Larry Summers retrospective
Larry Summers, the former President of Harvard and current economic advisor to the White House, speculated in 2005 that the bell curve could explain the low percentages of women among full professors at Harvard in the mathematically-intense physical sciences. He said some of the dearth could be explained by personal choices (childcare!), some by the bell curve, and a small amount perhaps by societal discrimination. His bell curve idea was that men’s mathematical abilities are more variable than women’s, spreading out farther on both the up and down side of the curve. Thus, if the very highest mathematical ability is required in, say particle physics, then men would be enriched among those out on that fringe of the curve because of their higher variance. I felt angry and upset by this idea, as did many other female scientists. His glib devaluing of societal pressures led to the National Academy of Sciences study, Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering, published in 2006 and available as a whole or as downloadable pdfs of sections. The study which resulted in this book was chaired by Donna Shalala, President of University of Miami; she worked with a committee of prominent scientists. The study did not support his contentions, and the report cited numerous studies that showed societal pressures to be the main problem, not a minor side issue.
The National Science Board’s latest statistical report on the science workforce was released in 2010; the data collection ended in 2007. The statistics do show progress; the percentage women in full professor positions at research universities had increased from about 12-15% at the time of the previous study (1999) to approximately 25% in 2007. However, we still hear about incidents in which impressive women are not hired but weaker men get the nod. We still hear about times when women publish but do not get tenure and promotion, while men with equivalent credentials are promoted. I'm still convinced we have a long way to go.
Do you think Larry Summers’ remarks did more harm or good? Did the attention he brought to the issue of women in science ultimately work to increase hiring and retention? Or did he just encourage bad attitudes among the older male scientists who keep the gates?
How do you feel? Like he might have accidentally helped? Or do you think the whole issue was blown out of proportion by the news media and did little to help or hurt women?
Do you feel okay about having Summers advising the government on economics, his field, after that gaffe or do you think he'll do fine because he can't impact women much from that position? Or do you think he never did anything that bad anyway?
Still, I don't think it's very helpful to have a New York TImes columnist suddenly claim Summers was right, as happened on June 8, 2010 in Tierney's piece in the Science section. It's like the creature from the black lagoon, it never dies and always smells bad.
I think he did us all a big favor. After the NAS report in response to him, didn't more attention get paid to discrimination against women in science? Case closed!
Summers is indeed a jerk. As president of a college (or economic advisor to the country) he should take time to review the evidence before swallowing his foot up to the ankle.
Female Biology Professor
I agree that it was upsetting that Summers was appointed as an economic advisor in the Obama administration. It's unfortunate to see someone gain such a powerful position who essentially questions the worth and contributions of half the population of this country!
Dear sek,
I am interested in this 25% ceiling too. Why do women get so far up the ladder and then getting beyond that limit becomes so hard? And having those who are in there rise higher is hard too. I wonder why that is? What would push through that barrier?
One thing I've noticed is that when the glass ceiling pops up, women generally respond by having workshops among themselves. How can we get through to the tone-deaf men who are choosing to keep us outnumbered near the top?
cheers,
Laura
Ultimately, I think his comments will have had little effect if we’re unable to move beyond the stage of studying the statistics and doing something proactive about changing the hiring mechanisms and the culture that lead to those statistics. It is interesting to me that male-dominated professions such as ours and, as it turns out, politics seem to plateau at ~25% representation by women in the highest ranks. Does this mean that this is the level that the male power structure can tolerate without feeling threatened? Perhaps, but it also means that the picture is unlikely to change if we don’t engage in proactive, interventional strategies to move beyond the current steady state. P.S. I was very upset when I first learned that Summers would be a top economic advisor to the President. Someone with such a tin political ear and insensitivity to the plight of women should not be in that position.
I'm not clear on how I feel. It's painful to have the President of Harvard imply that I wasn't hired there because I wasn't smart enough, and neither was anyone with two X chromosomes. But it's also good to see the great report from Shalala and her committee and to see many activities to support women, especially more child care. I love the fact that so many Presidents of R1 universities are women scientists. That may help the most of all, and maybe you can trace that trend back to Summers' remark.
I am really glad he said what he said. It helps to have an incident to talk about that was public, and talked about outside of universities. I also think he is a jerk.
I read the transcript of his talk and his statement about men being enriched at the ends of the spectrum for all skillsets including emotional learning as well as content learning did resonate with me. But as with most other women in science, my gut told me that giving equal credence to the fact that they would be enriched based on skill alone is not the answer. The answer is that such individuals have created a lifestyle that is not amenable to the average person (male and female) in science who wants some kind of life outside work. I work in a biotech company where men and women are equally represented, even at the higher management levels. Obviously there is no enrichment here for those "super math" males.
Did he help? Absolutely because he said out loud what so many men in science think to themselves. I was questioned so many times on why we need gender diversity in science by truly clueless professors. After all, they liked things the way they are. And science is trucking along just fine. So why change? Change is scary! Getting such ideas out in the open where they can be discussed and debated is the only way to change things. It doesn't matter if the issue is around race, gender or any other protected characteristic. You have to know those ideas are out there to combat them! So thanks Larry!
I think that the only thing proven by Larry Summers' remarks is that he is remarkably politically tone deaf, even for an academic in the uppermost aeries of the Ivory Tower. His was not only a position that was not supported by the data, it was certain to arouse the anger of a substantial proportion of the people he was employed to lead. So, whether or not his statements have had a good or bad effect on women in science, they certainly had a bad effect on HIM!
BTW: The big guy is having a hard time playing in the same sand box as the other kids in the Administration, so the word is he will be leaving before 2011. Don't go changing, Larry!
Did he really cause harm? It seems like lots of good programs to help women got started because of Summers' comments. He did suggest three hypotheses. He didn't really say women are stupid in math, as some people think he said. I think a bunch of radical feminists from Harvard were laying for him and used this to get him fired as President.
