Do Scientists, Or Science, Or Harvard’s Summers Discriminate Against Women?

President Lawrence Summers of Harvard has stirred up another hornet’s nest of criticism on the discrimination front. (An earlier example is discussed here) This time, his transgression was to discuss some explanations of why there are fewer women in science and math than … well, than there should be.

About 50 people attended the conference, sponsored by the National Bureau of Economic Research and titled “Diversifying the Science and Engineering Workforce: Women, Underrepresented Minorities, and Their S&E Careers,” at which Mr. Summers gave a luncheon talk. While no transcript of his remarks exists, conference attendees say he discussed several possible hypotheses for why fewer women than men are in the top ranks in science and math at elite universities.

He discussed the theory that women with children are reluctant to work the 80-hour weeks that are required to succeed in those fields. Conference attendees said Mr. Summers then discussed the possibility that men and women may have different innate abilities that were previously attributed to socialization.

These comments did not go over very well, at least in some quarters. Nancy Hopkins, a professor of biology at MIT, “walked out in disgust in the middle of Mr. Summers’s speech.”

When Ms. Hopkins heard that, she said, “I was profoundly upset.”

“That kind of discrimination holds people back,” she said.

Hmm. What kind of discrimination would that be? The studies making this claim? Mentioning those studies in public?

Not hiring or admitting a particular woman because women in general are thought to be less interested in or talented at math and science would be discriminatory. Discussing studies of the possibility that women are less interested in or talented at math or science, though quite possibly (in my opinion, quite probably) false, is not.

To the degree that professors respond to evidence or discussion they don’t like in the manner of Prof. Hopkins, i.e., walking away in disgust, higher education would begin to resemble the picture of it drawn by those who see political correctness everywhere.

Say What? (46)

  1. actus January 19, 2005 at 2:59 pm | | Reply

    ‘Hmm. What kind of discrimination would that be? The studies making this claim? Mentioning those studies in public?’

    Did he mention ‘studies’. Or was just he hypothesizing?

  2. David January 19, 2005 at 3:31 pm | | Reply

    In reference to the earlier example- what the heck is going on between Gates and Appiah that they appear to be a package deal for any school that hires one or the other? And do these guys really spend so much time on campus that having them together in the same dept. really matters? It sounds like an extortion racket.

  3. Mantooth January 19, 2005 at 3:58 pm | | Reply

    Given that there are so few women Nobel Prize winners in the hard sciences, and absolutely no women Fields Medal winners, I suspect that anyone who wanted an excuse to study this question has a valid scientific starting point.

    But you know, it’s just not done. You wouldn’t get funding for such a study, and if you did get funding, you couldn’t get it published in peer reviewed journals. It’s just not done, old boy.

  4. James January 19, 2005 at 4:52 pm | | Reply

    Jesus –

    This is exactly what I feared when I first heard of the spat between West and Summers when he assumed the Presidency in 2002. My fears were only exacerbated when I read a New York Times Magazine profile of Summers in 2003 in which he:

    (1) expressed “off the record” opposition to affirmative action and

    (2) reportedly shouted “nigger” at a student during a debate about free speech and academic freedom within the university community.

    It won’t be long before we see the likes of Charles Murray in the upper reaches of Summers admininstration. In fact, according to so-called human bio-diversity advocate Steve Sailer, Summers was instrumental in recruiting right wing evolutionary psychologist, Steve Pinkerton, to the College of Psychology. All of this was occurring as he did everything in his power to push one of the great scholars of African American studies out of Harvard.

    This can’t be allowed to stand. Harvard is too important to this country, and indeed the world,for a person who harbors such views to steer its future. Summers must go. This can’t be allowed to die. In fact to those who believe that it will die, I quote (paraphrase) Churchill, “This is not the end, or even the beginning of the end. It is,however, the end of the beginning.”

  5. Zach January 19, 2005 at 5:06 pm | | Reply

    Harvard is too important to this country, and indeed the world…

    It is..? To whom..?

  6. Michelle Dulak Thomson January 19, 2005 at 5:06 pm | | Reply

    I posted something to this effect over at Megan McArdle’s “Asymmetrical Information,” but it belongs here too. Why is there concern that women are underrepresented in the sciences? Shouldn’t we be concerned equally that men are underrepresented in the humanities? In fact, women make up a considerable majority of college students, and so if they’re seriously underrepresented in math and hard sciences and engineering, they must be even more overrepresented somewhere else. But I have never heard any calls to arms about the dearth of men studying history or English literature or classics. Why is that?

  7. actus January 19, 2005 at 5:14 pm | | Reply

    ‘Given that there are so few women Nobel Prize winners in the hard sciences, and absolutely no women Fields Medal winners, I suspect that anyone who wanted an excuse to study this question has a valid scientific starting point.’

    Whats the valid scientific starting point?

  8. Nels Nelson January 19, 2005 at 5:27 pm | | Reply

    Michelle, speaking as someone with an English Literature degree, I would imagine the lack of concern is twofold: humanities undergraduate degrees are easy to obtain (I switched my major from Computer Science after its rigorousness did not mesh with my college-years “lifestyle”) and, perhaps not coincidentally, are worthless beyond the university gates.

  9. actus January 19, 2005 at 5:39 pm | | Reply

    ‘ and, perhaps not coincidentally, are worthless beyond the university gates.’

    Sorry you’ve had this experience. Mine is doing just fine.

  10. Humdinger January 19, 2005 at 7:14 pm | | Reply

    Actually, he’s right. Political correctness doesn’t allow for some things to be studied scientifically. Too many applecarts might get upset. Summers upset a big one, but the idiots calling for his scalp are so insignificant that they are best laughed off.

    “reportedly shouted “nigger”?” Reportedly, as in someone told someone else who told someone else, but no names of course, because we’re posing as journalists with “sources” so “reportedly” makes it sound like it actually happened. Droll.

  11. actus January 19, 2005 at 8:33 pm | | Reply

    ‘Reportedly, as in someone told someone else who told someone else, but no names of course, because we’re posing as journalists with “sources” so “reportedly” makes it sound like it actually happened. Droll.’

    Not if we know what ‘reportedly’ means. Which I guess is the point of using the word.

  12. MIke McKeown January 19, 2005 at 9:36 pm | | Reply

    James noted the recruitment of ‘right wing evolutionary psychologist, Steve Pinkerton’ to the big H. I think he means Pinker. Although Pinker, a linguist, does reject the strong version of nurture – – blank slate – – and suggests that we recognize hard wired aspects of human neural function, even a cursory reading of his popular books suggests that his politics are flaming liberal.

    As Pinker points out in ‘Blank Slate’, we need to determine empirically what is, because our wishes about what is, if false, can lead to bad policy.

  13. Michelle Dulak Thomson January 19, 2005 at 10:18 pm | | Reply

    Nels,

    [H]umanities undergraduate degrees are easy to obtain (I switched my major from Computer Science after its rigorousness did not mesh with my college-years “lifestyle”) and, perhaps not coincidentally, are worthless beyond the university gates.

    I wouldn’t go so far as that; it would be strange to see people paying that much for degrees worthless outside academe when most of them don’t intend ever to spend their lives there.

    Seriously, though, it’s peculiar that no one so much as notices a field becoming majority-female, while a field that’s majority-male, even something not terribly remunerative like mathematics, is cause for concern.

  14. what if? January 20, 2005 at 1:13 am | | Reply

    Dr. Summers Anti-PC Express

    Dr. Summers recent comments on women and their skills has, not surprisingly, elicited more than a few responses. It appears that two questions need to be asked.

  15. Centerpiece January 20, 2005 at 1:48 am | | Reply

    A Stupid Liberal Biologist On Parade

    In the past, women used to claim that vulgar language would cause them to grow ill or faint. Now feminists like Hopkins use the same tactic to silence ideologically unacceptable ideas and to intimidate the intellectually curious. That’s the stereotype …

  16. notherbob2 January 20, 2005 at 1:57 am | | Reply

    Don’t miss the point on this story. Jonah Goldberg put his finger right on it. See my trackback for the link. This story is the poster child for several liberal hypocracies rolled into one.

  17. Mike McKeown January 20, 2005 at 9:06 am | | Reply

    Steven Pinker is interviewed on this topic by the Harvard Crimson http://www.thecrimson.com/today/article505366.html

    Joanne Jacobs links to a 2002 article from Scientific American on Sex Differences in the Brain http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00018E9D-879D-1D06-8E49809EC588EEDF

  18. Jason January 20, 2005 at 10:23 am | | Reply

    When I read about the female professor leaving the talk in disgust I wondered how someone so fragile and ignorant of science had advanced to such a position at the university.

    Steven Pinker nails the issue in the Crimson article linked above. As Pinker says…”another sign that we are dealing with a taboo is that when it comes to this issue, ordinarily intelligent scientists suddenly lose their ability to think quantitatively and warp statistical hypotheses into crude dichotomies.”

  19. Alex Bensky January 20, 2005 at 10:49 am | | Reply

    I’m with Professor Hopkins on this one. I mean, if people have to listen to opinions they don’t like, what kind of university can you have? That’s why it would be unfair to ask the professor to spell out the points where she thinks Summers is incorrect. To do so might run the risk of not validating her feelings.

  20. Tim Gannon January 20, 2005 at 11:50 am | | Reply

    Comments please on this statement.

    You cannot discriminate against women, you can only discriminate against a particular woman because she is a woman.

  21. Munroe January 20, 2005 at 12:36 pm | | Reply

    It seems when people use the word “reportedly” they intend to tell a lie while putting the lie in some unnamed person’s mouth.

  22. Steve LaBonne January 20, 2005 at 12:53 pm | | Reply

    Can’t anybody be brought to admit in public the obvious fact that, with every hard-science department in the country bernding over backwards to find female candidates for every position, the idea that there is still discrimination against women is worse than ludicrous? And since Prof. Hopkins obviously knows this situation very well indeed, what can save her from a charge of gross hypocrisy?

  23. notherbob2 January 20, 2005 at 1:22 pm | | Reply

    Nothing could save her and nothing did: http://nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg200501190846.asp

  24. Claire January 20, 2005 at 2:28 pm | | Reply

    I happen to be a scientist, with a MS in polymer chemistry BS/BA’s in chemistry, physics, and mathematics. I work in the chemical industry, and while there is not a 50-50 split when you consider all the persons with scientific degrees, the recent college hires are far more evenly split. In fact, I’m seeing more females than males hired as entry-level engineers.

    I have also spoken to many of these new hires after they start, and asked them about their college experiences. Many report that they experienced racial and sexual discrimination in college, primarily at the hands of their professors. Several females reported feeling or being patronized by professors because they were women – there were explicit references to their femaleness that caused them to conclude this. One young black male engineer reported that he felt like he could have not lifted a finger and the professors would have passed him, solely because he was black. Two asians, one male and one female, reported that they were ignored and treated with disdain, and that this behavior was common by professors toward asians.

    These are anecdotes, which means it is not necessarily correct to conclude that this behavior represents that of all colleges or all students in the sciences. But it is widespread enough that it is a factor being considered by our Human Resources group as they evaluate the list of schools where they intend to recruit.

    In industry, there are very strong laws against any kind of discrimination or race/gender-based behavior. The difference from the academic environment is that in industry, there are a lot of people watching, and there is a significant level of accountability. How many universities have a toll-free, anonymous phone number for reporting incidents? But that is common in industry. Legally, they can’t afford not to. And as people are trained and conditioned to not let race or gender be a factor, it becomes a reality. In fact, you can get so spoiled to being appreciated for your abilities as an individual that, when you encounter race or gender-based assumptions or prejudice, it is a bit of a shock.

  25. actus January 20, 2005 at 9:25 pm | | Reply

    “Seriously, though, it’s peculiar that no one so much as notices a field becoming majority-female, while a field that’s majority-male, even something not terribly remunerative like mathematics, is cause for concern.”

    At least for new grads, mathematics is very remunerative.

  26. Steve LaBonne January 21, 2005 at 8:14 am | | Reply

    In a culture in which people have been systematically conditioned to feel victimized at every turn, those anecdotal reports are not very valuable.

  27. Richard Aubrey January 21, 2005 at 12:02 pm | | Reply

    Well, sports have been Title Nined for years.

    Why not the hard sciences?

    That means, by the way, keeping out male scientists until the ratio is as desired.

  28. John from OK January 21, 2005 at 2:40 pm | | Reply

    I am currently aware of 4 young women who are pursuing majors or advanced degrees in interior design, and one who is debating between interior design and teaching. And I really don’t know that many people.

    I assume they all would have pursued science or engineering degrees had some form of discrimination not stopped them. Thanks to Larry Summers, we’re going to have an interior designer on every block!

  29. Michelle Dulak Thomson January 21, 2005 at 2:57 pm | | Reply

    actus,

    At least for new grads, mathematics is very remunerative.

    Is it? What does the new graduate with the expertise in, say, number theory do? Unless s/he goes on actually to teach mathematics, it’s something remote from the degree.

    I had a friend who got her MA in English literature, and ended up working as a technical writer, making more in a year than I’ll likely make in three, in the sacred cause [and I mean that seriously] of creating technical instruction manuals that can be understood by human beings.

    I don’t know any mathematicians who did so well, but possibly you do.

  30. actus January 21, 2005 at 3:12 pm | | Reply

    ‘Is it? What does the new graduate with the expertise in, say, number theory do? Unless s/he goes on actually to teach mathematics, it’s something remote from the degree.’

    In my school lots went into actuarial science: a pretty safe field — didn’t have the dazzle of the dot-coms but also had much more job security low stress. Also many went off to be wall street analysts — lots of statistics as well as just sharp cognitive skills needed. Some just to regular old consulting jobs. I would coach my friends in consulting jobs on their maths and at least one mentioned this to their boss at which time they immediately wanted to see my resume.

    I myself got a job as computer programmer — my boss had a mathematical model and he didn’t like hiring computer scientists. He said they didn’t know any math. My first assignment was doing integrations — ie, math homework.

    An expert in number theory (which i doubt any undergrad is) can work in cryptography or coding. Ie: telecoms software and hardware. Thats huge. And thats just if he wants to stay in his field. If he knows combinations he can go into genetics. Coding is all the rage in neuroscience too.

    There was a saying around the department: math majors can do anything.

  31. Michelle Dulak Thomson January 21, 2005 at 3:57 pm | | Reply

    actus, fascinating stuff, thanks! (Especially the remark on number theory & coding, which I ought to have known already, but hadn’t occurred to me at all.) And congratulations on your own career trajectory. I suppose that what I ought to have said is that no one that I’ve ever heard of gets a math degree with the expectation of making lots of money, any more than anyone gets a degree in English lit with the expectation of doing ditto.

    Doubtless being not completely clueless about numbers is a useful skill. So is being not completely clueless about words. So (to repeat), why doesn’t anyone care about the gender imbalance in humanities students, who are (hopefully) spending their studies grappling with words? Is it fair that women are getting this training at the expense of men? Will no one cry out against this monstrous gender imbalance?

    I am making fun, obviously, and making it rather badly at that. But I would honestly like to see the people concerned about the dearth of women in the sciences paying at least a little attention to the dearth of men in the humanities. Do gender imbalances matter only in certain fields, or is it that they matter only in one direction?

  32. actus January 21, 2005 at 4:21 pm | | Reply

    ‘Do gender imbalances matter only in certain fields, or is it that they matter only in one direction?’

    I think the concern is that gender imbalances are a problem that depend on their source. If you know boys being discouraged from the humanities — I never saw it — then try to fight that discouragement. I certainly don’t think its because they’re incapable.

    I’ve also heard that women are surpassing boys academically, and that at least one reason for this is how much time boys spend on their X-boxes.

  33. Laura January 21, 2005 at 7:26 pm | | Reply

    The first person to win 2 Nobel prizes was Marie Curie. Hers were for physics and chemistry, respectively. Here’s a good article about her.

    http://www.france.diplomatie.fr/label_france/ENGLISH/SCIENCES/CURIE/marie.html

    “…Marie admitted that ‘one of our pleasures was to enter our workshop at night; then, all around us, we would see the luminous silhouettes of the beakers and capsules that contained our products’.” This was before OSHA, or whatever the French equivalent is!

  34. actus January 22, 2005 at 1:08 pm | | Reply

    ‘This was before OSHA, or whatever the French equivalent is!’

    What was it that killed her?

  35. df January 22, 2005 at 9:28 pm | | Reply

    Anyone know where there’s a betting pool to wager on when larry will resign? i can’t imagine he’ll last past valentine’s day.

  36. Wendell January 23, 2005 at 2:42 pm | | Reply

    An astute commentary on the Summers flap appears in today’s OpinionJournal:

    http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110006196

    The author, Harvard professor Ruth R. Wisse, compares the now-apologetic Summers to “a prisoner in a Soviet show trial,” as she laments the stifling of reasonable discussion by the forces of political correctness.

  37. Laura January 23, 2005 at 4:59 pm | | Reply

    Actus, she died of leukemia. Nobody knew how dangerous radiation was and they had no idea that that pretty glow was killing them.

    Her daughter Irene, who worked with her and carried on after her death, died of leukemia too.

  38. actus January 23, 2005 at 7:34 pm | | Reply

    ‘The author, Harvard professor Ruth R. Wisse, compares the now-apologetic Summers to “a prisoner in a Soviet show trial,” as she laments the stifling of reasonable discussion by the forces of political correctness.’

    I’d say a lot soviet show trial prisoners could only wish they were presidents of elite western universities.

  39. Laura January 23, 2005 at 7:53 pm | | Reply

    It is kind of funny that Hopkins is thought too sensitive when she objects to the original remarks, but criticism of the remarks is thought to be too much for Summers to have to take.

  40. Moonbattery February 2, 2005 at 2:27 pm | | Reply

    Ward Churchill Followup

    Eye Doc of Ace of Trump makes a good point in a comment to this post regarding college professor and demented Che Guevara wannabe Ward Churchill by stressing that his Hamilton College gig was canceled for security reasons, as opposed…

  41. PETE February 17, 2005 at 9:35 am | | Reply

    HARVARD’S SUMMERS IS RIGHT!

    MEN ARE TO BLAME FOR SMALL SKULLS/BRAINS OF WOMEN!

    100,000 YEARS OF MATE SELECTION BY MEN PREFERING SOFT SMOOTH FLESH(HENCE SOFT PUSSY) WOMEN AND DOCILE WOMEN WHO ARE EASY TO MOUNT DURING SEX RESULTED IN WOMEN WHO ARE PHYSICALLY WEAK AND MENTALLY INFERIOR TO MEN.

    ANY WOMEN WHO WAS MUSCULAR/STRONG OR HAD ROUGH/HAIRY SKIN OR WAS TOO SMART WAS EITHER TOO HARD TO MOUNT BECAUSE OF RESISTANCE OR UNPLATABLE FOR SEX.

    FACE IT JACK, IT’S THE HARD TRUTH!

    HARVARD PRESIDENT SUMMERS IS RIGHT…

    MEN’S SELFISH DESIRE FOR SELECTIVE SEX IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WOMEN EVOLVING INTO WHAT THEY ARE TODAY.

  42. dustbury.com March 21, 2005 at 9:27 pm | | Reply

    The case of the gorgeous librarian

    Desiree Goodwin’s discrimination suit against Harvard, last mentioned here, has gotten as far as jury selection. Goodwin, who says that her appearance has kept her from advancing in the Harvard…

  43. dustbury.com March 22, 2005 at 10:49 am | | Reply

    The case of the gorgeous librarian

    Desiree Goodwin’s discrimination suit against Harvard, last mentioned here, has gotten as far as jury selection. Goodwin, who says that her appearance has kept her from advancing in the Harvard…

  44. dustbury.com March 22, 2005 at 1:26 pm | | Reply

    The case of the gorgeous librarian

    Desiree Goodwin’s discrimination suit against Harvard, last mentioned here, has gotten as far as jury selection. Goodwin, who says that her appearance has kept her from advancing in the Harvard…

  45. Webby April 8, 2005 at 4:49 am | | Reply

    My sister is quite possibly (without a word of exaggeration) the most intelligent person I have ever met, however, she was also extremely attractive.

    And most of her life, she managed all her intelligence and play the air head when it was socially expected of her.

    She knew that few men are strong enough to stand next to a strong woman, for fear of looking weak by comparison.

    She bought into it and it cost her the brilliance that she was heir to.

    Her mind went untrained beyond a bachelors degree.

    Statistics are just dots on a graph. And when they are connected differently, they draw a different picture.

    Perhaps if men were more secure in their masculity , women could also be without fear of social isolation.

  46. More Summers Showers June 30, 2016 at 8:28 am |

    […] reader Fred Ray sends word of more comment on the Summers controversy (which I discussed here). The Boston Globe, for example, reports that President Summers, completing his cave in, has […]

Leave a Reply to actus Click here to cancel reply.