When Academic Snobs Attack

"It might -- gasp!! -- be a female who's a whole lot smarter than you."

Possible, but I'll go with the odds and say that it is unlikely.

Free,

The comments made by Summers were neither stupid nor outrageous. He didn't present anything as facts, but merely tossed some legitimate ideas on the floor to be discussed.

Only 4 of the 55 tenured faculty members in math and physics at Harvard are women, and even then they get to be called marginal?

A misunderstanding on your part. 4 out of 55 is a marginal "number", given the gender breakdown of the country.

I am sure you're smart and all that. Please don't assume that those who disagree with you aren't smart.

LOL. I don't know if that's meant as a joke, but I do think it's funny!

Um, Summers said female hires were "marginal."

As to the 4 out of 55, they're all in physics, and they're all there because the chair of the physics department, a card-carrying baptist named Howard Georgi, no radical lefty he, did statistic studies, realized that even after adjusting for grades they were discriminating against their female physics undergrads and grads, and took corrective action.

Men will be part of the solution on this too.

And actually, it's just not true that he "merely tossed some legitimate ideas" and didn't present facts. He proposed a lexical ordering of the factors that prevent women from top achievement in those fields, and he put socialization third on the list. He made this VERY clear in the question and answer, saying repeatedly in response to questions that he'd like the questioner to abandon the idea that socialziation or discrimination are real factors.

They're not in biology or chemistry or other departments, that have long ago let women in. Limitations on women in those fields may have to do with child care or inante ability. But to say that in math and physics socialization and discrimiation aren't factors -- well, just have to have been in the Harvard math or physics department to know *that's* a lie. Why, even the chair of the Harvard physics department knows that's a lie.

And I've been there. Although, of course, graduating Phi Beta Kappa in math from Harvard doesn't make me as smart as US admirer. He's male. ;)

I'm ashamed at the many comments I've read about this at this website, labelling all who criticize Summers as radical feminists. You only have to be for equality of opportunity to pick the right side on this one, and it's not Summers.

The point you are missing is that Summers isn't being excoriated because his statements were wrong, ill-reasoned, intentionally provocative or flat out stupid. Summers is being hounded because he violated PC Orthodoxy. Summer's statements aren't being intellectually engaged and rejected for lack of merit. They are being dismissed as heresy.

Churchill is being defended by the same people because HIS wrong, ill-reasoned, intentionally provocative and flat out stupid statements endorse PC Orthodoxy. He is a supporter of the Canon, so the Church of PC is rallying around their martyr.

Yeah baby, you got the winning debating style down pat.
How do you stand up with that boulder on your shoulder?

"Please don't assume that those who disagree with you aren't smart."

I don't assume that. I assume that they're bigotted and unaware that they're bigotted, because they just can't see -- although it's as plain as in front of their nose -- that there's still a problem in math and physics for women.

So I tell them that I'm smarter than them for a different reason. To challenge them -- to get them to come out and say what they they're thinking and they don't even know they're thinking. Such as US Admirer's post that he "doubts" I'm as smart as him. Part of the solution is just for some of these guys to *listen* to what they're saying to themselves. C'mon, you guys are defending a Clintonista and saying that he's right that all the progress women have made in math and physics since 1970 -- pretty much proof that there USED to be a problem -- is as much as their innate ability will take them?!!

If you're for the First Amendment, y'all should be using it in this case and criticizing, criticizing Larry Summers. This cartoon portrayal of everyone who objects to his ideas as a radical feminist -- I just wish they would tell themselves that they believe that one thousand times until they realize what they're saying! Have they ever MET someone really good and female and in math and physics? These are the by-your-bootstraps, can-do types that generally *are not* democrats, let alone radical feminists.

It's highly ironic that supposedly everyone objects to any criticism of Larry Summres as "PC" and "radical feminists" -- seems to me that the people who are using labels to stifle the debate are on the right.

Which really really disappoints me, people.

One great Freeper here, Physcist, once said in a post colloquy with me someone so very true: "That among people of substance" the issue of equal rights for women is not subject to serious debate.

Well, I suppose that here as elsewhere, not all people are of substance.

Hey! Nah, a lot of it is just cheerful bravado. Y'know, if I posted all whiney they'd say "look, she's emotionally sensitive." If I posted with extreme confidence, as I'm doing, they'd say "she has a chip on her shoulder." In fact, if I posted at all in a thread against the words of a Clintonista (oh the irony of all this!), there would certainly be some kind of reference to how I'm either being too sensitive or too male or too [insert the emotional reaction that a particular poster is most afraid of].

So thanks for your serious post which grapples with the data and adds to the debate. ;) If I disagree with y'all, there must be a lot psychologically wrong with me, y'think? Oh, but that's right, it's the left, not the right, that's using labels.

P.S. "Baby" won't work -- I don't mind being called that at all! Why, with each passing year, it sounds nicer!!

"And I've been there. Although, of course, graduating Phi Beta Kappa in math from Harvard doesn't make me as smart as US admirer. He's male. ;)"

I can see now that I had woefully, and quite unfairly, misjudged you.

Nobody who is so accurately aware of her place relative to US admirer could be all bad. ;)

So I tell them that I'm smarter than them for a different reason.

Well, you may think that you are challenging people, but it seems to me that you are coming across to many here as a jack@$$. I don't worry about the intelligence of the poster - I review the arguments, as do many of the posters here.

Now, your statements about what Summers said in follow-up are interesting.

If you're for the First Amendment, y'all should be using it in this case and criticizing, criticizing Larry Summers.

WHAT?!?

Also, no one here is saying that women aren't "equal".

No one is saying here that women aren't equal.

But everyone here is *presuming* that Larry Summers' statements are consistent with equality of opportunity.

I think in placing socialization third in the lexical ordering, he's just living on a different planet. I think it is inconsistent with equality of opportunity. Criminee, the only reason he has *any* tenured physics professors is because his own Chair of the Physics Department realized they *did* have an equality of opportunity problem.

These are facts. Yet everyone is so excited by the boring, very much already known genetic diferences (spacial imagery) of *completely unknown* impact on actual tenure/performance rates, as if an economist (JUST an economist!) somehow discovered this! He's just using that as an excuse not to clean up his own backyard.

And that's what's *really* going on at Harvard. Although, most days, I'm with Ken21: "And we care because . . . ."

You don't have to be a radical feminist to know Summers is full of it, and I've provided in my post above the stats about SATS and Asian women / white men to indicate socialization in the Asian American community (at least) trumps any innate differential male / female. Those are cold hard stats. But as I expected, those specific factual objections aren't what the guys here leap upon and discuss -- no, instead, it's my "issues" -- do I have a chip on my soldier? am I a radical feminist, etc. etc.?

So I would say I threw out some data to discuss, but what they want to discuss is what my "problem" must be if I disagree with them. I pretty much knew when I entered this debate that would happen. Because I could pretty much see that there are conservative men here who are *not* openminded on the equality of opportunity thing. Or, at least: They may say they are, but they don't behave like it.

Tsk, tsk, here at FR, it's Larry Summers as victim. I never thought I'd see the day.

LOL, I still have the creepy feeling that, as between us, it is you who are baiting me, and you are winning. ;)

Actually, just for you, let me collect some data on what he actually said. Some quotes to add to the substance of the debate and not just sink into the mud. Hang on a second.

Here's some actual quotes from the transcript, with my hand bolding the text that I think particularly revealing. (Well, let me start off by saying that he prefaced his remarks by saying he had "thought about this a lot" -- which, LOL, I think is extraordinarily revealing. He's just a silver-spooned nephew of a Nobel prize winning economist who thinks he's smart because his family connections have gotten him places in the academy, if you ask me. But, LOL, I confess I'm not in a pro-Summers mood and I don't know economics well, so don't ask me.) Well, here's some juicy snippets:

There are three broad hypotheses about the sources of the very substantial disparities that this conference's papers document and have been documented before with respect to the presence of women in high-end scientific professions. One is what I would call the-I'll explain each of these in a few moments and comment on how important I think they are-the first is what I call the high-powered job hypothesis. The second is what I would call different availability of aptitude at the high end, and the third is what I would call different socialization and patterns of discrimination in a search. And in my own view, their importance probably ranks in exactly the order that I just described.

[T]here is a difference in the standard deviation, and variability of a male and a female population. [Fine, I agree.] And that is true with respect to attributes that are and are not plausibly, culturally determined. [Fine, I agree.] So my sense is that the unfortunate truth-I would far prefer to believe something else, because it would be easier to address what is surely a serious social problem if something else were true-is that the combination of the high-powered job hypothesis and the differing variances probably explains a fair amount of this problem. [There's no science to support that!]

The second problem is the one that Gary Becker very powerfully pointed out in addressing racial discrimination many years ago. If it was really the case that everybody was discriminating, there would be very substantial opportunities for a limited number of people who were not prepared to discriminate to assemble remarkable departments of high quality people at relatively limited cost simply by the act of their not discriminating, because of what it would mean for the pool that was available. [This is truly frightening -- this is Becker's these that discrimination is economically irrational and so it doesn't exist: but historically there *has* been discrimination in America based on groups -- including yes of course a form of discrimination against white men called "affirmative action" -- so just "wishing it away" because it is economically irrational, which surely it is, is the height of verifiably false weirdness, IM-not-so-HO.]

It gets even better in the question and answer, when Summers is much firmer on the point that there's no more socialization and discrimination effects worth talking about regarding academic achievement for women in math and science. He's asked about -- then how come women have been making gains the last 20 years in test scors and PhDs etc.? And he says, but yes, they have, and basically intimates that's quite enough and he just somehow knows those test scores naturally shouldn't/aren't going to rise anymore.

Now, let's forget about whether or not this is sexist. Isn't it just plain STUPID?! Do you HAVE to be a liberal, let alone a radical feminist, do want to decry him as dumb, dumb, dumb? Does anyone who actually has a functioning neural net and some passing familiarity with physics and math want to suggest that he's a victim of just knee-jerk PC people? (Of couse, they're out in force, but so what, they always are, it doesn't mean every critic of Summers is a vegan. Nah, I'd eat him roasted right now! :)

Here is a very good summary critique of Summres that I subscrbie to:

Summers repeatedly asserts that innate abilities and the "choices" of women are far more important than other factors. In addition, notice how he urges skepiticism about evidence of discrimination, while using rather less skepticism with respect to evidence that supports his obvious a priori prejudices. The best example is his uncritical citing of Gary Becker's thesis that discrimination cannot persist because it is irrational, a claim that has the unfortunate disadvantage of being transparently false. (Yes, Sandra Day O'Connor couldn't get a job as a lawyer after graduating 3rd in the class of Stanford Law School, but that can't be because "everyone was discriminating," because obviously that could never happen. And as for the American South between between Reconstruction and 1965, we'll just pretend it never existed.) If you want to defend Summers on the merits, OK, but let's stop pretending that he didn't say what he clearly said, shall we?

I think that's very intelligent.

Dear Peanut Gallery,

If you're really for equality of opportunity, and for treating people as individuals and not as groups, there will actually be times in your life when you are in favor of stopping discrimination against people who are not in your particular group.

For example, I am against affirmative action for women, although I am female.

If you view yourself as for equality of opportunity for women, then even if you are male, there will be times when you object to discriminatory or harmful behavior to women that denies them equality of opportunity.

Just fun facts. Things conservatives *of substance* should know.

I do like that qualifier, *of substance.*

high-powered job hypothesis

Can you explain what this is?

You have mail.

You claim people are labeling you while you are the one quick to call someone a bigot or chauvanist if they don't agree with you! What a joke!

Look, no one would dare deny that there has been discrimination against women in certain fields in the past, nor that there is still probably some of that going on today (though not nearly as much as before or as currently promulgated by the PC types). But your seemingly deliberate obtuseness in understanding the issue here is annoying. "Clintonista" or not, Summers is being vilified by the usual suspects for noting that, just possibly, there are inherent differences in the physiologies of men and women that mean there will never be even close to a 50/50 split between men and women at all levels of various math and science related disciplines. This clearly doesn't mean a woman can't be the top person in one of these fields, it doesn't mean women should be prohibited from these fields and it certainly doesn't mean true discrimination in any of these fields should be tolerated.

Unfortunately, the current mind-set seems to believe this, i.e., if there is anything other than proportional representation between the sexes, races, religions, etc in any field, than it MUST be because of discrimination. I'm sorry, but this is blatantly faulty logic! And if we are going to disagree on this point, then yes, unfortunately we might as well say "agree to disagree" and end this right now. (But don't hold your breath waiting for there to be equal representation on the LA Lakers between men and women).

Also, you cannot deny that the "equal proportion or it must be discrimination" ideal is a matter of faith amongst the radical feminist set. Do I think (or have I ever written) that you are one? No. But the opinions you are expressing here are right in step with this facet of their belief system, and that's what I have been clearly implying in previous messages.

BTW, concerning:

"2.4 percent of all Asian American women score about 750 on the SAT 1.2 percent of all white males do "

What percent of all Asian American MEN score about 750 (I assume this is just on the math portion)? Also, under your logic, this means that white men are being discriminated against in favor of Asian women, right?

I think that it is important to keep in mind that not all colleges are hotbeds of socialism. There are many small and large colleges that are fairly conservative. There are also many that are religious in nature. Unfortunately Harvard has gone too far down the road of unbalanced liberalism and has damaged it's reputation. I think the trend on many campuses started in the early twentieth century with the infatuation many intellectuals developed with socialism and communism. They saw a connection between the criticisms of social injustice which runs in so much literature and the new political philosophy. Everything in American literature seemed to support and build upon the liberal ideal from Nathanial Hawthorne to John Steinbeck. All of America's ills and the world were due to capitalism, greed and rigid right wing thinking. Even when the inherent problems of communism and socialism became apparent it was ignored. The professors saw vindication for their views in social events, they saw the Nazis as right wingers, they saw McCarthyism as a evil, the resistance to civil rights as right wing, the Vietnam War was the result of some military industrial complex. It did not matter that they were wrong, because a whole liberal culture had arisen on many college campuses that said they were right. Once the ideas became established they were passed on and embellished by new generations. I believe that many colleges have this liberal culture that perpetuates itself despite any logic or reason that presents itself to refute it. It will in the end perhaps be the ruin of many colleges. A college should be a place of critical thought, learning and intellectual development. If they have a liberal belief system that they wish to indoctrinate their students with they should make it clear in their literature. /p>

"Clintonista" or not, Summers is being vilified by the usual suspects for noting that, just possibly, there are inherent differences in the physiologies of men and women that mean there will never be even close to a 50/50 split between men and women at all levels of various math and science related disciplines. "

I'm villifying him and not for saying that.

So, empirically, you are just wrong. I also absolutely agree with the long first sentence of your second paragrap, including your observation that it's not as much of a problem in the past. I think it's understandable that you don't want to say that from the get-go in our discussion because of aforesaid radical feminists. I would add to your point that I think it's barely a problem at all nowadays in most of the natural sciences. In fact, it's really just the last vestiges of socialization and discrimination that are still blocking the very highest paths at the most intractable areas -- tenure at elite univerisities in math and physics.

In short, America's a great country, and women now have much better equality of opportunity than 30 years ago, and I think the need for affirmative action in the academy has lapsed. Women in math and physics will get there -- Larry Summers notwithstanding.

I do think everyone of good will who has been in any physics or math department at the graduate level knows that Larry Summers suggestion that discrimination/socialiation aren't issues -- both for narrowing the pipeline coming into college and thereby narrowing the PhD pipeline, and also in tenure decisions -- is a bunch of bunk. In fact, although he appears completely unaware of it, there have been studies at his own university that have shown statistical bias trends (even after adjusting for grades/scores) that have led to corrective action in his own physics department.

So I excoriate him for being a bumbling idiot. Please join me in this!!

"Unfortunately, the current mind-set seems to believe this, i.e., if there is anything other than proportional representation between the sexes, races, religions, etc in any field, than it MUST be because of discrimination."

I understand, but I'd tell you that I don't think conservatives of substance should choose their own mindset as a counterpoint to that and IGNORE vestiges of blockages in equality of opportunity. You guys get girls like me to vote the way you like because we *believe you* when you say that you'll treat people like individuals and not engage in such groupthink. So I don't think in fixing your response on Summers you should just take the opposite side of ninnies, who even randomly over time will be right now and then! The fact is, what Summers said was stupid. Sure, he's being criticized by stupid people, and in the wrong way, and for the only smart part about his whole speech. But this is Harvard: that stuff happens all the time.

Our job is to ignore the Orwellian spin and focus on reality. As Orwell said, sometimes what's right in front of you is hardest to see. And what's right in front of us that Summers downplayed any significant role for socialization and discrimination for women in math and physics, notwithstanding the last 20-30 years of rapid progress by women at a rate evolution itself couldn't sustain.

Look, I personally am used to this: a liberal man who thinks he's a feminist and is actually a sexist pig. The only one I'm calling a sexist pig is Summers. The rest of you guys, I really think you believe in equality of opportunity but you're just afraid to be on the same side of an issue as crazed vegan feminist radicals.

All I can say is that every issue has many sides, and you can still say Summers was completely wrong and a complete idiot and you don't have to be a racial feminist. I actually belive I live in such a side right now, and I assure the whether's fine and I don't feel any creeping fondness for Kerry or anything! ;)

Regarding Asian men -- yes, they totally kill Asian women -- I think that's understood. In every race, men do better than women at math SATs. (The gap has been narrowing over the years.) I compare Asian American women to white men for a different reason: to note that because there's no current science that says Asian Americans should do better than whites, and because there's *lots* of data regarding socialization-friendly activities in the Asian American community toward math and science, comparing these two groups might -- might -- indicate that, at least as between Asians and whites, socialization effects (race) trump innate ability effects (sex). But don't fault me for such tentative and weak data -- it's all anyone has got. It's truly frightening, on top of everything else, that Summers seemed so certain about his lexical ordering!!

All that said, let me add that if you gave me a pile of money to bet and keep, and asked me whether nature favors men over women in science, I'd give you the following answer: which science? and which subscience? Do most fields of biology require a lot of spatial imagery? (Tricky question -- field is changing rapidly! -- answer used to be mostly no.) In math and physics, in most subfields, I think nature may well have give the advantage to men over women.

Complicated question, since when we're talking tenture, we're talking risk-taking and creative brilliance. Men are better risk-takers for obvious biological reasons, and that's why they may take more genuis-leaps than the "average" women (YUCK! I hate this group think, people are individuals). And that's why *on average* men are also more likely to knock over liquor stores.

None of which excuses socialization/discrimination blockages for individual women. Which is what Larry Summers did.

Part of our real debate, kind sir, is whether we're doing to debate this on what Summers said and the uncertain state of the science, or whether we're going to debate this on media spin and people's reactions. I'm not doing to follow the crowd into the media spin world, and I'm tough enough to handle the intimations that I'm a radical vegan feminist!

But I repeat: Summers was stupid, stupid, stupid, and good conservatives of substance should criticize him with all the First Amendment gusto they've got.