Skip to main content

Some further thoughts about Harvard





 Last month I wrote on this blog that Harvard wasn't very much like the University of Pennsylvania.  Because, I oh-so-brilliantly said, Harvard has an endowment sufficiently successful to allow them to wait out political tides "with ... a shrug."  

I have one more thing to say about the subject.

Oops. 

[The fellow above is he for whom the institution is named -- John Harvard -- the son of a butcher in Surrey.] 

Harvard did not shrug at the attacks on Claudine Gay.  I still suspect they were in a financial position in which they could have. 

Harvard, alas, is not William James' Harvard.  In that era they were amassing the cultural capital that they have been expending for much of the time since. 

Actually, I have the following to say about the subject too. 

The president of MIT, Sally Kornbluth, needs to make the point, publicly and often, that for some of those who are making the “two down and one to go” noises, this whole thing is really just a marketing campaign for AI software. It has nothing to do with anti-semitism, except that a Congresswoman offered them their set of targets of convenience under that banner. 

Bill Ackman has made it clear what this is about from HIS PoV. “No body of written work in academia can survive the power of AI searching for missing quotation marks, failures to paraphrase appropriately, and/or the failure to properly credit the work of others,” so academic institutions and periodicals need to install AI that all papers prepared for publication can be run through to confirm there are no such problems in it.

Now the really crucial bit. Ackman said “The best approach, however, is probably to launch an AI startup to do this job," — to create and sell the plagiarism-blocker AI — and HIS OWN HEDGE FUND would “be interested in investing in one".

TLDR version: “I’m going to be owning part of a start-up that will be ready to sell you some neat new AI. If you don’t buy it, I will work to have you fired.”

Doesn’t sound especially principled. Sounds like a cross between a hard-sell sales pitch and extortion.

And yes, somebody also has probably written something like this post this already. I wouldn’t know because I won’t be buying Ackman’s software. Livemint has put most of the pieces together, working with Ackman’s own posts on X.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

  Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave.   First, Plato  is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability.  I  only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak