President Summers of Harvard said a few things covered on the front page and in the press about the ability of women to do math and science, putting forth a hypothesis so that it might be disproved.
A lot of dkos flesh has been seared on this topic... and the doctor has arrived! He subsequently left but he was here and I had a nice long chat with him.
Everyone is considering the idea "what should progressives do about Summers?!". Should we demand his firing? Should we discuss the issues as scientists? Should we not talk about it? Should we go to Harvard?
What should we do depends on what we should think.
I know there are a few, like me... who would bristle a bit at that word "should" I used in the last sentence above the magic diving line. My messages up there are always a bit different from the one's in here. It's like this great doorway. You can make it heavy or light or put bright lights around it. Or just make a subtle command. Include a subtle demand that we "should" think some common thing!
We know everyone should be free to think what they want, but we also want consensus, we also feel some ideas are detrimental to the happiness of the species.
If there isn't a single individual attitude that covers us is the difference between the groups a "division"?
If so what kind of division is it? A fissure? A partition?
Is it a chasm impossible to mend but over which perhaps a bridge could span? Is it an abstract division, like a property line, which can be moved by mutual agreement?
One boundary on the set is that Summers speech was a regressive cultural message, anti progressive. There are arguments, for one, there is a scientific (and philosophical) argument that by making the challenge he provokes real knowledge, and real knowledge is progress.
But in that case you have to judge the scientific value of his challenge. You can start with many hypotheses... assuming women are innately less able is not the only hypothesis one could test, and a public non-technical speaking engagement is not particularly recommended as a scientific method. It was public discourse on the subject. So I think saying it wasn't a mistake for progressive politics makes you an outlier. There is always room for that, I don't want to imply you shouldn't outlie, I do it most the time myself.
But not this time.
Now at the other end of the spectrum is calling for full punishment... it wasn't illegal, so that means some amount of shaming and getting fired, for example.
We need both perspective... it's true that we can't afford to be scientific about it. We'll be hearing about this for sure, but we can't react in a way that destroys intellectual integrity as a whole, we have to represent. It may be hard to see that for some, but others see it easily, you can believe it's there.
We need to be up in arms about this mistake as well.
The solution is that this sort of action is up to those in a position to care most. Alumni might want to make demands based on their feelings... researchers there may even want to quit their jobs... who knows. It would all be appropriate.
I don't feel that the whole Harvard faculty quitting would be a good idea, and neither would the answer be billions in funding research based on a hypothesis that women are mathematically inferior.
Both positions have idealistic and pragmatic aspects, that is, arguments from both sub-perspectives, which I consider a requirement for any progressive position.
With neither faction actually claiming that Summers deserves praise, his colleagues can chide him and recommend a better hypothesis for the research in his newly chosen field... and the lynch mob can go ahead and attack him for a bit of well deserved hit on his reputation or even to force him to move on.
PS: If I really hoped to use marketing skill to heal wounds at dkos then I would not post this in the tiniest hours of the American Morning... but maybe you can just help spread the thoughts by thinking them with me here for a while beyond American Midnight.