One of the most blessed blogs in the 'sphere, Maggie's Farm is entering the "Terrible Twos." As we said in their comments, "Like Him, you too "refresh thy readers on their toilsome way." Always a hoot. Above, left, the farm itself, a dead ringer for the one in East Kingston, NH where we grew up. Above right, the girl we always were at heart. The Marxist takeover of the feminist project continues to eat our heart out. (Maggie's Farm photos)
"The feminist takeover of Harvard is imminent," writes Heather MacDonald at City Journal, striking fear in the hearts of all right-thinking women (and men):
The Harvard Crimson reported yesterday that the university is about to name as its new president Drew Gilpin Faust, dean of the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study. Harvard's Corporation, which is likely to recommend Faust to the university's Board of Overseers for confirmation, could not have more clearly repudiated Lawrence Summers's all-too-brief reign of meritocracy and academic honesty, or more openly signaled that Harvard will now be the leader in politically correct victimology.
Faust runs one of the most powerful incubators of feminist complaint and nonsensical academic theory in the country. You can count on the Radcliffe Institute’s fellows and invited lecturers to proclaim the “constructed” nature of knowledge, gender, and race, and to decry endemic American sexism and racism
What happened to the Corporation? Were they Stepforded? Is it too late for alums to just say no? Yalie Tuck weighs in:
It's good for Yale. As a Yale alumnus, I'm in favor of it. I love watching Harvard sink into the swamp of mediocrity.
Harvard alumna that we are -- Mummy always wanted us to go to Harvard, and we finally made it, after she had gone on to her great reward, as an "older" grad student in the nineties -- we ourselves have weighed in here more than once re Lawrence Summers's caving to the pussy-whipping (pardon our French) ladies of the Marxist left. From our "Chomsky, Moore, Fisk: Pathetic memebots running the program of a dead tyrant" a year ago:
"A repressive society is a repressive society, wherever it may fall on a continuum of brutality and thought control," we blogged awhile back in our post "Fear societies, heavy and lite," where we cited former Soviet dissident Natan Sharansky's "mechanics that sustain such a society." Whether it's back in the gulags of the old USSR, in the imamically orchestrated "street" of today's Arab tyrannies or in the politically correct, ivy-covered towers in our own backyard at Harvard, intimidation is the blogtheme that keeps on giving. Cartoon Wars have it in spades, and now academia's Appeaser-in-Chief, Harvard President Lawrence Summers, is rumored to be about to submit his resignation in the wake of humiliating show trials and appeasement last spring.
Here's a little scary stuff from a Drew Gilpin Faust supporter quoted in the Harvard Crimson a month back:
“There’s no question that if she’s interested in being president of a university, she’s going to be president of a university in no time,” says Steven Hahn, a professor of history at Penn who has known Faust for more than 30 years . . . “I think she’s maybe the most impressive person I know,” Hahn says. “I’d like to see her running the country.”
We've always been wary of fellow Americans who speak of "running" vs. "leading" the country. Does Hillary know about this? Now come the consequences. In our case, as a sentimental graduate of the Design School's awesome if too often PC-hobbled Landscape Architecture program, we've always gotten all weepy and said yes to the brilliant, starry-eyed youngsters who call every year during fundraising drives to ask for our dollars. We've always given with pleasure. But no more if this travesty goes through. As Harvard goes -- in the sense of going to Hell in a handbasket -- so goes the nation? Are Harvard and the New York Times on the same road to irrelevance? Just for fun, a few words out of context from the next president of Harvard University in a July/August 1997 Humanities interview:
I guess I've been studying unpleasant people or politically incorrect people for my whole academic career. My feeling is that it's very important to understand how individuals in the past rationalized lives that we might find unthinkable, because we have our own sets of rationalizations that make us blind to injustices in our own society. My daughter, a committed vegetarian, now tells me that in a hundred years none of us will ever believe that we were eating meat, that there are different standards of values that people are able to convince themselves of. By looking at how people did this in the past, we might be able better to understand the way our own rationalizations work and perhaps to even unpack and be critical of some of those rationalizations and maybe even see some foundations for change in our ability to think critically -- an ability we can be aided in developing by looking at the complexity of historical figures.
So far, so good, but wait:
It is important to celebrate people but not to do so uncritically. By celebrating people in an uncritical way we only make them removed from ourselves . . . Sometimes we lose readers when we don't tell a complicated story that people can identify with, because people are complicated. They're not heroes and heroines. They're combinations of heroism and villainy.
Who but politically correct Marxist "thinkers" would ever dream of "celebrating" people uncritically? Doesn't that statement tell you all you need to know about how far away from common sense this woman and her fellow travelers within their Pauline Kael bubble of political correctness have traveled in their utopianist quest?