But not all the condemning FAS members were willing to go on the record, or even to disclose their position publicly. These FAS paragons of free and open debate insisted on having a secret ballot, making it that much easier for the cowardly thought police to affect their dirty work.
If they felt so strongly and justified about their stance, why couldn't they do so out in the open? Don't give me any "fear of administrative retribution" garbage. It's obvious that Summers isn't the one doing the intimidating here, though you wouldn't know that by listening to the faculty bullies.
In an ironic twist, one of those faculty members lambasted Summers for "intimidating faculty members and squelching debate." "There is a widespread dissatisfaction with his substantive decisions as well as style," said Professor Waters.
Now isn't that special: the intimidating faculty condemning Summers for squelching debate when they just got through blistering him for trying to open academic debate on a subject they unilaterally deemed to be so offensive as to be beyond discussion. I wonder if it ever occurs to them that they work against their own purposes when they adopt this smothering, patronizing attitude about women, treating them as if they're just too delicate to be discussed. Their hypocrisy and lack of self-reflection knows no bounds.
Yet William C. Kirby, the dean of FAS, had the audacity to suggest in a statement that the last few weeks had demonstrated "how willing we are to engage in a process of self-examination, for the betterment of this institution. ? I value the views of the faculty, and of President Summers, and I believe we are all committed to moving forward in a constructive fashion."
How can anyone take such people seriously? They not only don't value President Summers' views (or those of anyone else who runs afoul of the "code"), they won't even let him bring certain subjects up for discussion. This isn't just thought control, it's thought prison.
The Left is increasingly intellectually bankrupt and delusional. But worse, it has become boorishly dictatorial, not even sparing would-be allies, like Clintonite Lawrence Summers, from its hellish wrath, if they dare not just to disagree with their dogma, but to express a willingness to consider ideas the "code" forbids.