Talk:Harvey Mansfield

Tocqueville
He also translated and edited a new version of "democracy in america" with his wife.

Domestic surveillance
I removed this section from the main article until such time that someone produces a notable academic source (not some guys blog) that has criticized Professor Mansfield's position on the extra-legal powers of the President. Professor Mansfield is a well respected professor with a large body of work, and I see no reason to single this article out for debate other than pure partisanship, which is not what Wikipedia biographies are supposed to be about. MoodyGroove 01:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove


 * In 2006, he drew controversy for an article he wrote in the Weekly Standard defending President George W. Bush's use of domestic surveillance in the War on Terror. In the article he writes:
 * "A strong executive is one that is not confined to executing the laws but has extra-legal powers such as commanding the militray, making treaties (and carrying on foreign policy), and pardoning the convicted, not to mention a veto of legislation. To confirm the extra-legal character of the presidency, the Constitution has him take an oath not to execute the laws but to execute the  office  of the president, which is larger..."
 * "...the rule of law is not enough to run a government. Any set of standing rules is liable to encounter an emergency requiring an exception from the rule of an improvised response when no rule exists. In Machiavelli's terms, ordinary power needs to be supplemented or corrected by the extraordinary power of a prince, using wise discretion..."
 * "...those arguing that the executive should be subject to to checks and balances are wrong to say or imply that the president may be checked in the sense of stopped. The president can be held accountable and made responsible, but if he could be stopped, the Constitution would lack any sure means of emergency action."


 * huh. well it seems sourced that he wrote the article. And it does seem to be a somewhat unique and notable viewpoint by a notable person. If you dispute the controversy, I think that can be left out, and the comments left to stand. He recently wrote another article which has engendered controversy, and expresses a similar line of belief in a somewhat smoother package. I think this section should be re-added to the article.--Boscobiscotti 17:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If you look at how this was originally placed in the article it was presented as a controversy. I performed a Google search and found one G-hit to a non-notable blog that criticized the article in the Weekly Standard. I generally don't approve of this kind of editing. I was the one who added the 'citation needed' tag and added the actual text from the article, to help change it from a left wing smear campaign to an intelligent discussion about Professor Mansfield's views, but in the last analysis, I removed it because it's obvious the intent was to stigmatize. In my opinion, it's being given undue weight by taking up the entire political views section, and I still don't approve of it. I am curious to know what recent article you are referring to, and I would request that you cite your source anytime you claim that a living person has done anything that "engendered controversy." MoodyGroove 18:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove


 * Whoa! chill.. this is the *talk page* -I presumed that you were aware of a more recent article which Harvey Mansfield wrote which engendered controversy - being a talk page, this can include non-sourced opinion. Be glad to look it up for you. Look, he is a noted political philosopher - His views are quite pertinent, because that's his business.. If he was a noted auto mechanic, not quite as much so. The quotations give a clear example of views he holds which have been articulated a number of times. There is nothing wrong with engendering controversy - Indeed it appears from my reading (never met the man) that controversy is something he does not shy timidly away from. It appears to be part of his professional persona. I think this article should include *more* not *less* of his ideas and views.  I personally think a section on the political philosophy of a political philosopher is quite pertinent, and makes more sense than puttting it all in controversy, but I will not change your edits till this is worked out. I think that a link to unitary executive theory is pertinent as well, since he is apparently a proponent of the theory. i will do some more reading and re-edit the article with sourced specifics.--Boscobiscotti 22:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not upset with you, so there's no need to tell me to chill. Yes, Professor Mansfield is a political philosopher. Yes, his political views are pertinent. No, he does not shy away from controversy. That does not mean that describing various controversies he's been involved in is a substitute for describing his political thought. So yes, the article needs to include more of his ideas and views (and not just controversial ones). I generally disapprove of anyone who brings an agenda to a biography of a living person (and I'm not saying you have one). What I am saying is that some editors do have one, so we should be able to back up what we say about living persons with reliable sources, and we should at least try not to pick out a single controversy and give it undue weight. Is domestic surveillance controversial? Yes. Does Professor Mansfield defend the president's qualified right to take emergency action that he will be held accountable for? Yes. Did he stir up a significant amount of controversy in the media or academia with his Weekly Standard article? Maybe, but I wasn't able to find any evidence of it. I placed it under "controversy" simply because domestic surveillance is controversial, and I don't think it belongs as a stand alone comment under his political philosophy. I disapprove of a link to unitary executive theory, unless you can provide a reference that Professor Mansfield is a proponent of it. Otherwise it's conjecture or original research. Professor Mansfield has been known to criticize political scientists (note that I did not say political philosophers) because they want to be "wise according to their theories instead of wise without a theory" so we should be careful we do not attempt to understand Professor Mansfield better than he understands himself. Believe it or not I'm actually glad you've taken an interest in this article. Regards, MoodyGroove 00:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

Affirmative action debate
Does anyone know where I can get a transcript? MoodyGroove 03:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

Quick note
On tone, the section of the article that contained the word "tyranny" in the title maintained NPOV throughout. Would be nice if we had a cleaner way to work the words "lawlessness and tyranny" into the header, though. The term was used to more accurately describe Greenwald's accusation. On a related note, the OpinionJournal site simply republishes print editorials from the Wall Street Journal, and the linked article is Mansfield's editorial from the 2nd. Clarifying ref. MrZaius talk  13:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding, MrZaius. I meant Salon.com. I'm still digesting the article. MoodyGroove 14:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
 * After reviewing both articles, I don't understand why you would want to work the words "lawlessness and tyranny" into the header. As a biographical article, we should be concentrating on Mansfield's views, not Greenwald's. It's reasonable to mention criticisms, but we should be careful not to give criticism undue weight, especially considering the relative absence of Mansfield's political philosophy (not through the lens of left wing criticism). MoodyGroove 15:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
 * It's not so much an issue of weight as it is accurately representing the criticism. Certainly someone with access to Mansfield's work should expand the LEAD and other sections, but the sections focusing on controversy and criticism must accurately reflect criticism of the topic.  On the validity of Salon as a source, note that it is a well established, long running site that is currently owned and operated by the Washington Post.  MrZaius  talk  15:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I was not aware that the Washington Post owned and operated Salon.com. It should probably mention that somewhere in the Salon.com article. Do you have a source? I will add a section on Mansfield's political philosophy as time allows. Greenwald's criticism was left in the article. I don't have a problem with it as long as it's not meant to stigmatize or injure and is presented in a responsible manner, with context, neutrality, and fairness of tone. MoodyGroove 15:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

Manliness and thumos section
I removed this section from the article:
 * Harvey C. Mansfield must be thick-skinned to have set himself up for so much criticism from left-leaning types, such as the distinguished Martha C. Nussbaum, by publishing his book Manliness (Yale University Press, 2006). As is well known, one word in Greek ("andreia") means both courage and manliness, and this book is indeed an extended discussion of courage in its various manifestations. Because women at times manifest courage, Mansfield generously allows that women can indeed be manly at times, as in the women's movement. However, he is, properly speaking, ambivalent about manliness, because it can at times be directed toward extremely questionable actions, such as the terrorist attacks on innocent civilians in the United States on September 11, 2001.
 * The part of the psyche that Plato and Aristotle refer to as thumos (or thymos) is the psychological dynamism that powers courage or manliness in its various guises, good and bad. (The Greek word "thumos" or "thymos" is usually rendered in English as "spirited" or "spiritedness." The Greek word "psyche" is usually translated into English as "soul," which is how Mansfield uses it in his 2007 Jefferson Lecture. But its meaning is arguably more clearly communicated by transliterating it as "psyche," as in this entry, rather than translating it.)
 * In his 2007 Jefferson Lecture in the Humanities, Mansfield explores the dynamism of thumos and politics in great detail. Following Plato and Aristotle and the central tradition of Western philosophy, Mansfield describes thumos as part of our animality. Thus he works with the long-established body/soul (psyche) distinction, wherein the logos part of the psyche is distinguished from the animality of the thumos and eros parts of the psyche. Our bodies are also part of our animality, as Mansfield makes clear.
 * As is well known, such distinctions are controversial among philosophic materialists, and so the thick-skinned Mansfield has been subjected to more criticism from left-leaning types, such as Philip Kennicott of the Washington Post and the humorist Maureen Dowd of the New York Times.
 * The prepared text of Mansfield's 2007 Jefferson Lecture is available at the NEH website, along with biographical, bibliographical, and other information about Mansfield. (See the link below.)

It may all be true, but it's unsourced and appears to be original research and contains synthesis. I will try to improve and expand it with the links provided. In the meantime I would encourage the author to add citations and remove speculation like "Mansfield must have been thick-skinned" and so on. MoodyGroove 13:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

"Books" formatting
Why are the books listed at the top of this article? It is the nearly universal practice to list an author's publications at the end of wikipedia articles. If anyone can adduce a reason for this idiosyncracy, I'm happy to leave it as is, but otherwise I'll change it in the next few days.--147.9.203.104 (talk) 20:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It happened because I used A Student's Guide to Political Philosophy as a source to explain Professor Mansfield's views on political philosophy and political science. Another editor subsequently renamed the section "A Student's Guide to Political Philosophy" and moved the other books and accolades to the top also. Feel free to change it. MoodyGroove (talk) 22:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

Personal Background
First, I'm not sure this section has the correct heading. Mansfield's academic postings aren't "personal background" at all.

Secondly, Mansfield spent two years in the early 1960s on the faculty at the University of California at Berkeley, as indicated here. That needs to be indicated somewhere in the article.

Finally, his marriage to Delba Winthrop was his second. His first wife, whose name escapes me at the moment (particularly embarrassing since I worked for her one summer in college) was the mother of his two children, Will Mansfield (who was actually a roommate of mine in college and who is now an economist) and Mary C. Mansfield, a very promising young historian of medieval France who, along with her mother and husband were killed in 1989 in an automobile accident.--BenA (talk) 12:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

And, after all, isn't he dead for about a month and a half? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.175.191.56 (talk) 21:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I added mention of Harvey C. Mansfield [Sr] as his father, but the link on Harvey C. Mansfield redirects to Jr. A disambiguation page is needed, which I don't know how to do. jawhitzn (talk) 16:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

"Controversies" section
His "real" grading system does seem to be controversial with students, etc., but the other two views listed-- a strong executive and gender roles-- don't appear to be on the same level of controversy as to merit inclusion in a "Controversies" section. The strong executive position is held by many people and according to the article, was only criticized by one commenter-- more citations/criticism are needed to indicate this is actually talked about as controversial. There is no criticism listed under the gender roles section or any indication this is controversial at all. It needs to be updated or split into two sections, one for the grades and one for the other views.--Gloriamarie (talk) 08:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Harvey Mansfield. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060901213551/http://www.digitas.harvard.edu/~perspy/old/issues/1997/dec/walking.html to http://www.digitas.harvard.edu/~perspy/old/issues/1997/dec/walking.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070519000428/http://www.neh.gov/whoweare/Mansfield/HMabout.html to http://www.neh.gov/whoweare/Mansfield/HMabout.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928020340/http://blogs.saintanselmcollege.net/2006/04/20/hmansfield060420/ to http://blogs.saintanselmcollege.net/2006/04/20/hmansfield060420/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070519000348/http://www.neh.gov/whoweare/Mansfield/index.html to http://www.neh.gov/whoweare/Mansfield/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160305183325/http://booknotes.org/watch/159774-1/harvey+mansfield.aspx to http://www.booknotes.org/Watch/159774-1/Harvey+Mansfield.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Grade Inflation
It seems that controversy around this topic seems to ignore a salient fact that makes the rise in grades predictable, understandable and justified at a place like Harvard is that, notwithstanding affirmative action, there has been an increase in the scholastic qualifications of students admitted to high end institutions like Harvard, Stanford and MIT in recent decades, with in some years 75% of the entering class having had perfect scores on their SATs. Thus it makes sense that the student body would have disproportionately higher marks than students attending colleges of a lesser caliber or Harvard students from a bygone era where a significant number were rich kids of mediocre academic achievement who focused on their social lives in clubs catering to their own, paying scant attention to their studies and being gratuitously awarded "Gentleman Cs" as a result. And of course viewed objectively, which can be harder to measure in the more amorphous ares of the humanities, a "curve" is manifestly unfair if it does not correspond to what students' achievement actually is. Thus if every student in a math class answers every question on a test correctly then they all should receive a top grade. As with professional athletes and astronauts, excellence among all should be considered a basic qualification for retention and mediocrity should be viewed with disfavor; a student body of overachievers with mostly A grades should be a source of pride. So I don't think Harvard has anything to apologize for; the curve was executed in the highly competitive admissions process.Tom Cod (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2020 (UTC)