Post-Gazette Editorial – 5/26/05

This page was last updated on May 28, 2005.

Fixing Harvard / Summers makes a start on making amends; Editorial; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; May 26, 2005.

As a conservative, I’m not a fan of Lawrence Summers. I comment on this editorial simply to show how liberals misrepresent facts when they don’t like them. Throughout this and previous editorials – and editorials disguised as “news” stories – the PG lied about Mr. Summers’ comments. The PG tells us Mr. Summers unequivocally said genetics is the sole reason why men tend to do better than women in engineering and other sciences. This claim is demonstrably false as shown below.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Harvard President Lawrence Summers’ comments that innate differences between men and women explain why fewer women are in science are still disturbing. But after surviving weeks of criticism and a no-confidence vote and then making repeated apologies, Mr. Summers is working to make amends. He has pledged that Harvard will spend $50 million to improve the climate for women and minorities and achieve a more diverse faculty.”

[RWC] From the beginning the PG has deliberately misrepresented Mr. Summers’ remarks. Despite the fact that Mr. Summers’ remarks were – and still are – available on the web, a previous editorial claimed, “no transcription is available of Mr. Summers’ exact remarks.” A link to the full speech and the ensuing question-and-answer session is at the bottom of this critique.

The PG still claims Mr. Summers said, “innate differences between men and women explain why fewer women are in science.” From the speech excerpt below, see for yourself if this is accurate.

“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.”¹

Note that Mr. Summers enumerated three possible explanations – not one – and used the word “hypothesis.” I believe the PG needs a dictionary since it appears it doesn’t understand the meaning of hypothesis. For those in Toledo – home office of the PG publisher, hypothesis doesn’t mean proven fact.

It would be nice to know what the PG means by a “more diverse faculty,” but I believe I know. Given the PG reaction to another liberal’s comments, the PG believes diversity means a perfectly “representative” group of people based on physical characteristics who think exactly the same. Diversity of opinion and thought is something so-called liberals cannot tolerate, as this episode with Mr. Summers demonstrates.

“That’s a commendable move, though the sting of his remarks remain. He cited ‘intrinsic aptitude’ to explain why fewer women go into the fields of science and engineering. Harvard, of all places, should know better about women’s contributions to science.”

[RWC] What an idiotic comment! For the sake of argument, let’s incorrectly assume Mr. Summers said what the PG claims. Even if it’s true the average male has greater scientific aptitude, that doesn’t exclude excellence by women. It would only mean more men would tend to be excellent in the field than women.

Here are real world examples. Political correctness aside, black men tend to excel at most of the skills required for basketball and football. Does that mean white men can’t display excellence? Of course not. Using the PG logic, acknowledging inherent abilities of black athletes would mean we’re ignoring the achievements of Larry Bird, Joe Montana, et cetera.

“But merely increasing the number of female and minority faculty at Harvard isn’t enough. They shouldn’t have to walk into a hostile environment. That’s why it’s equally important that Harvard also address issues of bias among the faculty.”

[RWC] Who said there’s a hostile environment? I’m not saying there is or isn’t, just that the editorial presents no evidence.

“Harvard’s proposed changes -- most of which are already in place at other colleges and universities -- include a recommendation that graduate students in science undergo gender bias awareness training before they take teaching assignments.”

[RWC] If the changes advocated by the PG are similar to those at Penn State, they amount to discrimination in favor of politically correct groups.

“Even with that, opportunities for women in academia still lag behind those for their male peers.

“At research universities, women account for only 17 percent of full professorships. At four-year liberal arts colleges, they make up 23 percent of full professorships; at two-year colleges, 42 percent.”

[RWC] As liberals are wont to do, the PG conflates “opportunity” with “outcome.” Using the PG’s logic, opportunities for white males in the NBA and NFL severely lag the opportunities of black males because white males are severely “underrepresented” – a favorite term of liberals – relative to their proportion of the general population.

Here’s another example. Are there few opportunities for male teachers in kindergarten and early grades just because women account for the overwhelming majority of these positions? What about nursing? Because men are “underrepresented” in these fields, should we automatically assume men attempting to enter these fields encounter “a hostile environment?”

“After announcing the $50 million initiative, Summers noted that ‘universities like Harvard were designed a long time ago, in many respects, by men and for men. To fully succeed on these issues we’re going to have to address issues of culture.’ It’s a different world now, even in Cambridge, Mass.”

[RWC] Even though he’s a liberal, I feel a little sorry for Summers. In an environment where diversity of ideas is supposed to be revered, liberals beat Summers down simply for opining that a politically incorrect position may be one of three possible explanations for female performance in technical fields.

1. Remarks at NBER Conference on Diversifying the Science & Engineering Workforce; Lawrence H. Summers; January 14, 2005.