<p>
[quote]
ID, I'd be interested in knowing which quotations from the Summers transcript so stunned you.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Dr. Summers veiled his comments in sufficiently guarded "academicese" so that no particular quote reaches to the level of the infamous "loose shoes" comment. What I found disturbing was his selection of three points: women are not willing to work hard enough for high-power jobs, it's hard to find brilliant women, and discriminatory hiring practices are a minimal factor. One must assume these are his core beliefs on the issue of women in science fields or he would not have chosen to highlight these three. Of all the issues, he could have raised, I find his selection to be disturbing.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Why wouldn't they use those brains and all that research expertise to cut Summers off at the knees intellectually, instead of just trying to kill him on the PC altar?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>My response to that is simple and pragmatic. If Dr. Summers was not prepared to successfully navigate the waters of PC-correctness, then why in the world did he accept a job as the President of an institution that is the very epicenter of political correctness? It comes with the territory. Many people are not cut out to operate in that environment. No shame in that. The smart ones figure that out ahead of time.</p>
<p>To me, the real knock on Summers is that he couldn't anticpate the firestorm. Maybe he's not as smart as he thinks he is.</p>
<p>I think URM are as intellegent as asians. To give you an example, recently I spoke in a high school about why kids needs to learn math and scince. The message I got that kids are getting a message that intellectualism is bad. When you have young kids listening this idea and teling them that they will fail, does not bode well for a person who needs to work hard. We need to tell URMs that they are equally competent and can score better than anybody else. </p>
<p>Simple rule try try and you will learn. It takes time and dedication to develop talent.</p>
<p>Since you consider my sources as "junk studies" I won't answer your question. Many URMs want to succeed in life. However, America has an ugly history in how it has displaced (and continues to do so) URMs on the bottom of the social ladder. It's quite funny because I'm doing my research grant project in the summer on the tracking of African-American youth, particularly males, in secondary scohools and how this impacts them on college preparation, standardized test preparation and job preparation. Let's just say the results from what I've seen in the high schools and from teachers are compelling, discriminating and pretty scary.</p>
<p>Chinaman, why do you think the kids assume they will fail? Who is telling them that? It's certainly not their parents. I find the whole "anti-intellectualism" argument silly and non-existent anyways.</p>
<p>In the animal kingdom dod eat dog owrld. I think you need to make recommendation in your study that antiintellectualism is bad. ANY URM who wants to study hard can do so and will go ahead than there parents. Preach URM kids that they can do it. There is no problem in math and scince which URM can not overcome. All they need is help as well as dedication to work hard.</p>
<p>Kids are telling other kids that why are you studying. Why do you acting out as a white person. These ideas are real. Go to ayn rand web site and you will find many example of how we are drumming down the educational standard in america.</p>
<p>ID,
Now we're getting to the nub of your reliance on the NYT article or other second-hand sources. Where in Summers' speech does he say "women are not willing to work hard enough for high-power jobs"? Or anything remotely close? (Hint: He doesn't.) He also didn't say that brilliant women were hard to find, or that discrimination against women was "minimal." Feel free to correct me with quotes from his actual speech, linked below.</p>
<p>Perhaps it would be best to let Dr. Summers characterize the wisdom of his remarks on women in science with these excerpts from his statement at the faculty meeting (emphasis added):</p>
<p>
[quote]
I deeply regret having sent a signal of discouragement to people in this room and beyond who have worked very hard for many years to advance the progress of women in science and throughout academic life. I deserve much of the criticism that has come my way, but the university, I think, does not. I made a serious mistake in speaking in the way I did, especially given my role as President. I have, from this difficult experience, learned how much I still have to learn....</p>
<p>All of the many stories that I have heard from members of this faculty and many others in the last few weeks have an underlying and obvious, if sometimes hidden, fact: that universities like ours were originally designed by men and for men. And that reality shapes everything from the way career paths in academic life are conceived, to assumptions about effectiveness in teaching and mentoring, to concepts of excellence. We can make our university a better place for both women and men by rethinking our assumptions in these areas and many more.
<p>I must say that the very mention of Harvard on this forum seems to generate rancor and ill-will like nothing else.</p>
<p>I just breezed through Summers' comments in the Times. I don't have anything to add to what's been said here about women in the sciences, but I can say from experience that investment banking is full of Irish names. As for Jews in agriculture, many of those displaced or killed by the Nazis were "in agriculture"--small time farmers. Come to think of it, the whole thing sounds like a big, unsuccessful tease--like he never should have had that second glass of wine with lunch.</p>
<p>Good question. The timing of Summers' speech came after RD applications were submitted. Assume many female applicants are deeply offended by the remarks. Do you think Harvard's admission statistics, specifically yield, will be effected. In other words will enough of their elite female accepted applicants tell them NO and choose brand X. My bet is that if 100 women do it still won't move the needle much on their high yield, maybe 1 or 2 percentage points.</p>
<p>Just to clarify a previous comment that I made when speaking to Chinaman: I was not referring to any article in the NY Times about Summers' comments. I was referring to the article the NY Times carried the other day about the faculty meeting and the quotations from faculty members in that article. Those quoted were saying that Summers' leadership style, using threats and intimidation, were at the crux of the faculty discontent. I wasn't talking about the paper's articles about the conference although I have read some of those as well. If there is a transcript of the faculty meeting--well, I would REALLY like to read that!!</p>
<p>I have read most of Summers' transcript, and I agree that it is not as egregious as some make it out to be. But I did find his ranking of factors disturbing, as I did his cavalier references to blacks in the NBA, etc. Also, he made broad generalizations about the studies and I am not convinced at all that he had read them and he seemed to have a resistance to views contrary to his own on the subject of innate differences.</p>
<p>In a way, I applaud him for raising the issue in a way that has guaranteed that the debate will be front and center for a time. But again: this man is the president of a major research university, and as such, he speaks for the institution. And the broad and cavalier tone he took (even the intro, where he said he "didn't feel like" talking about Harvard's efforts toward diversity), just still seems so ugly and inappropriate. And clearly for the moment at least, he is paying the price.</p>
<p>(Later edit: I hadn't read the NY Times this morning--thanks Driver for pointing out that there was an article about the transcript today, in the Education section--now I have that too. </p>
<p>This is my alma mater. It is a wonderful, wonderful institution in so many ways. To the extent that there is "rancor" on this site, some of it may come from a wish that Harvard could be better than it is, not wishing it to be taken down a notch, although I am sure there is some of that too. In my day, a Dean of the college was quoted on the front page of the Crimson as saying that the 4-to-1 men-to-women admissions quota at Harvard/Radcliffe should not change. His reason: he knew "so many boring women who attended the Seven Sisters". Have things changed that much in 30 years?)</p>
<p>Now what if I were the president of a women's college, or an historically black college, and had gotten up before the same NBER Conference and hypothezied, just for the sake of getting the discussion going of course, that the reason Harvard didn't have proportionally as many women or African-Americans on the faculty was because Harvard (and the rest of the Ivies, etc.) had educated females and minorities so poorly?????</p>
<p>(The second volume of Jill Ker Conway's memoirs - "True North" - might be instructive on this score.)</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Now what if I were the president of a women's college, or an historically black college, and had gotten up before the same NBER Conference and hypothezied, just for the sake of getting the discussion going of course....</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>Or even worse: If you were President of Morehouse College and spoke at the NBER Conference outlining the reason why blacks really aren't cut out for high-power jobs in science and engineering and that barriers to their advancement have been minimal.</p>
<p>That is EXACTLY the message Dr. Summers sent to one half of the students at his own august institution. I'm not sure what he hoped to accomplish with his remarks.</p>
<p>It wasn't a dodge. I chose those two quotes from Dr. Summers because they identified the two points that bothered me about his convention remarks:</p>
<p>a) His speech was indeed a "signal of discouragement" (or, as I would put it, a slap in the face) to approximately half of the students at his own institution.</p>
<p>b) His speech showed a lack of comprehension concerning the impact of a traditionally male institution on the advancement of women in academics. IMO, he had just never thought about it. In my opinion, the President of university should have thought about it.</p>
<p>Well, if I came across as expressing "ill-will" I didn't mean to, and I'm sorry. As far as I'm concerned, the NYT is only useful for weekend crossword puzzles. </p>
<p>Idler: Breezing through their article on the Summers affair is not of much use, but then neither would reading the article in detail shed much light either. His original address is far more useful and interesting, but unfortunately most people are just getting it through the media filter. He was clearly talking about things in the US, so your holocaust reference is out of place. </p>
<p>Patient: Please find for me "his cavalier references to blacks in the NBA" (Hint: they're not there). I'd also like to know how he could have convinced you that he had read the studies that you're not convinced he read. Also, your criticism that "he made broad generalizations" strikes me as broadly general in the absence of any specifics from you. I'm also curious where you get the idea that he "seemed to have a resistance to views contrary to his own on the subject of innate differences." He said repeatedly that he was quite possibly wrong, and hoped to be proven so. Also remember that this was a "conference" to generate ideas on a specific subject.....it wasn't just Larry Summers' calling a press conference to dump on women.</p>
<p>njdad: No one expects the Spanish Inquisition.</p>
<p>mini:
"that the reason Harvard didn't have proportionally as many women or African-Americans on the faculty was because Harvard (and the rest of the Ivies, etc.) had educated females and minorities so poorly?????"
Where do you find anything like this in Summers' speech?</p>
<p>ID: Where is the "signal of discouragment" in Summers' speech? If the facts he touched upon are wrong, as he said they might be, and he hoped there were, my question, which you continue to DODGE stands: shouldn't all those highly educated research experts be able to bury him with the error of his opinion? And why do they choose petulance over scholarship in settling their differences with him?</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Good point, though I think that there is substantial evidence to support mine, and surely as much as any supplied by Summers in his speech.</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>I agree. There is indisputable evidence to suggest that Harvard did a truly miserable job of educating women before the 1970s!</p>
<p>The quality of education is a real issue worthy of consideration. My Morehouse analogy falls more in the category of, "Dr. Summers, WHAT in the world were you thinking?"</p>