Summers in Hot Water

Well, hasn't Harvard president Lawrence Summers managed to stir up a little trouble? In a speech given at a National Bureau of Economic Research conference, Summers made allusions to the possibility that innate differences between men and women may be responsible for their unequal performance and representation in the sciences. Having been asked to "be provocative" during his speech, Summers opted to forgo wearing lace panties and instead spouted off about the need for more research into essentialist ideas about men and women and their respective scientific aptitudes.

Luckily for Summers, there is no transcript of his remarks, so the debate is turning into a "he said/she said" kind of thing that is making both sides look petty. This is what Summers has admitted to saying (from a Globe article):

''It's possible I made some reference to innate differences. . . I did say that you have to be careful in attributing things to socialization. . . That's what we would prefer to believe, but these are things that need to be studied."

Summers said cutting-edge research has shown that genetics are more important than previously thought, compared with environment or upbringing. As an example, he mentioned autism, once believed to be a result of parenting but now widely seen to have a genetic basis.

In his talk, according to several participants, Summers also used as an example one of his daughters, who as a child was given two trucks in an effort at gender-neutral parenting. Yet she treated them almost like dolls, naming one of them "daddy truck," and one "baby truck."

Well, obviously if his daughter anthropomorphizes trucks, then girls must be genetically predisposed to not want to pursue or excel in science!

Now, I know I'm one of the many who are up in arms about his comments without actually hearing the context in which they were made. So, take my criticism with a grain of salt. But, do think long and hard about what it means for a college president to be open to the possibility that women do not pursue science as much as men due to genetics. He is not some biological theorist - he crafts and implements educational policies at one of the most prestigious colleges in the country. The implications of his personal beliefs on this issue could be huge.

Additionally,

Summers' third point was about discrimination. Referencing a well-known concept in economics, he said that if discrimination was the main factor limiting the advancement of women in science and engineering, then a school that does not discriminate would gain an advantage by hiring away the top women who were discriminated against elsewhere.

Because that doesn't seem to be a widespread phenomenon, Summers said, "the real issue is the overall size of the pool, and it's less clear how much the size of the pool was held down by discrimination."

Yes, and how often has this "well-known concept in economics" been used to justify discrimination? I've heard it used plenty of times to explain why discrimination will not happen in the labor market (or at least why it won't be sustained), and have never been convinced that this popular economic principle is put into practice in real life.

I certainly empathize with MIT biologist Nancy Hopkins' statement about why she had to leave Summers' speech:

I would've either blacked out or thrown up [if I hadn't].