An Unreasonable Standard

In the wake of University President Lawrence H. Summers’ now-infamous January 2005 comments on women in science, we wrote: “The controversy prompted by his comments illustrates the reality that, when Summers offers his thoughts on contentious issues, his words are taken very seriously and will reflect the University as a whole.” Little did we know that four months earlier, Summers had “offended” a different audience with comments his listeners labeled “really really insulting.” Of course, we didn’t know this because scholars at that September 2004 symposium on Native Americans just came forward last week.

The remarks in question don’t seem to merit the outcry they caused. Some of those in attendance criticized Summers for making light of genocide—even of saying that the genocide of American Indians was coincidental. Yet after Summers released a transcript of his speech, the word “genocide” was nowhere to be found. Instead, Summers pointed out in the speech that more Native Americans died from disease, “a consequence of assimilation,” than from the actions of Europeans and Americans. Summers remarked on the tragedy of the situation, and then segued from this point into a contemplative statement on the way we make decisions in the world today, and on the importance of taking into account all possible consequences of all of our intended or unintended actions: “And it speaks to the tremendous importance of us all reflecting on what we do consciously and of what are the innocent by-products—or the non-innocent by-products—of the policies that we pursue in our country…”

Factually, the speech was correct. While his presentation of these facts may have ruffled some feathers, the way in which critics turned what was ultimately meant to be a thoughtful reflection on the unintended consequences of Americans’ actions into a pro-genocide diatribe is crass and dishonest. Add to that the fact that these critics just spoke up now, a full seven months after the speech was given, and things start to seem extra fishy. Is this anything resembling legitimate criticism, or just the result of a scholarly bandwagon-effect?

We can’t tell for sure. But we do know that no public figure can operate effectively under such intense scrutiny. Summers has had his problems with public speaking. His tact must reflect his position as Harvard’s president. This current bout of criticism, though, borders on ridiculous. Our president shouldn’t have to publish transcripts of every speech he gives just to ensure he isn’t radically misquoted or misunderstood. And our president shouldn’t get dragged through the press for every vaguely contentious remark he makes. No public figure, least of all the president of an academic institution, should be held to such an astronomical standard.