There has been much said about the statements made by Lawrence Summers, the President of Harvard University, regarding the dearth of women in the science fields. I don't know exactly what Summers said, here was his latest
apology issued Thursday:
"I was wrong to have spoken in a way that has resulted in an unintended signal of discouragement to talented girls and women," Summers said in the statement. "Despite reports to the contrary, I did not say, and I do not believe, that girls are intellectually less able than boys, or that women lack the ability to succeed at the highest levels of science."
Not knowing exactly what Summers said, I am loathe to critique it. But I do know what
Ruth Marcus wrote in the Washington Post about it, and I found that to be incredibly obtuse:
Is it so heretical, though, so irredeemably oafish, to consider whether gender differences also play some role? As the daughter of two scientists and the mother of two daughters, I think not. After all, scientists are reporting day by day about their breakthroughs in understanding the genetic basis of diseases or personality traits. Brain studies of men and women show that the two genders use different parts of their brain to process language. (Men tend to be left-siders, women both-lobers.) . . . Biology may not be destiny, but as we Brio-buyers and truck-swaddlers have discovered, its effects also can't be discounted.
Many of the same people denouncing Summers, I'd venture, believe fervently that homosexuality, for example, is a matter of biology rather than of choice or childhood experience. Many would demand that medical studies be structured to consider differences between men and women in metabolizing drugs, say, or responding to a particular disease. And many who find Summers's remarks offensive seem perfectly happy to trumpet the supposed attributes that women bring to the workplace -- that they are more intuitive, or more empathetic or some such. If that is so -- and I've always rather cringed at such assertions -- why is it impermissible to suggest that there might be some downside differences as well?
Summers (even in his earlier, unexpurgated form) wasn't saying that no individual woman could be a stellar scientist, or mathematician, or engineer, only that overall one gender might be more inclined in that direction than the other. Indeed, if that did prove to be the case, it would be all the more important for educators at every level to nurture and encourage girls and women with scientific promise, and it would make those who achieve at the highest levels all the more valuable in a modern university, or any modern workforce conscious of the cost of gender disparities.
The Summers storm might have been easy to forecast. But it says less, in the end, about the Harvard president than it does about the unwillingness of the modern academy to tolerate the kind of freewheeling inquiry that academics and intellectuals above all ought to prize rather than revile.
(Emphasis mine.) My reaction on the flip.
Update [2005-1-23 11:3:59 by Armando]: For those on the thread who missed the POLITICAL dimension to the supposed statements of Summers, here comes Charles Murray:
Mr. Summers's comments, at a supposedly off-the-record gathering, were mild. He offered, as an interesting though unproved possibility, that innate sex differences might explain why so few women are on science and engineering faculties, and he told a story about how nature seemed to trump nurture in his own daughter.
To judge from the subsequent furor, one might conclude that Mr. Summers was advancing a radical idea backed only by personal anecdotes and a fringe of cranks. In truth, it's the other way around. If you were to query all the scholars who deal professionally with data about the cognitive repertoires of men and women, all but a fringe would accept that the sexes are different, and that genes are clearly implicated.
I would hope that some of you will rethink your positions in light of this on the issue of the propriety of the Harvard President making such a statement. And this has NOTHING to do with whether the studies should go forward.
Ms. Marcus' reaction is, to me, one of the most obtuse pieces of reasoning I've ever read. For Ms. Marcus, the issue is whether we are willing to look to genetics for the answer to why women are underrepresented in the sciences. My gawd, as if the sexists were short of easy excuses, and needed some musings from the President of HARVARD to make them comfortable with their prejudices.
Now I know nothing of the science part of this speculation. I suppose it could be true or it could be false. I'm skeptical that actually knowing the answer, if it knowable, will really provide much benefit anyway. What effect would it have on social policy? But I do know this-- gender discrimination has been a serious problem in academia since there has been an academia. And that its deleterious consequences are felt today. It is a much more serious problem than Ms. Marcus' musings on innate genetic differences and her notion that there is academic intolerance in the academy.
The President of Harvard is one of, if not, the most prominent "political" figure in academia in this country. He doesn't get to "muse" on the possibility that genetic differences account for differences in in gender representation in the sciences. That's part of the territory in being the President of Harvard. If he doesn't like the "restrictions," he should resign.
Is this "political correctness"? Not to me. It is recognizing the public role of the President of Harvard. For example, I don't think Summers gets to blast Bush's economic policies, even though he certainly has the expertise to do just that.
It is very telling that Ms. Marcus' concern is for "academic intolerance," not gender intolerance. One is speculation, the other is a proven history and reality. To me, her political concerns are patent - ignore racial discrimination, gender discrimination, discrimination based on sexual orientation (I didn't miss the scoffing at those "wacky liberals" who believe sexual orientation is innate) - the real threat in her mind is to the CONSERVATIVE in academia. Her "my daughters are scientists" smacks of "I have black friends." If I didn't know where the WaPo Editorial Board has been on Iraq and other issues, it might have shocked me. But I've come to expect this sort of thing from the "liberal" Washington Post.