MERGED: Lawrence Summers' Speech on Gender Difference

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

deep

Blue Crack Addict
Joined
Apr 11, 2002
Messages
28,598
Location
A far distance down.
"daddy truck" and "baby truck,"

Women Lack 'Natural Ability' In Some Fields, Harvard President Says
Comments Came At Economic Conference

UPDATED: 4:19 pm EST January 17, 2005

CAMBRIDGE, Mass -- The president of Harvard University prompted criticism for suggesting that innate differences between the sexes could help explain why fewer women succeed in science and math careers.

Lawrence H. Summers, speaking Friday at an economic conference, also questioned how great a role discrimination plays in keeping female scientists and engineers from advancing at elite universities.

The remarks prompted Massachusetts Institute of Technology biologist Nancy Hopkins - a Harvard graduate - to walk out on Summers' talk, The Boston Globe reported.

"It is so upsetting that all these brilliant young women (at Harvard) are being led by a man who views them this way," Hopkins said later.

Five other participants in the National Bureau of Economic Research conference, including Denice D. Denton, chancellor designate of the University of California, Santa Cruz, also said they were offended by the comments. Four other attendees contacted afterward by the Globe said they were not.

Summers told the Globe he was discussing hypotheses based on the scholarly work assembled for the conference, not expressing his own views. He also said more research needs to be done on the issues.

Conference organizers said Summers was asked to be provocative, and that he was invited as a top economist, not as a Harvard official.


The two-day, invitation-only conference of the Cambridge-based National Bureau of Economic Research drew about 50 economists from around the country to discuss women and minorities in science and engineering.

Summers declined to provide a tape or transcript of his remarks, but he did describe comments to the Globe similar to what participants recalled.

"It's possible I made some reference to innate differences," he said. He said people "would prefer to believe" that the differences in performance between the sexes are due to social factors, "but these are things that need to be studied."

He also cited as an example one of his daughters, who as a child was given two trucks in an effort at gender-neutral upbringing. Yet he said she named them "daddy truck" and "baby truck," as if they were dolls.

It was during such comments that Hopkins got up and left.

"Here was this economist lecturing pompously (to) this room full of the country's most accomplished scholars on women's issues in science and engineering, and he kept saying things we had refuted in the first half of the day," said Denton, the outgoing dean of the College of Engineering at the University of Washington.

Summers already faced criticism because the number of senior job offers to women has dropped each year of his three-year presidency.

He has promised to work on the problem.
 
I read that in the paper today

:rolleyes:

I think some of those people spend too much time in Cambridge contemplating their navels or something

It's not at all surprising to me to see that way of thinking at Harvard :shrug:
 
The lack of response to this post either means people agree with Summers and are reticent to voice their agreement or are totally aghast that someone in Summers' prestigious position could be so remarkably backwards.

I am of the second opinion.:tsk:
 
Even if women do "Daddy Truck, Baby Truck" objects, what bearing does that have on womens abilities to comprehend science and engineering?

*deleted bit was here*

PS At the University that is my workplace there is a WISE (Women In Engineering and Science) programme.
 
I can't remember the statistics, but the class I had to take for teaching Middle School students showed some studies that at least the middle school level, boys generally performed much better in science and math than girls. On the other hand, girls generally performed much better in reading comprehension and language skills.

Would there be an outcry if a female would have given a speech saying that women are naturaly better at verbal communication and language than men? I highly doubt it.

I think the most important thing here is to realize that there are these gender gaps, to study them and to ultimately try to find a way to close the gender gaps.

I think the biggest problem this guy made is that he wasn't quite as diplomatic in his speech as he probably should have been.
 
U2democrat said:
ah but our place is in the home. :rolleyes:

Not anymore it's not. We have this to deal with in the career world and even if we decide it best to stay home - we're treated like we're at a day spa all of the time and have nothing important to do.
 
Jamila said:
The lack of response to this post either means people agree with Summers and are reticent to voice their agreement or are totally aghast that someone in Summers' prestigious position could be so remarkably backwards.

I am of the second opinion.:tsk:

Sometimes it's just not worth my while to even comment on someone who's head is shoved that far up his own arse. :shrug:
 
you have a point, indra.

but people will generally assume that no response to such an obviously provocative performance as that of Mr. Summers' means consensus with his viewpoint.

that's why it's so important to stand up and be counted, even if it takes only a moment.

and it speaks volumes for me that the posters in this thread appear to be all women - where do the men of FYM stand?

again, their silence leaves me with only one assumption - it would be nice for one of them to counter that assumption.
 
Jamila said:
The lack of response to this post either means people agree with Summers and are reticent to voice their agreement or are totally aghast that someone in Summers' prestigious position could be so remarkably backwards.

I am of the second opinion.:tsk:

Why put words in others mouths?
 
U2democrat said:
but is it really an innate difference? i beg to differ.

Summers' statement appears overly broad and sloppy. Not what you would expect from an Ivy League president. If there was a kernal of truth supported by significant research, it was certainly lost in the conclusionary statements.

But my question is to the broader concept. Other than obvious physical differences, should be identify innate differences between groups of people?
 
nbcrusader said:
Let's look at a broader question: should we identify innate differences between the sexes (or races)?


there are no innate differences between the races. there is no "race" gene -- as in the genetic difference between you and me is no greater, or smaller, than the genetic difference between me and someone from Kenya, or Cambodia.

gender differences are much murkier, and very interesting -- i suppose much of it comes down to the nature vs. nurture argument. i'm a big old social constructionist, so i'd argue that most of the differences between men and women in the sciences can be chalked up to societal attitudes towards aptitude as demonstrated by men or women.
 
U2democrat said:


i'm not claiming that at all. i'm talking about this specific instance. i agree that there are innate differences.

Ahh okay, I thought you were replying to the more broad question nbcrusader asked.

I'm not sure what to think about this instance. As I already said, studies show that from early on girls generally outperform boys in language and verbal skills, while boys generally outperform girls in math and science. Do I know if these are innate differences? No clue. Do I think it should be studied? Yes.

I tend to think any differences here come from social influences- girls still tend to play with dolls and socialize more with other children which would stimulate the verbal part of the brain whereas young boys tend to fiddle with toys and that sort of thing more, which could stimulate the spatial part of the brain. Of course, this is generalizing so there are many exceptions.
 
Irvine511 said:
there are no innate differences between the races. there is no "race" gene -- as in the genetic difference between you and me is no greater, or smaller, than the genetic difference between me and someone from Kenya, or Cambodia.

Is that a conclusion that we shouldn't look, or is that the conclusion of scientific research?

I am not suggesting that I disagree with your statement. But it appears that we are touching on an area of research that may be unacceptable to conduct.
 
nbcrusader said:


Is that a conclusion that we shouldn't look, or is that the conclusion of scientific research?

I am not suggesting that I disagree with your statement. But it appears that we are touching on an area of research that may be unacceptable to conduct.


Maybe the biggest issue is: what difference would it make if there was a study to find innate differences in people? Do we really need to know and why do we need to know? Would this be information that would benefit mankind or would it be detrimental? I think the real fear here is that if this were studied and some differences were found, people would use these differences as reasons to discriminate...ect. The P.C. thing today is to say that everyone is exactly the same and leave it at that-maybe that's not a bad thing?

In my Anthropological Research Methods class a couple years ago we had a debate about whether there are innate differences between different groups of people, which was very interesting. We had to study different anthropologists, and some very prominant ones said that it would only be natural for some innate differences to occur in seperate (think arctic/tropical) groups of people if you believe in evolution. I don't know if I agree, but it was interesting.
 
Summers said two things:

1. Men may be better than women at science and/or engineering.

2. This difference may explain what has been labeled discrimination.

We live in a society that endlessly classifys and categorizes people (who we hire, who we promote, who we give raises to, etc.....). By the very nature of our society, we do not say that everyone is exactly the same.

The tension is the classification based on legitimate and illegitimate reasons.
 
Did any of you read beyond the misleading headline? "Women Lack 'Natural Ability' In Some Fields, Harvard President Says"

Did he state this as his opinion? No. read on:

"Summers told the Globe he was discussing hypotheses based on the scholarly work assembled for the conference, not expressing his own views. He also said more research needs to be done on the issues."
and this:
"Conference organizers said Summers was asked to be provocative, and that he was invited as a top economist, not as a Harvard official."

and this:"It's possible I made some reference to innate differences," he said. He said people "would prefer to believe" that the differences in performance between the sexes are due to social factors, "but these are things that need to be studied."

If I'm not mistaken the purpose of this conference was to address the fact that women aren't succeeding in certain fields to the degree that men are.

So what you do is put all your possible theories on the table to try to figure out the problem.

Now if we're not even allowed to discuss the possibility of innate differences between men and women, who's the one being closed minded? the militancy in some of these posts is quite astonishing.
 
Also, following this train of thought, are we not allowed to discuss the possibility of innate differences between straight and gay? But I thought the majority of gay opinion was that they were born that way? I'm lost.....
 
U2democrat said:
Where are you getting this feeling that we're "not allowed" to discuss the differences?

reference previous posts by jamila and indra.
 
Back
Top Bottom