This essay was a
research paper for
my Writing 20
course, “Writing the
Academy Inside
Out,” taught by
Dr. Parag Budhecha.
The assignment was
to explore a significant issue in the
realm of higher education and analyze
its implications for the academic world,
and perhaps even for society in general.
I first got the idea for my particular
topic when I read about the controversy
surrounding Harvard University President Lawrence Summers’ discriminatory
remarks about women in the sciences.
As a female engineering student, I was
intrigued, for I could understand and
relate to many of the concerns raised by
Summers’ critics, especially with regard
to the real obstacles and discrimination
women encounter in male-dominated
fields. However, as Summers was criticized for speculating about why unequal
representation may be due to “biological
differences” between the sexes—a theory for which he had no solid evidence—
I decided it would be just as irresponsible to try to invalidate his hypothesis by
using biological “data” to the contrary,
for the issue is infinitely debatable with
each side boasting its own set of “infallible” statistics. Instead, I decided to
explore the implications of his words for
the campaign for gender equality and
the potential inappropriateness of his
particular display of free speech given
his status as a high-ranking academic
figure. Many of the ideas I mention in
this essay were formed long before the
assignment was ever given, having been
derived from my own experience as a
female student in predominantly male
math-and-science classrooms. However,
in the course of writing I learned far
more about the issue of gender disproportionality than I had ever expected. I
was shocked to read about the instances
of blatant discrimination and intrigued
by the findings of a large-scale investigation into the topic. I am hopeful that
all the publicity generated by the
Summers controversy will, in the long
run, effect change for the better.
Women in Science and Engineering:
Dissuasion vs. Encouragement
Qinxian (Chelsea) He
O
n a frigid December day in Stockholm, While they might seem
at an assembly of the Royal Swedish
shockingly, even uniquely,
Academy of Sciences, Dr. E.W. Dahlgren,
Academy President and Head Librar- shortsighted, in fact
ian of the Swedish National Library, Summers’ words hint at
delivered a speech about the work of one female
scientist, praising the “enormous significance” of a larger, more disturbing
her contributions to the study of chemistry as well trend lurking in the
as to “many other branches of human knowledge
and activities” (Dahlgren 2). On a similarly chilly refined culture of the
January afternoon in Cambridge, Massachusetts, intellectual elite...
at a conference hosted by the National Bureau of
Economic Research, Dr. Lawrence H. Summers, the President of Harvard University, also made a speech about women scientists, but one that was much more pessimistic in its outlook. The two speeches were received with dramatically different
reactions. The former was one of inspiration, an appropriate commemoration of an
event that would open countless doors for future generations of women seeking to
enter the scientific fields. The latter was one of controversy and was widely panned
for its negative portrayal of women’s role in science and engineering.
11
If one were to judge these two speeches
based solely on their respective content, it
would perhaps be surprising to learn that the
first speech took place in 1911 and the latter
in 2005. Dr. E. W. Dahlgren delivered the
speech presenting the 1911 Nobel Prize in
Chemistry to Marie Sklodowska Curie. It was
a monumental moment in history, not only
because Curie was a woman receiving a Nobel
Prize, but also because it was her second such
award. On the other hand, Lawrence Summers,
in his speech, proposed that the scarcity of
women at the highest levels of science and
engineering is more likely due to innate, biological differences between the sexes rather
than different socialization patterns or gender
discrimination. While they might seem shockingly, even uniquely, shortsighted, in fact
Summers’ words hint at a larger, more disturbing trend lurking in the refined culture of the
intellectual elite: while female presence in and
contribution to the science and engineering
fields have increased dramatically in recent
years, some academics, even those in the top
tiers, still question women’s ability to compete
in the scientific world. The dangers of this
trend are real, as such cynicism not only undermines the accomplishments of past and
current female scientists, marking them as
genetic anomalies rather than worthy competitors, but more importantly, it hinders the
efforts to achieve gender balance at the highest
levels of academia.
While Summers claims that he intended no
disrespect, and while he may not have been
fully aware of the serious implications of his
attempt to be “provocative,” other scholars
were immediately alarmed by the insinuations
and possible repercussions of his comments.
One of Summers’ most prominent critics was
MIT biologist Nancy Hopkins, who walked
out in the middle of the speech, later explaining that if she hadn’t, she would’ve “either
blacked out or thrown up” (qtd. in Bombardieri, “Summers’ Remarks” 1). Just a few
days after the incident, more than 50 Harvard
professors signed a letter circulated by the
Standing Committee on Women that condemned Summers’ speech for “[serving] to
reinforce an institutional culture at Harvard
that erects numerous barriers to improving the
representation of women on the faculty, and
to impede [Harvard’s] current efforts to recruit top women scholars” (qtd. in Bombardieri, “Harvard Women’s Group” 1). In
March, the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, the
S
Summers’ conclusion
about “innate dif-
ferences” presumes
that the current
condition simply
reflects the way
things are, and
more insidiously,
inevitably must be,
suggesting that
efforts to close
the gender gap are
futile.
12
school’s most prestigious faculty, passed a
218-185 vote of no confidence in Summers’
leadership (Pope 3). However, there are also
people who have come out in support of
Summers, such as Steven Pinker, Johnstone
Professor of Psychology at Harvard University. In an interview, he suggests, “there is certainly enough evidence for [Summers’] hypothesis [about innate differences between men
and women] to be taken seriously.” He goes
on to criticize those who cried foul, saying
that “the truth cannot be offensive. Perhaps
the hypothesis is wrong, but how would we
ever find out whether it is wrong if it is ‘offensive’ even to consider it?” (2)
However, the more “offensive” aspect of
Summers’ statements about the underrepresentation of women in science and engineering
is not that he presents an unpopular idea or
hypothesis. Rather, it is that he exhibits a
defeated attitude about women’s prospects of
success in these fields, and bolsters his theory
with fairly random and weak “data” rather
than with relevant statistics. In his speech, he
tells a story about his two and a half year old
twin daughters who, when given trucks
instead of dolls, began referring to the toys as
“daddy truck” and “baby truck” (“Faculty
Diversity” 3). He continues on to say that that
example “tells me something. And I think it’s
just something you probably have to
recognize” (“Faculty Diversity” 3, emphasis
added). By alluding to perceived gender differences present at the early stages of cognitive
development, Summers tries to innocently
blame innate, biological factors for the gender
disparities that arise years down the road. In
addition to offering no established correlation
between playing with trucks and intrinsic
math ability, or between playing with dolls
and scientific ineptitude, the deeper, more sinister aspect of Summers’ assumption is that
parents might simply write off a daughter’s
poor math or science performance as a female
defect rather than the result of a host of other
possible factors, in turn perpetuating outdated
gender roles and biases. Furthermore, in the
larger context of his discussion about why
socialization may not be the dominant reason
for the marked gender imbalance at the highest echelon of science, Summers’ conclusion
about “innate differences” presumes that the
current condition simply reflects the way
things are, and more insidiously, inevitably
must be, suggesting that efforts to close the
gender gap are futile. As members of the
Society of Women Engineers write in their formal
response to Summers’ speech, “we are concerned
with the suggestion that the status quo of women in
science and engineering may be natural, inevitable,
and unrelated to social factors” (Muller 1). Summers’
fatalistic attitude not only debases women, but also
undermines the valiant missions undertaken by so
many universities (including his own) to promote
gender equality by stamping these efforts as doomed
for failure.
Such a negative attitude about gender proportionality in science and engineering is particularly
detrimental because it downplays the need for concerted efforts to elevate women’s presence in these
fields, and thereby becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. It ignores progress in favor of clinging to anachronistic prejudices. For example, in the 1970s
girls comprised approximately 25% of the national
finalists in the prestigious Intel Science Search, often
considered the highest honor for aspiring high
school scientists. Yet by 1999, that percentage had
risen to 45% (Holmgren and Basch 1). Further, in
2001, women earned 12 percent of the doctorates in
physical sciences and 11 percent in engineering — a
dramatic increase from the two percent in 1975 (Gill
1). Whether these increasing percentages are attributable to growing support for female scientists or to
rising social expectations for women to have successful careers, what is unquestionable is that women can achieve at a high level in science and engineering and that the numbers on gender representation,
while still unbalanced, are not doomed to remain
stagnant. And while these numbers are still alarmingly low, it is irresponsible to examine them from a
strictly synchronic standpoint and ignore what they
reveal about how far women have come just in the
last 30 years. Rather than recognize these advancements, however, Summers’ shortsightedness sustains, and indeed cultivates, intolerance by presuming that the status quo is the definitive stage in the
gender composition of academia, such that statistics
drawn from it can be used to formulate overarching
generalizations about inequality of the sexes. In fact,
today’s gender disproportionality is not a sign of
women’s inability to compete in the academic world; it
is, on the contrary, a testament to the courage and
perseverance of those women who defied the odds to
succeed in fields in which many expected them to
fail. It is also a lingering reminder of all the work
that still needs to be done in the campaign for gender equality, for unfortunately for today’s women
scientists and engineers, the road to scientific eminence is yet fraught with intolerance (such as the
brand touted by Summers) and discrimination.
Summers, however, in addition to positing that
intrinsic differences rather than patterns of socialization more likely account for the gender imbalance
In fact, today’s gender disproportionality
is not a sign of women’s inability to
compete in the academic world; it is, on
the contrary, a testament to the courage
and perseverance of those women who
defied the odds to succeed in fields in
which many expected them to fail.
in science and engineering, further discounts the
accomplishments of women scientists by downplaying the influence of outright discrimination in the
ascent up the academic ladder. He does this by
encouraging those in the academic community to
consider what he believes to be the far more important factors of “intrinsic aptitude, and particularly
of the variability of aptitude” and “the general clash
between people’s legitimate family desires and
employers’ current desire for high power and high
intensity” before “regarding [discrimination] as pervasive, and as the dominant explanation for the
[gender imbalance]” (“Remarks at NBER Conf.” 4).
However, as many women scientists will point out,
discrimination in the scientific fields is hardly negligible. For example, in an article entitled “Can
Harvard Ever Play a Positive Role for Women in
Higher Education?”, economics professor and MIT
alumna Myra H. Strober compares Summers’ comments to her personal encounter with gender discrimination at Harvard. She describes an instance in
the 1960s in which the Harvard professor conducting her interview asked why she would want to pursue a doctoral degree when she was already married
(1). That incident occurred some 40 years ago, and
it is unlikely that any reputable academic would
publicly make such a statement today. However, for
one of the most prominent figures in contemporary
academia to downplay the factor of discrimination
in relation to female underrepresentation serves to
discount the real barriers overcome by women who
have attained prominence in the sciences.
To shed light on these obstacles, between 1995
and 1999 two Committees on Women Faculty in
MIT’s School of Science (one of which was chaired by
none other than biology professor Nancy Hopkins)
conducted a study about the status of MIT’s female
faculty in the sciences. They found that
Many tenured women faculty feel marginalized
and excluded from a significant role in their
departments .... Examination of data revealed
that marginalization was often accompanied by
differences in salary, space, awards, resources,
and response to outside offers between men and
women faculty with women receiving less despite
professional accomplishments equal to those of
13
[H]ow many hundreds
of young girls give up
on math when their
elementary school
teacher is satisfied with
mediocre performance?...
And how many
hundreds of young
women abandon their
budding scientific
careers in the face of
mounting pressures to
start a family?
14
their male colleagues. An important finding was that this pattern repeats itself in
successive generations of women faculty.
(“A Study on Status of Women” 4)
In light of these results, one can no longer
make a convincing argument that gender
discrimination in science and engineering is
not blatant, ongoing, and pervasive. Imagine,
then, Nancy Hopkins’ reaction when the president of a peer institution makes exactly that
argument, ten years after she led the committee that aimed to identify and combat such
prejudices. She sums up the plight of scientific
women in this way: “They must deal with
men like Larry Summers.... They’ll tell you
they have no bias, but in their head they are
thinking, ‘Can women really do math?’” (qtd.
in Kantrowitz 1)
To some, Hopkins’ concern may seem
more rooted in paranoia than in reality. But
unfortunately, her fear is far from being unjustified. Take, for example, a modern version
of Myra Strober’s story, recounted by Melanie
Wood. In 1999, Wood was the first woman
ever to represent the United States at the
International Mathematics Olympiad, winning a silver medal at what is the world’s most
prestigious math competition for high school
students. In 2002, she led Duke University to
a third place finish at the esteemed William
Lowell Putnam Mathematical Competition,
in the process becoming the first American
woman ever to be named a Putnam Fellow for
a top-five score. She may be the last person
most people would doubt in terms of mathematical ability, but nevertheless, during her
college selection process, one professor told
her point-blank, “I hear you’re supposed to
be good, but I’ve never had a female student
who really understood the mathematics I do”
(qtd. in Scharf 2). Fortunately for Wood, such
a comment did not stop her from leading a
most impressive college career, which culminated in a mathematics degree in 2003 and
the receipt of no less than three prestigious
scholarships, including the Fulbright Scholarship to Cambridge University (Scharf 1). But
for every woman like Myra Strober, Nancy
Hopkins, or Melanie Wood who has made
her name in the sciences, how many hundreds
of young girls give up on math when their elementary school teacher is satisfied with
mediocre performance? How many hundreds
of teenagers shy away from science when they
realize that most guys don’t go for the
“brainy” girls? And how many hundreds of
young women abandon their budding scien-
tific careers in the face of mounting pressures
to start a family? And for those women struggling to hold on, maybe giving up is just that
much easier when they hear that the President
of Harvard University believes that “issues of
intrinsic aptitude,” not their diligence or determination, ultimately set the limit on their
potential for achievement (Summers, “Remarks
at NBER Conf.” 4). The gravest implication
of this simplistic view, when expressed by
someone in a position as prominent as that of
Lawrence Summers, is that aspiring female
scientists, when encountering the newest obstacle in their career path, might find it useless
to press on and continue to fight an uphill
battle. This is the worst fear of all those who
expressed disapproval of Summers’ speech.
As Myra Strober puts it, she sincerely hopes
that Summers’ words do not “dissuade and
discourage women or [give] succor to those
who wish to ensure their failure” (3).
Strober’s fear brings up yet another hidden
danger in Summers’ speech, that of condoning discriminatory beliefs. While it is true that
Summers’ hypothesis will likely prompt a
wave of ambitious women to bang on the
doors of the nation’s top scientific institutions, eager to disprove the theory presented
by the president of Harvard University, it is
even more likely that for those who already
harbor doubts about women’s ability to succeed in science or engineering, his words will
serve to confirm and strengthen previouslyheld prejudices. In this way, Summers’ comments have divergent consequences; just as
they may motivate women to enter the traditionally male-dominated fields in defiance, so
they will also, although unintentionally, disseminate beliefs of female inferiority into popular consciousness. And in the clash of those
competing claims, what inevitably result are
fresh obstacles in the academic pursuits of
new generations of women scientists and
engineers. Therefore, Summers, in trying to be
provocative and downplaying the effects of
gender discrimination, fails to consider his
own contribution to that practice, thereby
doing his part to ensure the perpetuation of
the vicious cycle.
Indeed, the loss of female contributions is
a hard blow to the scientific fields. In a joint
statement, the presidents of MIT, Stanford,
and Princeton — two of whom are accomplished female scientists — warn that
Until women can feel as much at home in
math, science, and engineering as men, our
nation will be considerably less than the
sum of its parts. If we do not draw on the entire Therefore, to look to the future is not to speculate
talent pool that is capable of making a contribu- on the “innate differences” between the sexes and
tion to science, the enterprise will inevitably be rejuvenate old myths and stereotypes; it is to discuss
underperforming its potential. (Hennessy, how universities, and indeed society as a whole, can
Hockfield, and Tilghman 1)
encourage and support those women who seek to
If half the population is consistently barred entry make their mark in math, science, or engineering. It
to one particular academic field, the deficit will is the obligation of grade school teachers to hold
reveal itself in more than just the numbers on gender girls to the same expectations as their male classproportionality; indeed, the loss will also mean a mates. It is the responsibility of colleges to design
setback in terms of new ideas, talent, and in the long science curricula that are “equally satisfying to men
run, innovation. This will present a challenge to the and women” (Gill 2). And it is the duty of university
United States’ self-proclaimed role as a world leader presidents, above all, to use their celebrity and influin science and technology. As Kristina Johnson, ential power for good, and take the lead to ensure
Dean of the Pratt School of Engineering at Duke Uni- that their institutions provide supportive academic
versity, writes on the necessity of
environments in which female stuthe fair representation of women [T]o look to the future is dents and faculty can succeed.
and minorities in the sciences, “what
Ironically, negative publicity is
not to speculate on the
was once a moral obligation is now
often the greatest motivator of
“innate differences”
a national imperative” (1).
change. Despite the atmosphere of
In light of this ominous prospect
tension and controversy that has
between the sexes and
for the United States, what is to be
pervaded the academic world since
done? In one possible answer, rejuvenate old myths and January 14, the prognosis for the
Myra Strober points to the actions
future looks a bit brighter than it
stereotypes; it is to
of former MIT president Charles
did before that date. In an apolodiscuss
how
universities,
M. Vest when faced with the same
getic letter addressed to the Harissue. In 1999, when faculty memvard community a mere five days
and indeed society as a
bers presented the aforementioned
after his speech, Summers acknowlwhole, can encourage
report showing that MIT seriously
edges that the numerous responses
and support those
disadvantaged its tenured female
to his comments “have made vivid
professors, Vest “publicly admitted
the very real barriers faced by
women who seek to
that MIT discriminated against
women in pursuing scientific and
make their mark in
women” (Strober 2). After reading
other academic careers,” and conthe report, he conceded, “I have
cedes that he “was wrong to have
math, science, or
always believed that contemporary
spoken in a way that has resulted in
engineering.
gender discrimination within unian unintended signal of discourageversities is part reality and part perment to talented girls and women”
ception. True, but I now understand that reality is (“Letter from Press. Summers” 1). In early February,
by far the greater part of the balance” (qtd. in “A Summers announced the establishment of two
Study on Status of Women” 2). Strober praises Vest University-wide task forces aimed to “reduce barrifor accepting responsibility for the shortcomings of ers to the advancement of women faculty at Harhis institution, rather than blanketing the problem vard and in academic careers more broadly” (“Task
in excuses that “women couldn’t hack the research- Forces on Women” 1). The Task Force on Women
university schedule, or that they scored lower on Faculty will look for ways to “strengthen the
math tests” (Strober 2). In fact, Vest met with the recruitment, support, and advance of outstanding
presidents and prominent women faculty of eight women faculty in the University,” and the Task
other elite universities to examine the steps each Force on Women in Science and Engineering will
institution might take to ensure the encouragement make recommendations about how to “build and
and fair treatment of women scholars (Strober 2). sustain the ‘pipeline’ of women pursuing academic
Although Strober’s article is an undeniably biased careers in science” (“Task Forces on Women” 2). In
assessment of the failures of Harvard and its presi- this way, Harvard is following in the footsteps of
dent, the point that she makes is crystal clear: offer peer institutions such as MIT and Carnegie Mellon
solutions, not excuses. Indeed, in the language of in looking to provide a welcoming atmosphere
MIT’s landmark report, “Once and for all we must wherein women scientists can work and thrive.
recognize that the heart and soul of discrimination, Hopefully the public will also do its part in this inithe last refuge of the bigot, is to say that those who tiative and contemplate these findings and recomare discriminated against deserve it because they are mendations just as eagerly as it condemned the comless good” (“A Study on Status of Women” 10). ments that caused the original uproar. Maybe then
15
the underrepresentation of women in science
and engineering will finally take center stage
as one of the most pressing issues facing academia today. And perhaps the course toward
gender equality might at last be able to reveal
the enormous potential and ability of women
scientists, a hint of which the world glimpsed
in Marie Curie more than a century ago. ª
Works Cited
Bombardieri, Marcella. “Summers’ Remarks on
Women Draw Fire.” The Boston Globe
17 January 2005. 6 April 2005
<http://www.boston.com/news/education/
higher/ articles/2005/01/17/summers_remarks_
on_ women_ draw_ fire/>.
Bombardieri, Marcella. “Harvard Women’s Group
Rips Summers.” The Boston Globe 19 January
2005. 20 April 2005 <http://www.boston.com/
news/education/higher/articles/ 2005/01/19/
harvard_womens_group_ rips_summers/>.
Dahlgren, E. W. “Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1911—
Presentation Speech.” The Nobel Foundation.
2005. 6 April 2005 <http://nobelprize.org/
chemistry/laureates/1911/press.html>.
Gill, Kathy. “Women in Academia and the
Sciences.” About, Inc. 2005. 13 April 2005
<http://uspolitics.about.com/od/electionissues/
a/women_ science.htm>.
Hennessy, John, Susan Hockfield, and Shirley
Tilghman. “Women in Math, Engineering, and
Science: Drawing on Our Country’s Entire
Talent Pool.” MIT Tech Talk 49.18 (2005).
5 April 2005 <http://web.mit.edu/news
office/ 2005/hockfield-presidents.html>.
Holmgren, Janet L., and Linda Basch. “Encouragement, Not Gender, Key to Success in Science.”
San Francisco Chronicle 28 January 2005.
6 April 2005 <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/
article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/01/28/
EDGD5B104O1.DTL>.
Kantrowitz, Barbara. “Sex and Science.”
Newsweek 31 January 2005. 6 April 2005
<http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6856839/
site/newsweek/>.
Johnson, Kristina. “Better Futures for Women in
Engineering.” The News & Observer 25 January
16
2005. 5 April 2005 <http://www.newsobserver.
com/opinion/story/2053498p-8438862c.html>.
Muller, Carol B., et al. “Response to Dr. Laurence
Summers, January 18, 2005.” The Society of
Women Engineers Chicago, IL. 18 January
2005. 6 April 2005 <http://www.swe.org/stellent/
idcplg?IdcService=SS_GET_PAGE&ss Doc
Name=swe_001267&ssSourceNodeId=20>.
Pinker, Steven. Personal Interview. The Harvard
Crimson 19 January 2005. 6 April 2005
<http://pinker.wjh.harvard. edu/articles/media/
2005_01_19_crimson.html>.
Pope, Justin. “Harvard Faculty Vote No Confidence.”
The Chronicle 21 March 2005. pp 3.
Scharf, Deepti. “Melanie Wood: The Making of a
Mathematician.” Duke Dialogue 9 May 2003.
20 April 2005 <http://www.duke.edu/web/
abduke/archive/Dialogue05-09-03Wood.html>.
Strober, Myra H. “Can Harvard Ever Play a
Positive Role for Women in Higher Education?”.
MIT Alumni Association 15 February 2005.
5 April 2005 <alum.mit.edu/ne/whatmatters/
200502/index.html>.
“A Study on the Status of Women Faculty in
Science at MIT.” Massachusetts Institute of
Technology. 1999. 4 July 2005 <http://web.mit.
edu/fnl/women/women.pdf>.
Summers, Lawrence H. “Faculty Diversity:
Research Agenda.” The President and Fellows of
Harvard College. 2005. 6 April 2005
<http://www.president.harvard.edu/ speeches/
2005/nber.html>.
Summers, Lawrence H. “Letter from President
Summers on Women and Science.” The
President and Fellows of Harvard College.
19 January 2005. 6 April 2005
<http://www.president.harvard.edu/speeches/
2005/womensci.html>.
“Task Forces on Women Established.” The
Harvard Gazette 10 February 2005.
6 April 2005 <http://www.news.harvard.edu/
gazette/2005/02.10/01-taskforce.html>.