Talk:John Silber

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

A certain someone needs to stop using this page on John Silber to express their biased point of view against him. If this individual does not stop I think I'm going to have to call the neutrality of this article into question. Even if he says strange things and this that are perceived as being anti-homosexual that does not mean he is a "religious zealot." Also I think his past work in desegregating UT-Austin and against the death penalty in Texas demonstrate that he is not the nut job someone wants to portray him as. As for his quotes about hard work by students at a university, I think they are commendable, college students should work harder and I know that 6 hours is about all the fun I can handle so I don't see how it proves anything horrible about him.

People should stop using this wikipedia page to attack John Silber and express a biased point of view. Before I did some editing, this page didn't even mention that he had been the Democratic nominee for governer of MA in 1990 which seems like a fairly major event in his life. Nor did it mention his involvement in Kant scholarship. Not to mention the cruel joke being made at his expense concerning his disability.

Whomever is using this page to attack John Silber ought to stop and attempt to present a more balanced picture of the individual. I assume the individual in question is obviously coming from the standpoint of a gay person who feels slighted by some of John Silber's comments about homosexuality, but that does not entitle them to present a biased picture of a human being in this encyclopedia.

I've made some changes hopefully to make the article NPOV and clean it up. Hopefully it won't be defaced again. As a concession to those who dislike John Silber so much, perhaps we could mention that due to some comments he has made that he is perceived as being "homo-phobic" or something without of course labelling him as a nut or a zealot.

Contents

[edit] Silber

In the discussion concerning John Silber's homophobia, it should be noted that he had a gay son who tragically died from AIDS. Silber is a man of many contradictions. Despite his apparent homophobia, he is generally believed to have had a good, loving relationship with his son.

I don't think that Silber can be fairly characterized as a "religious zealot." Though, he is a man of faith, he is clearly too intellectually sophisticated to be a religious fanatic. On the other hand, he does have strong prejudices on a number of subjects and has not been too shy about expressing them publicly. In general, he seems to be a strong social or cultural conservative, but one who does hold liberal views on such issues as capital punishment (very much against), is a strong supporter of prisoner rehabilitation, and he believes that government has a strong role to play in battling poverty and racism.

Concerning his tenure as president of Boston University, one can find both many strong positive things to say about as well as a number of negative things. He clearly did a great deal to transform Boston University from a somewhat mediocre commuter school into a nationally known research university. Its academic standards greatly improved under Silber's watch, and he was able to bring at least several Nobel Prize winners onto the BU faculty. Those are accomplishments that cannot be easily dismissed. On the other hand, he always tended to be very authoritarian in the manner of his governance of the University, and was often casually and even cruelly dismissive of attempts by both students and faculty to offer input into the governance of BU. I am inclined to think that most of Silber's positive accomplishments at the University came within the first ten or twelve years of his presidency, that he stayed on as president long past the point where, he was on balance, doing the University more good than harm. He undermined the presidency of his handpicked successor, Jon Westling, who abruptly resigned as president after only a few years. And John Silber is directly responsible for the fiasco that occured when the trustees of BU, at Silber's prompting, appointed Dan Goldin, former head of NASA, to succeed Westling.

Basically, John Silber had taken it upon himself to search for a successor to Westling. Since Silber believed himself to have been a great university president, he looked for someone who resembled himself in personality and temperament, and found that in Dan Goldin. The trustees offered the presidency to Goldin and he accepted. As soon as Goldin accepted, he made it clear that he did not want Silber continuing on as university chancellor and that he wanted Silber to vacate his offices at the University's main administration building, and to reduce his role, generally, at the University. In short, Boston University was not big enough for two John Silbers. When the trustees refused to grant these demands, Goldin resigned the presidency without ever actually having started in the position. He was then given an extremely lucrative "golden parachute," without ever actually having done a day's work at BU. Needless to say, this whole episode was extremely embarassing to the University, and has tarnished the University's reputation. In short, Silber seemed to have to undermined some of the good that he had done for the University over the years.


I used to have a biased view of Silber myself but I now realize that he was an extremely intelligent man who offered the University a lot. BU would not be where it is today without him.

[edit] Silber and homophobia

As a BU alumni, i agree that Silber has made many positive contribution to the university, and it made the school pleasant enough for me to stay for both my bachelor's and master's degrees. However, Silber's conservatism cannot be denied, especially considering his attitude towards gay members of the student population. Despite its liberal population and the prominence of a gay student body, Silber steadfastly refused to include "sexual orientation" in the university's anti-discrimination discalimer. As a result, some students who suffered from homophobic harassment has no recourse inside the university system (harassment of that sort would have to go through Boston PD, which has its own hate crimnes clause). Sexual Orientation was only added to the disclaimer in 2004, after Silber's personal influence declined. In addition, Silber also had a hand in dismantling and banning the gay-straight alliance from BU academy (a private prep school attached to the BU system), although such organizations are relatively commonplace in Massachusetts schools. in reponse to protest, Silber published a rather patronizing response to the BU student newspaper. Thewrefore, i think both the Bua rticle as welkl as this one should reflect these facts.

Refer to this article in the Village Voice for more details:

[1] --Bud 06:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Quick question: How was he the democratic nominee for MA governor and a passionate conservative at the same time? Also, I attended BU and am surprised that there is no mention of the achievements BU made during Silber's tenure. Back in the 1970s, BU was a commuter school that had hardly any name recognition, especially internationally. Now the school is well-known and attracts a lot of talent. Silber had a lot to do with this and it deserves mention.

Being a Democrat does not mean everything. He is anti-abortion, Anti-gay, and almost dictatorial in his management. I have no doubt he was great in the 70s and turned the school into a great university, but It is telling that BU under Silber is the last University in Boston (BC is the other one, but they have religious reasons) that does not have sexual orientation as a non-discriminating category (in other words, until 2004, BU can refuse your acceptance or fire you just for being gay). Silber also almost yanked the morning-after pill from the clinic, but fierce opposition stoped it. --Bud 05:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Silber

The paragraph about homophobia is incredibly slanted and looks like it was written by a 13 year old. "Much protests"? Come on now. I'm very much a liberal, but I'm offended that people use this "encyclopedia" as a soap box to publicly rail this guy or that guy when the objective facts just aren't all there.

Also, Boston University has added "sexual orientation" to their non-discrimination clause. Regardless, before this amendment was even passed, any BU student could tell you that the homosexual population on campus is extremely high in comparison to other area schools.

--

Yeah i know. I added the paragraph, and i stayed in BU for both my BA and my MA. But as my statement in the discussion above, while Silber has done a lot of good to the school in the 70s, the school management was falling apart due to his knack for appoint cronies to the board and his refusal to bend to the increasingly liberal ways of the campus. While yes, there is a large population of the LGBT community in BU, there is no official recognition for them in the anti-discrimination statement (in fact, the statement was only added 18 months ago after Silber's departure). The result of that is that gay stdents cannot confront their abusers within the BU rules, so for example, if another student harass you for bring gay, it is not a offense(aside from the harassment part, but not the dicrimination part). He also decided to remove the gay-straight alliance of the BU academy (a BU affliated private high school) under the pretense of "the gay club is about discussing sex", blantantly ignoring the fact that a) gay students need support in the form of GSAs against harassment, bullying and abuse and b) the fact that Boston school districts has largely embraced gay-straight alliances. Moreover, i am not the only one reporting this, and this is not my personal opinion, given the fact that the Village Voice in New York has covered the subject. Therefore, i find my addition of the article (thanks Pravon for cleaning it up) appropriate.

I think you would find it more appropriate if this article is a glowing account of Silber and all his accomplishments, but this is not a article meant to flatter, but to report the truth. By the way, next time if you are gouing to accuse me of something, sign your damn name.--Bud 07:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


I am inclined to think that if John Silber had stepped from the BU presidency back in say 1985 or even as late as 1990 his reputation and place in the history of American higher education would have been much more secure. People would now remember him for the positive things that happened at BU under his watch: its transformation from a mediocre communeter school to a nationally renowned research university, the elevation of academic standards that occurred when Silber was president, the hiring of Nobel Prize winners to the BU faculty. All things that represented very real and significant accomplishments on Silber's part. The negative aspects of his presidency would have, by now, been largely forgotten. However, unfortunately for the sake of his legacy, he didn't resign back then but continued to stay on at BU. So, in addition to all the positive accomplishments that I have mentioned, BU also got cronyism as he filled administrative posts with people better known for their loyalty to Silber than for their competence. BU got the failed presidency of Jon Westling, a man who was handpicked for the job as Silber's successor by John Silber. Almost as soon as Westling took the job, Silber, unable to let go of things, used his new post as chancellor to undermine Westling. Within a few years, Westling was gone. Then Silber returned as acting president of BU while the board of trustees (mostly Silber cronies) undertook a nationwide search for a new president. At Silber's prompting, they found one in Dan Goldin, former head of NASA, who was said to be Silber's match in intelligence and ego. Well, that led to one of the greatest fiascos in BU history, when the two men soon began to butt heads. Goldin resigned the presidency without ever actually starting in the job. But he did get a nice golden parachute for his troubles anyway. In addition as Bud has mentioned, BU also got national embarassment from Silber's occasional homophobic outburts. Apparently, some people don't understand the virtue of making a timely exit. --JimFarm 21:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


I'm disappointed that there's nothing really about the 1990 campaign, which was a significant moment for him and it's barely mentioned. His shoot-from-the-hip verbal style helped him win the Democratic primary for Governor in an election with significant voter backlash against the Democratic establishment. But he came off as too angry in too many situations (particularly an infamous TV interview with Natalie Jacobson) and ultimately lost the general election to Bill Weld. Rickterp 03:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Accordingly, I've expanded the reference to the 1990 election. I think this is a case where, unless you know more about what happened, you'd really wonder how this man managed to win a Democratic primary for Governor of Massachusetts. I need to source this more, but my memory of this campaign was that it was never really about Silber's policy views at all. Instead, Silber seemed to take on a Howard Beale-like persona and, to the surprise of everyone, it appealed to voters (in the Democratic primary anyway) tired of the Michael Dukakis years and wanting a change. Rickterp 13:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I can write of him as one who took a course on ethics from him spring 1961 at The University of Texas. He was known then as a liberal Democrat; in the fall I would join Young Republicans. I later became a Democrat, but I doubt that either of us fundamentally changed over the years. He was pretty outspoken, especially about capital punishment and a Texas Legislature beholden to oil interests. Now he is often identified with the Republican wing of the Democratic Party.

He had a Socratic bent, but this was a class that was not too inclined that way. I regret I was too shy to get in the arguments. One classmate was clearly Republican and they would often go at it. I was surprised to hear this student got an A.

In this course I never heard him talk about homosexuality. I knew I was gay, and if it had been 1971 I would have broached an argument. It occurred to me at the time that this issue might well illustrate a problem with Kant, who said that a moral maxim must be one that can be universally applied without contradiction. This seems safe as a necessary condition, but not as a sufficient one. Yes, if everyone engaged only in homosexual sex it would mean the extinction of the human race. Does everyone have to be exclusively heterosexual? Isn't the world today troubled by overpopulation rather than underpopulation?

There was a rumor at the time that he was an atheist, and I heard it from reasonable people. Then I heard he was active in a church. So much for rumors. Scott Tillinghast, Houston TX 01:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kant and Homosexuality

Clearly his homophobia stems from Kantian ethics. By simple logic, homosexuality cannot be universalized by categorical imperative and is therefore immoral. Furthermore, Kant would say that it is our duty to be heterosexual.

(This comment was posted 24 Nov 206 by user 217.207.116.194)
And this applies to the article on Silber how? Pzavon 03:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I suppose you mean to say that by this logic it is immoral never to have children. Apparently you're not aware that many self-described homosexuals do have children and that, rather ironically, Immanuel Kant did not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjjconrad (talk • contribs) 10:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments on Boston University's Guest Policy

I am seeking other editors' views on the material now given under the heading of "Comments on Boston University's Guest Policy" I removed it once and it has been replaced, with only a change in the title, which was originally something like "Criticism." I thought it was inappropriate in the context of this article, standing alone as it was. It is taken from an old Daily Free Press article. Some but not all of the Freep's quotes from Silber are given, with no context or explanation as to how they fit in an article about Silber. This seems to me to be a subtle means of pushing a point of view.

Am I off-base on this? Pzavon 03:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I dont think it adds much to the article about John Silber. (It would add to the article on BU though). Copysan 06:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] invalid external link as only reference

In edits performed on 22 Dec 2006, 70.226.152.215 added mention of the charge that Silber denied tenure or promotion to facilty members simply because they did not agree with his policies. A link to http://www.bufuture.net/alumdon.html was provided as a reference. I followed this link and found that the entire website has been "retired" by its sponsors. The reference material that would support this entry is thus no longer available. Without this or another reference this allegation would seem to be unverifiable. I suggest that another supporting reference be provided or the text be removed. Pzavon 04:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I put it there and i was aware the link has been removed. However, before the comment is removed i would like to stress that just because the link (or source) is removed does not make the previous statement untrue. On the other hand, these things (decline of donations because of Silber's comments) are hard to prove one way or the other and many required sources would not be available. If anyone has an alternative i would like to hear it.--Bud 10:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that the truth of a statement like this is less inportant to the validity of its inclusion in a Wikipedia article than is the ability to demonstrate through a reference that the allegation has been made in a forum other than Wikipedia. This is part of the concept of "verifiable." Thus, if your "required sources" are not available, the statement ought to be removed. Pzavon 22:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism section?

I'm struck by how this article tends to become a soapbox for everyone who hates John Silber to add their little piece about why they can't stand him. I don't like him either, but I worry that this article is becoming just a list of everything he's done to anger people through the years. I'd suggest that the article be divided into several sections, including a Criticism section, and that the criticism gets edited down a bit, so it doesn't end up being 75% of the article (which is what it is now). I'll try to tackle this when I get some more time in a few weeks. Rickterp 15:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've divided the article into sections. This seems like a change that was long overdue. The Criticism section seems long, but I left all the text as is for now. Rickterp 00:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I dont think it should be called "criticism", but more like controversies. Because oif you read the article as it is without division, it also noted that Silber has improved BU as an institution byu hiring high profile and nationally renowned scholars, which even critics cannot deny. While i am certainly no fan of silber, I dont think his contribution to BU should be muted. I will see if i can contribute some time to this article.--Bud 06:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV and other criticisms

The article is riddled with unsupported statements, some of which are clearly speculation. The negative facts need supporting citations and the editorial opinions and speculation needs to be removed. (Properly sourced expert or community opinions on controversies, well, uh, need proper sourcing.)

The article is also disorganized and some sections are poorly written, either with convoluted sentences, or in a way that makes understanding difficult for "outsiders". Studerby 02:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article has been tampered with and is now egregious

What is it with the supporters of John Silber? Do they willfully destroy this article by changing dates (the union recognition controversy from 1979 to 1975, etc.) and mucking up the writing? Who is responsible for the overall edit of this article? This is scandalous.

The fact is, Silber was an awful President who used B.U. for purposes of conversion. He and his cronies took money out of the school to feather their own nests, like it was a corporation to be looted by raiders.

That Silber was a homophobe is doubted by absolutely NO ONE. The man was EXTREMELY NEGATIVE. You aren't hit by vote after vote of noconfidence by deans and faculty, you don't become a national scandal written up by various newspapers outside of New England because you're doing something right. To avoid a "negative" point of view would be to write propaganda. I wonder what the Hitler article is like.

Yes, Hitler killed tens of millions, but shee-it, he got the economy back and humming. And Stalin was so much worse (Using Hitler is unfair in kind and degree, but I'm trying to make a point.)

This man, by running on the Democratic ticket, so alienated normal Democratic voters that a Republican won election in the Commonwealth, the most Democratic of states, for 16 years!!!

I've seen these kind of specious arguments.

This article had supporting articles, etc. that are now stripped, gone.

I've seen articles on Wiki be built up into useful things, but this is undergoing the opposite: from evolution to devolution.

Someone should cobble together the best parts of this, and then this article should be locked down so that the goblins can't destroy it.

Shameful.Fester Bestertester, Esq. 05:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)