next »

[Kevin Jenkins, U. S. Carolina]

Harvard is not a governmental institution, so constitutional protections of free speech do not apply.  Nonetheless, it is a pity that one of the countries most respected academic institutions, and some supposedly respected academics, seem to be afraid of controversial ideas.  If the comments were so far from true, it ought to be easy to establish through reasoned debate.

[Kevin Jenkins, U.S. Carolina]

When you were studying the scientific method (as you presumably did at some point, at least during your doctoral work) did anyone ever mention to you that personal anecdotes don't constitute sufficient support for a theory?  Perhaps you spent all your time studying developmental disabilities rather than physics.

[Elise Langan, John Jay College]

The fact that Lawrence Summer’s candor came as such a shock to his audience is indicative of how Harvard’s uber elite status insulates its faculty members—male and female—from reality. Alas, most professors do not have the luxury of demanding that their president make a globally publicized apology for untoward remarks. Instead they are busy teaching students who deem Harvard to be so far out of reach as to be in another galaxy—which of course, it is—a fact that must not be overlooked.  
 
Elite institutions, and the faculties and administrations that drive them, would do well to observe the dynamics in the nation’s public, urban institutions, instead of relegating it to their graduate students. The chasm that separates public and elite higher education is as wide as it is misunderstood, not unlike the biological factors that distinguish men and women.

Mr. Summer’s pandering to one disaffected group does little to address the larger problem of how to accommodate difference on a broader scale; moreover, it obviates honest debate which inherently entails disagreement and yes, hurt feelings. If the country’s leading institution cannot admit that difference exists, how can it begin to address it?

 
Elise Langan
Prof. Gov. Dept.
John Jay College of Criminal Justice

[Jane Reynolds, grad student]

The answer, in fact, is not "oh so obvious," although it would lovely if it were.  

If the percentage of male and female faculty accurately represented the percentage of male and female undergraduates in the typical freshman class (never mind that all undergraduates, male and female alike, simply do not desire or are not cut out for graduate work), then the case would certainly be the same in the humanities.

I am writing of English and the other modern languages and literatures in particular.  The majority of undergraduate and graduate students are women, but this is simply not the case in the professoriate.  Women Ph.D.s go on to be lecturers (both part- and full-time) in greater numbers than men, and more men end up obtaining tenure-track positions than their female counterparts.  This is true despite women's best intentions (how many people desire to obtain a Ph.D. only to teach part-time, with no benefits and no job security?)  For the relevant statistics, I refer interested readers to the website of the Modern Language Association (www.mla.org).

I am more inclined to believe, in the humanities as well as the sciences, that universities implicitly discourage women's advancement by the structuring of the tenure clock.  90% of academic women desire to have children, and the requirements for tenure, while not complete obstacles to this desire, are certainly impediments.  This has been confirmed by Mason and Goulden at the University of California, Berkeley (http://www.yale.edu/wff/BabiesMatter.pdf).

This problem, combined with the perception--whether it be reality or no--that the sciences are hostile to women's participation, may help us begin to account for the gender disparity, although other factors inevitably come into play.

As I've noted above, the modern languages and literatures have their problems, despite being perceived as increasingly "feminized" and therefore friendly to women.  Because science is still frequently perceived as a masculine endeavor,  it seems right that universities (and, indeed, primary and secondary schools) *should* reach out to female students who show promise--and even, at the earlier levels, to those who don't.  This notion may shock the sensibilities of some readers--oh, the horror of "career" day!--but recruiting young, bright, capable women is a boon to the university, as well as to society as a whole.

Jane

For a decent bibliography on the "chilly climate" for women in academia, I submit the following URL: http://dynamic.uoregon.edu/~jjf/chillyclimate.html

[%sig%]

[Catherine Brady]

Harvard President Lawrence Summer's comments in his speech are particularly dismaying for the subtle assumptions he makes about gender.  Aside from the fact that his own argument does not supply any factual evidence--arguments for a genetic basis for differences in male and female thinking have been discredited--he reveals disturbing, unspoken assumptions that continue to keep women from achieving true parity.  If his daughter wants to call her trucks "daddy truck" and "baby truck," how is this "feminine" thinking in any way inferior to a presumably male interest in the mechanics of the truck?  How does it evince an inability to master sciences and math?  And to argue that women's personal choice to care for their children keeps them from rising to the higher ranks of their profession depicts as a personal choice what is actually a social problem.  Presumably, there are also some men who curb their careers while their children are young, with no evidence that this impedes their future success.  And if a woman in the audience expresses distress at his comments, I don't think we should refer to her as a "swooning little girl," perpetuating stereotypes that define cold rationality as better and more effective thinking and presuming that allowing one's feelings to come into play is a "female weakness."

Catherine Brady
University of San Francisco

[Isabel Londono, Ed.D, Colombia]

I am happy that Harvard's president made the comment that has created so many controversy. It was featured in the first page of the main newspaper of Colombia, and it created a thousand of interesting discussions on the topic at work, in the homes of people, in the academic circles, and even in the political arena. Sometimes "bad" interventions have many beneficial non intentional consecuences...

I just invite you readers to reflect on how is the situation of women in developing countries where there are not yet good or effective anti discrimination laws that prevent institutions from practices that restrict access of women to power.

This is a never ending quest in which women already in power, in the academic world, in politics, in corporations and in civil society should not stop, pleased with their own success, forgetting that other women do not have it yet.

[Pierce]

Why has no one addressed the fact that, according to the news reports: 1) meeting organizers specifically requested that Summers remarks be controversial; and 2) Summers' comments were based on scholarly material presented at that very same meeting?  Are these news reports inaccurate?  Or are these details being suppressed to incriminate Summers or sensationalize the incident?  

If the details are correct, part of this discussion will necessarily involve considerations of : a) Summers' assessment of the appropriate level/type of "controversy" requested; and b) the vast differences which are obviously present in people's tolerance for and definitions of controversy, at least concerning certain topics.  Both of these considerations are much more refined than whether Summers simply should have watched his mouth, or whether the comments reveal his personal views on women in Math/Science.

Further, given the significant current and historical cultural conflicts concerning gender and race, what might be the impetus for a scholarly meeting's organizers to specifically request that Harvard's president make controversial remarks on an exceedingly hot topic?

[Carol Hellman]

Sorry Jane, but your stories about what goes on in humanities departments is completely irrelevant to what we are discussing here.  The discussion is about women in science departments, not language departments.  The two have nothing in common. You are comparing apples with oranges.

Moreover, the fact that you are a grad student means you have had only a limited personal exposure to academia in a number of institutions.  Faculty, particularly in the sciences, are in a far better position to comment on such matters because we have seen more and at a number of institutions. For example, in a chemistry department it is not at all uncommon to find a person got their BS at one school, their MS and PhD at another school, did a post-doc at still another school (sometimes a second post-doc someplace else) before getting a faculty position at a completely different school. Hence, we have seen the role of women in multiple places over extended periods of time. You haven't.

I would also be very cautious about using "reports" to form conclusions. These people often have agendas---i.e., they form a conclusion first and then conduct a "study" to confirm that conclusion.  Form your own opinions based on your own investigations.

[Diddleweed]

A a tenured history professor who holds conservative social views (such as, abortion is a sin against God, as is homosexuality/lesbianism), I find this whole discussion to be a waste of time and energy.  

As Isabel Londono has very ably pointed out, women in developing countries are struggling to achieve basic human rights and even basic human needs, and academics in this country (who are little more than arrogant prima donnas) are all consumed by Summers's rather irrelevant remarks.

Tell me; will anyting that Mr. Summers says keep one woman in poverty?  Will anything he says keep one woman in an abusive relationship?    Will anything he says even keep one woman who has an academic or professional career from being promoted?  

Women in South Asia are mourning dead children and relatives; women are dying of AIDS in Africa; women are being  sexually and physically abused as we speak in America;  those are REAL problems that require attention.  Mr. Summers's remarks are little more than a bit of dross that is easily ignored.

[laughing to avoid crying]

Dumb:  This entire non-incident is ridiculous, and the nincompoops like Hopkins and others who are in a snit over this deserve ridicule, not serious consideration and attention.  

Dumberer:  The feminists who foment this kind of hysterical, nonsensical furor.  There is no discrimination against women in academia, and issues of “hostile environment” are laughable.  First, feminists demanded to be treated equally and to have equal access to the workplace, etc. (all of which are reasonable in principle).  But then, once they attained equal rights and access to the jobs they claimed they wanted (some would argue that they have special privileges, and they make a good case), once they got into the workplace and encountered equality, they didn’t like it so much, so they decided they’d change the rules that apply to them.  Thus, viola!  We’re back to special privileges and treatment of women (i.e., chivalry).  Same job title for less credentials and experience!  Same pay for less work!  Same promotions while enjoying a longer tenure clock!  Must be nice to be the aristocracy.  

Men have to walk on eggshells at every turn so that they don’t risk insulting a woman.  Heck, all it takes is a woman *feeling* offended by trivial and/or unintentional acts to get a man sacked (or worse), so men are no longer free to chose what to say (i.e., Larry Summers), what to write, what to study, etc.  You call this scholarly and academic?  I call it Kindergarten with Oprah.  And we’re supposed to take such women seriously and see them as “strong, powerful, dynamic, brave,” etc., etc.?  What a joke.  Those people are cartoon caricatures of themselves.  They guy at Brooklyn College(?) was right:  They need therapy more than they need jobs.  

Dumbest:  The people who fall for this “hostile environment” BS, first and foremost Larry Summers.  He had no business apologizing for what he said; the points he made were valid, and they way he made them was reasonable to all persons except the unreasonable.  

This incident is emblematic of why society no longer trusts academics and why the academy is seen as disconnected from the real world – it IS!  Further, apparently some female scientists (i.e., Hopkins) can’t even handle controversial ideas without getting “the vapors,” let alone dream up innovative theories, “think outside the box,” etc.  Therefore, one has to wonder how many good, talented men have been passed-over in college programs and tenure track job positions to make room for women of this caliber vis-à-vis scientific inquiry.  If this is the result of the “women in science in engineering” programs, then not only are they a waste of time, they’re directly harmful to the academy and society at large.

[%sig%]

[Lisa, Midwestern Librarian]

I am no conservative.  I consider myself a feminist.  And the longer I'm around, the more evidence I see of the truth of most such generalizations.  Actual human females -- not just those who appear on Jerry Springer or Elimidate -- do regularly display the most stereotypical (and to me, unappealing) "female" behavior, values, and desires.  The huge circulation of magazines such as Cosmopolitan supports Summers' belief.

Fine.  Conceal it or study it, ignore it or trumpet it -- who cares, as long as the stereotype isn't used against worthy individuals who happen to belong to the group.  As long as no female is condemned for the airheadedness of so many of her peers, and is judged on her own achievements and merit, who cares what her "peers" are doing and who is noticing it?

Sadly, we have, for years, legally discriminated against individuals because of age.  For example, young male drivers are regularly penalized by insurance companies for the recklessness of their peers, regardless of their own virtue on the road.  If only they were subject to mere "theorizing", which wouldn't hit the innocent guys in their wallets.

[Trista di Genova/Oxford MSt]

A Harvard President's comments on women in maths show just how stupid even Harvard people can be, nay, obnoxious and pretentious. It's difficult to ignore this type of overt discrimination from someone in a very high post, and ideally he should be forced to resign. But probably the best we can do is refute his comments, with humour and perseverence.

Women can do anything men can, often better, except maybe moving heavy furniture. And then again, you have some pretty weak men - most mathematicians, I bet, couldn't move heavy furniture.

The role of a mathematician per se, of number-crunching, is not sexy. It's like any field, if it's sexy it will draw men AND women. Maths in itself is not important; it's how maths is APPLIED. And ideas, fortunately, are gender-free. Now game theory, that's a lot more interesting than maths itself.

What is sexy? Prestigious. Fun. Thought-provoking. Anything we are good at and can make a contribution. And something where we are given encouragement, preferably. That's the key. Girls can academically outperform boys in every area, until the peer pressure and criticism sets in.

Men are taught to seek out the highest-paid professions, basically so they can get a date with women - social capital. Maths is an area where men can excel because they can withdraw into a socially acceptable area, and be encouraged for their analytical skills.

Women become lawyers and then find that it's a grind with 100 hour weeks, and only the most "Organization Man"-like man will suck up to that crap. It's like getting a job for the military or the Bush administration. Do you really want to be part of that club?

Women have the option of making family life a priority. But the greatest advantage AND disadvantage of being a woman is being TREATED like a woman.

So why aren't more women founders of this mathematical body of knowledge? Women haven't had access to these fields since their inception, and women have been denied access to universities itself into this past century, up until my mother's generation. This lack of formal training up until modern times is nothing new, but it needs to be taken into account.

Here's where anecdotal evidence is worthy of introducing, and perhaps makes all the difference. She had the highest math score a woman had ever received for the Air Force - because against the wishes of her parents, she'd taken calculus, etc. The AF turned her down because she wore eyeglasses. And her parents wouldn't support her desire to study engineering at university. This was a key turning point in her life — what should have been a strong building block for her career. She'd gone 'against the grain' to take the higher math courses, but met with other, just as concrete obstacles. The system was not flexible enough to respect her for her skills, and her social setting was not gender-blind enough.

Today it is more subtle, the discrimination. If we express an interest in a traditionally 'masculine field' we are discouraged, made fun of, disparaged, thought a freak, thwarted at every attempt. Sure, we can succeed, but we face demoralizing obstacles - like jeering heads of department at 'top' universities - at every step of the way. And obviously, we're not going to get any inspiration or breaks from patronizing pricks at Harvard. Fortunately, there are plenty of women leaders in every field to draw inspiration from, women we can talk to directly about how they made it. Women mentor other women.

And we can vote with our feet — don't go to places that are uptight and miserable like Harvard. Go to Berkeley. Even better — go abroad, pick up international experience. My suggestion is to go to Oxford, like I did, and then maybe someday soon we'll replace idiots like this guy with a better-qualified woman. That is, IF we want the job.

[trista's biggest fan]

Trista writes: "Women can do anything men can, often better" and "Girls can academically outperform boys in every area".

Either you're a living refutation of your position, or you're intentionally slandering women by pretending to be one.  

It's a testament to PC that you'd be willing to put your name on such a blantantly sexist message.  Way to go girls, you can shout your superiority from the hills - and I hear it ALL the time - and still claim that the big bad university is discriminating against you.  Isn't having a 55% to 45% edge in undergrad populations good enough?  One might question what sort of pernicious systematic discrimination is responsible for that, eh?  Or not, 'cuz you're so much better, right?  Is that equality?

[Voice of Reason]

"Women can do anything men can, often better".

Compare:

"Men can do anything women can, often better".

Get the point?

I doubt it.

[anonymous]

" just how stupid even Harvard people can be, nay, obnoxious and pretentious"

Hee. He/she/it said "nay, obnoxious and pretentious".

Pot/kettle/black, etc.