Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
American women’s rights advocates have long been adept at turning sex-based blunders into sex-based opportunities. A classic illustration was the attempt by Southern segregationists to increase opposition to the pending Civil Rights Act of 1964 by adding sex as one of the prohibited forms of discrimination. Women’s rights supporters seized the moment and joined forces with civil rights opponents to secure passage of the additional prohibition. A gaffe earlier this year by Harvard President Lawrence Summers has created another occasion for advancing gender equality. And again, women have taken full advantage of the opportunity, as is clear from a recent release of reports by Harvard faculty task forces. The controversy began with remarks that Summers offered during a conference of the National Bureau of Economic Research on Diversifying the Science and Engineering Workforce. He had agreed to come on the condition that he could speak “unofficially,” and could offer some “attempts at provocation.” He succeeded in that role well beyond expectations. To account for women’s underrepresentation in science and engineering, Summers ventured three explanations. The least important, in his view, was gender “socialization” and discrimination. The most important was the “near total commitment to work” expected of those in elite professional positions. The second most important was women’s allegedly inferior mathematical and scientific ability at the “high end” of the performance range. Although he “would like nothing better than to be proved wrong,” Summers indicated that his reading of the data revealed sex differences in “intrinsic aptitude.” In support of his hypothesis, Summers referred specifically only to one study. It had found half as many female as male 12th graders who scored in the top 5% of mathematics and science aptitude tests. He also found it telling that his 2 1/2-year-old twin daughters, when given trucks, concluded that the “daddy truck is carrying the baby truck.” Summers’ remarks attracted international coverage and widespread condemnation, because of both the substance of his claims and the institutional position from which he spoke. In a subsequent letter to Summers, Harvard’s Standing Committee on Women noted what should have been obvious: “The president of a university never speaks entirely as an individual.” Assertions about women’s intellectual inferiority raise questions about an administration’s professed commitment to diversity, a commitment that in Harvard’s case was already in question. During Summers’ previous four years in office, the percentage of tenured positions in the arts and sciences going to women dropped from 37% to 11%. Once the controversy erupted, many conservative commentators leapt to Summers’ defense. Many became at least temporary converts to the cause of academic freedom, now that it was threatened by what op-eds in the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal described as “gods of political correctness” and “hysterical” “uber-feminists.” Other, more liberal observers, like Harvard professors Alan Dershowitz and Richard Freeman, applauded Summers for departing from the usual presidential “pablum ” and “ babble.” But provocation is not the only alternative to pablum. As Barbara Gorsz, chairwoman of Harvard’s task force on women in science and engineering noted, the problem with his comments was not that they were “politically incorrect, but that they were just plain incorrect.” His overgeneralization from selective data misrepresented gender research. His initial unwillingness to release a transcript, while claiming academic freedom, compounded the problem. Assertions about women’s intellectual inferiority have a long and unbecoming history. For centuries, an array of “scientific data” was assembled to justify women’s exclusion from higher education and all of the elite professions. What Summers failed to acknowledge was that many studies show no significant persistent differences between male and female aptitudes for math. Nor is there evidence that small differences in scores at the top range of standardized aptitude tests predict achievement in math and science. Moreover, sex differences in test scores and academic performance vary considerably across time and culture and are influenced by social expectations. For example, Japanese girls score higher than American boys, a fact hard to square with genetic explanations for sex-based inequalities. Since the late 1960s, women’s representation among Ph.D.s has grown from below 1% to about 17% in engineering, from 2% to 18% in physics, and from 12 % to 44 % in biological and agricultural science. What has changed is not women’s “innate aptitude,” but rather social attitudes. So, too, a wealth of data reveals persistent and pervasive biases that impede women’s advancement in traditionally male-dominated fields. Summers offered no evidence for his assumption that those biases were less important than differences in aptitude, which are more contested and less consistently documented. The saga of “Summers and Smoke” at least had a silver lining; Harvard got two task forces on women and generated an unprecedented level of concern and a demand for accountability on gender issues. The task forces’ recently released recommendations cover a broad range of issues and include three central proposals: the creation of a new senior vice provost position for diversity and faculty development; new funds to support appointments that would enhance faculty diversity; and a comprehensive system for collecting and reporting data on hiring, retention and quality of life issues. Summers has pledged $50 million in support of the proposed initiatives, and they can serve as a model for many institutions within and outside the academy. Deborah L. Rhode, an NLJ columnist, is the Ernest W. McFarland Professor of Law at Stanford Law School.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.