WaPo: Fresh ire aimed at former Harvard University President Larry Summers prompts the question: Shouldn't there be a statute of limitations on dumb things expressed in public?If there were a statute of limitations, people would be allowed to evolve without getting hung at a later date. Then politics would be clean and fun.
(Please say yes.)
Forever accursed is the economist and Clinton-era treasury secretary for having raised -- more than three years ago -- the eensy-weensy possibility that innate differences between men and women might explain in part why more men than women reach the top echelons in math and science.
His comments, though not completely without scientific basis, unleashed a millennium worth of female scorn, making Hell a suddenly attractive destination for the discriminating traveler in search of cooler climes.
Research pointing to male-female differences that could partly explain different career outcomes is available to anyone in search of clues to the gender universe. But let's not go there. The social construct versus hard-wiring debate will continue unabated until the last woman utters: "No, honey, you stay in bed. I'll go see what that noise was."
For these purposes, let's stipulate that Summers said a dumb thing. He didn't, really. Provocative, yes, but it was a question about theory, not an assertion of belief. Impolitic? Without question. Still, we'll call it dumb.
Should said offense forevermore disqualify Summers from public service? Or even public appearances?
Larry Summers is being considered for treasury secretary but is not liked by the left for what he once said about the biological differences between men and women and how that might relate to math and science.
