# The Moron in Charge of Harvard **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 19, 2005, 9:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moron-in-charge-of-harvard/285518 "2005-01-19T09:45:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2005, 9:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moron-in-charge-of-harvard/285518/1 "2005-01-19T09:45:56Z")
[The Stupid is strong in this one.](http://www.local6.com/education/4090001/detail.html) > [@](#): > > The president of Harvard University prompted criticism for suggesting that innate differences between the sexes could help explain why fewer women succeed in science and math careers. This is bad enough. Is there any credible research that suggests females are any different at math than males? Is there any credible research that suggests any kind of gender-linked academic differences whatsoever? It wouldn’t be half so disturbing if the man wasn’t president of Har-fucking-vard. But wait, it gets better: > [@](#): > > He also cited as an example one of his daughters, who as a child was given two trucks in an effort at gender-neutral upbringing. Yet he said she named them “daddy truck” and “baby truck,” as if they were dolls. > > It was during such comments that Hopkins got up and left. Hopkins, by the way, is Massachusetts Institute of Technology biologist Nancy Hopkins - a Harvard graduate. I hope the regents or board or council or whatever kind of government they have kicks this guy out. Maybe he can get a job parking cars, but not in Harvard Yard. ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2005, 10:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moron-in-charge-of-harvard/285518/2 "2005-01-19T10:21:17Z")
Personally, I think there’s been an overreaction to this. > [@](#): > > Summers declined to provide a tape or transcript of his remarks, but he did describe comments to the Globe similar to what participants recalled. > > “It’s possible I made some reference to innate differences,” he said. He said people “would prefer to believe” that the differences in performance between the sexes are due to social factors, “but these are things that need to be studied.” It’s a bit hard without a transcript, but it doesn’t sound unreasonable, if what he’s advocating is some actual analysis. There’s often a hard line drawn that there is and cannot be any difference between the sexes, but it’s contrary to people’s everyday experiences. Getting to the bottom of the question would be useful, I think. ---
**Author:** ![mks57](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b9bd4f/32.png) [@mks57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mks57)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2005, 10:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moron-in-charge-of-harvard/285518/3 "2005-01-19T10:34:06Z")
> [@Derleth](#): > > This is bad enough. Is there any credible research that suggests females are any different at math than males? Is there any credible research that suggests any kind of gender-linked academic differences whatsoever? And **you** are calling the President of Harvard stupid? Get thee unto a library. Educate yourself. ---
**Author:** ![Krinthis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ccd318/32.png) [@Krinthis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Krinthis)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2005, 10:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moron-in-charge-of-harvard/285518/4 "2005-01-19T10:35:22Z")
This article offers a little further insight: > **[Harvard Chief Defends His Talk on Women (Published 2005)](https://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/18/us/harvard-chief-defends-his-talk-on-women.html)** > > Harvard Univ president Lawrence H Summers stands by his remarks that offended some women at recent academic conference; had suggested that innate or biological differences in sexes may explain why fewer women succeed in science and math careers; now... Summers was speaking at an off the record lunch designed specifically to allow candid talk about possible explanations for the differing rates of tenure among men and women. A number of the people at the meeting, including some women, did not find the statement offensive and thought it was an overreaction. In particular: > [@](#): > > Paula E. Stephan, a professor of economics at Georgia State University, said Dr. Summers’s remarks offended some participants, but not her. “I think if you come to participate in a research conference,” Dr. Stephan said, “you should expect speakers to present hypotheses that you may not agree with and then discuss them on the basis of research findings.” (I don’t know how to stick the reference in the quote, but thats obviously from the article I linked to) I think it was an overreaction on the part of Professor Hopkins. While I do not think that there is such an innate difference, I really can’t see the benefit in letting political correctness block off potentially useful discussion. Furthermore, a number of local newspapers - the Globe included - are known for bashing Harvard simply for the purpose of bashing Harvard. I think this might be one of those cases. ---
**Author:** ![Angua](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8baadc/32.png) [@Angua](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Angua)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2005, 11:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moron-in-charge-of-harvard/285518/5 "2005-01-19T11:15:24Z")
> [@Desmostylus](#): > > Personally, I think there’s been an overreaction to this. Really? As a woman in academia, I certainly don’t think so. I don’t deny that serious study needs to be done, but I get a sneaking suspicion that a lot may be due to nurture rather than nature, as well as the way things are presented. Another academic (on another board where we were discussing this), made the point that the way things are presemted to boys and girls make a difference. That may well be nature as opposed to nurture. However, to say that women, as a whole, are innately inferior to men in science fields is fucking irresponsible, even if it is off the record. Personally, as a female scientist in academia, I find his comments downright patronising and insulting. He takes the example of one of his daughters, and uses it to generalise to all of us? I am as every bit competant as my male peers. I work as hard as they do, and I produce results. Good results. Results fit to be published in leading scientific journals. If I were innately inferior, that would not be the case, now would it? ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2005, 11:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moron-in-charge-of-harvard/285518/6 "2005-01-19T11:47:53Z")
> [@Angua](#): > > He takes the example of one of his daughters, and uses it to generalise to all of us? I don’t think he did this. > [@Angua](#): > > I am as every bit competant as my male peers. I work as hard as they do, and I produce results. Good results. Results fit to be published in leading scientific journals. If I were innately inferior, that would not be the case, now would it? I can’t see where he said anything remotely resembling “inately inferior”. But your rebuttal is pretty poor. Just suppose for the sake of argument that he actually had said that females are inherently inferior in mathematics. It’s not sufficient to show one instance of a female who wasn’t inferior in mathematics. What if he’d said: “on average, males are taller than females”, and you responded: “the average male is height is 170 cm, but I’m 175 cm. Nyah nyah, he’s wrong, males aren’t on average taller than females” ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2005, 11:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moron-in-charge-of-harvard/285518/7 "2005-01-19T11:48:00Z")
> [@Angua](#): > > He takes the example of one of his daughters, and uses it to generalise to all of us? He didn’t say that no women succeed in science and math; he said that _fewer_ women than men succeed in science and math. Only 3 in 10 computer systems analysts are women, for example, and fewer than 1 in 10 enfineers are women. Source: [Bureau of Labor Statistics](http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1997/04/art2full.pdf) ---
**Author:** ![Angua](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8baadc/32.png) [@Angua](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Angua)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2005, 12:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moron-in-charge-of-harvard/285518/8 "2005-01-19T12:08:07Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > He didn’t say that no women succeed in science and math; he said that _fewer_ women than men succeed in science and math. Only 3 in 10 computer systems analysts are women, for example, and fewer than 1 in 10 enfineers are women. Source: [Bureau of Labor Statistics](http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1997/04/art2full.pdf) But _why_ is that? Is it because women cannot do these jobs, or is it because society says that we cannot? > [@](#): > > I can’t see where he said anything remotely resembling “inately inferior”. Actually, from the NYT article, he says: > [@](#): > > `It's possible I made some reference to innate differences,'' he said. He said people `would prefer to believe’’ that the differences in performance between the sexes are due to social factors, ``but these are things that need to be studied.’’ So, he might have done. Without a full transcript, which we’re not going to get, we’ll never know. I do not deny that more study needs to be done, I do not deny that for a second, but for the head of a leading academic institution to come out with stuff that basically boils down to “on average women don’t get the top jobs not because of society, but because they’re just not as good as us men” with _no evidence whatsoever_ is piss poor. And as for my rebuttal, if you were to tell _any_ of the female scientists that know (and I know a lot of them), that the reason we don’t get as many of the top jobs as men is because we’re on average, not as good as them, you will be told stories of gender discrimination, stories of being patronised by male colleagues, tales of extreme sexual harrasment, women taking ‘career breaks’ to raise a family and then finding themselves totally unable to get back into academia. All of which mean that we end up with a “leaky pipeline”, that women are forced or drop out of scientific careers, the higher up the ladder they go. Why exactly do you think there are so many initiatives to try and keep women in science? It starts at school. In the UK, at GCSE level (the national exams you take aged 16), Science is a compulsory subject. Girls do as well as, if not better than boys in these exams – [cite](http://www2.set4women.gov.uk/set4women/statistics/figures/fig9.htm) . However, the number of female A-level science students is significantly reduced, and this trickles through to the number of women doing science degrees, doing science post-graduate degrees, doing science post-docs, you get the picture. Why? Why are women turned off science? Its obvious that they can do as well as the boys can, so why don’t they carry on? From GCSE results, it appears that there isn’t that much difference between the ability of boys and girls, so why the discrepancy as you go up the ladder? Its that that needs to be addressed. ---
**Author:** ![Trunk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/87869e/32.png) [@Trunk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trunk)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2005, 12:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moron-in-charge-of-harvard/285518/9 "2005-01-19T12:19:13Z")
> [@Angua](#): > > Why? Why are women turned off science? Its obvious that they can do as well as the boys can, so why don’t they carry on? From GCSE results, it appears that there isn’t that much difference between the ability of boys and girls, so why the discrepancy as you go up the ladder? Its that that needs to be addressed. Right, and that’s what he’s doing. And he made one remark that it’s possibly due to innate differences (in your example, perhaps the girls work harder as youngsters, and then bump into their intellectual ceiling. . .is that clearly mistaken or does it just taste bad to you?) From the NYT. . . > [@](#): > > At Friday’s conference, Mr. Summers discussed possible reasons so few women were on the science and engineering faculties at research universities, and he said he would be provocative. > > Among his hypotheses were that faculty positions at elite universities required more time and energy than married women with children were willing to accept, that innate sex differences might leave women less capable of succeeding at the most advanced mathematics and that discrimination may also play a role, participants said. There was no transcript of his remarks. He cited innate differences as one possible cause. Maybe if you gals tried to intellectually parse what he was saying instead of getting all emotional about it, you’d make better progress. ---
**Author:** ![Angua](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8baadc/32.png) [@Angua](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Angua)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2005, 12:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moron-in-charge-of-harvard/285518/10 "2005-01-19T12:27:26Z")
> [@Trunk](#): > > Right, and that’s what he’s doing. And he made one remark that it’s possibly due to innate differences (in your example, perhaps the girls work harder as youngsters, and then bump into their intellectual ceiling. . .is that clearly mistaken or does it just taste bad to you?) Neither. It may well be the case. > [@](#): > > Maybe if you gals tried to intellectually parse what he was saying instead of getting all emotional about it, you’d make better progress. Could you actually be any more of a patronising fucking bastard? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2005, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moron-in-charge-of-harvard/285518/11 "2005-01-19T12:41:14Z")
For the record, I and Desmostylus are not the same poster. ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2005, 12:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moron-in-charge-of-harvard/285518/12 "2005-01-19T12:46:07Z")
> [@mks57](#): > > And **you** are calling the President of Harvard stupid? > > Get thee unto a library. Educate yourself. First off, adults don’t kowtow to names and reputations. They measure facts and evidence. Him being the President of Harvard doesn’t mean jack shit. Second, unless I’m woefully mistaken, being the President of _anything_ is a political, not an academic, position. **Angua** , for example, could well be a lot more intelligent than that guy, especially since she’s authored published papers (published in a peer-reviewed journal, right?). ---
**Author:** ![Angua](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8baadc/32.png) [@Angua](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Angua)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2005, 12:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moron-in-charge-of-harvard/285518/13 "2005-01-19T12:46:31Z")
Sorry, I didn’t mean to misattribute quotes. I apologise. ---
**Author:** ![Angua](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8baadc/32.png) [@Angua](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Angua)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2005, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moron-in-charge-of-harvard/285518/14 "2005-01-19T12:47:43Z")
> [@Derleth](#): > > especially since she’s authored published papers (published in a peer-reviewed journal, right?). Yup. ---
**Author:** ![Trunk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/87869e/32.png) [@Trunk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trunk)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2005, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moron-in-charge-of-harvard/285518/15 "2005-01-19T12:51:44Z")
> [@Angua](#): > > Could you actually be any more of a patronising fucking bastard? If I wasn’t so sure you’re a lesbian, I’d swear you’re coming onto me. [/pg] ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2005, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moron-in-charge-of-harvard/285518/16 "2005-01-19T12:52:36Z")
> [@Angua](#): > > But _why_ is that? Is it because women cannot do these jobs, or is it because society says that we cannot? I don’t know. And neither do you. Not that this will stop you from being outraged at the very idea that women and men are not 100% identical in every single conceivable way. The guy didn’t even suggest it WAS the case, just that it MIGHT be the case, at a luncheon set up to discuss why there aren’t as many women in these positions as you would prefer. Actually, what he should have done is be completely PC, piss and moan about how horrible it is, and not get a damn thing done to fix or understand the problem. At least then nobody’s pride would be bruised. ---
**Author:** ![Angua](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8baadc/32.png) [@Angua](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Angua)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2005, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moron-in-charge-of-harvard/285518/17 "2005-01-19T12:52:44Z")
> [@Trunk](#): > > If I wasn’t so sure you’re a lesbian, I’d swear you’re coming onto me. > > [/pg] It’ll be a cold day in hell before that happens. ---
**Author:** ![Fuji\_Kitakyusho](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/f0a364/32.png) [@Fuji\_Kitakyusho](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuji_Kitakyusho)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2005, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moron-in-charge-of-harvard/285518/18 "2005-01-19T12:53:14Z")
What makes the comment so difficult to believe? Thousands of books have been written on the subject of the difference in thought patterns between the sexes, relationships between them, etc. I have only read a few, but even so, the idea that women think in a more abstract and interconnected method than men do is a recurring theme. This is supposedly makes women superior at multitasking as compared to their male counterparts. Women make connections, men compartmentalize. A generalization to which there will always be exceptions, but given the frequency of such observations there must be some validity to the argument. If we can agree that there are some very fundamental differences in the way that men and women TEND to think, why then is it so difficult to accept that men and women may be predisposed to careers which rely on abstract or linear thought processes, respectively? ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2005, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moron-in-charge-of-harvard/285518/19 "2005-01-19T12:54:59Z")
> [@](#): > > **Angua** : But _why_ is that? Is it because women cannot do these jobs, or is it because society says that we cannot? Male and female children make quite different choices in a whole range of ways. If evolution left males with a slight preference for activities or pursuits involving some kind of spatial manipulation, this might manifest as more boys choosing an academic subject which used more ‘spatial thinking’ than girls. Would you agree that there might be evolutionary reasons why boys might be under-represented in a class studying, say, childcare? That is not to say that boys are _better_ at maths - it’s just a possible explanation for the _choice_ they make more often than girls. ---
**Author:** ![Angua](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8baadc/32.png) [@Angua](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Angua)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2005, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moron-in-charge-of-harvard/285518/20 "2005-01-19T12:56:05Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > I don’t know. And neither do you. Not that this will stop you from being outraged at the very idea that women and men are not 100% identical in every single conceivable way. Who said I am? I acknowlege that there are gender differences between men and women, but I highly doubt that intellectual capacity is one of them. > [@](#): > > Actually, what he should have done is be completely PC, piss and moan about how horrible it is, and not get a damn thing done to fix or understand the problem. At least then nobody’s pride would be bruised. Unlike those of us who’ve experienced just how horrible it actually is, and then get off our backsides and try to understand and fix the problems. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moron-in-charge-of-harvard/285518.md?page=2)