WSJ learns some lessons from the whole affair & looks for a silver lining. The piece culminates in a succint recommendation:It seems clear enough that Riza played the gender card on the compensation issue, because she was known for playing the gender card everywhere. And everyone, starting with the Ethics Committee and the human resources department, seems to have preferred to avoid her rather than face a scene. In important ways it was the unwillingness even to face, even to have a meeting with, an angry Muslim feminist whose career, after all, was being sacrificed on the altar of her paramour....
Vive la sisterhood of the Bank. So the rest of the world, starting with the staff of the Bank, may talk the gender talk - but it doesn't mean it....
whoever it is, the core task of Mr. Wolfowitz's successor should be to clean the World Bank stables, or shut it down.And the folks at AEI, while defending Wolfie, think he didn't go far enough (see additional links there).
Update: Weekly Standard sums up the whole affair.
You know, it would have been nice if all the folks running retrospectives had spoken up while Wolfie was still there. At least it would have prevented NYT from being able to write stories like this.
