Harvard's new President is living in the past

No. I am not talking about the fact that she is a professor in history (or is it herstory in this case?)

I am talking about her views on gender.

Asked whether her appointment signified the end of gender inequality at Harvard, Prof Faust said: "Of course not. There is a lot of work still to be done, especially in the sciences."

So only the areas still dominated by male students, however slightly, are interesting from a gender perspective?

What about other areas more heavily dominated by women than sciences are by men?

Her background as a women's studies professor does not deny itself.

Another question that pops to mind is whether a person, who is, apparently, more focused on building politically ideal gender distributions in sciences than actually leaving people to do what they are good at and what they want to do, can ever be a good leader.

Harvard, in its choice of President, has reduced itself to a identity politics battleground.

See, there is nothing wrong with having a female President. A women could have made the best President Harvard ever had.

The problem lies in choosing a women's studies professor, whether male or female, because women's studies have a political agenda more than anything.

A person only capable of seeing things from women's point of view cannot really be a good leader of a research institution.

The irony of all this is that Summers was much more realistic about everything than Faust. For that he was ousted. Summers was open to different factors influencing the choices and positions of men and women whereas for women's studies everything boils down to cultural sexism.

Harvard thus has made an anti-scientific choice. They have put politics over free inquiry. When even Harvard does that there is not much hope for truth in the future of western knowledge institutions.