Why does the Washington Post’s Ruth Marcus agree with Larry Summers that women are genetically inferior to men?
December 7, 2008
by Dr. Nancy Hopkins
|Last week the Washington Post published Was Summers Right? by columnist Ruth Marcus. Dr. Nancy Hopkins submitted the following rebuttal, which the Post declined to publish.
Dr. Nancy Hopkins of MIT
In response to Summers’ remarks, the National Academy of Sciences, the premier scientific organization that advises the government, studied and concluded in a report, “Beyond Bias and Barriers,” that there is no evidence to date of cognitive differences between men and women that can explain the under-representation of women on math, science and engineering faculties. In contrast, there is substantial research that gender bias exists and can plausibly explain, in part, the under-representation of women at the high end of these fields. Greater family demands traditionally placed on women have been shown to play a significant role as well.
Since 2005 additional research has appeared on this topic: particularly relevant is a 2008 study by Mertz and colleagues in Notices of the American Mathematical Society showing that women with extreme math ability emerge in very different numbers in different countries. This proves that culture plays a major role in the identification and development of high-end math talent. The individuals identified in this study possess math ability found in only approximately 10-15% of the Harvard or MIT math faculty. They are off-scale, genius-type students. As the authors of this study wrote,
“since the frequency with which women with extreme math ability are identified is largely due to CHANGEABLE factors, their lack of a Y chromosome (i.e., the fact that they are not males) can NOT be the primary reason for their scarcity. In some countries the boy:girl ratio on IMO teams (teams which test extreme math ability) and in the Study of Exceptional Talent (a test in the US) in recent years are ~ 3:1. (i.e., three boys for every girl.) The ratio in a truly gender-neutral society, if one existed, would probably be even closer to 1:1 (ie equal). Thus, socio-cultural factors can explain most, if not all, of the scarcity of women with extreme math ability, math professors, chess grandmasters, etc. There is no need to hypothesize gender differences as the cause.”
So decades of research fail to support Summers’ hypothesis. Why then do we have yet another article — in a respected newspaper — still arguing for women’s genetic inferiority as a plausible explanation for the under-representation of women in math, science and engineering fields? Why is Ruth Marcus defending Larry Summers? Why would a woman defend this sexist bigotry? I’ll offer one explanation based on research and another on hypotheses.
Research from psychologists shows that both women and men undervalue women’s achievements. Here’s the type of experiment they did to address this: Take a manuscript and Xerox it. Put a man’s name on one copy and a woman’s name on the other and mail the two identical articles out to be evaluated. The judges will tell you that the man’s work is better than the woman’s. But here’s the even more surprising finding: both men AND women think the man’s work is better than the woman’s! So women are sexist too. When do men and women begin to acquire their beliefs about the roles of men and women? The latest research suggests by about 6 months of age! So yes, there is reason to believe that Ms. Marcus may really think that women are inferior to men.
And now for the hypotheses for which I have no data. Perhaps Ms. Marcus has not studied the complex literature on this subject well enough to understand it and that is why she misrepresents the findings so egregiously, particularly those about women with extreme math ability. Additionally, Larry Summers is about to arrive in D.C. to take a high level-position on Obama’s economic team. Is it possible that Ms. Marcus is trying to cozy up to a powerful figure?
What I can say with surety is that Ms. Marcus’s ideas about women’s inferiority have the potential to set women back to where we were before civil rights and affirmative action made it possible for women to get jobs in universities like Harvard at all. As for math faculties, though Ms. Marcus herself suggests that at least 32% of math professors could be women, it is worth noting that Harvard has never had a tenured female professor of mathematics in its 370-year history.
Dr. Nancy Hopkins is a co-founder of The New Agenda and a professor of molecular biology at MIT.
very good post- happy to see it- thanks.
Wapo is a coward for refusing to publish this rebuttal.
Dr. Hopkins:
Having read the transcript my conclusion is that, for reasons I do not understand, Dr. Summers was obviously trying to degrade women’s participation in math, science and higher end engineering. The social problem that spins out of this and other sexist commentary by public figures is that it makes it easier for us to accept the bias and feel comfortable.
Additionally, I think that most of us, like Ruth Marcus fail to see any relevance to “which elitist at Harvard gets which elite position”. Many of the vocal members of our republic seem to feel that women complain too much, or have gone too far in general. The emphasis tends to be on morality and/or fairness rather than the results that would be achieved if our society fully utilized the talent pool available to it.
It would be helpful If we could find ways to define the cost of this discrimination. The discovery and validation of new knowledge, the improvements and innovation in engineering build on top of what is already known or is in use. Expansion of this valuable mathematical, scientific and engineering knowledge base functions similar to expansion of an economy. A small increase in the Pace of Discovery is an upward bending curve that becomes a dramatic difference over time.
I do not have the capability to define or communicate the value that we are missing because of our gender bias. I am aware that the children of today and the people to be born tomorrow will have a less advantageous environment because of it.
Thank you for the difficult work you continue to do in this area. I hope and pray that collectively we will gain ground and increase the number of young girls born with exceptional intellects that receive the support and opportunities that their male peers do. I believe that our survival as a species depends on the Pace of Discovery.
Wonderful posts!
Neatly put, Dr. Hopkins!
I simply love the last line. May it be a wake up call to them. The New Agenda articles should be syndicated and reprinted in many papers.
Very good indeed. There is just nothing like real data. I am happy to see the New Agenda putting forth such good articles.
Dr. Hopkins and The New Agenda,
Wonderful article.
How can we get it into the public eye? Can you send it to other newspapers, other press and media outlets? It needs to move far beyond this website!!
Great piece Dr. Hopkins!
Rumor has it that Summers has retained a PR firm to help him “rehabilitate” his tarnished image. That would explain the recent press barage — many of which quote the same old sources.
As to Ms. Marcus, I think that Madeleine Albright said it best…
Marcus has likely been recruited to the clean-up crew for Summers. Great rejoinder, Dr. Hopkins, and it should have been published by WaPo.
The affirmative action shown to males in science is totally responsible for the elevated position that they have achieved. Both encouragement (males) and exclusion (females) explain performance.
But another phenomenon here – the rewarding of men who have participated in the financial deregulation that has sunk the U.S. economy – Summers being the premier example. Where are the rewards for (female) Brooksley Born – who fought with Summers in the 1990’s and was proven right – or for (female) Sheila Bair, currently the only govt. official trying to address foreclosures.
It’s worse than giving the boys first chances for success – this is giving boys second chances after failure.
Nancy, thanks again for your wonderful insight. I’m a bit more cynical. I personally think that some journalists specialize in controversial headlines and positions to become better known. I actually don’t blame the journalist for this if they don’t lie about the facts. Rather it is the public who takes uninformed opinions seriously that I blame.
The data are interesting and if one accepts extremes in scores in math as a measure of broad-based genetic superiority, then one must also accept that Americans are genetically inferior as well. In a few countries female students outscore male students in math exams, but females students in many more countries outscore male U.S. students. Should one conclude that males (and females) in the U.S. are genetically inferior in mathematics than females in these countries?
I’m afraid that Marcus’ comments have now led to a flood of blogs by anti-feminist men who now feel that their sexist beliefs are validated. Although the research shows that both men and women have unconscious bias against women, the fact is that there are people who really don’t like women, particularly if they are in nontraditional jobs or specialties. My blog yesterday was written in tears about the Montreal Massacre of December 6, 1989 where a anti-feminist gunman shot down 14 women at a university in Montreal, most of them engineering students.
Thank you for this. I will be posting it where my students can read it.
Dr. Hopkins
What an excellent piece and what a shame that The Washington Post did not print it. I am curious if you sent it to any other major media outlets for publication? I hope so.
Thank you.
I’ve got it! We need to point out to Wapo that Marcus is not fit to write and comment – it needs a man.
LOL Dulcy!
Thanks for making me laugh….
Could we raise enough money to print this in WAPO? I hate to give them $$$, but would like to see that this point of view is heard and make the point that WAPO was unwilling to post.
Anyone know how much it would cost?
Please don’t strengthen an absurd meme by attributing it to Summers — which will cause some people to defend the meme. Summers is respected by many; whenever we tie this meme to Summers, we’re giving it his authority.
You completely misrepresented Ruth Marcus’ position in this article.
I watched a number of my fellow MIT graduates attempt to break into the oh so exclusive world of tenured professors of engineering, math and sciences. Anyone who believes that pure and blatant sexism is not a component of the underrepresentation of women as professors of the “hard sciences” is delusional. The world of investment banking looks enlightened versus the academic world.
Hi fsteele have you read the transcript of Summers’ speech? Please do. Absurd indeed. but possibly not quite the way you contend.
Denise and others: Dec 6 was the anniversary of the 1989 slaughter of 14 women engineering students at the Polytechnique in Montreal Quebec. It is Canada’s most prestigious school of engineering. Fourteen others were also shot but did not die. Their fellow student Marc Lepine mowed them down, screaming that feminists were taking his place. He had not made the cut to advance to grad school.
To this day, pundits refuse to name it misogyny.
[...] wearing gold.An almost all-male Cabinet. A speechwriter who thinks sexual assault is funny. A senior advisor who’s on record with his belief that innate inferiority, not discrimination, is what’s [...]
[...] wearing gold.An almost all-male Cabinet. A speechwriter who thinks sexual assault is funny. A senior advisor who’s on record with his belief that innate inferiority, not discrimination, is what’s [...]
Leave your Response
Supporting women.
Ending sexism.
Finding common ground.
We’re in the Media »
Click to see our latest stories in the media
More Stories »Recent Comments
The Latest from our Blog
Archives
Blogroll
Find the New Agenda Online
Subscribe Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS)
The New Agenda is a 501(c)(4) organization dedicated to improving the lives of women and girls by bringing about systemic change in the media, at the workplace, at school and at home. More...