Two different threads are currently going in AD concerning:

(1) the comments of Ward Churchill
and
(2) the comments of Lawrence Summers

Both topics address the appropriateness of their comments in an academic setting.

Churchill, a professor of ethnic studies, has called the victims of 9/11 in the WTC - little "eichmans" implying that they were at fault for what happened to them.

Summers, the president of Harvard posed as a possibility that the differences between men and women’s performance in science and math careers might be attributable in part to innate differences between the sexes.

Both have produced an uproar in the media. But what strikes me as strange is that the uproar does not seem to be consistent. The Summers' comment caused an uproar in Academia -- to the point that he almost lost his job. In contrast, the Churchill comments have ellicited criticism from the university board of regents but -- I have not heard of any criticism coming from the academics that he works with.

Question for Debate:

Why such a strong response from the academics teaching at Harvard over Summers comments but no comparable response from those professors with whom Churchill teaches over his comments about the little Eichmans?

I would start with pure old fashioned self-interest.

Women in academia had to work in the proceeding generation to get doors open and have been not making as much progress (or perhaps effort) to get into the sciences and math departments.

The statements from the head of Harvard university that women may not be genetically equipped to compete on an equal basis strikes a nerve because of the power and influence that he holds.

Summers holds a political position and is seen in many ways as THE voice of Harvard. So his higher level position sends more ripples into academia than one of many many professors with wild ideas.

Most academics would defend Summers right to pursue and study such a gender discrepancy without calling for his job. They may publicly attack his views or his methods.

In the Churchill case academics generally support the tenure process. So although the majority of academics would likely disagree with Churchill's main concept and be further putoff by the phrase Little Eichmann's, they would not want to see people pulled from there jobs based on their professional expressions (unless the method was faulty or fraudulent) It is in professors' best interests to defend the tenure system especially in the case of controversial ideas. For many it is the tradeoff for low-pay, the academic freedom to pursue cutting edge ideas without having to fear political retribution for unpopular theories.

I also thing that the filed Ethnic Studies is far enough on the margins to not have too many people worried about commenting on it professionally. So physicists and legal studies, and business instructors don't need to comment about Churchill professionally. He is not challenging an established academic system to create a huge backlash.

The rest is being adequately covered in the media. Churchill is an academic basher's dream.

Those are my initial thoughts on this subject.