Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
1 March 2012
The conference, which focused on women and minorities in the sciences and
in engineering, was a small event with around fifty total participants. The
such? Summers later stated that he had been asked to be provocative and
three possible answers to this question. One was the possible reluctance of
women with children to work the long hours required by the professions. He
economic theory that says that a college that does not discriminate is at a
possibility for why women are underrepresented in the sciences was that
perhaps there were innate differences between men and women that may
MIT, left the room during the speech, and later stated that if she hadnt left,
she . . . would have either blacked out or thrown up (Bombardieri, 2).
Hopkins also said, It is so upsetting that all these brilliant young women [at
Harvard] are being led by a man who views them this way (13), and Lets
not forget that people used to say that women couldnt drive an automobile
Hopkinss offense, and a debate erupted that was, for a short time,
controversy did not go away. In fact, it got even more heated; in early
rejecting the views Summers put forward (Jaschik, 5). Denice D. Denton,
Summers at the conference. She said that she has received scores of
messages, phone calls, and more on the subject, and said that the whole
Harvard Faculty sent a protest letter to Summers over the speech, saying
him.
Hopkinss arguments: Thats true [that people once said that women
couldnt drive an automobile]. People also used to say that women arent as
tall as men . . . that women are the ones who make babies . . . all sorts of
right, that there are basic psychological differences between the genders,
and that only someone who is blinded by ideology would not be able to
accept that men and women might think differently. Goldberg cites a 2002
article from the Scientific American called Sex difference in the brain that
claims that men tend to be better at spatial reasoning, and women better at
Steve Sailer, who writes for The American Conservative, explains how
feminism, gender quotas, and affirmative action have clearly not affected
how often women are found at the top in the hard sciences. He goes through
the history of the different Nobel prizes and comes to an odd conclusion.
Women have won more and more over the last four decades . . . but not in all
fields; The fuzzier the field, the better women do (21). Sailer basically is
saying that women win plenty of prestigious prizes and awards in literature,
psychology, sociology, and the like. But the more rigid the field, the less
often women win. Women win the Nobel in Medicine, Chemistry, and Physics
less than three percent of the time. This might be accounted for by
prejudice, but Sailer then states that, In the bad old days from 1901 through
1964, women won 2.5 percent of the hard science Nobels. Since then,
theyve declined to 2.3 percent (25). So, while prejudice (presumably) has
lessened since the mid-sixties, as evidenced by their winning more and more
of the soft science awards, there has been no significant increase in women
at the very top of these certain fields. This echoes a point that Summers
Men are more likely to be found at the extremes, both above and below the
norm; there are more men geniuses and more men idiots. Therefore, in a
rarified field that attracts and rewards extreme intelligence, men are
her pioneering role in fostering gender equity in academia for which many
have come to know her (Bloom, 2). A few years earlier, Hopkins chaired a
(Bloom, 4). This very concept is laughable to some writers: Goldberg says
that this type of finding is generally PC code for Im not going to provide
point: it does not look well for the feminist ideal that a well respected woman
scientist would claim that the very utterance of an idea that she disagrees
with makes her lightheaded and nauseas; she is fitting herself voluntarily
into the very stereotype that she means to escape from. Al Barger, a
should be revoked: What would happen if she were driving down the street
and accidently punched up Rush Limbaugh on the radio, for example? Rush
makes one of his feminazi jokes, and she throws up and blacks out
What caused this damsel Hopkins to hie to her fainting couch? (Goldberg,
2), and Sailer says that she . . . fled Summers talk like a blushing Victorian
maiden hearing some uncouth personage use the word legs instead of
quickly and roundly attacked by ardent feminists that those actual issues
response from Hopkins was absurd and extreme. Their arguments are
blacking out or throwing up on the other side of the political aisle. In fact,
theres hardly mention of Hopkins at all. Summers remarks are the focus,
question his faith in their ability and, in the best of situations, make it hard to
attract talent to Harvard (4). ORourke also says that Summers words,
which both men and women grade an essay significantly higher if they
believe it was written by a John McKay, and lower if the very same essay has
Joan McKay at the top. She also mentions that blind auditions (where the
judge cannot see the person auditioning) have caused a precipitous increase
colleges to hire all of the qualified women. Michael Kevane, who teaches
economics at Santa Clara University, refers to a model by economist George
Akerlof that supposedly disproves this idea, and thinks that Summers just
some advantage when it comes to the hard sciences. And this point is,
according to his critics, at best entirely without proof and at worst completely
wrong.
Several point to studies that show that girls equal or surpass boys in
elementary school math, but drop behind as socializing factors become more
prevalentin junior high or high school, where people are more likely to
also tell their own stories; typical is Mary Schweitzer, who says that when her
mother saw my ACT scores, she openly despaired that I would never find a
husband (3), and who tells about her sisters fear of being Unwomanly (7)
came out against Summers, saying that he had not properly referred to their
has been the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury. He has served both the Clinton
post of World Bank president. And yet the furor from 2005 still makes the
setting up the context for the study, refers to Summers 2005 speech and
the resultant media frenzy. The study argues that girls do as well as boys on
school math tests worldwide. And heres where it gets absurd . . . a link at
the bottom of the page with this article has the following tagline: Ten Things
Every Man Should Know About a Womans Brain. So the research continues,
the debate continues, and whether theres any discernible mental difference
Barger, Al. "Should Nancy Hopkins be driving?." BC Culture. Blog Critics Culture, 19
Bloom, Stacie. "In the debate of sex and science, Summers, Hopkins and the X
chromosome battle it
out." The Journal of Clinical Investigation 115.5 May (2005): 1107-08. Web. 1
Mar. 2012.
Mar. 2012.
Dillon, Sam, and Sarah Rimer. "No Break in the Storm Over Harvard President's
Words." New
Goldberg, Jonah. "A Professor and Her Smelling Salts." National Review 19 Jan.
Hemel, Daniel J. "Sociologist Cited By Summers Calls His Talk 'Uninformed'." Harvard
Crimson 19 Jan.
Jaschik, Scott. "What Larry Summers Said." Inside Higher Ed. N.p., 18 Feb. 2005.
1 Mar. 2012.
O'Rourke, Meghan. "Don't Let Larry Summers Off the Hook Yet." slate.com. The
Washington Post
2012.
Welsh, Jennifer. "Girls are Just as Good at Math, Study in 86 Countries Suggests."