<p>Bill Maher? How can you take him seriously speaking about women? Did you see pics of his girl friend...a big "siliconed-to-the-max" Anna Nicole Smith type who launched a lawsuit aginst him for abuse.</p>
<p>The guy is a rube.</p>
<p>History is also filled with heroes who had "uncommon opinions" that were taboo at the given time.</p>
<p>Honestly, what teenagers' psyches have been toyed with? None. The students at Harvard are not susceptible to that kind of "toying", and most other teenagers don't know what he said or bother to care.</p>
<p>I don't staunchly support Summers's statements by any means. I'm not saying that Summers was necessarily right or wrong. I am saying that people have been far too quick to judge the man based on one poorly-delivered speech. And others were just looking for a reason to attack him because they already disliked him for one reason or another. This is called "confirmation bias" in psychology.</p>
<p>I admit he should have been more careful and should have put more thought and research into his speech, but I find no evidence that he suggested women are inferior to men. It sounded to me like he was just investigating the reasons behind women being less prominent in the sciences and gave some possibilities as to why. Of course men and women are innately different, and maybe if we better understand the differences we can help women as a group be more successful in science. Yet innate differences may have no bearing on the situation. The thing is, Summers did not say they did have bearing. And he gave other factors that might have bearing.</p>
<p>I was not offended by the statements, but when people make assumptions about the implications of someone's words, they can easily get the wrong idea. So some were offended. Fine. Summers apologized. But I do not think he apologized for the overall idea of what he was trying to say, but for not giving enough attention to what is (I believe) the primary factor with this issue: "socialization and discrimination".</p>
<p>If apology was not serious: He's just doing what he has to to get by.</p>
<p>If it was serious: I have less respect for him, it would just be a spineless cave for the PC crowd. </p>
<p>-If you support repremanding, or even firing Summers, you HAVE to support repremanding and/or firing Ward Churchill for his contraversial, "uncommon" opinions.</p>
<p>-As for Bill Maher, he has a very valid point on the "outrage" in response to the speech, not necessarily the substance of the speech itself. Although my post may have been for naught, as the PC crowd = the easily offended crowd = the crowd lacking a sense of humor. </p>
<p>-To me, America's greatest flaw is not gluttony or megalomania, it is OVERREACTION (this, Janet Jackson, etc.) that may bring about quick change, but we never think about consequences.</p>
<p>You don't think it's a bit of an overreaction that during the speech an FRICKEN MIT PROF become "ill" during the speech? Isn't that a bit ridiculous? Or are that uptight of a society that we can't stand to listen to people with different ideas who can make some points. You can't dismiss him (or Bill Maher) because of one blanket statement without actually considering the substance of what they say.</p>
<p>"Honestly, what teenagers' psyches have been toyed with? None. The students at Harvard are not susceptible to that kind of "toying", and most other teenagers don't know what he said or bother to care."</p>
<p>What makes you qualified to speak about the effect of such words on young women. About 100 yrs. ago the US Supreme Court (also in an attempt to recognize the differences between men and women) ruled that women were too weak and emotional to sign contracts. The impact of those words on generations of females was devastating. Great for self esteem, huh.</p>
<p>In this case, I would imagine that, to those who are parents of young girls interested in the sciences, the opinions of Harvard's leadership matters greatly.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What makes you qualified to speak about the effect of such words on young women.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I am a young woman interested in science. You're right- I'm not qualified to speak for all young women, but based on my reaction and the reactions of other young women I have spoken with, I doubt that young women will be seriously hurt psychologically by the comments. Even those that are angry are smart/strong enough not to let his comments get them down.</p>
<p>
[quote]
About 100 yrs. ago the US Supreme Court (also in an attempt to recognize the differences between men and women) ruled that women were too weak and emotional to sign contracts. The impact of those words on generations of females was devastating. Great for self esteem, huh.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Summers did not "rule" or claim that women are in any way inferior to men. If he did, of course it would be devastating.</p>
<p>What is so wrong about investigating an issue, opening discussion and research to try to solve a problem?</p>
<p>I suggest you read the comments below from a male scientist and two female scientists who are also in the business of educating young men and women:</p>
<p>February 12th edition of the Boston Globe (Editorial Section)</p>
<p>By: JOHN HENNESSEY, SUSAN HOCKFIELD AND SHIRLEY TILGHMAN
Women and science: the real issue
By John Hennessey, Susan Hockfield and Shirley Tilghman | February 12, 2005</p>
<p>HARVARD PRESIDENT Lawrence Summers's recent comments about possible causes of the under-representation of women in science and engineering have generated extensive debate and discussion -- much of which has had the untoward effect of shifting the focus of the debate to history rather than to the future.</p>
<p>The question we must ask as a society is not "can women excel in math, science, and engineering?" -- Marie Curie exploded that myth a century ago -- but "how can we encourage more women with exceptional abilities to pursue careers in these fields?" Extensive research on the abilities and representation of males and females in science and mathematics has identified the need to address important cultural and societal factors. Speculation that "innate differences" may be a significant cause for the under-representation of women in science and engineering may rejuvenate old myths and reinforce negative stereotypes and biases.</p>
<p>Why is this so important? Our nation faces increasing competition from abroad in technological innovation, the most powerful driver of our economy, while the academic performance of our school-age students in math and science lags behind many countries. Against this backdrop, it is imperative that we tap the talent and perspectives of both males and females. Until women can feel as much at home in math, science, and engineering as men, our nation will be considerably less than the sum of its parts. If we do not draw on the entire talent pool that is capable of making a contribution to science, the enterprise will inevitably be underperforming its potential.</p>
<p>As the representation of women increases in every other profession in this country, if their representation in science and engineering does not change, these fields will look increasingly anachronistic, less attractive, and will be less strong. The nation cannot afford to lose ground in these areas, which not only fuel the economy, but also play a key role in solving critical societal problems in human health and the environment.</p>
<p>Much has already been learned from research in the classroom and from recent experience on our campuses about how we can encourage top performance from our students. For example, recent research shows that different teaching methods can lead to comparable performance for males and females in high school mathematics. One of the most important and effective actions we can take is to ensure that women have teachers who believe in them and strong, positive mentors, male and female, at every stage of their educational journey -- both to affirm and to develop their talents. Low expectations of women can be as destructive as overt discrimination and may help to explain the disproportionate rate of attrition that occurs among females as they proceed through the academic pipeline.</p>
<p>Colleges and universities must develop a culture, as well as specific policies, that enables women with children to strike a sustainable balance between workplace and home. Of course, achieving such a balance is a challenge in many highly demanding careers. As a society we must develop methods for assessing present and future productivity that take into account the long-term potential of an individual and encourage greater harmony between the cycles of work and life -- so that both women and men may better excel in the careers of their choice.</p>
<p>Although we have a long way to travel in terms of recruiting, retaining, and promoting women faculty in scientific and engineering fields, we can also point to significant progress. According to the National Science Foundation, almost no doctoral degrees in engineering were awarded to women in 1966 (0.3 percent), in contrast to 16.9 percent in 2001. And in the biological and agricultural sciences, the number of doctorates earned by women rose from 12 percent to 43.5 percent between 1966 and 2001.</p>
<p>Our three campuses, and many others, are home to growing numbers of women who have demonstrated not only extraordinary innate ability, but the kinds of creativity, determination, perceptiveness, and hard work that are prerequisites for success in science and engineering.</p>
<p>These figures demonstrate the expanding presence of women in disciplines that have not, historically, been friendly to them. It is a matter of vital concern that the future holds even greater opportunities.</p>
<p>John Hennessey is a computer scientist and president of Stanford University. Susan Hockfield is a neuroscientist and president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Shirley Tilghman is a molecular geneticist and president of Princeton University.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Extensive research on the abilities and representation of males and females in science and mathematics has identified the need to address important cultural and societal factors.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, that's what Summers should have focused on in his speech...</p>
<p>
[quote]
Speculation that "innate differences" may be a significant cause for the under-representation of women in science and engineering may rejuvenate old myths and reinforce negative stereotypes and biases.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I understand. Yet "innate differences" is open to interpretation. It could just mean that more men prefer science. It could mean a number of things. I just don't like the fact that people have jumped on Summers and assumed that he was "reinforcing negative stereotypes and biases".</p>
<p>True, the comment, when taken a certain way, may rejuvenate these old myths. That is why Summers has had a chance to set the record straight. He apologized, and he has not supported these old myths. I pray that he never intended to do so, and that if he did, he has learned his lesson.</p>
<p>Thank you. Your last sentence sums it up perfectly. But please don't be offended if a concerned parent wants some degree of certainty.</p>
<p>Oh, I completely understand the concern. I just feel that people should not jump to conclusions, you know? I think the intent and the impact of his words were exaggerated. It's fine to inquire about what Summers meant if you suspect that he was suggesting that women are inferior, but it's not fair to make assumptions and attack without sufficient evidence. I prefer to start by giving people the benefit of the doubt.</p>
<p>Anyway...I'm glad that this mini-debate is over. :) It was getting tiring... I think I understand your stance a little better now; hopefully we'll all come to respect each other's opinions here.</p>
<p>Poorly reasoned. Overly dramatic. Self-concious. A sophomoric effort all around. Doesn't Princeton have a freshman writing requirement?</p>
<p>Who knows, maybe he IS a sophomore, in which case, the censorious "Joemama" should ease up on the lad, even if the writer's views don't reflect his own prejudices!</p>
<p>"Toying with the psyche of vulnerable teenagers is not something that should be taken lightly."</p>
<p>Summers wasn't speaking to "vulnerable teenagers," he was giving a speech to established scientists. The only reason anyone outside the group heard about the speech he described himself as provocative is because the MIT prof who left the room called the Globe.</p>
<p>"Summers wasn't speaking to "vulnerable teenagers," he was giving a speech to established scientists."</p>
<p>When the Supreme Court stated 100 years ago that women were to weak and emotonal to sign contracts, it was not speaking to teenage girls. Yet the impact of its statement was devastating to both teenage girls and adult women for generations. Yes, the pen can be mightier than the swoord.</p>
<p>P.S. I suggest you read closely the article jointly written by the presidents of MIT, Stanford and Princeton.</p>
<p>Let's see. The presidents of MIT and Princeton are women who are in science; however, Larry Summers, Byerly, the Princeton opinion writer, and a few undergrads at Harvard presume to instruct them on the subject of "Women in Science."</p>
<p>LOL.</p>
<p>This column appeared in today's Crimson. It's one of the more thoughtful discussions of the whole issue I've seen. But what else would you expect from a Harvard student! :)</p>
<p>The story became widespread because of the one MIT prof who I think actually has a "negative spine." Again, why is it considered anti-woman to talk about women? It seems that no matter what Summers said, the fact that he mentioned that, <em>gasp</em> there are differences between men and women, and not perfect, absolute, and unquestionable equality in every facet of life makes him open for assault. </p>
<p>Also, Summers is not the Supreme Court, and he was not making a definite "this is how things are" statement, he was trying to improve a situation! His argument was "we have a problem with this," "here's what I think could be contributing to the cause," and "I'm bringing this up because it needs to be fixed." He wants to encourage more women to enter science and math fields, not discriminate against them! He was opening up a topic for discussion, not making a final ruling on an issue, therefore your Supreme Court example is invalid. I can see the negative effects of the highest court in the land ruling that women are weak, but it is not applicable here- he wanted to improve a situation and was discussing it.</p>
<p>And frankly, if your self-esteem is crushed and your dreams of entering a math and science field are destroyed and your health racked with pain because one person made one statement at one private gathering (and was then destroyed for it), then I'm sorry, you weren't going to make it far in this world anyway.</p>
<p>Thanks, Byerly. This quote from the Crimson article is, to me, the heart of the matter.</p>
<p>"Evidence-free conjecture about womens natural abilities may seem charmingly insouciant to labor economists in a faculty lounge, but Summers should have long ago understood thatas leader of the worlds most famous universityhis words bear an authority, and a resonance, that demand planning and research and sensitivity."</p>
<p>Legally, teenage girls were not directly impacted by the Court's ruling because they were to young to enter into contracts. But when someone in a position of importance tells you that your genetic make up makes you less capable, that has direct impact.<br>
Hunter, your logic is twisted. I admire the loyalty that you, Byerly, Cosar, etc. display, but I strongly recommend that you all read closely the words of the three scientists/college presidents who have, in the most polite terms, stated their views in a single voice. Summers eventually had the fortitude to render an apology. I suggest you consider a reflection of your own.</p>