Island Republic｜島嶼共和國

《國家與社會革命》是我在大學時代讀過印象最深刻的作品之一，該書作者 Theda Skocpol 寫完這本享譽士林的作品之後的待遇，是遭到哈佛大學的解聘。是時，憤恨不平的 Theda 控訴哈佛大學性別歧視，否定她的學術表現。五年後， T. Skocpol 重獲哈佛大學聘任，離開了芝加哥大學，並且在哈佛大學建立起她的學術生涯。前年， Theda Skocpol 膺任文理大學院（GSAS）院長。

哈佛大學的學生報《哈佛紅》（The Harvard Crimson）重審這一事件，並訪問該時通過拒聘決定的相關成員。我們在當時望重士林的各大學者口中，完全否定了 Skocpol 應該續任的理由，並且，也否定了「性別」作為考量的重點：

REASONS FOR REJECTION

Despite these considerable qualifications, those professors who voted against Skocpol for tenure contended then and still contend that her gender had nothing to do with her rejection.

“It is absolutely the truth that the department was leaning over backwards and really gave her considerable advantage because she’s a woman,” emeritus Andelot professor of sociology Nathan Keyfitz said then.

Alessandro Pizzorno, former Sociology Department member and a supporter of Skocpol’s tenure, expresses a similar view. Pizzorno writes in an e-mail from Florence where he is a researcher at the European University Institute, “one could say that unexpressed consideration [of gender] influenced the position of some members of the department. I do not think so. Even in personal exchanges, to my knowledge, the question of gender was never mentioned.”

Bearman, Vogel, and White offer various reasons for Skocpol’s rejection. Bearman believes that it was part of a greater trend within the department: “they saw a phenomenal amount of talent in junior people, all of whom in those days were never considered for tenure.”

According to Vogel, senior faculty raised questions about the quality of Skocpol’s scholarship in “States and Social Revolutions.” The book presented case studies of the French, Russian, and Chinese revolutions, but members of the department wondered whether Skocpol’s inability to read original French and Chinese sources compromised her research.

Others question whether Skocpol’s opinions prejudiced her findings.

“There was also a question of whether she had developed a certain point of view and ignored other evidence that came out after the Cultural Revolution before she wrote her book,” writes Vogel, “therefore giving a one-sided point of view while ignoring other viewpoints. The question was whether a tenured faculty should not give a balanced view, making use of all the evidence instead of selecting only information to fit one’s theory.”

Others, according to White, thought that she had published too little to be tenured: “Some seniors supported her, one or two were hostile to it as I remember, and I suspect the bulk, like me, voted on the grounds that it was premature without further work.”