« Feisty Repartee | Main | The God Game, Part 4 »

February 19, 2005

The Annotated: "Women and science: the real issue"

Harvard has published on the website of the Office of the President the transcript of his remarks at the NBER Conference on Diversifying the Science & Engineering Workforce. In effect, he is accused of a neanderthal approach to viewing women pursuing careers in the sciences. Did anything in any of the reporting give you any hint that Summers opened his talk with this? (My emphasis.)

I asked Richard, when he invited me to come here and speak, whether he wanted an institutional talk about Harvard's policies toward diversity or whether he wanted some questions asked and some attempts at provocation, because I was willing to do the second and didn't feel like doing the first. And so we have agreed that I am speaking unofficially and not using this as an occasion to lay out the many things we're doing at Harvard to promote the crucial objective of diversity. There are many aspects of the problems you're discussing and it seems to me they're all very important from a national point of view. I'm going to confine myself to addressing one portion of the problem, or of the challenge we're discussing, which is the issue of women's representation in tenured positions in science and engineering at top universities and research institutions, not because that's necessarily the most important problem or the most interesting problem, but because it's the only one of these problems that I've made an effort to think in a very serious way about. The other prefatory comment that I would make is that I am going to, until most of the way through, attempt to adopt an entirely positive, rather than normative approach, and just try to think about and offer some hypotheses as to why we observe what we observe without seeing this through the kind of judgmental tendency that inevitably is connected with all our common goals of equality. It is after all not the case that the role of women in science is the only example of a group that is significantly underrepresented in an important activity and whose underrepresentation contributes to a shortage of role models for others who are considering being in that group.

Update: More here.

What follows are my annotations to a Boston Globe article on February 12. My annotations are bracketed and in italics. Women and science: the real issue By John Hennessey, Susan Hockfield and Shirley Tilghman February 12, 2005

HARVARD PRESIDENT Lawrence Summers's recent comments about possible causes of the under-representation of women in science and engineering have generated extensive debate and discussion -- much of which has had the untoward effect of shifting the focus of the debate to history rather than to the future. [Yes, let's not think that history has anything to do with the future. Good God, if you start actually thinking that you can learn from experience, how are you ever going to get people to buy into every new and crazy scheme to reshape society and culture?]

The question we must ask as a society is not "can women excel in math, science, and engineering?" -- Marie Curie exploded that myth a century ago -- but "how can we encourage more women with exceptional abilities to pursue careers in these fields?" [Of course, it's a good question. It's also a good question to ask, Is it okay that women choose to do things other than what we want them to do?] Extensive research on the abilities and representation of males and females in science and mathematics has identified the need to address important cultural and societal factors. [Never underestimate the value of extensive research. Oops, wait a minute. Isn't extensive research code for "history"? Is history trying to sneak its nose under the tent of the future?] Speculation that "innate differences" may be a significant cause for the under-representation of women in science and engineering may rejuvenate old myths and reinforce negative stereotypes and biases. [Yes, let's never allow any investigations into possible uncomfortable truths; i.e., that there actually may be innate differences between men and women. A university should never be used for "speculation" and "hypotheses" and "open discussion" and "exploring the merits of an idea." There is much more serious work to be done in the university, like, uh, making sure people think and say the right things.]

Why is this so important? Our nation faces increasing competition from abroad in technological innovation, the most powerful driver of our economy, while the academic performance of our school-age students in math and science lags behind many countries. [There's that "history" thing sneaking in again. Please, let's not look at why American students lag behind those of other countries in math and science. No, no, no. We have teacher's unions to take care of that.] Against this backdrop, it is imperative that we tap the talent and perspectives of both males and females. [Yes. Let's homogenize men and women into a single category. And while we're at it, we might as well pasteurize them as well.] Until women can feel as much at home in math, science, and engineering as men, our nation will be considerably less than the sum of its parts. [And until men can feel as much at home bearing children and breast-feeding them, our nation will be considerably less than the parts of its sum.] If we do not draw on the entire talent pool that is capable of making a contribution to science, the enterprise will inevitably be underperforming its potential. [Let's not forget the "enterprise." That old reliable "enterprise" that is prone to underperforming, in an inevitable fashion.]

As the representation of women increases in every other profession in this country, if their representation in science and engineering does not change, these fields will look increasingly anachronistic, less attractive, and will be less strong. [And to be sure, representation is more important than anything else as we progessively move forward to remold society.] The nation cannot afford to lose ground in these areas, which not only fuel the economy, but also play a key role in solving critical societal problems in human health and the environment. [Yes. "Areas" that "play a key role in solving critical societal problems in human health and the environment." You see, this issue affects the entire planet. Global Warming is clearly one result of ignoring this issue.]

Much has already been learned from research in the classroom and from recent experience on our campuses about how we can encourage top performance from our students. [Darn that "history." Would somebody call the SPCA and lock it up?] For example, recent research shows that different teaching methods can lead to comparable performance for males and females in high school mathematics. [Yes, and recent research also always shows whatever we want it to show, espiecially when we don't give our sources.] One of the most important and effective actions we can take is to ensure that women have teachers who believe in them and strong, positive mentors, male and female, at every stage of their educational journey -- both to affirm and to develop their talents. [And "we" should be taking this action right now! Could "we" please raise his or her hand and take responsibility for this?] Low expectations of women can be as destructive as overt discrimination and may help to explain the disproportionate rate of attrition that occurs among females as they proceed through the academic pipeline. [Studies, please. Get your red hot studies. A dime a dozen. But not the kind that count as history, please.]

Colleges and universities must develop a culture, as well as specific policies, that enables women with children to strike a sustainable balance between workplace and home. [Yes, it's the responsibility of colleges and universities to take charge of these women's lives. Let's not actually rely on women to make their own decisions. They need our help, our plans, our schemes. They need, they need, they need. What better way to empower them?] Of course, achieving such a balance is a challenge in many highly demanding careers. As a society we must develop methods for assessing present and future productivity that take into account the long-term potential of an individual and encourage greater harmony between the cycles of work and life -- so that both women and men may better excel in the careers of their choice. [Whew! We have 21st century grandiose schemes to beat out every 20th century grandiose scheme already implemented!]

Although we have a long way to travel in terms of recruiting, retaining, and promoting women faculty in scientific and engineering fields, we can also point to significant progress. [But not in a historical way.] According to the National Science Foundation, almost no doctoral degrees in engineering were awarded to women in 1966 (0.3 percent), in contrast to 16.9 percent in 2001. And in the biological and agricultural sciences, the number of doctorates earned by women rose from 12 percent to 43.5 percent between 1966 and 2001. [Good for women! Oops, I got carried away by the "history."]

Our three campuses, and many others, are home to growing numbers of women who have demonstrated not only extraordinary innate ability, but the kinds of creativity, determination, perceptiveness, and hard work that are prerequisites for success in science and engineering. [Good for women! Oops, I got carried away again by the "history."]

These figures demonstrate the expanding presence of women in disciplines that have not, historically, been friendly to them. It is a matter of vital concern that the future holds even greater opportunities. [I try, but I can't divine meaning in that last sentence. But it is a rousing closer! Big picture! Vast! Worthy of the New Deal, the Great Society, the Matter of Vital Concern. And someone ought to be taking money from some people to implement this progrssive scheme! Power to women! They need all the help they can get to be empowered!]

John Hennessey is a computer scientist and president of Stanford University. Susan Hockfield is a neuroscientist and president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Shirley Tilghman is a molecular geneticist and president of Princeton University.

© Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

*** This article fills a much-needed gap.

Posted by witnit at February 19, 2005 7:10 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.witnit.org/cgi-bin/mt-t071875.pl/799

Comments

Post a comment