Harvard Prez has foot in mouth disease

Parents Forum
101

<p>Skyhawk,
I respectfully disagree - childcare - both the reality and the <em>perception</em> - is a huge factor in this. It is also a life choice our students - both boys and girls - may be making at some point. </p>

<p>Carolyn -
"Even if both husband and wife are academics, it is very difficult to land joint tenured positions at the same school or in the same area."</p>

<p>In astronomy, this is known as 'the two body problem', which is a very bad pun involving celestial mechanics. In this part of the academic world, colleges due seem to try to accomodate pairs.</p>

102

<p>Another good article on this here:
<a href="http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0119-27.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0119-27.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

103

<p>Here's Pres. Summer's latest word on the subject (letter posted to his website late last night):</p>

<p><a href="http://www.president.harvard.edu/speeches/2005/womensci.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.president.harvard.edu/speeches/2005/womensci.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

104

<br>


<br>

<p>They are, no doubt, their brains are wired differently, and just as all babies have personality that is innate from Day 1, some of that "personality" is influenced by their gender.
The problem with that truth is that it is a generalization. In the wonderful world of variety that is the human race there are many women who are better wired for math or experimentation or spatial thinking, whatever, than the average man, and there are many men who better wired for creativity, or emotional intelligence or whatever, than the average woman. A brilliant mathematician is far out at one end of the bell curve of intelligence and math ability by anyone's measure - doesn't it make sense that some are women? So much of the demonstrated differences in men and women are due to socialization that it is dangerous, as others have pointed out to make some many assumptions and pronouncements - you may have just discouraged the inventor of nuclear fusion from pursuing physics. Put another way, there are so many real difficulties in having a family and having a high level career of any type, "we" should try to not create any more barriers.
The other problem with just accepting that boys and girls are wired differently, and that there are male occupations and female occupations, is that both sexes miss the opportunity to learn from each other. Some women benefit careerwise from adopting a more assertive style, while, as in the discussion of medicine, some of the "way it has always been done" aspect of male dominated workplaces is actually dangerous or unhealthful - we learn a new way of working that is better for everyone. Besides, my limited experience is that mixed gender workgroups actually get along better than single sex, so there!</p>

105

<p>I really wonder if Summers will ever be trusted to speak in public again. This is one of those things that will stick with him, I think, and really hurt him and Harvard. On the other hand, he has unwittingly recharged a debate that should be at the forefront of everyone's minds as we deal with an increasingly challenging and competitive global and technologically-oriented economy and for that perhaps his misstep can have productive effects. </p>

<p>Of course, for all those parents who think that mothers should stay at home to raise their kids, it presents an ironic dilemma. Why encourage your daughters to go into a highly competitive scientific field? Because if you believe that they should stay home and raise their children, you are encouraging them to go into a field that you will then want them to abandon quite early in life, never to catch up. There are some real inconsistencies in some of the dual arguments being advanced here.</p>

106

<p>Whoa, I'm not sure anyone said mothers should stay at home to raise their children, but that children might be better off with some parent at home with them, particularly when they are young.</p>

<p>I will encourage my daughter to follow her dreams, raised in a 2 working parent household, she is very aware of what the trade-offs might be, doesn't need too much injection of reality. I hope she sees this and posts, because we have spoken about this just recently, and she at 17 has a very interesting take on the working/staying home conundrum. She believes that her generation is the first that will not be more financially successful than their parents, and because of this defines "success" a little differently than just purely money or success at a career. Her definitions of success and happiness are more related to family things and enough money to do the things that are really important, as she puts it. It will be interesting to see where this takes her as she encounters the realities of pre-med or pre-law or mortgages.</p>

<p>I think that if her attitudes are common in her generation, it will begin to force changes in the workplace that may be truly liberating. If you feel that time is more important than money, and you aren't in debt up to your eyeballs so that you have to have more money, you can demand different things from your job.</p>

107

<p>You know, I'm troubled by some of the posts to this thread, esp. the ones that say "there are differences between girls and boys, so maybe those differences explain different levels of achievement in math and science." It's the complacency that bugs me. </p>

<p>Who knows what humans would accomplish if we stopped thinking about limitations and differences and started focusing on making sure every single person out there was able to reach his or her own goals? Without someone standing there saying "maybe this will be more difficult for you because you're female"? </p>

<p>I'm certainly not saying everyone has the capability of becoming a Harvard math professor; what I am trying to say is that perhaps a few potential Harvard math professors got turned off along the way by being told "girls aren't good at math" or "blacks have a lower IQ than whites".</p>

108

<p>Well, there was this:

[quote]
suppose the question is, who is comfortable with the decision: The parent who is the only one with a choice, or the child who is the subject of the choice.
I'm sure you are right that every combination of parenting has the capacity for disaster; however, all the statistics I have seen or heard suggest that the probability for disaster, or simple negligence, are far higher for children with absent parents then children with a stay at home parent.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>and this:</p>

<p>
[quote]
lots of childcare choices in America, most of them bad

[/quote]
and
[quote]
I happen to believe that children are happier with a stay-at-home parent

[/quote]
</p>

<p>you're right that no one said "mother" but come on--let's look at the demographic reality and think about who people are really talking about.</p>

109

<p>Patient, On the topic of whether mothers should stay home with their kids - the person who said the things you quoted above appears to have had some bad personal experiences in his/her childhood which strongly colors his/her thinking on this topic. I totally agree with you (and have worked since my kids were infants, with no complaints from me or them on how they turned out :) ) but this is a futile argument which has been hashed over and over again. It is probably pointless to pursue it further here.</p>

110

<p>If my mother had been a stay-at-home parent, I think she would have killed us all. She couldn't cook (she once gave an entire dinner party food poisoning), hated to clean, and had a tendency to get so deeply into thought that hours went by when she was working. (She routinely forgot to pick me up at school.) In the 50s and 60s, my mother worked to pay a full-time nanny and housecleaner. Thank heavens!</p>

<p>IMHO, trying to prescribe what works for another family is an exercise in futility.</p>

111

<p>I made the statement “I happen to believe that children are happier with one stay-at-home parent.” The fact that most everyone bemoaned the fact that this meant a stay at home mom just reinforces what drove me nuts about Summers’ comments. (And Skyhawk, this IS related to women in science, because Summers implied that women are not being considered for top level, high pressure, long hour-ed, positions, because of their responsibilities to their families.) </p>

<p>First, I don’t think that one parent needs to entirely give up his/her career. What I’ve observed is lacking in families with two high pressured careers is flexibility. So let’s just say that one parent needs to be flexible so that someone can be there when the children are sick, have performances, need homework patrol, etc. I also acknowledge that the two parent household is an endangered species in America. It is a luxury not a norm. Most people in America – male and female -- work to support themselves and their families, not to indulge their intellectual curiosity.</p>

<p>Okay, so what burns me is that assumption that it has to be the woman who stays home and the man who works the 80 hour week. HR departments in large US corporations and recruitment committees at colleges know better than to ask discriminatory questions, but they creep into the conversation all the same. Can you travel? Can you work weekends? Can you attend dinner parties, conferences? The implication is there and for the president of Harvard in 2005 to reinforce this implication is disgraceful. </p>

<p>If we (men or women) want something badly enough we will figure out a way to make it work. It may mean no children, it may mean high paid child care, collective childcare, an extended family, or a stay at home spouse. There are as many solutions as there are situations. But for a college president to even put this issue on the list of obstacles is exceedingly backward looking. The NYTimes reported Summers as saying “Few married women with children are willing to accept such sacrifices.” To me this just shows how out of touch with reality this guy really is. HE may not have had to make sacrifices to keep his career and enjoy his children, but I can guess that 99 out every 100 women (and most men) reading this would have a different story to tell. We may not be willing to accept sacrifices, but we are FORCED to accept sacrifices and we do!</p>

112

<p>Momrath, thanks for the clarification and that was a great post. I agree with you that the issue of child-rearing is an integral part of this--just perhaps not passing judgment on women's choices (which you were not doing, I hasten to say!). Dmd77, LOL!! I agree with all of you in saying that this is a pointless debate, and that is not what I was talking about. What I was saying that those who WERE espousing the idea of one parent staying home while bemoaning Pres. Summers' comments, seemed to be caught in some kind of contradiction between wanting women to have full opportunities to excel in sciences and yet believing that they should not pursue these careers if they have children. </p>

<p>As a poster above pointed out, it wasn't so very long ago that the same thing was said about lawyers and doctors, but I am one who has been able to manage to juggle--sometimes more successfully than others--mothering and lawyering, and my doctors and friends--internists, OB/GYNs, and other specialists--all also work some version of part-time because they have children. Mobile technology has made a huge difference in some fields in how flexible those professionals can be with their time and their schedules. Maybe science is not at that point yet, but I don't see any reason why it can't get there.</p>

113

<p>On the family issue, I liked this, from a female columnist in the Boston Globe:</p>

<p>Summers suggested that women do not rise higher in the academic or professional firmament because they choose to become mothers and thus devote less time to their careers. "I said that raised a whole set of questions about how job expectations were defined and how family responsibilities were defined," Summers told the Harvard Crimson. [He did not return my call.] "But I said it didn't explain the differences [in the representation of females] between the sciences and mathematics and other fields."</p>

<p>Why doesn't it? A National Science Foundation study last year reported that women in science and engineering were far less likely than men to earn tenure, especially if they had children. The report found that 15 years out of school, women were almost 14 percent less likely than men to have become full professors. Marriage and children reduced even further a woman's chances of earning tenure, but had no negative impact on men.</p>

<p>That sounds like a cultural, not a biological, problem to me. Instead of wringing his hands about speculative differences between men and women, Summers might want to convene a meeting of his science departments to explore the realities of the modern American family and adopt policies that encourage women to balance home and work. Mentor women. Provide child care. Encourage flex-time. Stop the tenure clock during pregnancy or maternity leave.</p>

<p>The academy is tailor-made for just such experimentation. Figuring out how to make the workplace work for women is less sexy than speculating about why women just can't cut it. Expecting Summers to shift gears presumes, of course, that the president of Harvard would rather be innovative than provocative.</p>

114

<p>On the discrimination in academia -- and Harvard in particular -- I like this background, from the Bloomberg report:</p>

<p>The gender controversy erupted for Summers in June, when Harvard faculty members sent him a letter protesting a decline in the number of women hired as professors, said Lizabeth Cohen, a history professor at Harvard. Since Summers became president in 2001, the number of women granted tenure, or a permanent faculty position, has fallen to 12 percent of all appointments in 2003- 2004 from 26 percent in 2001-2002. </p>

<p>`Particular Shock'

Summers met with faculty members in October, and Cohen said it was ``a very productive meeting.'' Since then, the Standing Committee on Women has been meeting about once a week working to get more women hired at Harvard.

We were quite optimistic that progress was being made, and I think that is why this was a particular shock,'' Cohen said.I hope out of these dark times can come some light.''

The Boston Globe reported Summers said in his conference remarks that women don't have the same innate ability in math and science as men.

Martha West, a University of California law professor who tracks gender issues in academia, said a hiring gap should be the focus. ``The issue he did not address is that women are getting Ph.D.s in math and science and still not getting hired in the numbers that one would expect,'' West said.

Woman make up more than half of all graduate students, the pool from which future professors are drawn in the U.S., according to information provided by the Washington-based American Association of University Professors. Overall, women represent 37 percent of all faculty at U.S. colleges and universities and 23 percent at the most senior position, full professor, according to association statistics.

Summers is a former Harvard economics professor who received his doctorate from the school in 1982. He also worked as chief economist of the World Bank in Washington before becoming deputy Treasury secretary in 1995. Summers succeeded Robert Rubin in the top Treasury post four years later.

West said there is widespread discrimination against women in academia and Harvard's hiring practices since Summers arrived is evidence of that.

``The hiring data at Harvard is disgraceful,'' West said.</p>

115

<p><a href="http://www.thecrimson.com/today/article505366.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.thecrimson.com/today/article505366.html&lt;/a>
<a href="http://www.thecrimson.com/today/article505367.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.thecrimson.com/today/article505367.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

116

<p>An article on how men and women use their brains:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6849058/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6849058/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

117

<p>My D did not like dolls and is in engineering/science..physics to be exact. my S who loved to play with dolls did not successfully complete an engineering program...these interests early on had more to do with their personalities than to their innate abilities. My D is hard as a clam, less emotional, less demonstrative, and very goal-directed. My S on the other hand is very emotional, very nurturing, sympathetic to the needs of others, and much more easily influenced by those about them.. Both had aspirations for engineering and science. The S was more easily dissuaded and influenced by external factors and therefore did not succeed in a challenging and rigorous course which required self-direction and motivation and just good old-fashioned self-discipline. She on the other has better control over outside influences and is less needy for positive regard.....it's a matter of personality....not talent.</p>

118

<p>This story was on NPR this morning (don't know if it was a local or national program)--the UCSC chancellor was being interviewed and claimed that when she protested that in the materials they had been given, there was ample evidence that there is no evidence of a difference in innate ability, Pres. Summers replied, "I've read all those and they prove nothing". If her statement is accurate, he was not really quoted out of context but actually thinks there may be a difference--which again leads back to, what is a person with those views doing as the president of one of the premier research universities in the country? When I was at Radcliffe in the early 70s, the debate that was raging was whether the 4-to-1 admissions ratio of men to women should be abolished. A dean of the college was quoted in the Crimson as saying absolutely not, and citing as reason, that he happened to know so many "boring" graduates of the Seven Sisters colleges. Perhaps not so much has changed....</p>

119

<p>It is certainly unseemly and unsettling for the President of the university which many people feel sets the standard for all other institutions of higher learning to be quoted saying things such as this.</p>

120

<p>Patient, I don't know whether you caught the story in the Chron about the new UCSC chancellor's same-sex partner being given a job as part of the UC hiring package. This makes me think that the Harvard economist who organized the conference at which Summers spoke and who dismissed the complaints as being those of a few "activists" really was using code for lesbian. The next link in the argument undoubtedly will be: sure there are some women who are good in engineering, but they're all gay. The more things change, the more they stay the same?</p>