I am going to start by saying that this post may make some readers uncomfortable, if not angry. However, this is where “the rubber meets the road” for Intellectual Freedom. The article I chose for this week is Daring to Discuss Women in Science by John Tierney of The New York Times.
Tierney reflects on statements made by Lawrence H. Summers when he was President of Harvard University in 2005. Summers suggested that while men and women’s aptitude for science may be close, and by removing social barriers women can be involved in the scientific community at more proportional rates, men may have slightly more aptitude for science at the highest levels of achievement, and therefore represent a greater percentage of faculty positions at an ivy league institution such as Harvard.
Summers’s statement was responded to by feminist demonstrators. The federal government is also considering a legislative response, requiring federal grant recipients to attend workshops focusing on gender bias attitudes. These workshops will require participants to take before and after surveys, and participants will engage in discussions on these issues.
Can participants really say what they believe without jeopardizing their funding? When the government is subsidizing speech with grants, it is not usually held to as strict standards as when it attempts to restrict other speech. If participants say what they know the government wants to hear, is that compelled speech?
This issue is about political correctness, something near and dear to my heart. Being politically correct is considered polite and it helps avoid conflict. We live in a society where we want to believe everyone is equal and has the same opportunities. However, I think if we can suspend those ideals for a moment, we know that is not true. There is evidence that Lawrence Summers may have been right. However, there is also evidence that women possess greater aptitude at the highest levels of achievement in other areas, such as verbal reasoning and writing ability.
How do we get to the point where we can talk about and maybe accept that there may not be equality for every line item, but overall, all people have something important to offer?
(I know NYT articles have a tendency to disappear quickly, so here is the citation for the article on Proquest: John Tierney. "Daring to Discuss Women in Science. " New York Times 8 Jun 2010, Late Edition (East Coast): ProQuest Central, ProQuest. Web. 9 Jun. 2010.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Yikes....you might say women in general have a slightly higher aptitude for not being so pigheaded.
ReplyDeleteBut whether I agree with Dr. Summers isn't the point. Whether anyone else on the planet agrees with him isn't the point. The fact that someone holds an unpopular or factually inaccurate opinion doesn't preclude his or her right to say it out loud. At least, not in this country it doesn't.
That's what makes this somewhat troubling. Part of what makes freedom of speech so valuable IS difference of opinion. Without discourse, we eliminate the marketplace of ideas--which is the only system that can guarantee every idea is available for our collective consideration so that the best ones triumph.
I fully support the right of those people pictured in the article to protest speech that they don't agree with and are offended by. What I don't support is any new law that would force people to regurgitate the idea stamped with the feds' seal of approval, and thereby force their own (possibly contrary) ideas behind closed doors.
Right or wrong, truth or fiction, offensive or not; Dr. Summers has the right to say whatever he so chooses. It is a scary thought that the discomfort caused by his words could be the catalyst for a form of censorship. Making someone take a seminar to get a grant would seem to infer that at the end of that seminar you need to have "learned" something. Would the retention of said grant be dependent on what you came away from the seminar with? That wouldn't worry me so much in a private institutions grants. Non-governmental agencies work under slightly different rules, but the government should protect free speech. It should not limit it.
ReplyDeleteLadies,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your thoughts. I completely agree that both Dr. Summers and the protestors have the right to express their opinions.
Carly, thank you for bringing in the marketplace of ideas. That is where I'd like to focus. The theory behind the marketplace of ideas is that there will be competing ideas, and we need to present all ideas so that the best ones can rise to the top, and the others will fade from significance.
Here, we have two competing ideas, backed by two different sides, and the issue is emotionally charged. My question is, "Is the marketplace going to work here?" If both sides are entrenched in their belief in the rightness of their assertions, will either of them budge to consider the other side, let alone perhaps see some truth in it? Or is the marketplace of ideas not designed for everyone to ultimately agree on the best idea, maybe it is for people lost in the middle (which is usually where I'm hanging out), to provide them with possibilities to consider?
I agree that Dr. Summers has a right to say whatever he chooses. I, of course, also have the right to ignore what he says. ; )
ReplyDeleteWhat concerns me, however, is what teachers and future teachers might get out of ideas such as this one. Will it influence someone, even if subconsciously, to work a little harder with the male students, thinking that they have a better shot at doing more with a natural ability?
I think there is a very fine line between political correctness and common sense. Sometimes we should know better to say exactly what we think and then there are many occasions people simply overreact. A couple of examples: shortly after Presdient Obama took office his Sec. of Homeland Security reported that it was expected that white supremacy groups would become more active, some members of congress and political commentators cried foul. Sec Napolitano backed off her statement and her statement has proven to be correct. Last week at a White House reception honoring Paul McCartney, McCartney made a crack about President Bush, causing House Minority Leader to demand an apology. The apology never came.
ReplyDeleteWhen information is so readily accessible, anonymity does not exist especially if you are in the public eye. There is always going to be someone or some group which objects to someone elses opinion, our society is not for the thin skinned.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteObviously the guy has every right to express himself. The thing is, whenever someone is in the public eye, someone (whether it be THAT PERSON, or whoever is connected with that person) will be worried about image. Also, whenever there is money involved, someone will be watching their backside.
ReplyDeleteI'm honestly not much of a fan of the politically correct terms that were started (some of them are silly, or even confusing for those involved), but maybe it's not a bad idea for people to go to a class or something that may open their mind. We are clearly not all the same, but like you say, we all excel in something... different but equal.
Really, many older people can not be changed. If there is to be a difference made, it should begin with the youth. They will take these ideals into adulthood, and then they will become the norm.
An article in this month's Atlantic Monthly talks about how girls / young women are surpassing boys /young men in scholastic achievement. Women make up 66% of all college graduates. A survey of the top 15 highest growth jobs, most of which require a math or science background, 13 are in traditionally female dominated fields such as nursing and physical therapy. The only two fields where men dominate are computer engineers and janitors.
ReplyDeleteI think what Dr. Summers is talking about is partly the result of more boys / young men being exposed to and encouraged to pursue scientific careers at an early age. Only recently have girls / young women been given the same opportunity. It makes a difference where and when we grew up. The culture to which we belong and legacies passed on by our parents shape patterns of achievement in ways that we cannot begin to understand.
Malcom Gladwell in his book Outliers talks about the Matthew Effect, where the most highly successful are likely to be given the kinds of special opportunities that lead to further success. Eventually their accumulated success leads to an even wider disparity with the average population.
Gladwell also postulates that the reason American students are so far behind their counterparts in some Asian countries is because of the word length of the English numbering system. Humans store digits in a memory loop that averages two seconds. In the Chinese and most Asian languages words are remarkably brief so that students can store three times the amount numbers within the two second memory gap than an American student. This means the average Chinese 6 year old can remember 40 numbers while an American at that age can only remember 15.
As to the free speech issue, I don't believe Dr. Summers should be censured for his remarks. They speak to what may be a combination of innate or culturally acquired advantages that boys/young men have had in math and science. However, that gap appears to be closing with succeeding generations.
This discussion made me think of 2 feminist theories: liberal and radical. Liberal feminists are the egalitarian types - men and women should be equal and enjoy the same rights and privileges. On the other hand, radical feminism points out the differences between men and women, as well as the notion of gender oppression. Which is correct? It all depends on your perspective. Are women being oppressed and that's why they aren't showing up as professors at Harvard? Or is there a glass ceiling effect here? Either way, Dr. Summers should not be censured. In fact, his words may inspire some young women to work harder and achieve more, thereby proving him wrong.
ReplyDeleteI heard a really good interview on NPR with Sally Ride about this very subject. She is, of course, the first female astronaut to fly into space, and like many (all?) astronauts she is also a scientist.
ReplyDeleteHer point was that, up until late in elementary school, boys and girls exhibit similar levels of interest in science, but interest plummets among girls during middle school. Something noticed by social scientists is that social pressure on girls to be dumb at science increases as they get older.
Anywho, I'm not against compulsory seminars on gender bias on principle as a means to break the glass ceiling. The glass ceiling is not a myth, and I don't think Mr. Summers was claiming that it was. As far as feminists marching because of his comments, he has the right to say it and they have the right to march about it.
There goes our government again protecting our right to be governed. Don’t get me wrong, I feel that Summers should be able to say whatever he wants. Especially if his statements are backed up by scientific research. However, what bothers me is that schools like Harvard and Yale are so exclusive and so hard to get into that comments like that reek of an institutionally based sexual discrimination policy. Obviously, there are those who feel that this is wrong so to anticipate the possibility that other school presidents might feel the same way legislation was passed to force institutions who want government grant money to at least have a conversation regarding gender bias. I personally think this is a good thing.
ReplyDeleteHe has the right to say what he sees as an interpretation of current studies or trends, but I would argue as others have that his position is hard to prove. I only took one psychology course in college but I remember the idea of nature versus nurture and I think that applies to this area. Girls may have equal abilities as boys but if they decide to pursue a different field or are pushed into a different field that makes it seem like less girls are in these areas. As a history major I know that everything is up to interpretation and no two people will see even the same evidence or facts in the same light. And that is why we have freedom of speech. Maybe his comments would have been received better if they had had a constructive element such as his ideas for promoting women in science etc ...
ReplyDeleteThe data is clear; however, I am sure (I have a hunch.) girls do better in school overall. Girls are graduating college in greater numbers than men. Should we make generalizations about going to college?
ReplyDeleteIt is never acceptable to limit or underestimate human potential based on gender, race, religion, creed, eye color, sexual orientation, etc. Sorry, it's not politically correct or incorrect. It's just bad judgment. Data is tricky; be careful what you read into it.
Speech is protected; bad judgment is just bad judgment. Is this a reason to protest? How are Summer's comments different from showing preference toward one race or another? Women have a vested interest in science. Don't limit our access.
On the issue of requiring attendance at gender bias workshops as a condition of grant acceptance; attendees would not be required to swear they will not discriminate based on gender. They are required to attend and sign off that they attended. I am require to attend many trainings as a condition of my employment.
Topics like this need to be discussed. There are some papers that show that the reason there is a stronger female presence in college is due to academia selecting more for conscientiousness, and less for intelligence, and that the characteristics that make for good scientists will be more amongst males. The important thing is that these ideas are allowed to be disseminated, and people have access to them.
ReplyDeleteCharlton, B.G. "Why Are Modern Scientists so Dull? How Science Selects for Perseverance and Sociability at the Expense of Intelligence and Creativity." Medical Hypotheses. 72.3 (2009): 237-243. Print.
Charlton, BG. "Sex Ratios in the Most-Selective Elite Us Undergraduate Colleges and Universities Are Consistent with the Hypothesis That Modern Educational Systems Increasingly Select for Conscientious Personality Compared with Intelligence." Medical Hypotheses. 73.2 (2009): 127-9. Print.
Charlton, BG. "Why It Is 'better' to Be Reliable but Dumb Than Smart but Slapdash: Are Intelligence (iq) and Conscientiousness Best Regarded As Gifts or Virtues." Medical Hypotheses. 73.4 (2009): 465-7. Print.
I do not think that funding should be affected by what an academic professional says on an uncomfortable topic. Dr. Summers made a statement that he felt was supported with evidence. Opening up topics like this allows other researchers to determine if there really is a connection. The more research that is done, the better the evidence will be (one way or another).
ReplyDeleteAs a side note, could the extreme variance on the right tail (high end) be linked to Asperger's? I know that there has been a hypothesis that Einstein may have had ASD, and often, people with ASD excel in specific areas. Since ASD tends to be more prevalent in boys, it could explain that strange variance.