Is Harvard President's View on Gender and Science Justified?

[Kerrie]

Yeah why do people think fractions are hard?

I'll never forget my algebra 2/trig teacher: When you see a fraction don't panic. Its just a number. Thats all. Nothing special. When people see fractions they panic and freeze. Don't. Its nothing but a number, just like 1, or 2. Just a number.

In high school, my dream was to obtain a degree in mathematics. Fractions and Geometry come super easy for me, as I see the concepts as pictures rather then numbers. This helps me calculate quickly in my head without the use of pencil/paper or a calculator. But, the encouragement of women entering in the math field in the early 90's was severely lacking. This article that Moonbear has referenced shows just how important educators are to those willing to learn. And those educators are not just limited to the classroom...this website is a learning environment, so every bit of encouragement we all give one another could really make a difference in another's life path.

I agree to that extreme feminists (those who step on men to get to a higher ground in other words) don't help the cause for equality. If anything, they don't help our position and make us look foolish.

As for women being less able in the math and science area, my husband and I are both not typical of that at all. I do the checkbook, help my daughter learn about astronomy and the sciences (she loves it), and I work with a once NASA engineer in my company in building parts for machinery (requires lots of math). My husband is very politically savvy, understands literature and history better then anyone I know, and wishes to write a book someday.

I think this Harvard President is a little biased if he is reinforcing a fact that can be changed with some encouragement and incentive to more women to enter into the math and sciences fields. His statements surely won't help women, that's for sure.

 

[Kerrie]

An apology from the Harvard President:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/21/national/21harvard.html

The Harvard University president, Lawrence H. Summers, apologized personally on Thursday to a group of distinguished women professors as he battled to convince the university's faculty of his commitment to diversity after remarks suggesting that women may be innately less able to succeed in math and science careers.

 

[Moonbear]

Dang, I need a membership to access the NY Times! I wanted to read the rest of that article. About time he apologized. Now how about he step down and let someone else take the helm.

 

[Evo]

Ah yes, how does that old saying go? "May the words you say today be sweet, for tomorrow they may be words you'll have to eat".

Sorry, but what he said is what he really thinks. The retraction is an apology forced upon him and has nothing to do with his personal beliefs. I have even less respect for him now. Before he was just a bigot, now he's a bigot and a liar.

 

[Moonbear]

Ah yes, how does that old saying go? "May the words you say today be sweet, for tomorrow they may be words you'll have to eat".

Sorry, but what he said is what he really thinks. The retraction is an apology forced upon him and has nothing to do with his personal beliefs. I have even less respect for him now. Before he was just a bigot, now he's a bigot and a liar.

Had he IMMEDIATELY apologized, I may have been sympathetic that he could have mispoken or been misunderstood, but the several days delay is just about how long it takes to organize a formal press statement when the university community is breathing down your throat telling you you better apologize. I agree, it's hard to believe he's sincere. I wish I could access that article, I'd like to see exactly how his apology was worded...did he apologize for what he said, or did he apologize for saying it?

 

[Evo]

Had he IMMEDIATELY apologized, I may have been sympathetic that he could have mispoken or been misunderstood, but the several days delay is just about how long it takes to organize a formal press statement when the university community is breathing down your throat telling you you better apologize. I agree, it's hard to believe he's sincere. I wish I could access that article, I'd like to see exactly how his apology was worded...did he apologize for what he said, or did he apologize for saying it?

Exactly my thoughts. Had he immediately apologized I might think he was sorry for letting his personal beliefs slip out, although that's what he believes, but after this long, it's obvious he was forced into retracting his statements. I haven't read the whole article, so maybe I'll have to eat this, but I highly doubt it.

 

[Andromeda321]

Seeing as I'm in physics/astronomy for my interests for my major the lack of female company in physics class seems unsettling me. So I've been asking around about it lately, both girls who decided to go that route and those who didn't why they chose what they did (mainly gals on the premed track).
The most interesting thing about those who didn't go into "hard science" is how there is a trend that they weren't quite sure what to do but figured premed sounds good so why not (there are girls with this attitude in engineering but they're much rarer). There's the idea that they like science and you can get money out of it and it's comparatively easy, really.
It's funny tho, when I tell these girls I want to be an astronomer they get very excited about it. One even talked to me for a good few minutes nonstop (I was wondering when she took a breath) about how when she was a little girl she was obsessed with stars and no one could've convinced her not to be one in a million years. (It was even the topic of her college admissions essay.) "So what happened?" I asked her, knowing that she's now a biochem major. "I grew up," she said, in such a matter of fact tone like it was obvious because no one actually becomes an astronomer, obviously. I wondered where I fit into her picture of the universe and asked her but she had no answer for that.
Now it might sound like an unrelated little story but somehow that girl and her matter of factness worries me. What happened to her along the way that made her "grow up" as she put it? I don't know what it was but I have a feeling if we could figure it out we'd be further along then we are now on this problem.
Also, another thing: most people here seem to think that it all starts back in elementary school but speaking as someone who went to an all girls school I daresay this isn't the case. Well into middle school girls are eager and willing to study sciences without a doubt. But then in high school is where a lot of it happens, really: they realize the math is too hard/ science isn't worth it and move on to other subjects (with more interesting teachers, as a side note). I think it really has a LOT to do with the fact that girls just can't imagine themselves in the fields because there are no role models they know of to point to and say "that's an example of who I could be should I choose to do this." A little proof of this is the astronomy dept in my school is overwhelmingly female whereas the physics department has the average male/female ratio. The reason for this has a lot to do with one of the female professors who goes out of her way to set up mentors for potential astro majors within the department/ act as a mentor herself. We get quite a few girls transfering into the department actually their second year, surprisingly enough.
Ok, end of my rant now, hope that was all coherent.

 

[tribdog]

I was always told boys are smarter in math and science, and those are my strongest subjects. That's why I had the gender reassignment operation.

 

[Moonbear]

Andromeda, that's an interesting perspective. Looking back, I didn't go into physics because I didn't like it until I got to college, and by then I wasn't going to start over with a new major. In high school physics, the students who were doing well in the class all cheated in the most horrible, back-stabbing sort of way (one I found out actually ripped the pages out of a reference book in the library we all needed for a lab report so nobody else could use it). I didn't cheat, I think I was the only one in the class who didn't, and as a consequence, when I wrote an honest lab report interpreting the actual data I got rather than the fudged data everyone else used, I got penalized for concluding I had disproved Newton's laws! Well, honestly, the data I got did disprove it based on what we had been taught to that point (of course the more likely explanation was faulty equipment, but I had no way to know that at the time). Anyway, I just had the impression that the only way to do well in physics was to be a competitive, arrogant, back-stabber, and I wanted nothing to do with it.

Then again, I'm not sure how I wound up in biology either since my Jr High biology teacher told me I just didn't have the aptitude for biology and should have just dropped the class. Fortunately, I just hated that teacher enough to want to prove him wrong, so didn't really believe him when he told me that. But, it just goes to show how little teachers know about what students are truly capable of doing.

 

[Moonbear]

I was always told boys are smarter in math and science, and those are my strongest subjects. That's why I had the gender reassignment operation.

Oh, and here we thought Greg was just being mean giving you a pink ribbon. Now we know he knew more than we thought.

 

[Math Is Hard]

About time he apologized. Now how about he step down and let someone else take the helm.

I wouldn't be surprised if Harvard replaced him soon with a female president.

Two advantages I can see to this strategy:
1) Harvard can redeem itself in the eyes of an irate female science community
2) They can pay the new president less money

 

[Moonbear]

I wouldn't be surprised if Harvard replaced him soon with a female president.

Two advantages I can see to this strategy:
1) Harvard can redeem itself in the eyes of an irate female science community
2) They can pay the new president less money

Oh, don't think someone at the level of president will accept less money. It's actually great where I am now. We have both a female president and female provost, and they've been doing a great job. The only thing I was pissed about is a local magazine did a story on the university president (along with stories on several other notable people in the community), and in her article, they made some stupid comment about her choice of hosiery (apparently when they interviewed her, she was wearing stockings with some bold pattern on them), and then my dept chair (male) actually said to me he was looking forward to checking under the table to see what she was wearing at a banquet we were both attending. Yes, my dept chair is an a$$! I'm really hoping he's the next to go when they get a new dean here (rumor had it the previous dean was very close to axing him, but left before the deed was done).

 

[Math Is Hard]

Oh, don't think someone at the level of president will accept less money.

It was a facetious comment. Forgive me, I've had a rough day and I'm feeling a little flippant and cynical.

The only thing I was pissed about is a local magazine did a story on the university president (along with stories on several other notable people in the community), and in her article, they made some stupid comment about her choice of hosiery (apparently when they interviewed her, she was wearing stockings with some bold pattern on them),

If they'd interviewed a man there would have been very little (or no) fashion commentary.

and then my dept chair (male) actually said to me he was looking forward to checking under the table to see what she was wearing at a banquet we were both attending.

He sounds like a real gem.

 

[Moonbear]

\If they'd interviewed a man there would have been very little (or no) fashion commentary.

Indeed, all the other "notables" they interviewed in that issue were men, and not even a hint about their socks, or any other article of clothing (despite the one wearing a really goofy looking bow tie in the photo included...why not comment on that?). I canceled my subscription to that magazine.

 

[gravenewworld]

You need to read today's wall street journal's opinion section. A female prize winning faculty member at Harvard even agrees with the president of the school. She even criticized the female president of MIT who was present for just simply leaving in disgust because she claimed the Harvard President was "biased".

 

[gravenewworld]

I don't think that educators are responsible for the lack of women in the sciences either. For god sakes from K-12 grade I would say 95% of my teachers were female. Blaming the lack of female interest on the school system is just an excuse.

 

[franznietzsche]

I don't think that educators are responsible for the lack of women in the sciences either. For god sakes from K-12 grade I would say 95% of my teachers were female. Blaming the lack of female interest on the school system is just an excuse.

Have you ever seen a liberal studies major that was good at math? Me neither.

 

[Moonbear]

I don't think that educators are responsible for the lack of women in the sciences either. For god sakes from K-12 grade I would say 95% of my teachers were female. Blaming the lack of female interest on the school system is just an excuse.

Um, yep, and the other 5% were the male math and science teachers! There are also a lot of K-12 teachers who teach math and science wrong! I had to devote a good deal of time when teaching general biology to undoing misconceptions about biology learned in high school. I would expect it only gets worse with physics and chemistry when there are even fewer qualified people to teach in schools.

 

[jammieg]

I couldn't find much in particular on what he said from the links, it seems mostly about actions and heresay, maybe even hyping up for more appealing news story due to the lack of specific quotes, because if there were specific quotes we could judge from them wether his reasons are faulty, but the quotes seem to be from other people about what he said not what he said by itself and in what context. I don't think there's enough first source information from these reports to really judge what is going on and I'm too lazy right now to ask The Google God.

But then even if he is offensive, sometimes people getting one angry causes one to prove them wrong...but seldom by changing others, it's when people change themselves that they improve...conflict breeds strength, and stubbornness, and even close-mindedness; so what brings one peace, and comfort, and open-mindedness can also brings them apathy and indetermination.

 

[Moonbear]

Apparently, Harvard has tapes of the conference, but won't release them or transcripts. Think they might have reason to hide something?

 

[Dust]

Causing a fuss/forcing him to retire only serves to propagate the females are submissive/fragile creatures stereotype. It's essentially saying that as females have such a low sense of self, even suggesting the notion males have a slight advantage in abstract ability will automatically cause women to believe they're worthless at science and quit altogether.

http://www.now.org/press/01-05/01-20-Harvard.html - This doesn't really do much for the feminazi image either.

When someone asserts you cannot do something which you rightfully know you can do, the automatic response is to try even harder to prove the person wrong. So if anything, his comments have in a way, helped genuinely talented women. Besides, if his "motive" was really to genuinely shut off women from the university, there are certainly more direct, effective ways he could do it, which certainly wouldn't involve stating his "intentions" out in the open. It would happen so obliquely that there wouldn't be time for an outcry.

Back to his original comment, I don't think his suggestion for concrete, scientific research on the differences between the sexes will take place anytime soon, or ever. The little that has been done is already suppressed, and all that remains is Psychology's ridiculously broad "women are empaths, men are systemisers". However, even Psychology in it's vagueness states men have an advantage in spatial reasoning (as a polar opposite to women's superior multi tasking), which is essentially the same as what Summers said.

The best way to resolve this is just to ignore Gender altogether and focus on ability in the field. If it becomes more of a "we need x amount of women otherwise we're sexist", then it can only result dilutation. Leave gender debates to feminism.

 

[Moonbear]

Causing a fuss/forcing him to retire only serves to propagate the females are submissive/fragile creatures stereotype. It's essentially saying that as females have such a low sense of self, even suggesting the notion males have a slight advantage in abstract ability will automatically cause women to believe they're worthless at science and quit altogether.

I disagree. He's in a position where he really can hold back women in their careers even if they are many times over better than the men. I hardly think women going after him to resign perpetuates a submissive stereotype. It says people can't get away with perpetuating stereotypes, especially people in positions of authority to override hiring/firing/promotion/tenure decisions regarding those whom he considers inferior.

By the way, I wouldn't suggest he be asked to retire. Do you think I want to reward him with a cushy Harvard retirement/pension package for this? No, I want him to be asked to step down and let him decide if his ego can handle returning to a regular faculty position rather than that of an administrator.

 

[Dust]

I disagree. He's in a position where he really can hold back women in their careers even if they are many times over better than the men.

In what way? What could he enforce? Even in the unlikely event that men being genetically advantaged did somehow become a dictum, the scientific method would still stand. It would still be based around empirical assertions. Fields wouldn't distintegrate into "you're a female, so everything you say is necessarily wrong". Summers didn't say anything near this intensity, yet he's still being blasted, so I doubt circumstances could even begin to get that bad...

Yet even if things somehow unrealistically did degenerate to this extreme, it would only work to make exceptional women stand out. Besides, it would be a lot of work conspiring against 50% of the population, remaining undetected whilst maintaining the demands of a position, wouldn't you think? As the chance of executing such a plan is slim, the cost high and the reward low. Like I said, he would've stuck to the shadows if this was his intent.

I hardly think women going after him to resign perpetuates a submissive stereotype.

But the reasons given for asking him to resign certainly do. It's indirectly insinuating that women have no way of not believing/suscribing to a stereotype/comment about gender characteristics when in place (at the very least a significantly more difficult time than men), and therefore need affirmative support from outside sources. This, along with the related studies often bunched together to force the point (e.g. High school girls test scores lower significantly when boys are present or some such) hardly serve to put across absence of weakness...

It says people can't get away with perpetuating stereotypes, especially people in positions of authority to override hiring/firing/promotion/tenure decisions regarding those whom he considers inferior.

It actually enforces the stance that one can't be too hasty about saying anything which might be deemed as unpopular by the general public, or you'll face losing your job and/or funding. This sets the focus on suscribing to popular views rather than on truth, which of course slows progress down to a halt. For the best example of this, look at how Genetics is being targetted.

Ironically, forcing Summers to leave would actually cause sexism. The result would be that universities around the globe really would go down the "we need x amount of women, otherwise our department is shut down" route, meaning the women are used as shield against Feminist attacks, rather than on individual merit.

I think the jist of what Summers was actually aiming for was working towards making the whole gender/social conditioning issue more acute (rather than the groggy state it is now). If it was proven without a doubt there was no significant inherent differences between the sexes, what DOES cause the difference in behaviour between men/men, women/ women, men/women could then be looked into, stopping the role confusion that is currently the case.

 

[Moonbear]

In what way? What could he enforce? Even in the unlikely event that men being genetically advantaged did somehow become a dictum, the scientific method would still stand. It would still be based around empirical assertions. Fields wouldn't distintegrate into "you're a female, so everything you say is necessarily wrong". Summers didn't say anything near this intensity, yet he's still being blasted, so I doubt circumstances could even begin to get that bad...

It has nothing to do with the field disintegrating, and everything to do with his position at a major research institution. He's the president of the university, which means he has the final authority to approve or disapprove hiring decisions and promotions to tenure. He can override department decisions. If you spend 5 or 7 years building your research career, apply for tenure, and are denied it, that is a major career setback.

The reason Harvard faculty should be calling for him to step down is quite simple. Highly qualified scientists will choose to find positions elsewhere if they are uncertain they will get fair consideration for a position at Harvard. It won't hurt science, it will hurt Harvard's reputation as a leading research institution when they lose qualified applicants, or when current faculty choose to move elsewhere and take their funding with them.

I'm also not worried about the effect this would have on women already in research careers. We've made it this far and can tell him to take a hike with his opinions. What I'm worried about are the young girls who hear this. A statement by the president of Harvard University comes with an air of authority. It is important that the fallacy of his statements be pointed out so that it is not accepted as fact.

And, regarding your statement that "Fields wouldn't distintegrate into 'you're a female, so everything you say is necessarily wrong'." (sic) really is a risk of such an attitude. Women have been dismissed in that way in the past, and have had to jump twice as many hurdles to prove themselves as men, and not in the too distant past either, so yes, that is a concern. Stop it now rather than sit back and quietly accept his statement, which only allows it to gather further strength and acceptance.

 

[Evo]

Lawrence Summers has a history of making statements that show what a cretin he is.

In 1991 when he was President of World Bank he released a memo that said "I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that". He apologized for this one too. So see, he's not a male chauvinist, he also thinks people in poor countries are worthless trash.

http://baltimorechronicle.com/world_bank_jul99.html

 

[Astronuc]

I think Summers qualifies as a 'Git'.

 

[Kerrie]

Since I really believe this article has direct relevance to our female members here at PF, I wanted to share this article I found. Hopefully it pulls up, if not let me know.

Science Editor of the NY Times-a little girl

Moon, this thread speaks volumes about all of the females who love science but somehow don't get the encouragement they deserve to pursue it as far as they can. Thank you for bringing it to light.

 

[Moonbear]

Kerrie, it requires registration at NYTimes, but the link works otherwise.

That was a great article. It was interesting that she specifically gave an example of a neuroscientist speaking of her as a little girl. I wouldn't even know where to start trying to guess which one it was. Fortunately, most of that generation are near retirement age. There are some who are not just sexist, but outright womanizing leches.

Her story of the stigma associated with being a girl who was good in math at school really hit close to home. In 6th grade, our teacher gave out a math quiz while I had to miss class for something else. When I walked back into the room, I was given the quiz and sat down in a back corner of the room to take it while he continued the rest of the lesson for everyone else. A very short time later, I turned it back in. He looked at it to make sure I had actually answered the questions, then promptly went to one question on the quiz and graded it while everyone waited. The class wanted to kill me when he announced I had gotten it 100% right, because apparently nobody else in the class was able to solve that problem and they wanted to have him drop it from the scoring, but since I got it right, it meant it was do-able (and it was worse that it took me no time at all to solve it). I never felt so bad about doing well on a quiz as I did that day. But, in that case, it had nothing to do with being a girl; the class was willing to ostracize or kill anyone who got that question right.

 

[Townsend]

Hi everyone,

I am coming into this thread from the backend. I really don't want to read through all six pages so if my comments have already been talked about please forgive me.

Anyways, read a little bit about what this Harvard guy said and then I read some of the post from the females and males here at PF. I get the impression that there is no real middle ground on this subject so I won’t bother trying to find one. But I do have an idea that could make this a moot point. What if names, race, gender and any and all personally identifiable information is removed before any of the applicant’s are reviewed for acceptance?

They could establish a point system where applicants get a certain number of points for certain things. For example you take your total sat score, then you get additional points for community service and so on and you get the idea. All the admissions board gets to see is the relevant information about what this person has done and what scholastic qualifications merit this person’s acceptance.

This would method is completely fair to all parties and some may disagree but here me out first. I have heard the argument that women or certain minority groups are underrepresented in this area or that. To fix the problem the idea seems to be that if they increase the number of these minority groups in these certain areas that they will encourage more people from these groups to go into these areas. So they give these underrepresented groups an unfair advantage to accelerate this process of integration. They basically think it is ok to commit an injustice to fix another injustice. And overall they’re opinions are the ones that matter more than the individuals opinion so this is what we get.

Well, I do believe that this idea of accelerated integration does, in the short term, work to make a sustainable number of persons from underrepresented groups. Sure in the mean time the numbers might look like they are showing progress but once the source of artificial influx is removed these numbers will dwindle. So to maintain these numbers there must be continued artificial influxes which are injustices done to the majority groups.

How is doing this a good thing? How does this work to create a diverse and well integrated society when deep down inside every white male that has had to get passed up not because of his ability or scores or achievements but instead because he did not belong to an underrepresented group, is feeling a certain amount of loathing towards these minority groups? I contend that it is an inescapable part of human nature that if you see someone else pass you by while you worked hard and performed better you will always have a certain amount of animosity towards them from that day forward.

To fix our problems we need to be patient. Eventually things will reach and equilibrium that is sustainable and realistic. Nobody knows what percent of females would be in math and science if given the exact same environment factors to influence them as a typical male has. Nobody can make these predictions but if we allow equal opportunity for everyone eventually we will know because we will see it. Sure there are stigmatisms that will exist for the time being but these will fade and underrepresented groups will have members that become Einstein’s. In fact as soon as a woman makes a major scientific break through I bet the number of women in math and science will increase more than it ever has before.

Anyways those are my opinions and thoughts about this. I don't know if they are really very constructive but I like to think they help to give everyone an opportunity to see things in a slightly different way.

Regards

 

[etc]

w/o having read but the first page here, i shall digress to my broad analysis. those who are offended by generalizations (and scientific ones at that) are immature.