Harvard Pres. Faces "Crisis" of Faculty Confidence

<p>Honestly, I don't follow these things, and I apologize in advance for stepping on anyone's toes, but the Ivies have been accepting women as undergraduates for 30 years or so, and I am hardpressed to name a significant bevy of women from these institutions who have made a substantial impact on public life, out of proportion to what could be found elsewhere. Now granted, I don't follow famous folks' educations carefully, if at all, but in so many more cases, I can name Ivy men but not women.</p>

<p>I'm probably way off-base, but it's certainly no less "intriguing" than what Summers had to say, and I don't have to represent any institution, least of all the most august one in the nation.</p>

<p>Driver: </p>

<p>Remarks at NBER Conference on Diversifying the Science & Engineering Workforce
Lawrence H. Summers
Cambridge, Mass.
January 14, 2005 </p>

<p>I asked Richard, when he invited me to come here and speak, whether he wanted an institutional talk about Harvard's policies toward diversity or whether he wanted some questions asked and some attempts at provocation, because I was willing to do the second and didn't feel like doing the first. And so we have agreed that I am speaking unofficially and not using this as an occasion to lay out the many things we're doing at Harvard to promote the crucial objective of diversity. There are many aspects of the problems you're discussing and it seems to me they're all very important from a national point of view. I'm going to confine myself to addressing one portion of the problem, or of the challenge we're discussing, which is the issue of women's representation in tenured positions in science and engineering at top universities and research institutions, not because that's necessarily the most important problem or the most interesting problem, but because it's the only one of these problems that I've made an effort to think in a very serious way about. The other prefatory comment that I would make is that I am going to, until most of the way through, attempt to adopt an entirely positive, rather than normative approach, and just try to think about and offer some hypotheses as to why we observe what we observe without seeing this through the kind of judgmental tendency that inevitably is connected with all our common goals of equality. It is after all not the case that the role of women in science is the only example of a group that is significantly underrepresented in an important activity and whose underrepresentation contributes to a shortage of role models for others who are considering being in that group. To take a set of diverse examples, the data will, I am confident, reveal that Catholics are substantially underrepresented in investment banking, which is an enormously high-paying profession in our society; that white men are very substantially underrepresented in the National Basketball Association; and that Jews are very substantially underrepresented in farming and in agriculture. These are all phenomena in which one observes underrepresentation, and I think it's important to try to think systematically and clinically about the reasons for underrepresentation. </p>

<p>Now Driver: are you so incensed and angry about this topic that you are going to say that because he talked about the lack of whites, rather than the presence of blacks, the message isn't there?</p>

<br>


<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>What's the evidence that it is better now?</p>

<p>ID, once again, please point out the part of Summers' speech where he says that women "aren't really cut out for high-power jobs." You aren't reading carefully.</p>

<p>Patient:
Not incensed or angry, just bemused. What "message" do you see in that quote?</p>

<p>Driver: you said that the reference was not there. It was. Now you go on the attack again. </p>

<p>I don't think that I need to answer you. There have been others who found his typecasting in this manner offensive. It suggests that he has concluded exactly the kinds of racist things that I thought were gone: "blacks are better athletes and they have a good sense of rhythm, too". </p>

<p>Bemused does not exactly sound like what you are, but if that's really the way you're feeling, that's great. I don't think I'm bemused, and I have mixed feelings about Summers myself--not all bad by any means. I am sad about the situation, however, because whether intentionally or not, I think that his remarks will resonate and affect a lot of people in a very negative way, for a long time. I also think that I have spent enough time on it now and I will just watch to see what the faculty does on Tuesday. Adieu.</p>

<p>Patient:
Adios, ol' compadre. Don't go away mad. You read way too much in that Summers comment, however. It happens that white men are underrepresented in the NBA. I'm shrugging here, because I just don't know what else to do. {shrugs} The point was that different groups are underrepresented in all sorts of different places for all sorts of different reasons. It's really not fair to say that I'm on the attack, however. I encourage you to re-examine your remarks, and then think what you would have said if it had been Larry Summers who wrote them.</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 just read this whole thread, and this is the comment with which I most agree.</p>

<p>Mini:"a significant bevy"? You're worse than Summers. (Who was a disaster in Treasury, and isn't looking too well in his present, equally impossible position).</p>

<p>How silly this is, because we are talking/reading/reacting in two completely different ways. I will try to be as tactful as marite :)</p>

<p>My original comment, InterestedDad, was based on experience <em>AS</em> science. The argument is not whether boys are "smarter" than girls, or whether girls do better on verbal than math, or even how many female faculty are at Harvard. These are ALL red herrings.</p>

<p>Every scientist knows that when one examines a population for any trait, there are always individuals who don't fit the norm. There are girls who are taller, faster, smarter, more inclined to science/math, etc., than the average boy. This doesn't change the fact that statistically, boys have more interest (and therefore more representation) in basketball, car racing, and the math and sciences. There are also boys who are more verbal than the average girl, or more Whatever-Feminine-Trait-You-Wish-to-Insert-Here than the average girl. So?</p>

<p>ID, you are completely off-base---I am one of the original feminists, with a small "f." I went to and graduated from a women's college (late 60's-early 70's), and at that time graduates from Radcliffe were getting Harvard diplomas, and the only thing they weren't sharing by that time were the dorms. I went to graduate school too-- I wasn't discouraged by any stereotypes, because I had enough sense to realize that it takes a tremendous effort by anyone (not girl-anyone, ANYBODY-anyone) to succeed at a top tier graduate school like Cal Berkeley. (which I did, with honors).</p>

<p>If your daughter (or anyone else's) goes to Harvard to study any of the math/sciences, she should want to be challenged with the most difficult, demanding and advanced course of study there is. That is what will prepare her for the best opportunities. </p>

<p>As a mother I know, yes <em>KNOW</em>, that there are differences between boys and girls, generally speaking. And as a former division manager in a large company I know, yes <em>KNOW</em>, that there are differences between men and women in aptitudes and preferences, generally speaking. So.... </p>

<p>Who should be surprised that men and women self-select to the careers/programs/study paths that they wish? It is an equally valid supposition that this is the reason for bottom line statistics, as is the assertion that it is the result of "sexism". Sexism may have been the reason a century ago, and it may be (in certain circumstances) now, but now it is not the norm.</p>

<p>Give it up. (Sorry marite, I just couldn't resist).</p>

<p>
[quote]
There have been others who found his typecasting in this manner offensive.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Even my favorite news source, Fox New Channel, ran Summers' quote on Catholics, Jews, and basketball players tonight, with an intro suggesting that, if his goal was to be "provocative", he certainly achieved it. It was apparent that even rabid right-winger Fred Barnes, who of course supported Summers remarks, knew that he would get hammered for them.</p>

<p>"Mini:"a significant bevy"? You're worse than Summers. (Who was a disaster in Treasury, and isn't looking too well in his present, equally impossible position)."</p>

<p>I was trying to use the most scientific terminology available. Looks like I was successful. Sorry - I just couldn't escape my genetic heritage. (Would you prefer "lotsa? ;))</p>

<p>Wyogal:</p>

<p>Thank you for your kind words. I try!</p>

<p>Someone sent me an article by Meg Urry which appeared in the Washington Post a couple of weeks ago. Meg Urry is a professor of physics and the director of the Yale Center for Astronomy and Astrophysics. I'm posting it in two parts, as it exceeds the CC limit for single posts.</p>

<p>Diminished By Discrimination We Scarcely See: part 1.</p>

<p>Meg Urry</p>

<p>I came of age when discrimination was a thing of the past, or so I
thought. True, there were not many women in my college physics classes,
but I figured that was just a matter of time. And although we had all
heard horror stories about women being excluded because they were women,
those predated the feminist movement of the '60s and the
anti-discrimination legislation of the '70s. None of my peers or
professors in the early '80s would ever have said out loud, "Women can't
do physics as well as men" even though some think it and Harvard
University President Larry Summers suggested as much last month.</p>

<p>Still, I can remember a few uncomfortable moments. As a physics grad
student 25 years ago at Johns Hopkins University, I once found pictures of
naked men on my desk. As one of the few women at professional meetings
when I was a grad student, and then a postdoc, the attention I got from
male colleagues wasn't always about science. One professor used to address
the graduate quantum mechanics class as "gentlemen and Meg." So I knew
that my gender identified me. I just didn't think the distinction amounted
to discrimination. It wasn't until a few years ago, after I became a
tenured professor at one of the world's top universities, that I finally
realized it was discrimination all along.</p>

<p>That's the thing: Discrimination isn't a thunderbolt, it isn't an abrupt
slap in the face. It's the slow drumbeat of being underappreciated,
feeling uncomfortable and encountering roadblocks along the path to
success. These subtle distinctions help make women feel out of place.</p>

<p>And some are not so subtle! When I was a young astrophysics postdoc at
MIT (and the only female postdoc), one weekly colloquium speaker began his
talk about the importance of high resolution in optical imaging with a
badly out-of-focus slide. As he sharpened the focus to make his point, a
topless woman in a grass skirt on a Hawaiian beach gradually appeared. The
male students laughed, while the one other woman in the room shared an
appalled look with me before standing up and walking out.
No one ever told this speaker that his choice of slide was inappropriate.
I intended to talk to him afterward, but I left the talk after about 20
minutes, having realized that I hadn't heard a word he'd said. Ironically,
a few years later the speaker won the Tinsley prize from the American
Astronomical Society, named in honor of a brilliant late-20th-century
woman astronomer at Yale University.</p>

<p>Diminished by discrimination we can barely see; part 2</p>

<p>Meg Urry</p>

<p>I loved MIT, but it could be a harsh environment for women 20 years ago.
(It's changed a lot!) I remember two professors having a dinner
conversation in my presence about the inferiority of women scientists who
had been hired because of affirmative action. (When I mentioned this to
the man who'd hired me, he hastened to assure me that it didn't apply to
me.) My ambition to be an academic was sometimes met with encouragement, but one male professor told me, "Oh, we would never hire you." And discouragement always makes a bigger impression than encouragement.</p>

<p>During my postdoc career, I started wondering why women weren't getting
hired into faculty positions. I'd been told, from graduate school on, that
I'd have no trouble getting ahead: I was a woman, people would come after
me. When they didn't, I subliminally absorbed the idea that I wasn't good
enough. But was it possible that all the women getting physics and
astronomy degrees from top institutions weren't good enough? I saw
precious few being hired into faculty jobs.</p>

<p>For some reason, I hung in there. Maybe it was the strong support from my
parents and from the fellow physicist I married, who took on half (and
sometimes more than half) the responsibilities of child rearing. He
doesn't "help" -- we share. Our two daughters, Amelia (nearly 14) and
Sophia (11) carry both our last names, as their middle and last names, but
in alternate order. We made it equal, start to finish.</p>

<p>But work was never equal. When I told my thesis adviser I was pregnant,
he said, "So, you want to have it all!" I smiled but later thought, Wait a
minute, isn't that what all you guys have? Why is it "all" for me and
"normal" for you?</p>

<p>Over the years, I saw women in the scientific world treated badly, being
marginalized, mistreated, harassed. One woman manager I know was
second-guessed, unlike any of the male managers, and when she pointed this
out, was told she was depressed and should get professional help. Another
told me it had become routine for her to cry while driving home from work.
Every woman I know has had her suggestions ignored in a mainly male
meeting, only to hear the same idea praised when later raised by a man.</p>

<p>Hey, bad things happen. But feeling out of place over and over again
eventually soaks in; it did for me. About a decade ago, frustrated and
alienated, I approached the director of my institution to ask about
special management training for women: Maybe there were tips that would
help me navigate the foreign waters in which I found myself. He didn't
seem to understand. I said, "You know, it's like being the red fish in the
sea of blue fish -- I want to understand the blue-fish rules." "Oh," he
answered. "Maybe it's not your lack of training, Meg, maybe it's just your
difficult personality."</p>

<p>After enough of this kind of thing, women feel beaten down and
underappreciated, or worse, they feel incapable. That's the most insidious
thing. After years of being passed over, ignored, and insulted, we start
wondering what we are doing wrong. Maybe if I had made the suggestion
differently, it would have been heard. Maybe if I lowered my voice and
spoke more slowly, I would get more respect. Maybe -- even though I
published many papers, did seminal work in more than one field, brought in
big grants, had successful students and postdocs -- maybe I wasn't a good
enough scientist.</p>

<p>It was easier to see what was happening to other women than to me. My
good friend Anne Kinney (now "Director of the Universe" at NASA -- how's
that for a title?) said in an after-dinner speech to a conference on women
in astronomy that she'd never had a five-year plan because there were no
women five years ahead of her. Her speech was very funny and I laughed a
lot, but I didn't think it applied to me, exactly. Weeks later, it dawned
on me that I'd never had a five-year plan either -- and for much the same
reason.</p>

<p>I watched women around me, especially young women, who were smart and
keen to work hard, but who, after a few years in grad school or after a
discouraging spell as a postdoc, decided maybe they weren't cut out for
science, or maybe they would find a non-academic job, or maybe they'd get
married and have a family rather than a research career.</p>

<p>I have no problem with any of these choices. What troubles me, though, is
that I rarely saw men making them, especially the choice to stay home with
kids. I think some women use "family" as an excuse to leave science when
science actually drives them away.</p>

<p>This is a huge loss for our country -- these women PhDs are some of the
best scientists we train. We need their talent.</p>

<p>In my field, physics and astronomy, women still make up a small
percentage of active scientists -- about 7 percent of physics faculty are
female and about 12 percent of astronomers. Those percentages are
increasing, but slowly. So I grew up with almost no women professors. When
I first heard of Beatrice Tinsley -- who came to the United States in 1964
from New Zealand with a master's in physics, created an entire sub-field
of astronomy, finished her thesis under adverse circumstances and by all
accounts was an incredible person -- I felt the kind of relief that a
child raised by wolves must feel when she first sees a human being.</p>

<p>Physics has fewer women than other scientific disciplines. I think it may
be because physics is more hierarchical, more aggressive than other areas.
("Combat physics," a friend of mine calls it.) Physicists act as if they
are better and smarter than everyone else. The standard for excellence is
to be the best in the world -- and that seems pretty boa****l to polite
girls raised not to brag.</p>

<p>When I expressed ambition, though, I sometimes got put back down. I
suggested I was ready to be tenured -- "Be patient, Meg, it's too early
for you." I mentioned I was interested in a high-level national committee
-- "Isn't that a bit ambitious, Meg?" I expressed interest in a promotion:
"You're not a leader, no one would follow you."</p>

<p>Social scientists like Virginia Valian of Hunter College have developed a
lot of evidence showing that women and men are treated and evaluated
differently. Yet physicists reject the possibility that scientists are not
objective. I learned about the lack of objectivity the hard way -- through
experience.</p>

<p>On hiring committees or tenure and promotion committees I served on, we'd
evaluate men and women, and somehow the women seldom came out on top. They were "good," even "very good" but the men were always better. Some of this was caused by letters of recommendation. Every woman was always compared to other women, as if every woman scientist is female first and a
scientist second. Also, women's letters were somehow more pedestrian --
the candidate "works hard" and she "has a nice personality," "gets along
well with others." Once you see the patterns, you realize that these
evaluations reflect people's expectations more than reality.</p>

<p>As I got more educated about the abundant social science research, I got
more frustrated: The answers were there, if only physicists and
astronomers would read the literature. So I made it easier. I organized
conferences to talk about these issues. We held that first conference on
Women in Astronomy in 1992 and wrote the Baltimore Charter, a kind of
manifesto for change <a href="http://www.stsci.edu/stsci/meetings/WiA/BaltoCharter.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;www.stsci.edu/stsci/meetings/WiA/BaltoCharter.html&lt;/a&gt;).
In 2003 we organized a second meeting, from which the Pasadena
Recommendations have just been produced (<a href="http://www.aas.org/cswa/%5B/url%5D"&gt;www.aas.org/cswa/&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p>

<p>It's been slow, but we've made progress, and we're making a difference.
More young women are flocking to science every year. It's a great life,
after all, doing something you love, having control of your time, being
paid pretty well.</p>

<p>And, however slowly, the barriers women face are being abraded. The
American Astronomical Society and American Physical Society, my
professional organizations, have been immensely forward thinking. As for
me, Yale hired me with tenure four years ago and treats me wonderfully. My
science has never been better. I bet some people say I got this job
because I'm female. But now that I've been around awhile, I'm finally able
to say, confidently, that I'm really great at this job. I'm lucky to be
here at Yale, yes, but even more, they are really lucky to have me. The
doubt is finally going away.</p>

<p>I really never thought much if at all about discrimination while in school, I just went on my merry way through college (in a biological science) and graduate school (in a biomedical science field). But as I read the article Marite posted, I remembered that, on her first day in our graduate school department, a male professor told a very pretty young woman who was starting grad school several years after me, "I bet you won't be here in two years - you will be married." I can't remember whether she did finish her PhD or not - I was gone by that time - but this is just the type thing the article describes. I started graduate school in 1977, to put this incident in a time perspective.</p>

<p>Wow! Thanks for posting that article. More food for thought.....</p>

<p>Summers has done the impossible. He's gotten the people on this board to post something interesting for a change.</p>

<p>Good point. Harvard's tenured faculty should be so interesting.</p>

<p>"I will have served my purpose if I have provoked thought on this question and provoked the marshalling of evidence to contradict what I have said."</p>

<p>Larry Summers</p>

<p>Just an amusing aside: Marite's post above was "auto-censored" for containing the message board abbreviation for shut the F up. Pretty funny. A subliminable [sic] message?</p>

<p>"The standard for excellence is to be the best in the world -- and that seems pretty boa****l to polite girls raised not to brag."</p>

<p>Marite, you are wonderful to come up with such a thoughtful article. But I can't help but think that Meg Urry would have been devastated at what those of us 20-30 years older went through.</p>

<p>Of course there are anecdotes of slights and rude comments; we all have been through it --that isn't the same thing as institutional discrimination. I can't tell you how many "insults", some obviously intended and some completely clueless, I have absorbed over my height. Is that any different than my lack of y chromosome? No.</p>

<p>Beauty, or insult, is in the eye of the beholder. You cannot let it stop you. At the same time, to buy into this attitude that every outcome <em>must</em> be equal when analyzed by every and any criterion is simply unrealistic. </p>

<p>The truly interesting and provocative question is why does it bother so many people so much? Is it that we have denigrated individual achievement so much that we can only take pride in one sex being exactly the same as another? Are not both of equal value. albeit different? </p>

<p>MotherofTwo, your reminiscence is the kind of story that makes me say, "What a jerk!" That's all it is! What a silly thing if your friend let that deter her from pursuing her dream. And what about the other side of the coin? Do you think that all males get through that graduate school experience without silly, thoughtless, careless remarks from superiors that hurt their feelings and made them doubt their abilities? Did they quit? Not only did I go through graduate school but so did my husband and I can assure you that the jerks did not save up their comments just for the females.</p>