ENG 101

1 March 2012

Larry Summers Speaks

On Friday, January 14, 2005, Larry Summers, then president of Harvard

University, spoke at an academic conference in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

The conference, which focused on women and minorities in the sciences and

in engineering, was a small event with around fifty total participants. The

focus of his speech was on a difficult question: why are women so

underrepresented in the hard sciences, i.e., physics, engineering, math and

such? Summers later stated that he had been asked to be provocative and

challenging. In fact, he said that he stated repeatedly throughout the

speech, Im going to provoke you (Bombardieri, 7). Summers then offered

three possible answers to this question. One was the possible reluctance of

women with children to work the long hours required by the professions. He

also mentioned discrimination, although he downplayed it, citing an

economic theory that says that a college that does not discriminate is at a

marked advantage in hiring because there would be a glut of highly qualified

women. Neither of these answers proved provocative. However, his third

possibility for why women are underrepresented in the sciences was that

perhaps there were innate differences between men and women that may

account for the discrepancies.

This was successfully provocative. Nancy Hopkins, a biologist from

MIT, left the room during the speech, and later stated that if she hadnt left,
she . . . would have either blacked out or thrown up (Bombardieri, 2).

Hopkins also said, It is so upsetting that all these brilliant young women [at

Harvard] are being led by a man who views them this way (13), and Lets

not forget that people used to say that women couldnt drive an automobile

(Goldberg, 6). The Boston Globe reported on the comments, and on

Hopkinss offense, and a debate erupted that was, for a short time,

nationwide news. In the aftermath, Hopkins appeared on several news

programs, including the Today Show, and Summers apologized repeatedly

and pledged extra money to affirmative action programs at Harvard.

At first, he declined to release a transcript of the speech, but the

controversy did not go away. In fact, it got even more heated; in early

February, the presidents of MIT, Princeton and Stanford released a statement

rejecting the views Summers put forward (Jaschik, 5). Denice D. Denton,

dean of engineering at the University of Washington, also confronted

Summers at the conference. She said that she has received scores of

messages, phone calls, and more on the subject, and said that the whole

situation had provoked an intellectual tsunami (Dillon, 19). A committee of

Harvard Faculty sent a protest letter to Summers over the speech, saying

that such comments serve to reinforce an institutional culture at Harvard

that erects numerous barriers to improving the representation of women on

the faculty (Dillon, 3). By mid-February, Summers capitulated and released

a transcript of the speech to the public. A year later, he resigned as

president of Harvard, although not only over this issue.

 Political pundits on both sides waxed eloquent on the issue.

Conservatives came to Summers defense, generally, and liberals excoriated

him.

Jonah Goldberg, the editor of The National Review, laughed at

Hopkinss arguments: Thats true [that people once said that women

couldnt drive an automobile]. People also used to say that women arent as

tall as men . . . that women are the ones who make babies . . . all sorts of

other things that happen to be true. Goldberg assumes that Summers is

right, that there are basic psychological differences between the genders,

and that only someone who is blinded by ideology would not be able to

accept that men and women might think differently. Goldberg cites a 2002

article from the Scientific American called Sex difference in the brain that

claims that men tend to be better at spatial reasoning, and women better at

word games. Goldberg goes on to accuse Hopkins of ascribing to a species

of liberalism and/or feminism (11) which opposes real scholarship, academic

inquiry, and even liberalism itself.

Steve Sailer, who writes for The American Conservative, explains how

feminism, gender quotas, and affirmative action have clearly not affected

how often women are found at the top in the hard sciences. He goes through

the history of the different Nobel prizes and comes to an odd conclusion.

Women have won more and more over the last four decades . . . but not in all

fields; The fuzzier the field, the better women do (21). Sailer basically is

saying that women win plenty of prestigious prizes and awards in literature,
psychology, sociology, and the like. But the more rigid the field, the less

often women win. Women win the Nobel in Medicine, Chemistry, and Physics

less than three percent of the time. This might be accounted for by

prejudice, but Sailer then states that, In the bad old days from 1901 through

1964, women won 2.5 percent of the hard science Nobels. Since then,

theyve declined to 2.3 percent (25). So, while prejudice (presumably) has

lessened since the mid-sixties, as evidenced by their winning more and more

of the soft science awards, there has been no significant increase in women

at the very top of these certain fields. This echoes a point that Summers

references in his speech. According to this argument, men and women

average out with similar intelligence . . . but they do it in a different way.

Men are more likely to be found at the extremes, both above and below the

norm; there are more men geniuses and more men idiots. Therefore, in a

rarified field that attracts and rewards extreme intelligence, men are

significantly more likely to be represented (Jaschik, 10).

In fact, much of the arguments from those defending Summers have

focused on Hopkins, who is an accomplished molecular biologist, but it is

her pioneering role in fostering gender equity in academia for which many

have come to know her (Bloom, 2). A few years earlier, Hopkins chaired a

committee at MIT that found pervasive, but unintentional gender bias

(Bloom, 4). This very concept is laughable to some writers: Goldberg says

that this type of finding is generally PC code for Im not going to provide

any evidence . . . discrimination consists of a pattern of powerful but

unrecognized assumptions. Once you get it, it seems almost obvious

(Goldberg, 13). His scorn is obvious.

Most of the people defending Summers make an even more basic

point: it does not look well for the feminist ideal that a well respected woman

scientist would claim that the very utterance of an idea that she disagrees

with makes her lightheaded and nauseas; she is fitting herself voluntarily

into the very stereotype that she means to escape from. Al Barger, a

libertarian Blogger from Indiana, asked whether Hopkinss drivers license

should be revoked: What would happen if she were driving down the street

and accidently punched up Rush Limbaugh on the radio, for example? Rush

makes one of his feminazi jokes, and she throws up and blacks out

(Barger, 9). Barger is being farcical, perhaps in direct answer to Hopkins

statement about women used to not be allowed to drive. Goldberg says,

What caused this damsel Hopkins to hie to her fainting couch? (Goldberg,

2), and Sailer says that she . . . fled Summers talk like a blushing Victorian

maiden hearing some uncouth personage use the word legs instead of

limbs (Sailers, 6).

Much of the defense of Summers, then, is that a man, intending to be

provocative, intending to raise difficult and controversial issues, was so

quickly and roundly attacked by ardent feminists that those actual issues

became secondary. Another common thread throughout was that the

response from Hopkins was absurd and extreme. Their arguments are

mostly saying, Hey, hes tossing an idea out thereunpopular, perhaps

but isnt that what academic freedom is about? And look at this lady,

fainting at the mere thought! There is, however, no ridicule of Hopkins

blacking out or throwing up on the other side of the political aisle. In fact,

theres hardly mention of Hopkins at all. Summers remarks are the focus,

and plenty of people find them legitimately offensive.

Meghan ORourke, writing for Slate, says that because of Summers

position as president of such a prestigious college, his words have more

impact and unintended meaning, Any generalizations he makes about the

genetic inferiority of women might easily lead individuals at his institution to

question his faith in their ability and, in the best of situations, make it hard to

attract talent to Harvard (4). ORourke also says that Summers words,

because of his position, will Inevitably be twisted . . . into something far

cruder by those whose latent sexism is in search of intellectual validation

(6). The reaches of innate discrimination against women intellectually are,

according to these arguments, often subconscious; ORourke cites a study in

which both men and women grade an essay significantly higher if they

believe it was written by a John McKay, and lower if the very same essay has

Joan McKay at the top. She also mentions that blind auditions (where the

judge cannot see the person auditioning) have caused a precipitous increase

in the number of women in major orchestras.

There was also significant disagreement with Summers idea that

academic discrimination against women by colleges would just allow other

colleges to hire all of the qualified women. Michael Kevane, who teaches
economics at Santa Clara University, refers to a model by economist George

Akerlof that supposedly disproves this idea, and thinks that Summers just

enjoys the limelight by making aggressive conjectures, hasty decisions, and

idiosyncratic actions (Kevane, 1).

But, of course, the core of Summers argument is whether or not there

is a genetic or physiological difference between the sexes that gives men

some advantage when it comes to the hard sciences. And this point is,

according to his critics, at best entirely without proof and at worst completely

wrong.

Several point to studies that show that girls equal or surpass boys in

elementary school math, but drop behind as socializing factors become more

prevalentin junior high or high school, where people are more likely to

categorize them as strange for liking or succeeding in certain areas. Some

also tell their own stories; typical is Mary Schweitzer, who says that when her

mother saw my ACT scores, she openly despaired that I would never find a

husband (3), and who tells about her sisters fear of being Unwomanly (7)

because she was good at math.

In fact, some sociologists cited by Summers in his speech actually

came out against Summers, saying that he had not properly referred to their

work and calling his assumptions too simplistic (Hemel, 8).

Seven years later, Summers is still a publicand polarizingfigure. He

has been the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury. He has served both the Clinton

administration and the Obama administration in an advisory role. He is

currently (February of 2012) being considered by President Obama for the

post of World Bank president. And yet the furor from 2005 still makes the

news; in December of 2011, LiveScience featured an article about a study

that covered girls math scores in 86 different countries. The article, in

setting up the context for the study, refers to Summers 2005 speech and

the resultant media frenzy. The study argues that girls do as well as boys on

school math tests worldwide. And heres where it gets absurd . . . a link at

the bottom of the page with this article has the following tagline: Ten Things

Every Man Should Know About a Womans Brain. So the research continues,

the debate continues, and whether theres any discernible mental difference

between us or not, we clearly still dont understand each other.

 Works Cited

Barger, Al. "Should Nancy Hopkins be driving?." BC Culture. Blog Critics Culture, 19

Jan. 2005. Web. 2

Mar. 2012. Path: Google.

Bloom, Stacie. "In the debate of sex and science, Summers, Hopkins and the X

chromosome battle it

out." The Journal of Clinical Investigation 115.5 May (2005): 1107-08. Web. 1

Mar. 2012.

Bombardieri, Marcella. "Summers' remarks on women draw fire." Boston Globe 17

Jan. 2005. Web. 1

Mar. 2012.

Dillon, Sam, and Sarah Rimer. "No Break in the Storm Over Harvard President's

Words." New

York Times 19 Jan. 2005. Web. 2 Mar. 2012.

Goldberg, Jonah. "A Professor and Her Smelling Salts." National Review 19 Jan.

2005. Web. 2 Mar. 2012.

Hemel, Daniel J. "Sociologist Cited By Summers Calls His Talk 'Uninformed'." Harvard

Crimson 19 Jan.

2005 [Cambridge] . Web. 2 Mar. 2012.

Jaschik, Scott. "What Larry Summers Said." Inside Higher Ed. N.p., 18 Feb. 2005.

Web. 2 Mar. 2012.

Kevane, Michael. "Re: Summers on women." Message to femecon-1@bucknell.edu.

28 Feb. 2005. Web.

1 Mar. 2012.
O'Rourke, Meghan. "Don't Let Larry Summers Off the Hook Yet." slate.com. The

Washington Post

Company, 28 Jan. 2005. Web. 2 Mar. 2012.

Sailer, Steve. "The Education of Larry Summers." The American Conservative 28

Feb. 2005. Web. 1 Mar.

2012.

Schweitzer, Mary. "Harvard president." Message to femecon-1@bucknell.edu. 19

Jan. 2005. Web.

Welsh, Jennifer. "Girls are Just as Good at Math, Study in 86 Countries Suggests."

Live Science 13 Dec.

2011. Web. 2 Mar. 2012.