On January 17 Lawrence H. Summers, Harvard University president, made some incendiary statements during an economic conference. The National Bureau of Economic Research planned the two-day conference Diversifying the Science and Engineering Workforce: Underrepresented Minorities, and their S. & E. Careers. During his presentation, he is reported by several sources to have said that the one reason there are less women than men in the upper echelons of math and science is because women’s “innate abilities” were not the same as men’s. Summers’ remarks were widely viewed as saying that women are genetically not as capable of science and math as men.

Summers questioned why there is a lack of women professors at prestigious universities. He offered three possible explanations for the disparity. The primary reason is a reluctance or inability of women to work an 80-hour week needed to get tenure. The second reason he stated was that women’s “innate ability” is different than men. He cited studies showing how girls test scores in science and math are lower and less variable than boys in the late high school years, saying that this might not be due to socialization. His third point questioned how much of a role discrimination plays in the lack of women professors at elite academic institutions. He cited the economic argument that if discrimination were the limiting factor, then some university would have benefited by gaining the top women who were discriminated against elsewhere.

There was much public criticism launched against Summers after the conference. MIT biologist Nancy Hopkins was one of five attendees who walked out during Summers’ talk. “When I looked around, I saw other women rolling their eyes.” Hopkins said in an interview on DemocracyNow.org that Summers “gave three reasons that he felt explained the small number of women that we see at the top of science and engineering, and the first one was, they have babies, and the second one was these aptitude differences. And I really found it inappropriate, in coming from the President of Harvard University, that I felt I should leave, so I did.” Hopkins piloted a 1999 endeavor to expose unwitting prejudice at MIT.

Harvard’s Faculty of Arts and Science Standing Committee on Women acted immediately after the conference with a letter to Summers, stating that his comments “serve to reinforce the institutional culture at Harvard that erects numerous barriers to improving the representation of women on the faculty, and to impede our efforts to recruit top women scholars.” The letter stated that his remarks did not “serve our institution well. It is obvious that the president of a university never speaks entirely as an individual, especially when that institution is Harvard and when the issue on the table is so highly charged.”

Sociologists Yu Xie of the University of Michigan and Kimberlee A. Shauman of the University of California-Davis authored the studies Summers referred to in his speech. Harvard University Press published their book Women in Science: Career Processes and Outcomes, in 2003. The authors said in an interview with the Harvard Crimson that their findings do not support Summers’ claim of “innate differences” being the reason behind the disparity between the genders. Summers’ assertion that test scores alone account for this problem is “too simplistic” according to Xie. “This does not explain why girls—even high achievers—drop out from science during the college years.” Xie found the element most significant in women’s advancement in science is the decision to start a family. “This can’t be explained by mathematical achievement.” Shauman noted “What was disappointing about [Summers’] comments was the kind of privileging of biology over socialization.”

On February 12, a critical essay by three university presidents was published in the Boston Globe. Susan Hockefield of MIT, Shirley Tilghman of Princeton and John Hennessy of Stanford wrote: “Speculation that ‘innate differences’ may be a significant cause of underrepresentation by women in science and engineering may rejuvenate old myths and reinforce negative stereotypes and biases.” This essay was a rare move in academia, where top officials seldom criticize their counterparts.
Summers attended a meeting of the Faculty of Arts and Science at Harvard on February 15. Many professors were unhappy with his management to the extent that they felt he was doing damage. “Many of your faculty are dismayed and alienated and demoralized,” said Dr. Arthur Kleinman, chairman of anthropology in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences.

The Rockefeller University President Paul Nurse responded to a Natural Selections inquiry about Summers’ comments: “I believe the debate should center less on whether or not men and women differ in their science and mathematics abilities, and more on ensuring opportunities for all who wish to pursue a career in science. Everyone, because of their diverse experiences—as a result of gender, culture, nationality and ethnicity—has different skills and perspectives to offer the scientific enterprise. Regardless of whether Dr. Summers made his comments at a meeting or in front of the press, anything that the head of an institution—whether it is Harvard or Rockefeller—says is likely to be a matter of public record.” Dr. Leslie Vosshall commented: “No rational person would deny that men and women are different and those differences are important and interesting. Where the debate becomes unhealthy is in one group using the differences to justify excluding the other group from participation. I think science is best carried out by a balanced group of people, with different genders, backgrounds, and experiences. Women have had a particularly difficult time in making inroads in some domains of science and ignorant comments like Summers’ perpetuate the exclusion of women.” Dr. Elaine Fuchs also shared her thoughts: “The president of any major university should be sufficiently cognizant of the sensitive nature of the topic of gender bias among university professors. He/she should also be sufficiently informed on the issues involved to be able to respond intelligently when placed on the spot. In this case, Dr. Summers did not seem to take into consideration that biases in the hiring and promotion of women faculty are likely to underlie the paucity of tenured women faculty at his university. It may be true that most women devote more time to child bearing/rearing than men. However, Harvard University could certainly accommodate such transient differences by offering such women additional time to achieve tenure. By leaving women out of the loop, both at the level of hiring and at the level of governance, Harvard University turns its back on many outstanding scientists and mathematicians in the country.”

Summers wrote a letter in response to the initial criticism on January 19. He asserts that he did not say, “girls are intellectually less able than boys, or that women lack the ability to succeed at he highest levels of science…I was wrong to have spoken in a way that resulted in an unintended signal of discouragement to talented girls and women.” He vowed to allocate large funds to allow the “appointment of outstanding scholars…including women.” In early February he announced that he would establish a new position to improve recruiting and two task forces, one on women in the faculty and the other on women in science and engineering. He has recently asked his female professors for feedback on how to mend his relationships at Harvard.

Summers said in an interview that his speech at the conference was just an “academic exploration of hypotheses.” He maintained that he was only summarizing research that suggests biological differences play a role. He has asserted that he only cited Xie and Shauman’s work as data that women are underrepresented in the top 5 percent of standardized tests.

Summers had declined up until recently to produce a tape or transcript of his presentation, claiming he only worked from notes. Then he released a transcript on February 18. In this document he theorized about the “different availability of aptitude at the high end [of science.]…There is reasonably strong evidence of taste differences between little girls and little boys that are not easy to attribute to socialization.” On the studies he interpreted, “It does appear that on many, many different human attributes…overall IQ, mathematical ability, scientific ability—there is relatively clear evidence that whatever the difference in means, there is a difference in the standard deviation, and variability of a male and a female population.” On the issue of the discrimination factor, “the largest phenomenon, by far, is the general clash between people’s legitimate family desires and employers’ current desire for high power and high intensity, that in the special case of science and engineering, there are issues of intrinsic aptitude, and particularly of the variability of aptitude, and that those considerations are reinforced by what are in fact lesser factors involving socialization and continuing discrimination.”

Related Articles:

• Women and the Science Pipeline
• Women and the Science Pipeline at RU
• The Cradle Will Rock