NEWS
Harvard president raises gender issue
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Caitlin Kiley:
- Supreme Court to hear patent law case (April 12, 2005)
- North Dakota bill targets TAs with accents (April 19, 2005)
- Nearly 5th of all college sports teams fail in classrooms (March 28, 2005)
- Protestors wrap up hunger strike (March 11, 2005)
- Yale protestors seek more aid (March 3, 2005)
Related Stories:
- Summers' divisive remarks spur concern (March 4, 2005)
- Faculty denounces Summers' speech (March 17, 2005)
- Harvard president back in hot water (April 22, 2005)
- Science gurus elect 72 new members (May 5, 2005)
- Speaker touts female empowerment (April 1, 2005)
by Caitlin Kiley
Wednesday, February 9, 2005
When Harvard University President Lawrence Summers said in January that biological differences might explain why fewer women appear in science and math fields, he did not expect the immediate outcry of criticism from around the country.
Summers was speaking at a private conference on economics at the time when he questioned discrimination’s role in the gender gap existing in higher education.
Summers’ assertion that men and women are different based on “innate” biological differences was quickly countered by academics around the country.
According to Janet Hyde, UW professor of psychology and women’s studies, the assertion males outperform females in math is false.
“The problem with that argument scientifically is that there basically aren’t any gender differences in math performance,” Hyde said. “There are hundreds of studies that show that.”
Though a slight discrepancy in scores appears toward the end of high school, Hyde said the gap could be attributed to the kinds of courses female students choose to take. Girls take fewer science and math courses toward the end of high school.
“What they see is women doing occupations like elementary school teaching, and they see occupations like chemistry and engineering being occupied almost exclusively by men,” Hyde said.
Others, however, argued that a woman’s position in the working world had to do with alternate factors.
According to Caitilyn Allen, UW assistant professor of plant pathology and women’s studies, biology is irrelevant and the more logical explanation is institutional bigotry.
“Bigotry exists in the way we assess and promote people at the university level,” Allen said. “You don’t need to invoke innate differences to explain the gap that exists in fields like physics and engineering … if there are differences in achievement … you have to ask if biology is the most likely explanation or whether the well-documented social prejudice is a better explanation.”
Though Summers’ comments fueled a torrent of opposition, others praised him for stimulating a much-needed debate in a climate not always friendly to open discussion of controversial issues.
“The most interesting part is the reaction,” Conrad Clifton, UW professor of higher education and education administration, said. “I do think it’s wonderful for university presidents to be provocative — which almost none of them are.”
According to Clifton, Summers’ mistake lay in forming a hypothesis rather than posing a question. Clifton said, although he thought some overreacted, he was critical of the Harvard president. Instead of being so sure of himself, Clifton said, “he should have been more open.”
Despite this, Clifton believes his remarks will “lead to some good” by opening sensitive issues.
Mass media attention on issues like gender differences in elementary school students can actually affect how parents estimate their own daughters’ academic abilities, according to Hyde.
“We can’t say that this is just some nice conversation among scholars. There’s actual demonstrative harm done,” Hyde said.
Summers has since apologized for not having weighed his comments with more care. He also recently announced the creation of two faculty task forces and a senior administrative position dedicated to fostering gender diversity at Harvard University.
Anonymous (February 9, 2005 @ 8:37am):
"biology is irrelevant and the more logical explanation is institutional bigotry"
institutional bigotry? yeah, professor. we all know how bigots thrive on college campuses. Get a real job.
Anonymous (February 9, 2005 @ 10:32am):
"institutional bigotry? yeah, professor. we all know how bigots thrive on college campuses. Get a real job."
QED
Anonymous (February 9, 2005 @ 11:49am):
I love the part where the womyn at Summers' talk almost fainted from the stress of hearing what he said!
Was she was suffering from the "vapors" or perhaps it "female complaints"?
Anonymous (February 9, 2005 @ 2:37pm):
Female and Male are biologically different. When is the United States going to realize that not every person on this planet is identical? I agree that we should all be free to pursue happiness in an unhindered fashion, but that doesn't mean you force equality in every aspect by establishing quotas, affirmative action, etc. Just as some people are physically more beautiful, some groups of people are genetically more apt in certain fields--get over it. (I know you never will).
Anonymous (February 9, 2005 @ 2:54pm):
Equal opportunity should be provided to all. Equal results can not be obtained by mandate.
Anonymous (February 9, 2005 @ 3:42pm):
Summers got schooled in academic freedom!
http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2005/02/the_summers_con.html
Some of the comments suggest that the real significance of Summers's January 14 remarks was to demonstrate that universities are no longer citadels of free speech, though that cannot have been his intention. One comment compares his apology to the confessions of Stalin's purge victims: "Everyone should oppose a 'signal of discouragement to talented girls and women.' [That is a quotation from Summers's first apology.] But the truth is that such a signal, to the extent it occurred, resulted from deliberate, intense, and misleading responses to his remarks. That's classic totalitarian suppression of an unpopular view, with forced public acknowledgment of guilt and forced repudiation of the 'wrong.'" Another comment quoted: George Wills: "Forgive Larry Summers. He did not know where he was...He thought he was speaking in a place that encourages uncircumscribed intellectual explorations. He was not. He was on a university campus."
Anonymous (February 9, 2005 @ 3:48pm):
"We can't say that this is just some nice conversation among scholars. There's actual demonstrative harm done," Hyde said."
Compare Summers treatment with that given to Ward Churchill.
social science is wrong (February 9, 2005 @ 6:06pm):
The innateness may not have to do with ability rather their interest. Hyde is right, performace is equal. But is it so hard to accept that there might be differences in what different sexes prefer to do (regardless of what the voodoo science refered to as social science says)? Brain imaging has shown that men and women think differently at the level of neural networking. This doesn't mean one is better than the other, just that they are not the same. Just like what was said above, equal opportunity is not the same as equal results. I guess people are just stupid. If they are told they are not as good at something as someone else and it has a biological basis, they just throw their hands up and cry bloody murder. (this applies to both sexes) But lets not forget to shun the researcher who proves this for encouraging discrimination and of course be sure to call him or her a facist. How else would "intellectuals" obsessed with blind equality handle such a matter. Thats how it has been done before, and how it will continue into the future.
Anonymous (February 9, 2005 @ 8:34pm):
I love how biological factors are what determine gender to begin with--but, according to these "intellectuals," biology plays no role in any differences that exist between male and female thereafter.
In that logic, it doesn't matter that I have XY chromosomes and a cock, if I define myself as a female, than I am a female.
