Last Friday Lawrence Summers, President of Harvard University, spoke at a conference sponsored by the Natioal Bureau of Economic Research -- “Diversifying the Science and Engineering Workforce: Women, Underrepresented Minorities, and their S. & E. Careers.”
Dr. Summers arrived after a morning session and addressed a working lunch, speaking without notes. No transcript was made because the conference was designed to be off-the-record so that participants could speak candidly without fear of public misunderstanding or disclosure later.
It wasn't as much off the record as he apparently thought...
On January 17 the Boston Globe reported the gist of his remarks, and a firestorm erupted.
[H]e said that innate differences between men and women might be one reason fewer women succeed in science and math careers. Summers also questioned how much of a role discrimination plays in the dearth of female professors in science and engineering at elite universities.
He's spent much of the past week issuing apologies and meeting with Harvard faculty trying to convince them of his commitment to diversity. Since I'm getting in on this discussion late, I'm not going to say anything about his remarks or his response except that someone as smart as Summers should know that any remarks the President of Harvard University makes will always be the subject of intense public scrutiny, even if they are intended to be “off the record.” Instead, I want to say a few words about some remarks that have been said in his defense. To take as one example, consider this excerpt from a letter by Tony McGovern published in the New York Times on January 20:
There is a procedure in evaluating hypotheses within the scientific method. If Mr. Summers's statement falls on its merits, it will be because it will be thoroughly investigated and then summarily rejected. This, in turn, will attract more women into the various scientific fields and foster a greater understanding.
Mr. McGovern has a point, but just because there is a procedure for evaluating hypotheses doesn't mean that all hypotheses are worthy of investigation. To take an extreme example, Rudolf Mengele had some “hypotheses” about how human beings would respond to various types of torture. I hope we all agree that those hypotheses should never have been investigated.
This case is a bit more subtle, but consider this question: “Suppose we learned that there was an innate difference between men and women in mathematical ability. What ought we to do differently as a result?” I submit that knowing that there is an “innate” difference would have exactly zero effect. We already know that human abilities in many areas, including areas of intellectual achievement, are enormously plastic and strongly influenced by circumstance. Why else would we worry so much about differences in the level of investment and educational environment provided among public schools?
Suppose it were true that men, on average, were better at math than womeon. It does not follow that any particular will be more skilled than any particular woman. World-class male marathoners finish the Boston Marathon before women in the same race, but the world-class women finish far ahead of the vast majority of men. There's every reason to expect the same with respect to aptitude for math and science.
Our objective ought to be to identify and remove obstacles wherever they are found so that all people, regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation, are able to reach their full potential. As pointed out in the September 17, 2004 issue of Science (subscription required), there are good reasons to think that the paucity of women in tenured math and science positions is not related to innate ability.
The percentage of women offered tenured slots in Harvard University's Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS) has shrunk by half in the past 5 years.
It doesn't seem likely to me that “innate” differences in scientific ability between men and women have increased dramatically in the last five years. Does it seem likely to you?
Leave a comment