<p>You might start by reading this spot-on critique from the Harvard Crimson:</p>
<p>Fascinating. Is there any article anywhere offering a different perspective?</p>
<p>Another perspective:</p>
<p>LOL When I said "another perspective" I meant, ya know, ANOTHER one, like, DIFFERENT ... not one from the same newspaper with the exact same sentiments. Nevermind though, I'll just seek it out on my own ...</p>
<p>people are getting too riled up about this</p>
<p>but</p>
<p>summers was right in some sense
a New England journal of Medicine study showed that women have more neural paths between the left and right half of the brain while men have more developed individual sections. thus women are thought to grasp the big picture better than men can(supposedly this helps with humanities) while men are more able to specialize</p>
<p>Hmmm. That might make women better computer engineers because they can see the whole integrated system; better programmers because they can see the whole construct and how it might evolve; better doctors because they treat the whole person; better physicists because they see the whole of the many theories; better chemical engineers because they can see the whole plant, better. Etc, etc.</p>
<p>Yeah. I like that finding. And, who knows, it might even be true.</p>
<p>Here's an interesting Brian MvGrory column on the Summers dustup from today's Boston Globe. </p>
<p>Byerly, since that flap with Cornell West, the Harvard AfAm department has gone from the best in the country to almost completely dismantled (save Gates, who himself took an extended sabbatical at Princeton). Appiah, Morgan and Bobo all left after Cornell. "Harvard was the spot for African-American studies, and it has all but collapsed" - Professor Dyson </p>
<p>Harvard's president should be trying to establish and protect different academic DEPARTMENTS. Making insensitive and potentially confusing statements about gender, no matter how thought provoking, compromises Harvard as a whole. As the crimson (my favorite reading material for quoting) writes:</p>
<p>"Lacking tact on sensitive subjects is not a new problem for Summers. We hardly need mention his past troubles with members of Harvards once vaunted African American Studies Department, now much weaker than it was when he came to Harvard. We respect Summers determination to engage in academic debate, but he must always make the interests of Harvard the top priority... We are glad that Summers has offered an official apology and recognized his mistake, but, unfortunately, much of the damage to his reputationand to the Universityshas already been done."</p>
<p>I think that GeorgeS brought forward the point that will end al arguments on sex equality women and men may be "equal" but are also equally different the sooner we accept that the better it would be for everyone</p>
<p>why would it matter? why do we wanna know if women or men are better?? does that help the human race in anyway???</p>
<p>Of course it helps the human race. For centuries, the idea persisted that men were superior to women. Thus women were not allowed the same access to education that men were given. That was 50% of the population going underutilized, not given a voice in history.</p>
<p>Look at what Afghanistan used to be like. Women who held PhD's were not even allowed to leave their home on their own. That definitely didn't help the human race.</p>
<p>The point isn't that one sex is inherently BETTER than the other, but I think we all need to stop pretending that men and women are exactly the same. Science has always told us that men and women are DIFFERENT from each other in many different ways, and that means that the different sexes can and probably DO have different strengths. Just because one sex may have a natural disposition toward being strong in one area (be it science, communication, WHATEVER) doesn't make the other sex inferior, it just means they don't have any predisposition toward that area. Lack of a predisposition IN NO WAY means that they're incapable of suceeding in that area. </p>
<p>At first I was upset about what President Summers said, but I'm really seeing now that people are blowing it way out of proportion. All he said was that men and women may have innate differences. That's not news! </p>
<p>However, let me say that just because I don't take issue with the idea of innate difference, that doesn't mean that I don't realize that women have been and continue to be discriminated against and discouraged from participation in the hard sciences and in mathematics. It also doesn't mean I approve AT ALL of the way President Summers has handled relations with professors and decisions about who receives tenure. I don't. In fact, in my perfect world, he wouldn't be President of Harvard at all. </p>
<p>However, I think the reaction to his statement has been utterly ridiculous. Men and women ARE different, and DO have different strengths. That doesn't make one sex superior to the other. Equality doesn't mean people have to be exactly the same.</p>
<p>"During Dr Summers's presidency, the proportion of tenured jobs offered to women has fallen from 36 per cent to 13 per cent. Last year, only four of 32 tenured job openings were offered to women."</p>
<p>You see, Carmel, while you're willing to keep an open mind on this issue until there is some positive proof one way or the other, Summers and his cronies have made up their mind and are acting on what they believe is true.</p>
<p>Here's hoping the horrible option of enrolling at Harvard next Fall is not one you will have to deal with.</p>
<p>I clearly stated in my first post "It also doesn't mean I approve AT ALL of the way President Summers has handled relations with professors and decisions about who receives tenure. I don't." </p>
<p>I'm saying that his statement itself wasn't necessarily discriminatory. His administrative practices are clearly a different story.</p>
<p>Some philosopher or some politician or some religious leader said it best:</p>
<p>"A lie, when it goes unchallenged, is soon thought by many to be the truth."</p>
<p>A huge contingent of people, ones who have been fighting these lies for years, were at the conference and rightly incredulous to hear them spewing from the mouth of no less than the President of Harvard. And so they challenged the statements--and Summers--quickly and with great vigor.</p>
<p>Of course Harvard will continue to flourish. And it's likely Summers will continue for whatever the normal term of a President is at Harvard. But, it definitely was not the University's finest hour. </p>
<p>In the end, the University was very poorly served by its president. And it's likely that the Trustees took him to the woodshed and pounded a little sense into his thick skull. Hence the apology.</p>
<p>I rather doubt that "the Trustees" did anything of the sort.</p>
<p>The idea that men and women are innately different is not a "lie," and that's all he said.</p>
<p>Was it the wisest thing to come out and say? No, but not because it's wrong. Because people are sensitive and he's clearly not helping the perception of the university, whether he was "speaking as President" or not. </p>
<p>And that's my fundamental issue with Summers ... he consistently seems to put his own interests ahead of those of the University.</p>
<p>the money manager who made the Harvard's endowment the envy of every other University in the world, and many countries too.</p>
<p>Meyers was his name. I read that he and his group consistently did better with the University's investment compare to all the other colleges. </p>
<p>Summers, apparently, forced him out.</p>
<p>Not enough glory to go around.</p>
<p>You say you agree with Summers that there are inate differences. And that males and females have different predispositions. Can you be more specific as it relates to Engineering and Sciences.</p>
<p>Thanks.</p>