Subramanian Swamy has been handling two courses for the Harvard Summer School for a long time. The subjects were "Quantitative Methods in Economics" and "South Asian economies". Harvard has a tradition of reviewing each course every year. This year these two are the only courses being discontinued. Swamy is annoyed, perhaps naturally.
The courses are being discontinued only because Swamy had earlier written an allegedly inflammatory article in an Indian newspaper. Harvard university favours freedom of expression. Diana Eck, the well-known Professor of Comparative Religion at Harvard led the move against Swamy. She drew a distinction between what is unpopular and what is unwelcome. She characterised Swamy's fulmination against followers of a particular religion as 'unwelcome' and therefore she wanted a ban on Swamy's courses. Isn't there a further distinction between what is 'unwelcome' and what is 'intolerable'?
Harvard's decision may be a blow against freedom of expression which any academic institution should protect. However, Harvard cannot be blamed as partisan. Remember Lawrence Summers who had to resign from presidency of Harvard because he had made a politically incorrect statement on rarity of female professors in science disciplines?
The courses are being discontinued only because Swamy had earlier written an allegedly inflammatory article in an Indian newspaper. Harvard university favours freedom of expression. Diana Eck, the well-known Professor of Comparative Religion at Harvard led the move against Swamy. She drew a distinction between what is unpopular and what is unwelcome. She characterised Swamy's fulmination against followers of a particular religion as 'unwelcome' and therefore she wanted a ban on Swamy's courses. Isn't there a further distinction between what is 'unwelcome' and what is 'intolerable'?
Harvard's decision may be a blow against freedom of expression which any academic institution should protect. However, Harvard cannot be blamed as partisan. Remember Lawrence Summers who had to resign from presidency of Harvard because he had made a politically incorrect statement on rarity of female professors in science disciplines?
1 comment:
Harvard has taken a perverse decision. Look at a likely scenario==
"I think that we've had an invented Palestinian people who are in fact Arabs, and who were historically part of the Arab community," said Gingrich. "And they had a chance to go many places, and for a variety of political reasons we have sustained this war against Israel now since the 1940s, and it's tragic."
"This proves that in the hysterical atmosphere of American elections, people lose all touch with reality and make not just irresponsible and dangerous statements, but also very racist comments that betray not just their own ignorance but an unforgivable bias," said top Palestinian Liberation Organization official Hanan Ashrawi.
If Newt Gingrich becomes the Republican candidate which is probable and he becomes President which is possible, will the university deny him entry into Harvard because of his hate speech? It is best if educational institutions are not swayed by extraneous utterances.
Post a Comment