Harvard's Summers

There's an excellent response to Harvard President Lawrence Summers' remarks on women in the sciences in Monday's Washington Post, How Summers Offended, written by three (hard) scientists. The two women (sisters) both attended Harvard:

If innate differences play a role in SAT scores, how do we explain the mathematics scores in countries such as Iceland, where girls outshine boys on standardized international and national exams?

The real reason Summers's comments offended, however, is because they were made in the context of a history of discrimination that has hurt scientific and mathematical progress immeasurably. And unfortunately, Harvard is a part of this history.

Just 45 years ago, Harvard was a place where sex discrimination was ubiquitous -- and so taken for granted that it was little noticed or protested. One of the main libraries was off-limits to the Radcliffe College "girls," and it was still debated whether a Harvard/Radcliffe education might be "wasted" on women.

Summers' remarks focus attention on the role of culture and genes in the development of human personality, "intelligence" and achievment. He believes that the US business (and academic) culture that worships 80 hour work weeks is not as appealing to women, in general, as it is to men, and that this - coupled with "inate ability" explains why there are so few women faculty in hard sciences at Harvard.

However, his introductory anecdote sets the stage for a focus on "inate" characteristics:

To take a set of diverse examples, the data will, I am confident, reveal ... that white men are very substantially underrepresented in the National Basketball Association...

Summers received a vote of confidence from Harvard Corporation, the university's governing body, after he released a transcript of January remarks.

He faces a possible no-confidence vote from Harvard faculty on Tuesday; the vote would be non-binding on the Corporation, however.

Are the theories that Summers espoused supported in academia? Not according to the London Guardian.

But over the last decade we have hardly been able to move without knocking into the idea that evolutionary pressures have turned men and women into utterly different beings, with one sex so good at driving and mathematics, and the other so good at chatting.

That kind of fatalism about sexual inequality runs through society. But generally it stays outside academic circles because inside there are too many people who know that these theories have no basis in fact. It was not that Summers was breaking some taboo that infuriated his critics, but the fact that he was suggesting, in a room full of people who knew their stuff, that there was scientific evidence for the theory.

Many studies are being carried out to try to prove that differences in cognition are innate - down to genes and hormones - and unchanging, but the research remains defiantly inconclusive.

As a counterpoint, (mostly) male columnists have criticized the critics for being "politically correct" while citing mainstream media like Time magazine. In response, the Washington Post authors write:

Although Summers's comments were without scientific merit, the media response suggests that they resonate with a large audience that chooses to believe, in the face of overwhelming evidence, that girls can't do math -- at least not as well as boys.

Ironically, research results (Yu Xie and Kimberlee Shauman) presented before Summers spoke to the group directly contradicts this stereotype, according to Nature (emphasis added):

They find that although young men are twice as likely as women to enter college with the intention of majoring in science or engineering, this is not explained by gender differences in high-school maths achievement or coursework. The gender gap in mathematics achievement is small and has been declining, and girls not only take as many maths and science courses as boys, but also get significantly better grades in them.

One scientist, interviewed by The Harvard Crimson, called Summers' remarks "uniformed" and both said their analysis did not support Summers' assertion of inate differences in ability. Their book was published by Harvard University Press.

Old stereotypes die hard, even in the face of compelling data.

After all, as Rebecca Goetz notes, "supposed weak female constitution was once a reason advanced against women studying history" and that only 4 of 32 (13%) tenure offers made at Harvard last year went to women faculty. Yet women account for 36 percent of full-time faculty.

And, as Newsweek reported last month,"women account for nearly half the bachelor's degrees in chemistry and math but only about 10 percent of the faculty." The brain drain appears real.

See also The Chattanoogan.com, Newsday, San Diego Union-Tribune , Tech Central Station