next »

[Jessica Zellers, MLS candidate]

Why are there so few minorities in higher education? Do African-Americans suffer from inherent deficiencies? Has evolution selected white males to be the best achievers?

I rather think not. While there may be a few inherent physical differences between sexes and races, they are trivial and inconsequential compared to the overwhelming, undeniable barriers that we-- society-- have constructed. We should focus on those barriers-- if we constructed it, we can deconstruct it-- instead of looking to biology to justify discrimination.

[%sig%]

[Higher Ed. Faculty]

As a faculty member, I depend on the tenets of academic freedom.  I read very provocative comments from fellow academic all over the country.  Some of the comments are so inflammatory as to only serve one purpose - to get the author's name in the local paper - a pitiful attempt to get noticed.  It strikes me as odd that the very folks who rely on academic freedom would be the first to claim that a fellow academic (Summers is a professor of Economics along with his academic appointment - correct?) should be reprimanded for what he said.  So you don't agree - argue the point and go on. Perhaps he is wrong.  Perhaps he isn't.  It doesn't really matter.  We should know that there are going to be studies that support both sides of the issue. There always are.

People, we are shooting ourselves in the foot.  We are supposed to be the deep thinkers.  How deep are we when we refuse to tolerate someone who disagrees with us?  If we want our studens to question their beliefs shouldn't we be willing to question our own?  

Summers was wrong.  Only in that he apologized.  He should have clarified his position, if it had been misrepresented in the press.  Once he did that, he should have wrapped himself in the comfy blanket of academic freedom and given the Harvard faculty a little of it's own medicine.

[M Stephens, Kingston U]

My own daughter, one of the best science students at the top high school in New York City, encountered such grim prejudice on high as Harvard's prez has shown. In her physics class, her teacher told me at the parents' day, "Your daughter is the best woman student in physics that I've had. But woman are not good in physics. It's a man's sport." I told him, "I hope she proves you wrong." She did. The next year at the parents' meeting, he admitted as much. "She's the best physics student I've taught," he said, apologizing later for his remark the year before.

Nonetheless, I think this unfair categorizing of people by gender or any other arbitrary marker is pernicious at the level of higher education. When my daughter went off to university, despite being a top science student throughout high school, she instead chose international affairs and later filmmaking, leaving science behind entirely. I've often wondered, given how advanced she was in chemistry and physics, if this teacher's remarks had anything to do with her later decisions.

[Voice of Reason]

"Why are there so few minorities in higher education"?

I don't know the complete answer to this, and neither do you; undoubtedly the explanation is multivariate.  I suspect that key independent variables are family size (blacks come from larger families on average) and single parent households (blacks again more likely to come from single parent households, undoubtedly entirely because of evil white people).


"Has evolution selected white males to be the best achievers"?

On average? Maybe, and I know you'd "rather think not".  That was more or less the point of my last post in case you missed it.  Try asking yourself how you'd react if someone suggested that blacks were selected by evolutio to be the best achievers.  Probably wouldn't bother you much, would it?

"Do African-Americans suffer from inherent deficiencies"?

Answer: some do.  So do some whites. So do some indians.
Of course, you shouldn't worry because the great Goddess in the sky has seen fit to ensure that the proportion of deficients is perfectly identical across races.

As for discrimination in higher ed?  You bet there is.  A woman or a minority applying for a tenure-track faculty position will get an offer anywhere they apply if there is even an approximation to a fit.  There are two hiring tracks in academia: the white male track and the other track.  Ever heard of A. affirmative action and B. Number of minorities/women in the applicant *pool*?

[Skull size]

In the beginning of the 20th century, the "innate" differences between men and women were measured by skull size.  The "scientist" would use various measuring instruments  to determine that women (whose skulls were markedly smaller than the skulls of men) were less intelligent than men.  Most of these studies, of course, were done by men.  Men also wrote the majority of "scholarly" papers at the time.

In her classic study, "Male and Female" (1949), anthropologist Margaret Mead wrote that in every known culture there are difference between men and women, but
that once these differences are examined, they are found to be social rather than biological.

Women have excelled in math and the sciences in Eastern Europe for a long time.  Is this because women in Eastern Europe are innately more intelligent than other women in the world, or do they have different training in childhood and in the early years of education?

While the innate debate continues (with no proof of either position or combination of positions possible),  it would have been a good idea not to take a stand on the innate side (if that is what Prof. Summers did rather than simply repeat certain research), expecially in front of a women's forum (duh).  Academi discourse plays itself out on the  stage of political correctness.  Perhaps it would have been better for the President not to have spoken out on an issue which may never be clear, but we all make mistakes.

What is important is that women are given access to all possible opportunities:  in all academic fields, with equal pay; no matter what the size of their skulls.

[%sig%]

[Shannon McCauley, Instructor/]

Unfortunately it is still the case that minorities and especially African Americans are even less well represented than women in academic science.  If Dr. Summers had suggested this was because of innate biological differences in the ability of caucasians and African Americans to do the reasoning required in math and science he would be a) wrong and b) fired.  Is sexism more acceptable than racism?  Using social outcomes to evaluate individual abilities is extremely sloppy thinking, what kind of an academic is this man?  

Men and women are biologically different in many aspects of their physiology but intellectual capacities are not simple traits and there is no a priori reason to assume differences in such complex and environmentally influenced traits without data.  The data are limited but do not seem to support his position.  As pointed out in earlier letters, the increasing numbers of women in science without a underlying change in the gene pool as well as differences between regions (e.g. Asia, E. Europe, and N. America) provide much more convincing support of the role of environment than any evidence we have of biologically relevant differences in intellectual capacities.  Possible differences in the ability to rotate objects in space (this seems to be one of the few solid differences detected in male and female children) do not seem sufficient as explanations for differences in such a complex set of skills required to succeed in science.   As a scientist I trust data, not ideology, and the data for relevant biological differences are weak while the data for environmental differences are strong.  Given this Dr. Summers comments are irresponsible.  No hypothesis should be off-limits but evidence should be interpreted carefully and Dr. Summers is clearly guilty of extremely sloppy thinking, a great failure in an academic at any level.  I think this is a case of passing off institutional failures onto those who have been failed- women in science.

[%sig%]

[Staff Person]

60 years of life has given me the belief that most people who yell foul over a comment are those who are the most insecure with respect to themselves and the comment.

Capable people will find ways to excel no matter what level of adversity faces them. Those who are not capable will find ways to fail in spite of opportunity. This goes for the sexes too!

[Patricia Schwarz]

Higher Ed. Faculty wrote:
>
> Summers was wrong.  Only in that he apologized.  He should
> have clarified his position, if it had been misrepresented in
> the press.  Once he did that, he should have wrapped himself in
> the comfy blanket of academic freedom and given the Harvard
> faculty a little of it's own medicine.

Tell that to the Board of Directors. Summers' job is not faculty member. His job is not research or teaching. Summers' job is President. That's a whole different job description from faculty member.

The head of a nonprofit organization is supposed to run the organization, not run his mouth.

Harvard is like a shark that needs to swim in money to stay alive.

I heard a few major donors pulled out as soon as the news story broke.

If Summers had wrapped himself in academic freedom, I think the Board would have told him, Good, now you'll have something warm and fuzzy to sleep in when we toss you out on the street.

[%sig%]

[Patricia Schwarz]

Voice of Reason, how about if we examine this nerd obsession with women using science?

Do men who are really good at math have a developmental disability? Is that why it's so incredibly hard for them to act like decent emotionally aware human beings? Is that why they tend to be workaholics who neglect their families?

An autism spectrum disorder could explain their abnormal social behavior.

So let's examine the men in science and math from the point of view of their abnormality.

Let's find a scientific reason why nerds who are really good at math get beaten up on the playground when they're young.

I don't think the men will like that. I'll bet they object. That would make them objects instead of subjects. They would be squirming under the lens of science, instead of peering through  it.

I'll bet they would find that a very uncomfortable position.

But really, I'd like to present a paper on this topic at some science and gender conference, because I think I could make some powerful points that would resonate with any math-gifted woman  who has ever tried to fit into the bizarre social environment of physics.

Let's all use science to obsess over the perceived enemy.

I can do it just as well as you can, perhaps even better.

[%sig%]

[Midwest Liberal Arts]

It seems to me that this discussion (if we can call it that) really misses the points involved.  

Issues Are:
(1) Were the comments by Summers a valid topic for discussion?
In other words, is the idea of inherent mental differences between the sexes so foolish that no sane person would defend the arguement?  


(2) Should the President of Harvard University have made comments like this?  

Regarding (1) above, the very nature of the discussion on this board shows that the idea is not settled.  I recall around 10 years ago a discussion regarding physical differences between Black and White athletes.  I mentioned to a relative that I thought anyone who believed that there were physical differences was an idiot and that differences in performaces were cultural.   My relative walked over to his shelf and pulled out the Anatomy text from a Big-10 Medical School and had me read the introduction on muscle structure.   Roughly, it began by noting racial differences as well as sub-racial differences.  He then made the point to me that any graduate level text points these issues out for discussion and that medical pathology has entire texts on just these issues.  He also noted that medical diagnosee (sp) have clear, obvious racial links which must have underlining physical differences.  Even if medicine is unaware of the differences.  Now, his point was not that physical differences explain the racial make-up of a high school basketball team.  Clearly, culture and personal work ethic determine who is good enough to play at the lower levels.  But when you talk Olympic level athletes, which are drawn from small pools of people with both elite athletic skills and body types, the changes in the make-up of the athletic pool at least in part reflect differences in the groups.  

Jump ahead to the issue of gender linked intellect.  Is there a difference in ability somehow linked to gender?  Heck, I do not know.  I believe men and women on average think about thinks differently and that these different ways of looking at thinks are, at least in part, biologically determined.  Do these differences give males or females an advantage in doing advanced reseach?  Heck, I don't know.  But we are talking elite research universities here. In the small college ranks where I work, the problems people are looking at are so small, I can't imagine that the differences matter much at all. Like high school basketball, the ability to play is linked to work ethic.  But when you are talking about Harvard University, a very small difference in gender linked ability is going to radically alter the available pool of tenure eligible candidates.  

Regarding (2) above.  One group of people generally feel that any discussion of gender linked differences has either been answered in the negative or beyond discussion.  In either case, they view open discussion of the topic as somehow wrong/sexist/defending sexism.  

Another group of people either feel the issue has not been answered as the people above think or they feel the issue has been answered but the question should be openly talked about.  

In as much as I advocate free inquirey to questions, I defend Summer's comments.  As I said, where I work, the only thing that stops people from getting ahead and promoted is their work ethic.  I suspect at Harvard and most serious research universities it is a different story.  

Xav

[%sig%]

[Patricia Schwarz]

Here is a specific example of behavior that I believe supports my theory that one factor impeding the advancement of women in science is the prevalence of developmental disabilities among men who are good at math.

I was invited to a barbecue to welcome new graduate students. Since I am a woman, my presence at the table was interpreted by the men as an invitation to discuss gender.

A professor who was the head of a large experimental facility offered this insight:

Even the women who get straight A's in physics don't really understand the subject, they're just filling in the formulas by rote.

His scientific evidence in support of his theory? He observed that women's exam blue books were neater than those of the men.

He did not make these remarks at a conference for throwing up bold provocative ideas about gender and science. He was asked to attend this event to make the new graduate students feel welcome in the program to which they had been admitted.

But he acted as if he were completely oblivious to the occasion to which he had been invited. He was also completekly oblivious to the fact that he was talking to a woman in particular about women in the abstract.

This obliviousness is, I believe, a sign that he is not developmentally normal, he suffers from an autism spectrum disorder that makes him unable to tell the difference between a conference on gender and a social event intended to make new students FEEL WELCOME IN THE PROGRAM.

This man is normally a good enough scientist to be able to tell the difference between a magnetic monopole and a spurious signal, yet he still believes he can use handwriting analysis of blue books  to justify his beliefs on gender and intelligence.

Neat blue books? Why, women must be little more than trained monkeys when it comes to physics!

I have a lot of examples like this that I personally experienced.  Men who are utterly oblivious to the human beings around them, who live in their own Private Idaho, basically, who have big abstract generalized theories about women's brains and cannot or will not connect to the actual real women sitting right in front of them in the conversation.

THis lack of ability to connect to people right in front of you -- that's a disorder. That's a disability.

But it's been a profitable disability for men in academic science.

I can see why they get so frightened and alienated when forced to confront real women right in front of them. THis is way out of their comfort zone, their brains are just not able to handle those personal real world connections to other human beings.

I went to the Einstein conference in Aspen and at the final dinner, a Tv writer came up to me and asked me in an exasperated voice "Why are physicists such jerks???"

There could be a scientific explanation, and maybe we should look into that, even if it makes the men upset.

[%sig%]

[exasperated]

My god, for academics some of you people sure appear to be either 1) clueless, or 2) in denial.

To suggest that the disparities between tenured whites and blacks are comparable to the disparities between tenured men and women is ridiculous.  Come people, haven’t you ever heard of confounding variables?!  

For race, socio-economic factors are clearly present and likely dominant vis-à-vis education and academic achievement, from Kindergarten right on up through doctoral work, and thus are likely to explain most of the differences in the numbers of tenure track faculty at elite institutions.  Such differences in SES are not present when stratifying by sex, therefore, other explanations are necessary.  Comparing the experiences of women to African Americans is cynical and an insult, but unfortunately, a common feminist tactic.  Shame on any of you who might fall for this ruse.  

The fact that the standard deviation of the bell curve for intelligence in women is smaller (making the curve ‘tighter’) than for men is well-known.  Judith Kleinfeld and others have written extensively on this issue.  It explains why there are more male geniuses - and at the same time, more male morons – than female.  (However, for some reason nobody in academia seems to be at all squeamish about pointing out that there are more male retards and psychopaths than women.  Gee, I wonder why?)  Therefore, since elite academic institutions seek out the very best of the best, it stands to reason that this would result in more males being hired for science and engineering positions.  They're hiring faculty from the righthand tail of the curve.  And further, addressing confounding variables again, the recent increase in females in science is easily explained by social engineering, i.e., affirmative action and other diversity initiatives, and thus is certainly NOT proof that there are as many women in the righthand tail of the bell curve for intelligence as there are men.  All it really shows is that programs like ADVANCE are having the desired effect, whether or not it's actually good for the academy.  

These are uncomfortable things to talk about, but still we need to discuss it.  But the kind of infantile behavior displayed by Nancy Hopkins does nothing to foster discussion.  I agree with “Reality Check” on this one:  Hopkins’ embarrassing childish tirade was emblematic of the issue, which is political correctness and the lack of honest intellectual debate that it causes.

[%sig%]

[zippo]

i The head of a nonprofit organization is supposed to run the organization, not run his mouth.

---Wrong again, Schwarz.  He can talk all he wants, even in the empire of PC.  Ever hear of the U. S. Constitution???

Harvard is like a shark that needs to swim in money to stay alive.

--And so what?  Name me one non-profit organization that isn't in for bread; it's that or Chapter 11 in a non-profit sense.  Land-grant institutions beg hat-in-hand for money; so does the Metropolitan Museum of Art.  Try a new line of logic.

I heard a few major donors pulled out as soon as the news story broke.

--What a band of spineless toads!  Summers makes a controversial statement, and people withhold money.  It is their right to do so, and it's also Summers's right to offer
insight on serious questions academic and non-academic.
Dubya's crew would harp if he, Summers', flailed the war in Iraq; in like fashion, the Marxicrats would howl if Summers
assailed social security as a concept.  Let the feminists cry, and let them make their own choices on donations.  That's what life is, after all--choices.

If Summers had wrapped himself in academic freedom, I think the Board would have told him, Good, now you'll have something warm and fuzzy to sleep in when we toss you out on the street.

--Why play the role of circus barker for Stalin's Cult of Personality, or better still, the assistant to Dr. Goebbel's
Ministry for the Enlightenment of the People?  Summers
has, as I have noted, constitutional rights vis-a-vis speech.
Let him practice them, then.  Don't like the message?  Well, try offering substantive, empirical evidence as a contrarian.  That's the essence of true debate.

[Carol Hellman, Chem. Prof.]

For all of you radical-leftist feminists out there, please see if you can control yourselves long enough to find out the real reasons women don't get ahead in engineering, math and the sciences.

Take a look at the average freshman class in chemistry. Only 15% of them at most are women.  This means there are 6 men to every female in chemistry departments.  In terms of sheer numbers for every faculty opening there should be 6 male applicants to every female applicant.
Hence, it makes perfect sense why most senior faculty positions belong to men.

Oh wait.  I know. It is the university's fault more women aren't majoring in chemistry. The university should have sent people out to each girl's home with recruiting literature to convince Suzy and her parents that chemistry is the only place to be.  Maybe they should hold "career days" on campus to convince girls to switch majors. Oh course, to seal the deal the university should be expected to offer a full 4-year scholarship to Suzy if she chooses chemistry.

Larry Summers didn't do anything wrong. You feminists are the ones who make me physically ill.

[Carol Hellman, Chem Prof.]

Nice try, Patricia, but if you really are a scientist you should know annecdotal evidence is discounted as being worthless. Your story at the barbarque fits into that category.

 You are trying to convince everyone---and not successfully---that men are the problem. Won't work. The problem is women are entering the pipeline in college to begin with. If girls aren't majoring in chemistry, where in the heck are these PhDs going to come from to fill these senior positions?

Stop blaming men for your inability to compete!