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.
