Pharyngula::Some MAN needs to calculate the rotational velocity of MLK's corpse, immediately!

Pharyngula has moved to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

Monday, January 17, 2005

Some MAN needs to calculate the rotational velocity of MLK's corpse, immediately!

PZ Myers • 157 Comments (last page)

It's Martin Luther King day, and the story that has me angriest today is about the perpetuation of the kind of inequities he fought against. And it's coming from the president of Harvard.

The president of Harvard University, Lawrence H. Summers, sparked an uproar at an academic conference Friday when he said that innate differences between men and women might be one reason fewer women succeed in science and math careers. Summers also questioned how much of a role discrimination plays in the dearth of female professors in science and engineering at elite universities.

The article mentions that several attendees walked out on him, including Nancy Hopkins. I know Nancy Hopkins—she's a molecular geneticist who has done innovative work with zebrafish—and I'm not surprised that she left in disgust. She herself personifies exactly what is wrong with these stupid comments by Summers. I am surprised and disappointed that everyone didn't storm out.

I'll tell you how much of a role discrimination plays in limiting female professors in so-called "elite" universities: 100%. There is no shortage of brilliant women scientists (or brilliant male scientists), but there is a dearth of jobs and we still have bigoted ignoramuses like Summers standing guard over the gateways.

He offered three possible explanations, in declining order of importance, for the small number of women in high-level positions in science and engineering. The first was the reluctance or inability of women who have children to work 80-hour weeks.

Point in Woman's favor: they aren't stupid enough to succumb to the ridiculous demands of the academic establishment.

But seriously, this isn't a problem with women. This is a problem with the culture. We have a culture that says it is OK for the boys to shirk family responsibilities and invest time in their careers, but women who do the same are bad mothers. Women are penalized in ways that men aren't for making a maximal effort in their careers, just as men are penalized for spending more time with their families.

Do you think Lawrence Summers looks on those high-level male scientists and engineers who are slaving away in the lab for 80+ hours a week, and wonders, "Why is that man neglecting his children?" Part of the problem is that we have administrators and peers who can gleefully apply that kind of career pressure without concern for their ability to function as well-rounded human beings.

The second point was that fewer girls than boys have top scores on science and math tests in late high school years. ''I said no one really understands why this is, and it's an area of ferment in social science," Summers said in an interview Saturday. "Research in behavioral genetics is showing that things people previously attributed to socialization weren't" due to socialization after all.

This was the point that most angered some of the listeners, several of whom said Summers said that women do not have the same "innate ability" or "natural ability" as men in some fields.

Asked about this, Summers said, ''It's possible I made some reference to innate differences. . . I did say that you have to be careful in attributing things to socialization. . . That's what we would prefer to believe, but these are things that need to be studied."

Guess what, Summers? Boys don't have an "innate" tendency towards science and math. Leave them alone, and they don't grow up into natural engineers: they become animals who like to eat and screw and scratch themselves. The most important contributor to that predilection for tinkering and building and learning is education. Any possible inherited differences are miniscule compared to the power of education and cultural biases.

And don't try to pretend that socialization is minimal, when the president of Harvard can stand up and seriously suggest that many people are incapable of doing great science because they have ovaries. We don't do research with our gonads, or our skin pigments, for that matter.

Summers said cutting-edge research has shown that genetics are more important than previously thought, compared with environment or upbringing. As an example, he mentioned autism, once believed to be a result of parenting but now widely seen to have a genetic basis.

Grrr. Apparently, congenital idiocy is not a barrier to becoming a Harvard administrator.

"Cutting-edge research?" What research is that? While there are genetic biases that can skew an individual's preferences and behavior, none are so cleanly tied to sex or race that we can use them to legitimately discriminate on the basis of those irrelevant traits, and none of the gender/race associated correlations are within even an order of magnitude of the potency of education. How can anyone be so stupid as to stand in front of a room full of accomplished women, all walking, talking refutations of his claim, and suggest such a thing?

I also don't think that last attempt to salvage his thesis by comparing the possession of a pair of X chromosomes to a heritable, organic brain disorder does him any credit. I'm hoping a cabal of strong, smart Harvard women is going to rise up and fire his dumb, hairy scrotum.

(via Feministing)

Trackback url: http://pharyngula.org/index/trackback/1818/iaQMJQQg/

Comments:

#13510: Andrew Reeves — 01/17 at 02:39 PM
Well, there are academic feminists out there who believe exactly the same thing. _The Alphabed Versus the Goddess_, for example, argues that women do not think in terms of reason and logic but rather in terms of feelings and images. The conclusion is then that literacy, writing, and logic are tools of the patriarchy that oppress women.

#13512: Reed A. Cartwright — 01/17 at 02:52 PM
PZ,

What do you think about the idea that women tend to be more auditorilly inclined and men more visually inclined?

#13514: — 01/17 at 03:03 PM
I’ll tell you how much of a role discrimination plays in limiting female professors in so-called “elite” universities: 100%. There is no shortage of brilliant women scientists ....but there is a dearth of jobs

Well, then, Myers, if you, as a beneficiary, if not promoter of these "100%" discriminatory practices, the Honorable thing for you to do is quit immediately so that a brilliant woman scientist can get the job, that you are wrongfully occupying.

When we can we expect your letter of resignation?

#13515: DarkSyde — 01/17 at 03:03 PM
It's possible that women and men still retain some vestigial minor differences from our evolutionary history. Women bear and suckle young while men do not. This would suggest that in the course of evolution, women who perform tasks which require intermittent attention, i.e. what we might call parallel proccessing, might be more reproductively fit over those who engaged in long term, high concentration demanding tasks. (It would also explain why my wife can notice, with a single glance across the living room, a iny stain on my shirt, that went unnoticed at work and by myself, for the entire day.)
But yes, the individual variation, not to mention the effects of differential cultural factors, would have long since handily swamped out such minor inclinations on any person-to-person basis. Simple desire and stubborn perseverence alone, together with curiosity, fuels the fires of most scientific careers, men or women.

Short version; This guy surely he knows he fucked up royally.

#13520: Bryson Brown — 01/17 at 03:35 PM
Andrew-- I recall a particularly maddening paper presented by Val Plumwood (a relevance logician of some standing) in which she argued that classical negation was both a tool of and the root of (much? all? It was hard to tell...) male bias and chauvinism. The argument was a simple 'guilt by association' quote hunt, with misogynistic remarks by various figures who had used classical negation in their work. Nice quotes, but not much of an argument.

Looking for root causes of the unalterable variety (with genes by far the favourite these days) is a mugs' game-- and a great way to deal with social problems you don't want to address. A convenient (supposed) cause is cited, so that other causes that we are both responsible for and in control of can be ignored.

More importantly, as PZ says, there's every reason to suppose that social factors like education and career structure/expectations play a far greater role than a slight overall sexual bias in ability might. It's disappointing to see such facile, thoughtless excuse making from the President of Harvard...but not really surprising, given my experience with university adminstrators.

#13521: DarkSyde — 01/17 at 03:45 PM
In terms of pure innovation, surely a desirable feature for scientists, if our closest relatives are any sign, it is mostly the females who seem prone to innovation. My recollection from basic primatology was that among chimps, the women are the ones who pick up on the novel solutions, and pass it on to their young, both male and female through association. The older males just seem more interested in playing politics and trying to keep from getting beaten to death by other males while joyously looking for handy targets to beat to death. ... I don't know how accurate that recollection is. Maybe someone here does.

#13522: — 01/17 at 03:47 PM
The most important contributor to that predilection for tinkering and building and learning is education. Any possible inherited differences are miniscule compared to the power of education and cultural biases.

An acquaintance of mine from my university days told me that she dropped out of being a high school physics teacher because her head of department told her to discourage girls from studying physics. Apparently places in the physics classes were limited, and he didn't want girls depriving boys of their rightful place in science.

#13523: — 01/17 at 03:47 PM
It should be possible to determine the basis of any sex differences in (here's the problem ... sex differences in what? The ability to add?). Oh well, I thought I had something useful to say, but apparently not. But I'll try: what can the HarPrez say about the women who have made it in the sciences? How to explain their successes despite their sex-related deficiencies? Perhaps the HarPrez should look into sex-related tendencies towards foot-in-mouth syndrome.

#13524: — 01/17 at 03:50 PM
So is this article taking it on faith that there aren't any innate cognitive differences between genders? I was under the impression that studies showed males were statistically better than females at 3D rotation problems and whatnot, but maybe I've been misinformed. I'm sure these studies never indicate that males are capable of anything that females are incapable of, only that there are differences in predisposition. The female molecular biologist mentioned need not consider any discussion of male and female cognitive predispositions as questioning her abilities in her field. These ideas are built on probability distributions, not absolute limits on gender capabilities.
All that aside, if the gender gap in academics is sociologically driven then hadn't we better solve the problem at the socialization level early on? Concentrate on equalizing attention in the elementary science classroom.
I assume that if you gathered a random distribution of U.S. males and females of research position-seeking age you would find that the males had slightly greater propensity for at least 3D rotation problems, by extension physics or calculus. If this difference is because of socialization, it probably started in early education and we're too late. If the difference is because of inherent differences, then we're way too late. I say do as much as we can to eliminate the sociological variables but not complain if it turns out that there are genetic determinants too.

#13525: — 01/17 at 04:08 PM
Look, you boneheads, speak english! Speak common sense!

Women ain't good at math or science!

Everybody knows this.

Of course, there are exceptions (didn't that chick Franklin get shafted on the discovery of DNA), and those exceptional women ought to be groomed and permitted to get full and fair consideration for any and all academic jobs. And, (my sensitive side predominating) maybe even a boost here and there.

But, that don't change the facts on the ground. The applicant pool for scientific women (too busy shopping and listening to Britney Spears albums), ain't very large, and that's just how life works.

Myers -- the wimpy, indignant feminist -- cancel your future summer (no pun intended) gigs at Harvard! You ain't wanted

#13526: PZ Myers — 01/17 at 04:17 PM
I am certainly not assuming there are no genetic differences between males and females -- that would be rather silly, don't you think? I also expect that there are slight physiological and cognitive differences between them. The point is, though, that the overwhelmingly most significant factor is education and training.

If there is a genetic difference that gives some males a slightly better ability to visualize 3D objects rotating in space, so what? There is a bit more to being a top-notch physicist than object visualization. And as a probability distribution, it's damned absurd to judge someone's object visualization skills by his or her gonads (why not, you know, measure their ability to visualize?)

I also expect that there are categories in which females have a slight edge, probability-wise. It's another example of cultural bias when we find Abstraction X in which some males excel, Abstraction Y in which some females excel, and then we decree that Abstraction X is the one that counts when doing Concrete Complex Task A.

The whole argument Summers was making is wrong and absurd on multiple levels.

PZ Myers
Division of Science and Math
University of Minnesota, Morris

#13527: PZ Myers — 01/17 at 04:19 PM
Flynn, last warning: make an ass of yourself one more time, and you are out of here.

PZ Myers
Division of Science and Math
University of Minnesota, Morris

#13530: — 01/17 at 04:41 PM
Have pity on Summers: he's only an economist, after all. And he's a classic example of one of those unworldly people who's so smart they can rationalise saying the stupidest things about things outside their immediate field.

(Oh, and I think Bob Flynn is possibly being ironic. At least, I hope he is: he hasn't struck me as a raving misogynist to date.

Note also that great scientists like Terry Pratchett have pointed out in works of classical erudition like Truckers that 'if women learn to read, their brains overheat'. I think this is just possibly very significant, and proves that EINSTIEN WOZ WORNG and that THE EARTH GOES ROUND VENUS and THE SUN WAS EJECTED FROM SATURN.)

#13531: — 01/17 at 04:44 PM
His autism example is even sillier than it appears on the surface. People stopped blaming "cold mothers" for the disorder long before we had the vaguest clue what the genetics were (and hell, even now 'vague clue' is probably an optimistic assessment of what we know). It was just, ya know, umm, STUPID to think such a profound developmental disorder could be caused by bad parenting. It was, in short, a historic flub in the annals of psychiatry.

If he really thinks that it was some sort of reasonable, long standing theory that was suddenly undone by modern genetics, then no wonder he's such a yutz.

#13533: paperwight — 01/17 at 04:49 PM
I think Bob Flynn is possibly being ironic.

Now that's an interesting possibility. Flynn as the Pharyngula equivalent of Stalker Al at Political Animal -- showing that wingnut trolls are basically a self-parody.

#13535: PZ Myers — 01/17 at 04:57 PM
That may well be in this case, but he's exceeded the boundaries of good taste. As a husband and as a father to a daughter and as a male who would rather not be judged by the great good fortune of possessing a pair of testicles, I was deeply offended by Summers...and I'm not in the mood to put up with some juvenile moron who thinks shouting "Women ain’t good at math or science!" is funny.

PZ Myers
Division of Science and Math
University of Minnesota, Morris

#13539: — 01/17 at 05:11 PM
I don't think that this quote from Summers is at all unexpected,
coming from him. The man has a reputation.

#13540: coturnix — 01/17 at 05:14 PM
Growing up in Eastern Europe, I had a very different experience. The boys, throughout school, were treated as no-good know-nothing criminals-in-training, while the girls were all the best students in all classes. I remember being the only boy on the all-girl school team in math, physics and biology, year after year from 5th grade (when we started haveing physics, chemistry and biology as separate classes) all the way until the end of high school. At college level, it was about 50-50, but in general women did better on exams than guys. Do Serbs have reverse genetics of sex? I don't think so. Just a different culture, different priorities, different expecations, and different educational philosphies.

#13541: yami — 01/17 at 05:21 PM
"Leave them alone, and they don’t grow up into natural engineers: they become animals who like to eat and screw and scratch themselves."

Okay, no juvenile misogynist jokes, but what about juvenile engineer jokes? After such a prompt, they practically write themselves!

#13542: — 01/17 at 05:27 PM
"Boys don’t have an “innate” tendency towards science and math....The most important contributor to that predilection for tinkering and building and learning is education. Any possible inherited differences are miniscule compared to the power of education and cultural biases."

Do you have any scientific evidence to support your broad generalizations?

"I’m hoping a cabal of strong, smart Harvard women is going to rise up and fire his dumb, hairy scrotum."

Or the cabal of strong, smart, Harvard women could present arguments against his position. Your hostility to free speech, and free academic inquiry is apalling.

#13544: — 01/17 at 05:35 PM
My high school teaching experience was that females are well on their way to using the academic system to their advantage. This gives some hope that the Summers type is fading.

May I suggest that there be minimum levels of mathematical and scientific competence for elementary teachers, say up to the level of basic algebra on the math side. When I took my CBEST test a decade back the most difficult math was a couple of quadratic equations. Expecting 80% or better should be de riguer if we expect anybody to teach the necessary building blocks to allow ALL children to have a chance at success in technical disciplines at the high school and college levels.

Funding the training to bring our current teachers up to snuff is a vital part of this equation, as is the willingness to change the pedagogy of elementary ed (one teacher as expert at everything may not fly if we are serious about this).

First we have to decide this is important ...... I do not want my grand-daughters to think that they cant do math and science before they even try.

#13545: — 01/17 at 05:37 PM
Ya know, I was watching football this weekend, and, boy, it struck me -- there ain't no women in the NFL!

It must be 100% discrimination, I tell ya! That damn glass ceiling. Those insufficient affirmative action programs, the dearth of proper mentoring........

Also, I betcha 10 bucks you would never call Dean Summers a "hairy scrotum" to his face

#13546: — 01/17 at 05:40 PM
I note coturnix's comment about specialist teaching in the 5th grade. I think part of our problem here is that we hang onto the 'teach the children, not the subject' paradigm way too long, especially for those subject where the average teacher does not have a strong background. The only subjects I have seem elementary students rotated away from their regular teacher for are PE and Music. I would be interested in hearing of different models used.

#13548: — 01/17 at 05:44 PM
If it is assumed that Summers himself is smart in general, then there may be a more sinister reason. Summers is saying that Harvard has red-state values in order to pander to potential contributors and protect itself from the rabid rightwing.

#13549: bitchphd — 01/17 at 05:52 PM
PZ Myers, I love you. And I'll give you a feminist get-out-of-jail-free card so you can keep your job and some other, stupid asshole guy can step down to make room for a smarter (because neither stupid nor assholish) woman to take his job.

Page 1 of 7 pages 1 2 3 > Last »

Next entry: More on academic sexism

Previous entry: Evo-lotion

<< Back to main

Pharyngula has moved to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

Monday, January 17, 2005

Some MAN needs to calculate the rotational velocity of MLK's corpse, immediately!

Info