See-it-all reader Fred Ray sends word of more comment on the Summers controversy (which I discussed here). The Boston Globe, for example, reports that President Summers, completing his cave in, has invited the Radcliffe Institute “to oversee a new initiative designed to quickly identify new ways to recruit and support women at Harvard.” Far from burying the issue in yet another committee,
the new undertaking is being put on a fast track — an unusual step in the often-ponderous Ivory Tower. Summers said that task forces would be appointed next week, and that the university would begin implementing their recommendations by the end of the semester.
Summers says he’s learned from the responses to his remarks that “we as a university need to do much more.”
I’ve certainly learned a great deal. I’ve certainly been reminded of what’s most important, which is that we need more women in science and engineering in America and in the world.
I realize it is impolitic to ask, especially since I’ve asked before, but why do we need more women scientists and engineers? We of course need to remove any discriminatory or other artificial barriers that discourage women from entering scientific fields, if there are any. And if we need more people in science and engineering, then we should find ways of encouraging more people to enter those fields — not just female people or minority people. But it seems to me that anyone who argues that we need more women scientists and engineers, as opposed to more scientists and engineers in general, should explain why.
Even the president of Harvard.
I point out here some additional information about the woman who almost fainted due to Summers’ remarks:
This is not the first time that swooner Nancy Hopkins has been reported in the news as leading the Feminist Fight. In the nineties there were complaints at MIT that female scientists were being treated worse than male scientists. Dean Birgeneau appointed a committee to study the complaints. What was the role of Hopkins? She was the chief Complainant and she was the Head of the committee appointed to evaluate the complaints. (“Forget it, Jake — it’s Chinatown.”). If Hopkins’ complaints were well-founded, she is an idiot for investigating them herself, and thus ensuring that no serious person would ever take them seriously.
——-
I also obsess about the issue of women in Information Technology here.
“I realize it is impolitic to ask, especially since I’ve asked before, but why do we need more women scientists and engineers?” I strongly suspect it’s the same reason we need blacks and whites represented proportionally amongst firefighters.
I suspect that the reasons are different than for firefighters and police officers.
I believe it was Simone de Beavoir who said that women should not be allowed to be housewifes. If they are allowed, many of them will make that choice, thus inhibiting the revolution.
Most women are not feminists and they continue to make choices that feminists to not like. So, the issue must be forced.
John, how very retrograde of you. You may think that in, say, physics there is truth…excuse me, “truth,”…and that bourgeois, patriarchal concept, “facts.”
But women have special ways of knowing and we need those wonderful, sensitive insights because…well, we do, that’s all.
I’ll write again soon, but I’m going to take a trip and I’ll be flying on an airplane that was constructed according to women’s ways of knowing, not by male concepts such as testing and stress analysis. I’ll write you when I get back…if I get back.
Female Columnist Defends Summers
Mr Summers and colleagues might have been able to work through – if the prissier among them had not walked out and called The Boston Globe.
After all, everyone can agree that if you deny a problem, you ensure that you cannot correct it. In short, pla…
Gender-Fender-Bender-WSJ
It is not Mr. Summers who owes women an apology; it is the complainers and agitators who owe both him and all of us an apology for trying to shut down discussion of an “inequality” that is not likely to disappear.
It seems that everyoone involved believes that it is suspicious (or curious) that not one female is in a position where one should be. They disagree on why. OK, we cut the crap and just put one there and see what happens. This short cut will end up the same way as the “study it to death” approach and is much, much cheaper and quicker. Of course, it will never happen.
If women are proportionately underrepresented in some fields becuase (for whatever reason) they don’t want to do them as much as men want to do them, what is the answer: to (directly or indirectly) force them?
That would just leave unhappy women (forced into something they don’t want as much), unhappy men (prevented from doing what they do want to do) and an unhappy society (forced to endure the resultant output of a less proficient field than would otherwise result).
And I don’t want to be forced or coerced into a field preferred by women either in order to balance out someone’s idea of ‘proper’ numbers.
‘If women are proportionately underrepresented in some fields becuase (for whatever reason) they don’t want to do them as much as men want to do them, what is the answer: to (directly or indirectly) force them?’
Or change the incentives. If people aren’t doing something because they’ll get a hostile reception, and we want them to do that thing, we don’t have to force them to go. We can just change the incentives by removing the hostile reception.
We can just change the incentives by removing the hostile reception.
Well I can’t speak for all scientists, but when I was in graduate school in physics, we actually had a female graduate student. For some reason, we didn’t give her the locker room treatment. Go figure.
It is amazing how some people on this board who have no knowledge in this area, will immediately assume the worst. Could it be because that is the way they would act?
‘It is amazing how some people on this board who have no knowledge in this area, will immediately assume the worst. Could it be because that is the way they would act?’
I was speaking abstractly and hypothetically, and not about a specific field. the person i was replying to did say ‘for whatever reason’. I simply pointed out that it depends on the reason, it may not be endogenous to the decisionmaker.
And may I add, even if the reason is endogenous to the decisionmaker, its incorrect to assert that the solution is forcing people. For example, there may be a shortage of people willing to work nights. The solution doesn’t have to be to force people to do it — it could be to just fix incentives and make it more attractive.
actus, I have a question for you.
I am a blues musician. Half the clubs in New York City tell me outright, when I walk in to ask for a job, that they hire only black musicians.
Before my wife’s death, I worked with my wife, who was Filipina and black. The same club owners often told her that she should quit working with me and find a black man to work with.
What would you do about this “hostile reception?”
‘What would you do about this “hostile reception?”‘
I have no idea. Punish it? looks like its pretty clear race discrimination in hiring.
Hey – I’m one who left academia in math to join the business world… and I’m a woman. I can tell you that it’s not so much a hostile reception as the grad school and above academic life is not very .. well, fun. At least in the corporate world, I get a nice sum of money and regular working hours for my skills. In grad school, I was doing thankless jobs (aka teaching) while working on research no one cared about (gotta publish!…but no one will read your papers.)
It makes me wonder why so many people stick around in academia. Actus is right in that if the incentives/treatment changed, you’d get a different mix of people. I really doubt, though, that you’re going to see grad students getting paid a level comparable to the corporate world, or having their teaching and research more highly valued.
Eventually force will need to be used, if one follows race (and gender) preferences to its logical conclusion. The whole enterprise is built upon the foundation of under-representation. (If a group is not under-represented then it is by definition not discrimated against.) Once society is fully proportional, force (government) will be required to keep any one individual from doing what he/she wants if it would disturb the delicate balance carefully set in place by government.
‘Eventually force will need to be used, if one follows race (and gender) preferences to its logical conclusion. ‘
Like what? I think you have an incorrect view of race law. At least as concerns the civil rights laws, disparate impacts are fine. What is not fine is if the motivation is race.
Thus I can’t discriminate on the basis of race in my hotel. But I can put the hotel in a place where white people are more likely to go than black people, or vice versa.
ACTUS, if that is your motivation we will get to you. New law: before building new hotel, the builder must prove that the motivation for selecting the location is not racially based. It is, you must admit, only the next logical step.
Thus I can’t discriminate on the basis of race in my hotel. But I can put the hotel in a place where white people are more likely to go than black people, or vice versa.
Like the downtown area in every major city? And we know that there are no blacks in NY, LA, Chicago, Detroit, etc. Actus, it might help if you try thinking before you respond.
“New law: before building new hotel, the builder must prove that the motivation for selecting the location is not racially based. It is, you must admit, only the next logical step.”
It could be the next logical step, I can also see it as logical to go in the direction of preventing disparate impacts, not to require prior proof of motivations. I don’t think we’re likely to take either “logical step.”
But even given your “logical step,” I’d prove to the city rather trivially why I want to build my hotel: its going to make me money. It probably wouldn’t be that hard to prove this, as I already have the documentation from having to prove to myself, my investors, and/or my shareholders that this hotel is going to make money.
“Like the downtown area in every major city? And we know that there are no blacks in NY, LA, Chicago, Detroit, etc. Actus, it might help if you try thinking before you respond.”
I don’t know what you’re talking about. Perhaps the hotel was a poor example — in that you’re having a hard time figuring out where a hotel could be that would cause a disparate impact. But I think you get my point that i’m allowed to do things that different races will participate in differently, but I’m not allowed to be motivated by racial animus there.
Like I can prefer to hire a country singer, or a Jazz player, but I can’t prefer to hire a white musician over a black one.
I don’t know if this is an accurate representation of the law, but I think the point is clear — its the basis of the decision that can’t be based on race. The general rule: We can still do things despite a disparate impact. We can’t do things because of a disparate impact.
We need more women scientists and engineers because men are evil. Really, people, was I the only one taking notes during college?
‘I
Despite what may be printed in statutes and policies, disparate outcomes have repeatedly been used as a prima facie case to establish systemic racism. If the outcome doesn’t match general population demographics, it must be racism. No other explanation is even permitted in today’s culture. Most businesses surrender and settle to avoid the negative publicity.
‘If the outcome doesn’t match general population demographics, it must be racism. No other explanation is even permitted in today’s culture.’
Actually if its prima facie then there’s a rebuttable presumption created.