History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.
In a revision of an article that first appeared in Counterpunch, John H. Summers of Harvard asks"Why Do Historians Ignore Noam Chomsky?" David Salmonson rightly suggests, I think, that Summers ought to have read our colleague, Tim Burke's"Readings and Re-Readings." His arbitrary dismissal of norms of facticity, his lack of primary research, his invoking of"world public opinion" as if he, uniquely, is attuned to it, and his idiosyncratic generalizations about the gap between theory and practice generally leave historians unimpressed with Chomsky's work.
Here's another article of some depth, proving (not surprisingly) that the internet and The Harvard Crimson are better sources of news than the Boston Globe, which continues to march in ideological lockstep with its parent, the New York Times Company.
William Saletan has an interesting article on this at Slate, along the lines of cognitve psychologist Steven Pinker. Saletan puts some of the emphasis where it belongs: in the greater variance in male math scores. This greater variance, which occurs at both ends of the distribution, has some remarkable implications at the higher end. Throughout much of the distribution (say, from the female mean forward), the male to female frequency ratios at each score don't depart that much from 1:1.
But at the very upper tip of the distributions, we start to encounter (as a product mostly of this greater variance) what biologists call extraordinary sex ratios, where the male to female frequency ratios skyrocket (though both are very small in absolute numbers). Since the hypothesis was that this could help explain sex ratios at the very top of the science and engineering fields, this would seem to be a not impossible empirical question -- if you could actually collect the data.
Steven Pinker of Harvard has some particularly intelligent things to say on the issue -- particularly intelligent, no doubt, inasmuch as I agree with them (implied smiley):
First, I don't assume that proportions of females in the sciences are determined by genes (tout court), nor have I seen anything written or said by Summers to that effect -- that is a straw man. Nor have I seen or read him write off hiring practices. The gender difference hypothesis is offered as one of many possible factors that should be researched. That is a far cry from assumption.
Secondly, I applaud those women who argue the issue, rather than merely expressing their psychological state response and pulling the power play of stomping out of the conference. I accept that socialization, prejudice, and discrimination accounts for some, perhaps most, of the disproportion. There are other factors, like taking breaks for childbirth. I just don't believe that one can rule out beforehand that gender differences play a significant role, even if only a minor significant role. That is my objection -- the declaration of an area of research beyond the pale. On that score, I'm remarkably unmoved by the "offense industry".
Strangely, I'm not offended by the hypothesis that women have certain greater verbal abilities. I suspect that, as your post suggests, they are less offended by the hypothesis than what they feel is the motivation behind it, or the uses to which it could be put.
You're certainly entitled to attribute motives to Summers -- I certainly attributed motives to Hopkins. In either case, we have no direct access to motives, so both our claims stand on equally shakey foundations. Either or both of us may be right or wrong.
I offer the response of Linda D. Wayne as an example of the kind of arguments offered against gender cognitive differences. Note how the ground of dispute is switched from the empirical question to politics. Hmm. I have news for her. Empirical questions aren't decided by politics in a free country.
Richard, you certainly seem to feel the need to back yourself up on a non-issue. The science hasn't got a damned thing to do with Summers, except that he's tried to use it as an excuse for not hiring women. No one is arguing that some people are more naturally inclined or genetically gifted in certain areas than others. I doubt that any of the women you so snidely dismissed because they registered their disapproval loudly and clearly would agree with that general theory, so you can just back the hell off it and deal with the real underlying issues.
Because you clearly can't see past your scientifically determined support for Summers' sexist comments, let me try to clarify --
Summers' comments are offensive to many people, male and female, not because they are bleeding heart liberals, but because he tries to write off hiring policies and employment practices by citing genetic difference. I can see saying that fewer women are hired in the sciences because proportionately fewer women are in the pool. But to assume that the proportions are determined by our genes is just misleading. By trying to make it a "natural" issue, Summers (and you, in your comments) ignores such other factors as a general expectation among academics, especially in the sciences, that women will be less productive than men because they are less willing to lead the kind of unbalanced -- and ultimately unhealthy -- lifestyles that male scientists have been leading for years, often on the backs of their spouses who hold the home front together. It also ignores the fact that there are disproportionate numbers of women in math-science departments in smaller 4-years and community colleges -- the department at my own school is pretty typical -- about 75% women, some PhDs. Basically, it ignores the fact that the academy, especially in the sciences, has been painfully reluctant to change with the times and reflect in its makeup the demographics of the students (non-traditionals, people of color, single working mothers, etc.). Summers merely uses science as an excuse to prop up hiring practices rooted in the happy world of the then-new GI Bill, if not before. Shame on him for not addressing the real issues, and shame on you for buying into and defending his argument.
Richard Henry Morgan -
1/19/2005
Here's the address of Prof. Kimura's page at Simon Fraser University. That FRSC means she's a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada -- the Canadian version of the FRS. Apparently, being a woman hasn't stopped her from achievement in the field of science. Nor has it stopped her from concluding there are hormonal influences on cognitive functioning and ability. She seems particularly enamored with the idea of equal opportunity and merit hiring. Given Prof. Hopkins' reaction to President Summers' thoughts, it would probably put Hopkins into a catatonic state to learn that her own institution, MIT, sees merit in Kimura's work, and has in fact published her work.
I would add that all this is terribly complicated by the effects of prenatal hormone levels, which have to be separated from straight genetic effects, which have to be separated from nurture ...
The straight genetic effects may be so small as to be hardly significant in comparison to the others. In any case, no policy implications flow directly from the question, nor from any answer, any more than the fact that whites are more prone to skin cancer implies a policy that they should be banned from surfing.
Richard Henry Morgan -
1/19/2005
I'm not wedded to the expression "spazzed out". So I'll ask, just what would you call a woman so dispossessed by the very mention of the hypothesis of differential cognitive abilities by gender that she felt compelled to leave or she would have "blacked out or thrown up" -- drama queen?
I'm not a big fan of professional Texans, professional Irishmen, professional ... any number of things, including professional feminists. I salute the gal who stayed there and duked it out, rather than the one who attempted to put the whole question beyond the pale. That's just me. BTW, unlike the Boston Globe, the NY Times article quoted several female academics there who didn't feel at all threatened by the question. you can access it through volokh.com, which had some intelligent comments on the matter.
Julie A Hofmann -
1/19/2005
I'm not sure that the Asperger's correlation works that well -- has there been any other study done to see what kind of math skills the mothers of autistic and asperger's kids have? Perhaps it's related to a recessive math competence gene -- who knows? This is not glibness. The one kid I know who's been diagnosed autistic and is super good in math -- he's six and can compute with three- and four digit figures in his head -- does these math problems with his mom, who's almost as fast as he is. I'm just saying, most of us know that correlation does not necessarily equal causality.
As for people "spazzing out" -- What's wrong with simply saying that they were offended? Why is that unreasonable?
Regarding gross physical differences -- many of the ones you mention are simply skeletal. I'm not sure that brain difference is as measurably different.
Oscar Chamberlain -
1/19/2005
Richard, I don't think "spazzed out" is the height of diplomacy here. Nor is it fair. Given the context of the discussion, and Summer's post it was reasonable to consider that his raising of the "biological card" suggested a long-term desire to consider abandoning rememdies for the inequities in the field.
Summers' remarks were particularly problematic because the biological evidence is, to put it mildly, weak. Your athletic analogy also does not hold because while there are some areas in which the males have retained the same lead, there are others--in particular distance running--where the gap has shrunk considerably and could continue to shrink. Can you say which is the better analogy?
This does not mean that it is impossible that there are gender-related advanatages in some mental skills. But given the fact that it has been only thirty years or so since our society began systematically to undo centuries (if not millenia) of discrimination, I think the assumption has to be that equality is an obtainable norm unless there is clear evidence to the contrary.
Richard Henry Morgan -
1/19/2005
No, I wouldn't think so.
I also understand the reaction some have to his remarks. But it seems to me that Summers was really quite cautious. He didn't list it as the the most likely explanation, and only offered it as an hypothesis (it may be an explanation). Yet several women spazzed out. The proposition dealt with those at the top of their fields, not the ability to function in the field. Certainly interruptions in a career for children could have an effect, as could small differences in cognitive function. Still, success in the sciences isn't a straight-line function of cognitive ability.
Interestingly, nobody seems to dispute that males have an advantage at playing basketball, for instance. They tend to be larger, and stronger, and faster, and college women basketball players blow their anterior cruciate ligaments at a rate close to six times that of men (for reasons of physiological geometry). Yet when one mentions cognitive differences, the gaskets blow.
Summers is a really bright guy. And Freeman is a top notch labour economist, famous for his work demonstrating the benefits to society from labour union membership. They're not exactly retrogressive males of the first rank. But when I read that the future head of UC Santa Cruz walked out, I can't say I was surprised -- wouldn't that be a condition for employment there?
Still more interestingly, the parallel subject apparently wasn't raised. Given gender differences in cognitive function and ability, aren't males over-represented in the humanities? Now why isn't that addressed? I suspect it's because guys, though a numerical minority, still wield disproportionate social power.
Julie A Hofmann -
1/19/2005
Presumably, though, if a woman has managed to earn a PhD in a field, it wasn't because her male peers were playing with a handicap ...?
Richard Henry Morgan -
1/19/2005
I have a little more sympathy for the President of Harvard. There are neurophysiological differences between men and women, some of them probably rooted in genetic differences.
Decades ago, Norman Geschwin, of Harvard Medical School, pointed out that the extraordinary high math scores are disproportionately associated with males who suffer from early onset myopia (the early onset seeming to disqualify the influence of nurture). He hypothesized that extraordinary math ability is a sex-linked gene, and like other developmental anomalies (which are disproportionately suffered by males), stems from the fact that the Y chromosome is essentially an incomplete X chromosome. For instance, Asperger's Syndrome (an autism spectrum disorder) is often associated with extraordinary math abilities, and males suffer from it more than females. I'm working here from reading I did about two decades ago, so I might have some of the details wrong.
There are gross physiological differences. The corpus collosum in the female is significantly larger. PET scans reveal less focalization of function in females. They tend to score higher in verbal tests.
Recent research has demonstrated that women score highest in math and spatial tests when, during their cycle, their androgens are at the greatest ratio to estrogens. This may be a confounding variable though, because they also test higher when their iron levels are higher.
As far as I know, there hasn't (and I understand why -- I don't think a human subjects committee would approve) been any experiments to see if male scores in math decline when injected with female hormones. I hope this doesn't confirm my reputation as a Neanderthal. I don't think these findings should be a basis for favoring male candidates.
I guess that's why I do History -- because women are not naturally inclined to do the hard subjects like math and science.
Robert L. Campbell -
1/18/2005
Gotta watch the scope on those quotes...
That should be the "Gulf Park episode" in October.
Robert Campbell
Robert L. Campbell -
1/18/2005
Ralph,
While most of my recent coverage of the Shelby Thames regime at the University of Southern Mississippi has dealt with gross mismanagement by a politically connected president, there have been academic freedom issues at USM since Thames tried to fire Frank Glamser and Gary Stringer last March.
Two professors at the Gulf Park campus (Joe Pat Smith and Will Watson) have been given orders in writing by their Provost not to make public comments about a plan to convert the third floor of the USM-Gulf Park library into a conference center. This is being done to serve an Executive MBA program that was just dreamed up by GP's "Chief Operating Officer," Ken Malone. (With no discernible input from USM's College of Business, I mighta add.)
The written orders not to comment on the plan follow the "Gulf Park" episode in October when Malone barged into Diane Stevenson's classroom and interrogated students about remarks she had allegedly made about his plan to replace most Gulf Park classes with online instruction.
I will try to stay on top of this story at Liberty and Power.
Robert Campbell
Ralph E. Luker -
1/18/2005
Yikes! There's a rumpus in the conclave! A rupture in the collegium!
Robert KC Johnson -
1/18/2005
Ralph--an "uncollegial" remark!! I'll have to call for your dismissal from Cliopatria :)
