They make me proud as an American.
But for you to continue to assert that the perception of what is going on in Iraq is one that has been "assiduously spread by the MSM" and not indicative of what is going on there is irresponsible.
Today at least 48 people were gunned down at a market in Mahmudiya (sp?) by Sunni gunmen. Yesterday, it was the Shiites turn; the day before that the Sunnis. Carol, this is the prelude to full-scale civil war, and contrary to what others around here claim, it is YOUR and THEIR heads that are stuck in the sand.
If you really do seek to be seen as someone with credibility and not simply a hack, you will at some point have to acknowledge some harsh truths and provide some "balance" to your own "coverage" of the landscape.
Duke-Stir and Dittohead:
As you know, I have repeated again and again that you are welcome to post on this site. I have also repeatedly mentioned that I receive emails complaining about the tenor and content of your comments.
From here on out, I am specifically asking you to abide by the following rules: When you comment, please restrict your comments to the subject of the post to which they are attached. In addition, please refrain from calling me or any of the other commenters on this site "hacks" or "liars" or "fabricators" or any other insulting terms.
You are, once again, more than welcome to visit and participate here. But once again, that welcome is conditional on certain minimum levels of civility being observed.
Carol, when others refer to your liberal readers as "pathetic bastards" -- unprovoked, I might add -- and you remain silent, it undermines your credibility with regard to your stated desire to maintain civility.
I will leave my original comment here for posterity, so everyone can see the "horror" of what I wrote that triggered the admonition. I do not retract any of it.
[Note that Carol does everything BUT address the gist of my post -- either here or at the "appropriate" thread about the news.]
Once more for the record: ALL posters -- left, right, whatever -- are welcome here. But once again, everyone is put on formal notice: Profanity, name calling and other forms of insulting or juvenile behavior directed toward me or toward other posters isn't appropriate and won't be tolerated.
And this is relevant to the Tilghman thread how?
Post a Comment
<< Home