A little word to those who would be wise: beware of experts speaking beyond their expertise. Beware of what anyone says for that matter. But you're more apt to be fooled by someone who actually knows what they're talking about on one subject when they're talking about something else.
Case in point: Harvard President Lawrence Summers, an economist, gave a speech talking about why women don't excel in the upper echelons of math and science. Now there's a lot of research illustrating the many reasons that women fail to complete graduate school in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM). This research strongly suggests that women (and minorities) are less apt to be taken under the wing of white male professors that help them gain the educational and professional relationships necessary to get ahead. For people in STEM, there are a lot of grants and fellowships available, but you need connections to get them. For women, graduate school often competes with marriage and children making their persistence in grad school. Completely ignorant of this research, Summers speculated that women lacked a sort of mathematical intelligence necessary to excel in academia. To support this assertion, he referred to SAT score (another subject of which he was ignorant).
My disappointment of the day came with Gary Wills talking out of his shorts on the
op-ed pages of the New York Times. The topic? One of the punditry's favorites: Bill Clinton. Is he good for Hillary's campaign? Can he stay out of her way in the White House? Gary Wills, one of my academic heroes, weighs in with a rather poorly reasoned answer to the latter question.
Wills is a wonderful historian. That doesn't mean he knows much about contemporary politics.
SENATOR Hillary Clinton has based her campaign on experience — 35 years of it by her count. That must include her eight years in the White House.
Some may debate whether those years count as executive experience. But there can be no doubt that her husband had the presidential experience, fully. He has shown during his wife’s campaign that he is a person of initiative and energy. Does anyone expect him not to use his experience in an energetic way if he re-enters the White House as the first spouse?
Mrs. Clinton claims that her time in that role was an active one. He can hardly be expected to show less involvement when he returns to the scene of his time in power as the resident expert. He is not the kind to be a potted plant in the White House.
Which raises an important matter. Do we really want a plural presidency?
Wills doesn't bother to define a plural presidency, though he offers several historical examples. His glib description of Bill Clinton as "not the kind to be a potted plant in the White House" sort of assumes that the former president will interfere with his wife's presidency. This point is at least debatable, yet Wills begs the question and proceeds to offer a history lesson as proof that a Clinton candidacy is bad idea.
But then again, Wills is an historian, not a political analyst. Always question an expert talking outside of his expertise.
--Mb
|