Joshua Hass, a senior at Harvard and a member of the editorial board of Tuesday Morning, a student magazine, has an interesting article in the current issue on the science v. political correctness debate. (HatTip to this report in the Chronicle of Higher Education.) Speaking of the Summers conflagration, Haas writes:
… the women-in-science debate splits down counterintuitive ideological lines. On the one side, researchers; on the other…liberals. Given the debates over stem-cell research, the environment, and evolution, there must be some cognitive dissonance here. The second interesting thing is that this is not the first time a debate like this—liberal politics on the one side, new scientific research on the other—has broken out in the history of modern psychology. The women-in-science controversy is part of a larger conflict.
Haas is quite sensitive to the distinction between a scientist’s motives or assumptions, on one hand, and the social impact of the research findings, on the other (a distinction both sides of the women-in-science debate would do well to ponder):
In the women-in-science controversy, many believe that sex-difference researchers are seeing what they expect to see—sex differences—and thus are making dangerous claims based on sexist science. This is why the debate gets so muddled. Not only is the social impact of research on sex differences under attack, but the scientific merit of that research is being questioned—for good reason. But because the motivation for questioning the research’s scientific merit is its allegedly detrimental social impact, it is very hard to tell whether people claiming flaws in research on sex differences really see those flaws, or just think they see them because they don’t like the research! [Emphasis in original]
The whole thing is worth reading.
I wish Haas hadn’t framed the Summers part of the piece with this quasi-hypothetical:
[T]he fact that two populations have different means says little to nothing about individuals. If someone comes up with a “math IQ” and shows that the mean female score is 99 while the mean male score is 100, there are still going to be a lot of women—in fact, slightly less than half of the women in the entire world—who score above 100.
So far as I know, neither Summers nor anyone else has actually argued that there are different mean levels of ability for men and women in math. The closest thing is a contention that male mathematical ability has the same mean as female, but greater variability, so that there are more men than women who are spectacularly good or spectacularly bad at math.
Interesting article, though. I remember the controversy over sociobiology (which was, as Haas says, pretty vicious), but I don’t think I’ve run across the Seville Statement before.
“Speaking of the Summers conflagration, Haas writes:”
I think we should look at the merit — not just the social impact — of anyone that thinks that the Summers conflagration was just about women in science, rather than about all his management errors.
… the women-in-science debate splits down counterintuitive ideological lines. On the one side, researchers; on the other…liberals. Given the debates over stem-cell research, the environment, and evolution, there must be some cognitive dissonance here.
Yes… among liberals, who had deluded themselves into thinking that not only were righteousness, moral superiority, Truth, Justice, and the American Way on their side, but Science was as well.
But why would anybody else be surprised by this? Why is it “counterintuitive” to think that political activists of any ideology would be more concerned with politics than science? (Is this another example of Mickey Kaus’s cocooning effect? Liberals read liberal media sources, think everyone agrees with them, and then are surprised when it isn’t the case?)
“Why is it “counterintuitive” to think that political activists of any ideology would be more concerned with politics than science?”
Chris mooney contrasts the Clinton and republican approaches to science. He mentions that when the clinton administration went against science, they said so. But the republican approach is to turn it into the he-said she said relativism of cable news.
actus,
I think we should look at the merit — not just the social impact — of anyone that thinks that the Summers conflagration was just about women in science, rather than about all his management errors.
“All his management errors,” so far as I can see, amount mainly to having pissed off Cornel West, which I should personally count as a good day’s work. Not being at Harvard, I can’t be sure whether Summers would have been canned without the sex-and-the-sciences flap, but I doubt it.
“”All his management errors,” so far as I can see, amount mainly to having pissed off Cornel West, which I should personally count as a good day’s work.”
He was also centralizing decisionmaking and money away from the schools and departments and in the office of the university presidency. You’d imagine that really ticks people off.
“He was also centralizing decisionmaking and money away from the schools and departments and in the office of the university presidency. You’d imagine that really ticks people off.”
Were these really management errors? Seems like they might actually be good fiscal decisions. Or were they errors in judgement, that the radical leftist faction would stoop to the lowest levels necessary to depose the heretic, including hiding the “true” reasons for their rebellion, money and power?
“Were these really management errors? Seems like they might actually be good fiscal decisions. ”
They were errors to the people he was managing. So he’s out, because there, people have a say in who their supposed bosses are. Nice huh?
“Or were they errors in judgement, that the radical leftist faction would stoop to the lowest levels necessary to depose the heretic, including hiding the “true” reasons for their rebellion, money and power?
Left or not, I’d say most people would object to their departments losing decisionmaking ability.
Thanks for linking to my piece, John.
Michelle: I believe that there has been proposed differences in mean ability, but you’re quite right to point out that Summers himself only put forward the view that there’s a difference in standard deviation. From his original remarks: “It does appear that on many, many different human attributes-height, weight, propensity for criminality, overall IQ, mathematical ability, scientific ability-there is relatively clear evidence that whatever the difference in means-which can be debated-there is a difference in the standard deviation, and variability of a male and a female population.”
actus: You’re right to point out that the faculty’s opposition to Summers was motivated more by his management style than by his remarks on women. However, the heavily publicized controversy–the part of this affair that engaged people with no direct interest in Harvard administration–was his remarks. My article is not intended as a general defense of Summers as an administrator; I’m responding to the specific debate in the news media over his controversial speech.
David: Fair enough: “counterintuitive” was a bit strong. I think the Bush administration in particular does do violence to science beyond the scope of most “political activists of any ideology,” but if you look past the current administration, it’s fair to say that both sides of the aisle have comparably bad track records, albeit on different sets of issues. I would argue that the presumption that liberals are more science-friendly than conservatives is pretty wide-spread (especially among my target audience–the Harvard community: I wasn’t expecting my article to be picked up by The Chronicle of Higher Education!) and becoming more so as the religious right continues to drive Republican politics.
Oh, and one nitpick: it’s “Tuesday Magazine,” not “Tuesday Morning.” :-)
“Left or not, I’d say most people would object to their departments losing decisionmaking ability.”
This is obviously irrelevant to the issue of whether Summers was an effective manager. If they were making bad decisions, being an effective manager means shutting down their ability to make bad decisions.
“This is obviously irrelevant to the issue of whether Summers was an effective manager. ”
Absolutely not. Its absolutely relevant if his managent is doing stuff the other people in the organization disagree with. Specially people who can move him out.
actus, are you saying that management can always be improved by moving in the direction of less central authority and more autonomy of subsidiary parts of the organization? Because in that case, it is difficult to see why there should be a central authority at all.
Obviously Summers raised some hackles. I would hesitate to say that this proves his management was poor, though. Seriously improving anything is bound to irritate some people. The irritation isn’t a good in itself, nor (obviously) any sort of indication that there is actual improvement, but neither does it by itself mean bad management.
“actus, are you saying that management can always be improved by moving in the direction of less central authority and more autonomy of subsidiary parts of the organization?”
If thats what the organization wants, then yes.
Also, you’re being slightly conclusory by calling them subsidiaries. When the tradition and past is that they are automonomous and independent, then its not quite the case that they are subsidiaries.
Rather the discussion is what they’re subsidiary on. The president may make decisions about what secretaries get paid, or how the lawns get mowed. Bur research, tenure, other decisions? Not subsidiary.