In light of the comments to this post, I want to make a few things clear:
Revisionism of the Rav's Life and Legacy comes from both the Right and the Left. Both, in my opinion, are fundamentally wrong. The Rav, as יבלחטו"א Rav Lichtenstein wrote, was sui generis (in our generation, at least). While there is absolutely no question that his primary loyalty was to lehrnen, and that he defined himself primarily as a,תורה מלמד , it is also true that he told people to become למדנים 'in the widest sense of the term,' which included general studies. [ I strongly doubt whether the Rov would have agreed with the Rambam that גדולי תורה who lack a philosophical education earn a lower rank in גן עדן than those who do (cf. Guide III, 51 and Kesef Mishneh ad Hilkhot Yesode HaTorah IV, 13 (end).
It, therefore, behooves us to let him be who he was, in all of his dazzling complexity. The same person who adamently opposed Women's Tefillah Groups (and any liturgical innovation, as made patently clear by the Letters published by Natty Helfgott), also adamently advocation women's study of Talmud. The same person who had magisterial command of כל התורה כולה, possessed an awesome command of Philosophy, Literature, Physics, Higher Mathematics, Psychology, Economics and Philology. As Professor Twersky noted, he brought these to bear ad majorem Dei gloriam, both for their intrinsic value and because he deemed them to be critical in order to teach Torah today to sophisticated Westernized Jew.
It has been said, on more than one occasion, that the Rav's fate is identical to that of the Rambam. Joseph Ibn Kaspi tried to make him a philosopher נטו and the Talmudists summarily ignored his achievements in the sciences, mathematics, medicine and metaphysics. Both were fundamentally wrong.
The same is true of the Rav's revisionists.