and this was noted in the harvard corporation records. her thesis became published articles and her work in welsly's labs were published studies, she wrote her first book, "an introduction to psychology," she was offered the ph.d., but she did not accept. she continued to teach, and served as president both of the american psychological association, and the american philosophical society. i'm sure not at the same time. and she wrote four books and over 100 articles evenly divided between psychological and philosophy. in 1929, a group of fill aus fehrs -- scholars sent a letter to grant her the ph.d., it-ed to her international reputation. the university concluded, quote, there was no adequate reason for granting her the ph.d. case closed. there's nothing rational to be argued here. i think it's essentially a case of exclusion, history, tradition and privilege now being joined by taboo. but looked at in another way, it's clear from the account that radcliffe became the side door, opening graduate education in arts and sciences to women. in

the phd. this, too, was noted in harvard corporation records. her thesis became published articles, and her work in wellesley's lab became published studies. in 1901 she had her first book, "introduction to psychology." in 1902 radcliffe offered her the position and she did not accept. she continued to teach at wellesley and continued as president of the american psychological association and the american philosophical society. i'm sure not at the same time. she wrote four books and over 100 articles, evenly divided between psychology and philosop philosophy. in 1929, a group of philosophers and psychologists, harvard graduates all, sent a petition to harvard's president to grant her the harvard phd. it outlined her achievements and testified to her international reputation. the university concluded, quote, there was no adequate reason for granting her the phd. case closed. there's nothing rational to be argued here. i think it's essentially a case of exclusion, history, tradition and privilege now being joined by taboo. but looked at inner way,

attain high office in university administration. 1989, the entry of the first woman into the harvard corporation. 2007, the first woman to serve as president of the university. moving an institution towards equity turns out to be very hard work. preston faust has stated that it's easier to change an administration than a faculty, and in the recent period there's been real success at the administrative level. of the 16 members of the harvard council of teens, seven are women, and these include teens of the law school and the school of engineering and applied sciences. what is impressive is not just those who are at the top but also those at the next level. seeing to the hard work of running the university. for example, of the 15 associates and assistants in the provost office, eight are women. opening the faculty to women has proved to be a more difficult task. harvard got a boost for the demand for more female professors came during a period of rapid growth in the faculty, allowing the number of women to rise. by 2001 there were 134 women. by 2008 the high point, 185 comprising roughly a quarter

the molding of our republican life. although they began to get support from harvard professors, all male, of course. the president was deeply opposed and so was the all male harvard corporation. >>> what was the objection? here must one return to origins, history, tradition and privilege. as the women of the educational association learned, in the late 19th century, harvard saw itself as a nursery for the nation of leadership and scholarship. although harvard men were general sympathetic to the idea of educated women, who as mothers of the republican and teachers bore responsibility for the young. they did not want women to study at the sacred grove reserved for the future ruling elite. the scarce precious resources should not be dissipated. some worried about the morale harm of coeducation. oddly, from today's perspective, young college men agreed, this essentially came from a class bias. elite men set the tone of under graduate life at harvard in the 19th century and the women came from modest backgrounds. bringing the dispised outsiders. gradually by starts and stops, a way was found. and this was by shear innovation. create a new institution tore -- for women, and place

i want ask about the 2010 citizens united ruling that allows corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money in federal elections. let's turn to a clip of harvardrofessor lawrence lessig commenting on citizens united. >> it is not as if on generate 2010 the day before citizens united was decided, democracy was coming along well and broken by the supreme court. democracy was already broken in the united states in 2010. it is broken because the tiniest slice of americans, point to 6%, give or than $200 and a congressional campaign. 0.05% max out. the tiniest slice of the top 1% of america funds elections in america. that reality will always be, whether corporations or persons or not, corrupt the system in washington. the only solution to that problem is not just limiting the ability of corporations or private individuals, but to talk openly and honestly about the need to funds publicly fund elections. >> that was lawrence lessig. what are you going to do about citizens united? it is a supreme court decision. >> absolutely i agree with the professor that it is not that citizens united made all the difference. we had big problems with money in poli

the crisis, finance was about 40% of corporate profits, total. that is a staggering figure. when you get near the top of the merit credit paramedics, you see a tremendous back-and-forth. princeton or harvard are having as many as 30%, 40% of graduates of going out to work on wall street, and this small amount of people have been able to extract value and profit from the economy, and not necessarily in the service of the productive real economy. sometimes when a banking system is functioning well, what it is doing is channeling savings to investment. that is the key role it plays in a capitalist economy. sometimes, when it is functioning poorly, it is taking huge debts and concentrating risk in certain areas that could bring everyone down. i absolutely agree that the growth of finance, the way finance has developed, and tied in with the development of the set of people that are produced through these institutions is one of the greatest challenges we face and probably the biggest crisis we have in seven years was produced by that. in terms of measures of productivity, it is a great question. one of the things about merit that is interesting is that i think we all agreed that people who work