Tierney of the NYT brings Larry Summers up again
In the Science section of the New York Times for Tuesday, June 8, John Tierney jumped back in to defend Larry Summers' hypothesis that men do better in science because their mathematical ability is way out on the normal curve compared to womens'. In one day, almost 100 comments accrued. Several men said the equivalent of, "You fool, the PC people will jump all over you." I hadn't realized some people consider caring about women in science is PC, but I guess that makes a certain amount of sense.
Actually, Summers suggested three different hypotheses, the normal curve one (implying men had better innate math ability), women's unwillingness to shelve their entire lives for science (motherhood, etc, which he related to innate preference for dolls over trucks), and societal pressure, which he felt was a minor component. In Beyond Biases and Barriers, and even in the workshop that Summers was attending when he made his provocative remarks, data showing a strong role for society in the lesser success of women was presented. Data, not anecdotes. In the comments Tierney received on June 8, 2010 several people pointed out that he needed an international perspective. For example, girls in Singapore surpassed boys in the US. Others noted that there's nothing to suggest that male full professors in quantitative fields have higher SAT scores in math, scores out on that fringe that Summers mentioned, and that women who become math professors but don't make it to full professor at Harvard don't have extra high SATs in math.
It rather pains me to agree with a point made by Tierney, but he got on the rant by objecting to a proviso in a new bill passed by Congress, that in our money-tight society, more workshops for women in science be given. My favorite society, Association for Women In Science, lobbied for these workshops. I have enjoyed going to such symposia at times, but I feel it's the ultimate kind of preaching to the choir. These women aren't the cause of the problem, and getting them all together to share war stories can't fix the problem. It needs cooperation from men, many of whom apparently feel Tierney is right but should keep his lip buttoned. They aren't going to any PC symposia to find out why Summers was wrong, you can bet on that. So I'd rather have the money spent on things that might break into their hierachical control over the lives of so many women in science, rather than giving us more symposia. I'm sure my co-editor, Ilona Miko, disagrees and I hope she'll weigh in on this issue!
Hi postdoc mom,
I agree that day care (affordable) should be job 1 if we really want to improve the staying power of moms. I was really impressed that Cristiane Nusslein-Vollhard gave a lot of her Nobel Prize money to establish a fund to support child care for young women scientists in Germany. Kudos to her.
Government funded? I'd love it, but taking up a new obligation now is hard to convince govt to do. I am thinking industry is way ahead of academia on this issue, so women should push academia to pick up this flag now.
cheers,
Laura
Hi Susan,
Yes, sorry I missed that part. That target audience is indeed better than the same old same old (aka me, not as though I know it all, but I am on board, not resisting), but I think many of the program officers are on board themselves, especially at NSF. Being reminded of the strongest arguments from time to time is probably good though. I like what WISELI does in its departmental search committee workshops and departmental climate workshops (wrote about those for AWIS Magazine not long ago). Those do get senior men involved in collecting data on what is really going on in their depts, and potentially could get at least some of them on board. OK, I changed my mind. It's a good idea.
cheers,
Laura
Hey scientists: there are comparative data about the gender gap in math in a variety of countries here: http://prema2.iacm.forth.gr/docs/resources/CultureGenderMath.pdf
Just a comment about your agreeing with Tierney's point about H.R. 5116's proviso on gender equity workshops. As I read the bill's Section 124, "Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering," the point is to provide gender equity workshops to people making decisions about funding, hiring, promotion, etc. that are connected to federal grants--the workshops are not for women in science. Given the documentation of gender bias in the sciences, and specifically in the evaluation of scientific work, this seems like a good idea to me! (In fact, Tierney's discussion of sex differences seems a non sequitur--I wonder if the bill is simply an excuse for for him to rant on that topic!)
From the bill's text: "...the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy shall develop a uniform policy for all Federal science agencies to carry out a program of workshops that educate program officers, members of grant review panels, institution of higher education STEM department chairs, and other federally funded researchers about methods that minimize the effects of gender bias in evaluation of Federal research grants and in the related academic advancement of actual and potential recipients of these grants, including hiring, tenure, promotion, and selection for any honor based in part on the recipient’s research record." Full text is at: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h5116/text.
I'll have more to say on this next week, when I get to be guest blogger--thanks, Laura!
I don't care about workshops. I will applaud AWIS when they are able to craft and ensure the enforcement of legislation that REQUIRES SUBSIDIZED DAY CARE at Universities with STEM funding. How about THAT for breaking into the current structures that limit women? I bet subsidized or free daycare for postdocs and grad students of any gender would do a LOT for women. More time, more papers, more job options. We all know the equation. Other countries have government-run daycares, why can't we? Has anyone seen what they have in Amsterdam?
I don't disagree. Who knows what the AWIS-designed workshops will look like....the news from AWIS about the House approving this America COMPETES bill simply stated that "This amendment provides funding for workshops designed to minimize the effects of gender bias at federally funded institutions." It's up to AWIS and those who would run the workshops to design them cleverly enough to avoid devolution into a complaint fest. Yes, we have ALL been at enough of these to know they don't do jack for changing the minds of those in power. Hopefully they will target the young ones, the *future power structure*, if we all do our jobs right. Forget Summers and his colleagues and fans like Tierney. As Laura says, workshops will do nothing for them or Department Chair doppelgangers. Let's leave terms like PC in the 1990s, back where they died. This a culture problem, not a science problem or a math problem so we need more than Matlab here. Workshops have their place, and so do policies that put checks and balances on who gets rewarded and how within the halls of University Science.
So Mr. Tierney, men operate at the edges and women operate at the center? Why does this sound familiar? Sounds like my high school running coach's analysis of male female gravity centers. Biological destiny talk is just a bunch of crap. It's laughable that someone is even trying to quantify / characterize math aptitude with a mathematical distribution, as if it's measure at one age is relevant to later ages. Please, every one, please remember that Albert Einstein was a terrible math student in grade school. Just terrible.
Like a hydra, his remarks never die but keep bouncing back. If you don't believe in differences, you can't believe he gets any credence (after Shalala et al. and subsequent analyses) but if you DO believe in male superiority, then he resonates. Sigh.
FBP
