To: DavesM who wrote (678420 ) 4/7/2005 3:02:01 PM From: DuckTapeSunroof Respond to of 769670 "My point is that if Harvard's President Summers had mentioned that the reason there weren't enough women in the sciences (on the tenure tract) at Universities was 'self-selection', he'd still be in a lot of trouble." Oh, I see.... Well, I'm reasonably sure that you are correct in that assumption. (If by 'trouble' you mean that he would be dogged by hordes of intolerant, self-appointed guardians of what's 'pc'.... Still, if those were the words he'd used, at least he would be standing on much firmer logical grounds... and would be largely correct in his accessment, IMO.) I've never denied that there *is* a clannish sense of political exclusion operating on many campuses... nor that many of them skew far to the 'liberal' side of the spectrum. I believe that claims such as those are firmly based. Still... what's considered 'PC' can, and does, shift with the wind. If political winds shifted (as they always do, in the fullness of time) then other points on the political spectrum could become the new guardians of what's 'out' and what's 'in'. This would not surprise me at all... but what would still remain would be the negative effects of the sub-rosa policy of *exclusion* --- regardless of the direction the political winds were blowing from. So, again: IMO, the problem is larger then whatever ills bedevil the interest groups at any particular point on the political dial --- a resistence to logic and reason, and the free expression of thoughts... even *politically incorrect* thoughts, is the much larger problem to worry about... because it is a problem that will NEVER totally go away, it's built into the human condition I'm afraid. So, it must *always* be guarded against, because to one extent or another it will always be with us.