Thu 21 Feb 2008
WSO currently features a request for a ride to Dartmouth. Could that be from Morty?
Longtime observers of the Williams scene know several things. First, Morty is an ambitious man who dreams of more than the presidency of Williams. Over the last 8 years, he has been, and is widely perceived as being, a very successful president. Indeed, I do not expect to see a better Williams president in my lifetime. Second, James Wright is retiring as president of Dartmouth. A search for his successor will start up this spring. Third, Morty was a finalist for the Dartmouth job 12 years ago. He did not get it and, after a few more years on the presidential search circuit, the offer came from Williams.
Put those three facts together and there is little doubt that the Dartmouth search committee will want to interview Morty. Indeed, if Morty does anything other than turn them down flat, he will certainly make the list of finalists. What will Morty do when Dartmouth calls? If I were a trouble-making Record reporter, I would try to find out.
88 Responses to “ Ride to Dartmouth? ”
Comments:
Leave a Reply
Trackbacks & Pingbacks:
-
Pingback from Social Pressures » EphBlog
February 24th, 2008 at 10:39 am[...] our way to Dartmouth, the gender mix of the Williams trustees came up. Five of the 25 current trustees are women. (By [...]
-
Pingback from Links » EphBlog
November 19th, 2008 at 6:39 pm[...] confirmation (?) that he was a finalist during the last search in 1999. Or did they just get that by reading EphBlog? « EphBlog set on Flickr | [...]
February 21st, 2008 at 10:34 am
And if you were Morty, you’d tell the Record they would be the first to know, after the trustees of Williams College and the trustees of Dartmouth.
If I didn’t know better, I’d say you’re an instigator, make that provocateur.
February 21st, 2008 at 11:33 am
Why on earth would he want to move to Hanover? Yes, it’s a bigger school but its undergraduate school is not as good as Williams, it has a bitter history of fractious alumni, and there is a difficult-to-manage culture of Greek houses and a drinking. Also, Dartmouth runs its academic campus rear around, with the sophomores in residence every summer; I would think that constant responsibility would be draining.
February 21st, 2008 at 11:35 am
Correction: “year around.”
February 21st, 2008 at 11:51 am
You know Morty’s amibitions, David? How, exactly?
February 21st, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Morty would be perfect for Dartmouth, probably able to appeal to both the academic types and the forces taking over the board to push Dartmouth more towards athletics, fraternities, and “traditional” values.
However, I doubt that Morty would be interested in Dartmouth. It’s really a no-win gig for the next President. People who have been at Dartmouth for years are bailing right and left.
I think Morty would be more likely to look at one of the Division I academic/athletic powers, like a USC or a Duke.
February 21st, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Larry: I like “rear” better.
February 21st, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Yea, I really don’t think the Dartmouth job is a big step up from Williams. It probably pays a bit better but not enough to drive Morty’s decision, and his chances of success are far smaller (and the payoff for success barely bigger). I think Morty–if he is the ambitious man you make him out to be–would do better to wait another couple of years and directly make the jump to a bigger school.
All of that said, why would Morty want to? Morty’s job at Williams seems pretty plush by anyone’s standards–it’s very prestigious, very powerful, he controls almost unlimited resources, and is highly revered. Unless he is working his way to something “higher” than College President (I don’t know what that would be), what advantages would there be for him of moving to a bigger school–even to Harvard or Yale? My guess is that when he steps down as Williams President (hopefully not for a while still), he’ll do so more because he doesn’t want to be President anymore than because he wants to be President somewhere else.
February 21st, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Frank: I do, too. One of my better typos.
February 21st, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Interesting conjecture here. I think the Dartmouth suggestion is way off the mark, though. Too many similarities to Williams. I would bet more on the presidency of USC (Univ of Southern California) when Stephen Sample eventually steps down there. Morty was quite beloved there as Provost (just before Williams), the weather’s a bit better and his wife is from the LA area. Challenges are very different and larger scale, as well and the place has money and enormous potential. Hope it’s not for a while.
February 21st, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Morty’s far more likely to make the jump back to USC - he’s known to have loved the place, and his wife far prefers the west coast to williamstown. Figure that Morty goes to USC in a couple years, and Cappy Hill is asked to come back as President, following in the pattern of former Williams faculty leaving for administrative positions elsewhere then returning to assuming the presidency.
February 21st, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Willliams? Appoint a female President? Now that’s funny.
Look at Photos of Williams Trustees
February 21st, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Man, I was sure when I saw the title of this post it was going to refer to Dave’s obsession with pointing out college actions inconsistent with the carbon reduction commitment.
I would totally let Morty share my car, as long as he paid for half the gas an tolls. The smell is finally gone too, so I think it’s president-worthy.
February 21st, 2008 at 8:41 pm
Ephblog awards for February 21, 2008. Typo of the day award goes to Larry for:
First runner up in double entendre shorts goes to Frank:
February 21st, 2008 at 9:18 pm
Yup, Neil, I have to agree with you…good stuff! Frank and Larry could take that act on the road.
Yet, Jonathan’s post certainly deserves recognition.
Same car? Must have quite a ‘je ne sais quoi’…mmmm… ‘ripe’ quality?
I daresay Morty appreciates the offer, but…maybe next time?
Then again, if you have something as enticing as ‘The Iliad’…
February 21st, 2008 at 9:28 pm
hwc -
Do you know many of the trustees? Don’t make the mistake of assuming that, just because the majority of them are male, they wouldn’t support a woman for Morty’s successor (epecially if she were well known at Williams the way Cappie Hill is). By chance, I happen to know quite a few of them moderately well. If I were a betting man, I’d put good money on that assumption being wrong.
………
I, too, would pick USC as particularly appealing to Morty and Mimi.
Now I gotta go off and bask in my award.
February 21st, 2008 at 10:10 pm
It is what it is.
Five out of twenty-five Board members are women.
The old boys club is alive and well on the William Board.
February 21st, 2008 at 10:46 pm
I know a trustee. Na,na,na,na,na.
However, I would like to add, that I did not know him until after my frosh was accepted…
BTW, could I use that connection in any way? Hitch a ride on a private jet, perhaps? Hmmm…
February 21st, 2008 at 10:52 pm
HWC, that is weak. I mean really, really weak. Especially from you, who normally have experience and hard data to back up your claims. I hope, if the next president is female, whenever that comes, you’ll have the honor to step up and admit your error. In the meantime, you’ll have to do better than “look at all the men in the presidential and board history” to live up to your posts’ usual standards for degree of enlightening.
I don’t doubt that there’s some sexism in recruiting board members and presidents, but I do doubt at what level that comes in: when you’re maximizing giving potential and connectedness, you end up getting a lot of men. One way or the other, this board presides over an institution that is pretty successfully not sexist in its mission and practice. There may be hypocrisy, but the standard for demonstrating it ought to be higher than “let’s count men,” especially without providing peer data.
February 21st, 2008 at 11:08 pm
Judging on recent posts, I think hwc is in a bit of a (hopefully temporary) time warp re Williams, women,and white men (prep school jocks notwithstanding).
I daresay that axe has been ground enough.
February 21st, 2008 at 11:36 pm
Johnathan ‘05:
Again, it is what it is.
Williams College admitted its first freshman class of women in 1971. That’s thirty-seven years ago.
And, all it can manage is five women on the board of trustees?
It is what it is.
February 21st, 2008 at 11:45 pm
BTW, Williams is certainly not alone. Most of the colleges and universities that banned women before the 1970s have been equally slow to allow women onto their Boards. Harvard’s corporation board is a joke. Last time I looked, it had one woman.
February 22nd, 2008 at 12:07 am
And yet those men managed to appoint Dr. Faust.
February 22nd, 2008 at 12:11 am
hwc:
Where exactly do you stand?
I note that on another thread you were rather appropriately lambasted by ‘aparent’ for not even bothering to bring up women in a conversation regarding athletics, diversity and the general populace of Williams students, and yet you seem to be critical of the “old boys” club of Williams.
And in yet a different thread, you attributed the blame of the recent “racial” slur to the many drunken “neanderthals” admitted to campus, and simultaneously reminisced about your favorite “alcohol run” when you were at Williams, and liking Jack Daniels “straight from the bottle”…
I mean, c’mon. Don’t be so critical unless you can ‘walk the talk’.
February 22nd, 2008 at 12:45 am
Mort Shapiro is a handsome man, a fine professor, an amiable collegiate fellow, an accompolished administrator, and a good father who loves and dotes upon his clan. He has done well by Williams College, considering the opportunities, the timing, and his continuing dedication for what he believes, is in the greater interests of the school.
If he chooses to remain here, his able guidance will steer us well into the future. If he leaves our establishment, he has our best wishes, as there is not much time left to add to his superlative credentials.
Hip, hip, cheers and hurrah!
February 22nd, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Indeed. After they had endorsed Larry Summers’ misogyny while:
a) he publicly embarrassed the university and half its students
b) he had the faculty in a perpetual state of no-confidence votes, in part because of his sexist policies in stopping the promotion of female faculty members
c) he had the only minority member of the corporate board resigning in public protest of the board’s continued support of Summers.
Even after all that, the board only turned to Faust after their first choice, Dr. Thomas Cech, left them at the alter by declining the job at the last minute.
—–
You are, however, quite right. The ol’ boys club of the Williams Board could very well appoint a woman President. It’s all the rage these days. But, it won’t be because the Board isn’t an all-boys club.
February 22nd, 2008 at 12:24 pm
frosh mom:
Believe it or not, even ol’ curmudgeons such as myself can occasionally toss out a little ironic humor — such as my comment about drinking straight from a bottle of Jack Daniels. I guess I should have added a little smiley face….
BTW, I didn’t say that I liked drinking Jack Daniels from the bottle. I said I prefered it to drinking some godawful milk and ice cream punch.
February 22nd, 2008 at 12:58 pm
hwc:
I can’t find the thread because one now has to wade through endless blog/planet posts (why?), but I will bet you, let’s say, 25 bucks, that you said, “straight from the bottle”. And later on, when I am not going out the door, I’ll look for it!
And I am only following up because I know you are a ‘facts and stats’ kind of guy.
:)= smiley face…
February 22nd, 2008 at 1:11 pm
I did say “straight from the bottle”. I said that I would prefer drinking Jack Daniels straight from the bottle to drinking the revolting “punch” (milk, ice cream, and bourbon) being described.
For the record, I prefer Jack Daniels on the rocks, martinis on the rocks with an olive, and single-malt scotch straight up.
February 22nd, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Never mind hwc. I get it (belatedly, as is my wont). You meant, that you only said “straight from the bottle” as an alternative to the milk punch.
I guess I probably would as well.
So there you have it. We have agreement on something.
Now, I can go to work, a much happier gal. [: )]
February 22nd, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Oops. Above posted before seeing your 1:11.
Very occasional martini; shaken till slight ice crust formed, two olives.
February 22nd, 2008 at 2:42 pm
hwc:
If you actually want an argument here, you’ve got to make a claim. “It is what it is”, sure, but by my interpretation of “what it is” I don’t see anything that would keep such a board from approving a female president. Are the board members sexist? If so, why? Because they’re men?
February 22nd, 2008 at 2:49 pm
The “claim” you demand is five women out of the 26 or so members of the Williams Board of Trustees.
It is what it is.
February 22nd, 2008 at 2:58 pm
“26 or so members”
There are 25 members at the link you provided earlier.
February 22nd, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Okay, so there are five women on the Board of Trustees. Agreed. What’s the relevance to the current discussion?
February 22nd, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Because apparently hwc thinks it is highly unlikely that the Williams trustees would ever appoint a female president as a successor to Morty. I agree with the poster above who suggests that Cappy Hill might be a likely successor.
February 22nd, 2008 at 4:27 pm
And I would venture to say that, in all likelihood, there are four times as many Eph men as Eph women from the class years of ‘60 to ‘95 (as represented on the Board) working “outside the home,” so that the Board membership is rather more representative of the professional rank of eph alums than less. Why don’t you conduct a poll, hwc, say of your class year to see if this would be borne out?
February 22nd, 2008 at 4:40 pm
So, I take it that, after 33 years of female Ephmen graduates, the concensus here is that Williams can’t find a dozen female Ephmen worthy of a spot on the governing board of the College.
I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn for sale.
February 22nd, 2008 at 4:41 pm
That’s just a polite way of saying “so the Board membership is rather more representative of male eph alums than female eph alums.”
February 22nd, 2008 at 4:53 pm
HWC,
Why are you being so stupid recently? You know better. For the most part, the 20 non-alumni trustees are selected because they are very wealthy. They have either already donated millions to Williams or show every indication of doing so in the future. Whenever the College finds a female Eph who fits that category (e.g., Laurie Thomsen ‘79) on to the board she goes.
Now, there are some exceptions to this. And I need to update my trustee typology post. But, big picture, it is just stupid to think that the College excludes females Ephs because they are female. It excludes them because they don’t write million dollar checks.
You could make the case that the trustees should be chosen for other reasons. The conversation here would be better if you made that case rather than fog up the valley with silly accusations.
And, as an alum, you know how stupid this is. You just got an e-mail to vote for alumni trustees and all three nominated candidates were female. Is that how an old boys’ club behaves?
February 22nd, 2008 at 4:55 pm
It’s actually about professional status. And you avoided answering my query/challenge, hwc.
February 22nd, 2008 at 5:59 pm
The only “accusation” I’m making is that 20 of the 25 members of the Williams Board are men.
You guys seem to be all up in arms about that, furiously digging for rationalization after rationalization. I don’t really give a damn. Williams has always been an ol’ boys club. I don’t expect that to change anytime soon.
February 22nd, 2008 at 6:28 pm
What percentage of ephs who could potentially be trustees are women? Trustees are–for the most part–above a certain age and have achieved a certain level of financial and social success. While women started attending Williams in the 70s, it took a number of years before Williams got even close to 50-50. Just looking at the total number of woman at “trustee age” compared to men at “trustee age,” it should be clear that there would be more male trustees. Furthermore, because of social pressures on women to give up their careers or partially give up their careers to become mothers, a significant percentage of “trustee aged” women will not be as far along on their careers as similarly aged men. Finally, sexism in the elite workplace is still in strong force, and for better or worse, this is the primary workplace from which trustees are drawn.
When you put all of these things together, I think 25% female trustees isn’t really surprising anymore. It is what it is.
February 22nd, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Exactly.
If you had more than a few token women on the Board of Trustees, the Board might actually start to steer the College in new and different directions that perhaps better reflect the women students.
It is what it is.
February 22nd, 2008 at 7:19 pm
And 20 out of 25 cans of soda in my fridge are Coke Zero, but I don’t make a habit of posting that information in random online forums. Your comments are completely irrelevent to this thread unless you’re trying to allege that the board is sexist and would be unwilling or reluctant to pick a female president, thus everyone assumes that’s what you meant and (understandably) wants some sort of justification for that claim. If that’s your point, support it; if not, clarify what you meant. Otherwise you just look like an obnoxious guy reduced to vague insinuations because you can’t back up your point.
February 22nd, 2008 at 7:33 pm
“If you had more than a few token women on the Board of Trustees, the Board might actually start to steer the College in new and different directions that perhaps better reflect the women students.”
Once again, you imply that the largely male component of the board affects in a sexist way the manner in which they govern. Implicitly, you are accusing the male members of the board (or perhaps, all men?) of being sexist. I guess maybe this is better than what I originally interpreted you implying–that Williams as an institution was sexist for not establishing a more balanced board–but it’s barely any less ludicrous of an accusation.
February 22nd, 2008 at 7:55 pm
“Otherwise you just look like an obnoxious guy reduced to vague insinuations because you can’t back up your point.”
It is what it is.
February 22nd, 2008 at 8:20 pm
Wow. I seem to have touched a raw nerve in the Ephman community on the issue of lack of female Ephman representation on the Board.
February 22nd, 2008 at 8:40 pm
“lack of female Ephman representation on the Board”
Even you pointed there is female Eph representation on the Board.
And if you actually had any respect for female Ephs, you would refer to them by their proper name: Ephwomen.
So this is how one acts out when one’s presidential favorite hits the skids. Are you sure you’re not actually Rechtal Turgidley III?
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:09 pm
hwc:
Considering the amount of flack you have gotten in the last couple of days, (from myself included) I am beginning to think that maybe your ’stars are not aligned’ at the moment…or some other such nonsensical explanation.
Go have that whiskey on the rocks, make a toast to strong women, and remember that this too shall pass.[ : )]
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:34 pm
How our esteemed alumni have digressed without grace, form, and decorum. Today American life is a feminine-matriarchal one, where life is routine. This incessant penchant for uniformity is not perceived as burdensome and our American population is entirely passive and at home in this atmosphere of a nursery. Our feelings for superiority, of higher self-esteem, of our individual uniqueness has been educated out of the American since kindergarten. Everyone is equal to every man or woman.
The New England heritage of Pragmatism, our sole contribution to Western intellectual heritage, is a doctrine that truth is what works. What a tribute to the worship of technology and the life of machine. Our educational system has created the collective man as the ideal, where we become intolerant towards anything other than mass-ideal.
This particular class-war and petty-statism you are engaged leads nowhere. How did you manage to take a blog of this nature and turn it into this?
February 23rd, 2008 at 10:24 am
Mr. Broadband,
“Today American life is a feminine-matriarchal one, where life is routine.” No. quite simply, no. Continuing: “Our feelings for superiority, of higher self-esteem, of our individual uniqueness has been educated out of the American since kindergarten. Everyone is equal to every man or woman.” Again–no. quite simply, no. CONTINUING: “Our educational system has created the collective man as the ideal, where we become intolerant towards anything other than mass-ideal.” No. once again, quite simply, no.
and to think, that rant was about someone else being wrong…
our society is STILL male dominated, male-led, and has a male-ideal image. our education system perpetuates the idea that it is individual effort and achievement that are fundamental to society. American ideas of superiority and uniqueness continue unabated even as the society slips lower and lower in most metrics of the success of a society outside of the economic realm.
so, in a word, no.
(hwc–what did you expect from ephblog making such a feminist point? surely not any support! Meanwhile, a number of the responders would do well to consider whether de jure or de facto sexism are really all that different–because a lot of the arguments are de facto ones–”of course williams wants female trustees, it just wants rich ones more! And rich people are normally white men!” Do better ephblog, do better)
February 23rd, 2008 at 11:13 am
Williams College is more touchy-feely feminine (if not feminist) than it was 50 years ago - for an obvious reason and perhaps for other not-so-obvious reasons.
February 23rd, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Rory, you have inspired me to step out on a limb.
Indeed, our society is still incredibly male dominated. The current election is interesting in what it says about acceptance of a female in a position of power. Granted, the Clintons have been responsible for their own (probable, at this point) undoing, but Hillary has been unliked from the beginning. And I venture to say, that it is mostly because she exhibits traits that the public at large is not comfortable seeing in a woman.
There was an article by N. Kristoff (nytimes) not too long ago, titled “When Women Rule”, that brought up some very interesting points. He cited an experiment called the “Goldberg Paradigm” in which people were asked to evaluate a speech. When told that it was by a man, they would rate it higher than when they were led to believe that it was by a woman.
Ambition in a woman is often considered “unattractive”. And this criticism comes from other women as well. Kristoff also claims that research shows that “a woman can be perceived as competent or as likable, but not both”, and that “it is actually a disadvantage for a woman to be physically attractive when applying for a managerial job.”
Now I am really going to get myself into trouble by saying that I find EphBlog to have a bit of the “old boy’s” club to it. Why are there not more, regular, female bloggers here? Well, I, for one, have seen several valid, serious points made by women that are largely ignored until the same point is made by a man and then ‘voila’ it is taken up and discussed. And, I think it is because men are more comfortable addressing other men, especially with serious subject matter that can lead to argument.
This is not a criticism in that I believe men are in a very difficult position these days. They have the societally ingrained responsibility to be ‘gentlemen’ but the ‘new era’ weight, of being expected to treat women as equals. Their (and your) discomfort in this difficult position is palpable at times.
So, although “it is what it is”, I think that the growing pains exhibited, are a sign that ‘it’ is changing.
And hallelujah for that!
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:08 pm
“Well, I, for one, have seen several valid, serious points made by women that are largely ignored until the same point is made by a man and then ‘voila’ it is taken up and discussed. ”
I have had the thought that this was happening, too, but there are so few regular postings by females (I am making some assumptions about the posters who don’t post under a gender identifiable name) that I am not sure.
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:22 pm
This is awesome, HWC:
The only “accusation” I’m making is that 20 of the 25 members of the Williams Board are men.
False. Two lines later, you ACCUSE (based on your specious argument) that: “Williams has always been an ol’ boys club. I don’t expect that to change anytime soon.”
David feels that Williams executive leadership has a pro-woman bias. You believe is has a pro-male bias. Could it just possibly be that the truth lies dab smack in the middle?
By the way, HWC, you first have to exlude from consideration any trustees from the pr-1970 era. Unless you are saying we should exclude old people from being trustees on the basis of their age … so you’d expect that there were be fewer women, to begin with. NOw, look at the pool of people from the classes of 1970 forward who have, as David points out, bot the resources and predliction to donate over 1 million to Williams. There is no way in hell women are underrepsented from that group. But I guess colleges are biased against men because more and more schools are majority women, right? Of course not. Your infantile repetition of “it is what it is” is totally irrelevant and does not support your broader point. An old boy club, as you falsely contend Williams is, turns down qualified candidates because of gender. There is no evidence whatsoever Williams has ever done this, not with job applications, not with credible contenders for trusteee oer executive society spots, and certainly not for the college presidency. And besides, aren’t most old boys clubs not terribly fond of minorities? Seems like Williams has done a pretty damn good job appointing a racially diverse Board. But of course, if there were more white women and less minorities, you’d be bitching that Williams was racist. Ridiculous.
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Now, look here, Rosa Parks. We don’t mean any harm at all making you sit in the back of the bus. It’s not you. It’s just that these other people have always ridden in the front of the bus and, well, the front of the bus just wouldn’t be the same if they didn’t sit there. So, you just run along to the back of the bus.
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Larry,
I know I am going to get jumped on for that comment. So before that happens, I’d like to add, that by the same token, I have also been more easily forgiven (by the males) for my inane statements, than I would have been had I been a man.
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:25 pm
If Rosa Parks (or any other person regardless of race, gender or orientation) had 50 million to donate to Williams, believe me, they’d be on the Board of Trustees, yesterday. It is really irresponsible to throw out accusations of institutional racism or sexism without even a scintilla of support. You should just quit while you are behind.
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:38 pm
It is an “ole boys club”! The percentage of women on that board is fairly representative of the power of women in general.
However, it doesn’t mean they shouldn’t or wouldn’t appoint a women.
After all, it has been proven that women need to be even more qualified than men to be in exactly the same positions.
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Jeff Z:
You are “proving” that Williams is not an ol’ boys club by saying that the the only reason women are not represented on the board is that the ol’ boys club has defined the criteria for board selection to largely exclude women. It’s not sexism; it’s just the ol’ boys club criteria defined by the ol’ boys club.
Again, I ask: Do you honestly not believe that, if they wanted to, Williams college could find a dozen female alums who would make fine board members? Or, if they wanted to, they could continue to define the criteria in a way that excludes women.
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:45 pm
OK. I’ll go a step further and exclude all trustees prior to the first graduating class of women (’75).
I believe the tally since then is five female board members versus ten ‘ol boys clubbers.
For the academically challenged, that’s a ratio of two to one.
Care to argue that Williams is not an ol’ boys club?
February 23rd, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Yes, I and David made the arguments, compellingly, already, which you’ve failed to rebut. Of course, Williams could define the criteria to be fine board members as “any Williams alum born after 1970″ and toss a coin. Would that make you happier? Or perhaps, just perhaps, an ability and willingness to give huge sums of money just might happen to be a relevant and perfectly valid criteria for membership of Williams’ board, just like it is FOR EVERY OTHER NON-PROFIT BOARD IN AMERICA. Sheesh. (And in any event 5/15 is hardly all that dramatic a difference … it will be at least 6/15 momentarily after the latest election is concluded … if Williams is so biased against Williams, why can’t we old boy folks even have a male OPTION among the current round of trustee elections? That alone proves your argument is specious).
February 23rd, 2008 at 3:05 pm
One more comment from little invisible me:
Not only are there fewer women in the super high income positions, they also earn less than men (in those same positions) so if an “ability and willingness to give huge amounts of money” is the qualifying criteria for a position on the Board of Trustees, then that alone explains why there aren’t more women.
February 23rd, 2008 at 3:18 pm
A note last fall 2007 from Rechtal Turgidley, Jr to our class secretary had expressed his disbelief at walking into the bar at the Williams Club ‘and finding females present’. And, he reported, this was at 10:45am!
He had added ‘Harrumph’ I am sure, but the linotype operator set the word as ‘Hurrah’ in the class notes.
I think you boys need a drink after all that work-up over elections.
Save some energy for this fall.
February 23rd, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Rory. HWC. Really. What is your definition of sexism? Is it simply “any policy that tends to favor attracting or selecting one sex more than the other”? If so, I suppose there is a lot out there that is “sexist” that we luddites not so well versed in gender theory never thought to consider so. Since you criticize the results rather than the process, we now would have to see sexism anywhere that there isn’t a early equal balance of sexes.
I think most reasonable people don’t cry “sexism” until they see an unjustifiable sex-bias in the process, not the result. This is why it was upsetting to see your self-assured resting on the statement, “Hey, look, 5 women in 25 trustees.”
I think the relevant question is “What are the most likely maxims behind Williams’ selection of trustees”? I both agree with David and Jeff and can add that my training in fundraising also supports their assertion that giving capacity and institutional dedication are the tops. “Ability to work with the board” is important too, and if you want to argue that that is the glass wall keeping women out—the “old boys” don’t want to change the culture to include women–then go ahead and claim that. But provide some evidence, some window into the heads of the trustees. Results are not sufficient, when we can reasonably see how goals #1 and #2 would lead to these results.
The reasons that women are, on average today, less likely to be ultrarich trustees are in part due to sexism—that is, the unjustified favoritism of men. But are you comfortable arguing that policies that end up attracting/selecting one sex more than the other are always this same kind of sexist? Are sex-unequal results always unjustified?
Any new member on a board requires rotating out old ones. This is a famously slow process for a lot of good reasons unrelated to sex. Rory and HWC, if you ever seriously wish to influence the sex composition of something like a Williams board, you will acknowledge the realities that obstruct your vision rather than glibly insisting that they can be casually overcome. No serious board, male or female, would listen to you otherwise.
February 23rd, 2008 at 4:33 pm
Jonathan,
would you prefer I used the term “de facto gender discrimination”? That was the entirety of my point. I don’t care between the terms, i just find “de factor gender discrimination” a little wordy, so i went with the quick version. If you prefer gender discrimination, so be it.
So what did I mean by “de facto sexism”? You have, basically, defined it all over again. A gender-neutral policy in a gendered world has a gendered result. In this case, it means that the pool of potential trustees who are female is smaller than the pool of potential trustees who are male. Is that Williams’ fault? Only in that their desired neutrality is, in result, not neutral.
The fact that most reasonable people might disagree with that just means most reasonable people have a blind spot towards problems of gender inequality. (I’d also argue that most reasonable people would be on hwc’s side as 50% of reasonable people would be negatively affected by the de facto gender inequality)
I believe it is the institution’s duty to consider methods for combatting de facto discrimination just as it is its duty to combat de jure discrimination. The exact methods may be different, but the need for an effort and the institution’s role in pushing that effort are the same.
I also will never accept the excuse “it takes time”. No. In fact, it doesn’t (and it certainly doesn’t take decades)–grow the board by five and make four of those five women. boom–its done. That said, having only female nominees this past year is a good sign. So I don’t know that I’m in the “ole boy’s club” group, but I’m also not denying the de facto gender imbalance and the fact that it warrants action.
February 23rd, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Out of curiosity, can anyone come up with the criteria for a postion on the Board of Trustees?
Nah…why do that? And why get into a discussion of why sexism goes much, much deeper than hwc’s comment, or the actions of the Williams Board of Trustees? This whole discussion is a perfect example of that. Just like the reaction to the recent ’slur incident’ was a perfect example of bending and flexing the issue to make personal points, rather than discussing the root of it.
Oh and Larry? I rest my case.
February 23rd, 2008 at 5:37 pm
I hear you, FM.
P.S. To everyone: it’s a bit off-point, but consider that some trustees have things that the College wants other than just plain money. Consider Trustee Glenn Lowry ‘76, the MoMA head. Interesting thing there, to me at least, is that I realize that the Williams Art Mafia continues to be overwhelmingly male. That’s meant just as a comment, folks, not a point in the argument, but I am wondering when women are going to break through those particular ceilings.
February 23rd, 2008 at 5:53 pm
I’ve finally got it!
I remember (hard at my age) whom the commentors on, critics of , debators for and against, and, yes, agent provocateurs of the management of Williams, those who ernestly wish change but do not have the responsibility to make change, remind me of: those ‘gadflies’ of the shareholder’s meeting: John J. Gilbert and Wilma Porter Soss!
How the corporate pr types dreaded those annual meetings! Yet some of their interjections triggered actions.
Please don’t get me wrong. I’m all for the heated debate and emotional words.and elequence demonstrated in the blog. But it is taking place in front of a small audience of posters, commentors and some unidentified ‘lurkers’.
At some point, unlike the actual meetings where 10 shares could get you in front of management, aside from the chance to exchange and argue beliefs, how can the value of these discussions lead to change? Are these arguments summarized and circulated among those with the responsibility for change?
Or is this simply how many angels on the head of a boy’s club?
February 23rd, 2008 at 6:09 pm
How many (rather tarnished) halos…
And what about Evelyn Davis? (I have long wished for the chance to drop her name). Evelyn Y. Davis, I believe it was.
But Dick is right. We aren’t getting anywhere here.
Want to see how much Williams has changed? You can see the women’s swimming and diving NESCAC championships webcast by following the link on the Williams team’s page. It’s on right now. Williams is well ahead after yesterday and looks to be aiming for its eighth championship in a row.
February 23rd, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Influence or not, organizational gadflies are often fun to watch in their irreverent action. About 45 years ago Wilma Soss got the floor at a Ford Motor Company shareholders’ meeting and addressed a question to “Mr. Cola-Coca”. The Chairman promptly corrected her by saying that the name actually was “Mr. Iaccoca”. Ms. Soss immediately retorted “Cola-Coca, Iaccoca - what’s the difference”? For you youngsters, Wilma Soss was a well known corporate gadfly, and at the time Lee Ioccoca was President of Ford.
February 23rd, 2008 at 11:47 pm
“A gender-neutral policy in a gendered result has a gendered result.” OK, that is useful, a concisely stated, meaningful concept. You were doing fine, Rory, until
So growing a board by 20% is actually a pretty big deal. But, ok, maybe having a gender-equal board is a big enough deal to justify it? Not the kind of thing you are or I can really judge for the Williams board but, fine, let’s accept that. But imagine a move like that. Do you really think you can pull that off and have those four women start with anything like equal standing to the peoples whom they join as equals? You’ve given them the position, but you’ve cut them at the knees in doing it—you’ve given them a greater need to prove themselves than woman who had come through the standard process would have.
That’s why it takes time, and why I think you ought not to dismiss that as categorically an “excuse.” Because the shortcuts are known by all as shortcuts and seen as such. Because when you create a new set of criteria for the admission of a class to a group, reasonable people doubt the credentials of that class. It’s a short-term victory.
I hope there is a way, in your mind, for a person to be patient and not sexist.
February 24th, 2008 at 1:38 am
The “excuses” are the rationalizations from the all boys club explaning why it would simply be impossible to have equal representation of women on the board of a college.
What a load of all boys club crap.
I know of one liberal arts college that was incorporated in 1864 with a by-law that required equal representation on the 32 member Board of Managers — 16 women and 16 men. It’s been that way every day since.
So, let’s stop with the BS excuses, OK? The only reason Williams doesn’t have equal represenation on the ol’ boys club board is that the ol’ boys club board doesn’t want equal representation.
And, who could blame them? They alredy know that men require affirmative action just to be admitted in equal numbers at elite colleges. They are desperate to hang onto the ol’ boys club.
February 24th, 2008 at 2:02 am
Maybe there are fewer women on the Board since 1975 because Williams women are simply less accomplished than their male counterparts?
February 24th, 2008 at 2:13 am
“one liberal arts college that was incorporated in 1864″
In the interest of full disclosure (so that we know we’re comparing apples to oranges), wasn’t that college coeducational from day one?
February 24th, 2008 at 2:18 am
And I’ve really got to hand it to FM for cutting you some slack — but your self-righteous vitriolic spewing really merits none, in my opinion.
February 24th, 2008 at 2:42 am
aparent:
You seem to be suggesting that Williams is an ol’ boys club today is because it was an ol’ boys club from its founding until 1971. Ol boys clubs die hard.
I’m inclined to agree with you. What I find disingenuous is all the protestations from the ol’ boys club about how it is simply impossible to have equitable representation on the ol boys club board.
February 24th, 2008 at 3:16 am
Aparent:
Here we have a lot of men discussing ‘ad infinitum’ the best way to solve “gender inequality”, all the while completely oblivious of the female voices in their midst.
If it weren’t so friggin annoying, it might be amusing. But, that’s okay, because you have all perfectly illustrated the deeper problem.
And Rory is right, it isn’t (or shouldn’t be) a matter of time, it’s a matter of looking and listening, instead of being so caught up in your own blah, blah, blah.
Talk about obtuse.
I must say, it worries me.
February 24th, 2008 at 8:36 am
Does the Williams Board of Trustees have the right number of red-heads? If so, how about left-handed red-heads who part their hair on the right and were born in Laramie?
February 24th, 2008 at 8:45 am
Jonathan,
Actually, that’s exactly the reason why I don’t buy the time taking excuse and I’d go into more depth, but frosh mom summed it up well in response 78. So I’ll (try to) be brief.
Agitators for equality have been told to slow down so as not to upset the current situation time and time again, and pretty much every time, the people who advocated caution have been proven wrong. In the case of a board, if the rest of the board doesn’t respect those new members as fully equally voting members, then they should not be on a board governing anything, certainly not a leading liberal arts institution. The effort for equality should not require bending backwards to make the transition easy for those who were privileged by inequality.
damn, that wasn’t short.
February 24th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Dear Friends,
The 8000 words (I ran a word count) in the 80 comments certainly indicate an interest in the m/f representation question.
May I refer you to ‘A Room of One’s Own’ by Virginia Woolf (1929) for it’s compelling setting-forth of the conundrum and as an excellent example of incisive exposition?
There’s never an editor around when you need one…
February 24th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
The reduction of rory’s counter to a colleague’s previous thread consists of these phrases:
No. quite simply, no. Continuing:
Again–no. quite simply, no. CONTINUING:
No. once again, quite simply, no.
so, in a word, no.
Do better ephblog, do better
Am I reading this critique correctly?
Has our academic community been reduced to this informal grunting? The gnashing and grinding of toothless teething? Such amusement calls for a simple response:
Feminist-matriachalism is based on these emergent ethnological and sociological emphases:
The hostility to marriage and family.
The collectivization of child care.
The promotion of homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle and that heterosexual behavior is unnatural.
The advocation of unrestricted sexual freedom.
The elevation of nature to worship (political and religious environmentalism, global warming, and other earth first based irrational reasonings).
The primacy of emotion over reason.
Consumerism over conservation and preservation of capital.
The move away from monogamous relationships to polygamous ones.
The advent of human relations between the sexes where relations are temporary.
The removal of men as head of households.
The mere fact that males visibly occupy a position of comparative power in relation to women, does not take into account the feminization of our male population and its value systems. Our prevailing society communicates through emotions and not common sense, wisdom and insight. People are treated as children, as we see when they gravitate to self-help books in response.
Utopian feminism requires theories where the economic conditions determine social existence. The family as a unit of society has been entirely created and thoroughly penetrated by economic processes. Hence the need to emphasize the artificial basis for the nuclear family. The feminists have assumed as victims the notion that there is some impersonal, inhuman force which is responsible for the imprisonment and oppression of women. This connection has been desperately portrayed and maintained to sustain this war on males and particularly against biology and the notion that family is natural.
Let us examine the premises of our feminist-matriarchal world:
1. Women are prone to deception. How else would they counter male strength and superiority?
2. Women are consumers. They possess an entitlement mentality as a biological imperative. Resource transfers are a recurrent theme.
3. Women are social creatures. They prefer high-density herding thus do not oppose immigration. They prefer crowds and urbanization which require laws to maintain order. Women do not oppose the oppression of increasing regulation.
4. Women are mediocre. This is their biological destiny. They were selected biologically for fertility or procreation, of being homebound, not innovation and intellectual genius.
5. Women squander resources. Their concerns are about the present not the future. They do not assume and manage risk, nor dwell on the conservation of culture.
Having become a feminist-matriarchal society, we are more herd-like, more easily manipulated by media and subject to the appeal to mass-mind. The evolutionary norms and behavioral patterns of our social systems have changed significantly. Women today attempt mimic men in dress, in sport, mannerisms, and in behavior.
In contrast, men have become less aggressive and more passive. Men do not express their anger. Anger is now a punishable offense. They are told that emotions are more important. Masculinity has become pathologized within America, where males are subjected to Ritalin to become more docile, conforming drones to an increasingly anti-male society.
Over 40 million fetuses have been aborted since Roe vs Wade. This is an outcome of feminization and victory of dominant matriarchy. Death is made manifest within the context of freedom where it is affirmed as “choice”.
With the changes to our sociological and hierarchical arrangements, the perceived shared feminist qualities include: nihilism, pragmatism, materialism, narcissism, deception, pretense, opportunism, parasitism, conceit and decadence. And what about discussions of virtue, like honor? When do female considerations dwell on honor?
Thus our penchant for security, comfort, and myriad forms of distractions are not characteristic of male-dominatd societies, but of male led, feminist-matriarchal societies of decadence and crass capitalism. The consequent reduction of human hierarchy to where life ceases to have distinctions between organic species underlies the crisis of culture and biology we find ourselves in.
February 25th, 2008 at 12:02 am
Justin Thyme -
You are one scary mother f*cker.
Just an observation.
February 25th, 2008 at 6:18 am
One is constantly reminded that this blog is not a “twenty-five words or fewer” contest.
February 25th, 2008 at 6:55 am
P.S.: David -You on behalf of EphBlog annually ought to bestow an Edward Everett Award on a person to whom the name of the Award will lead.
February 25th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Frank - I’d like to thank the members of the academy … oops.
Yes! the Edward Everett Award has many nominees right here!
And his namesakes fit right in: EE Hale for “The Man without a Country Award” and The EE Horton “Best Triple Take” award.
Still sputtering from Justin Thyme - if the board are looking for instances to limit anonymity, just do a triple take on the psychotic rant at #82!