This article by The New Agenda’s Nancy Hopkins is published at MORE.com and also featured in the Cheat Sheet at The Daily Beast.
Hopkins, an MIT professor, walked out when the president of Harvard implied that women scientists were innately less talented than male ones. Now, the Nobel Prizes give her the last laugh.
It’s been a spectacular week for women in science, and a bad week for “the Larry Summers hypothesis.” In 2005, while president of Harvard, he suggested that women are inherently worse than men at math, science and engineering, …

(Nancy’s piece has been picked up by Politicker NY.)
The New Agenda has expressed excitement that several 2010 gubernatorial races may shape up to be a female Democrat vs. a female Republican (Oklahoma, New Mexico, Florida), because perhaps then the contest can be about issues rather than hairdos and ankles. But what’s shaping up to be a female vs. female competition in the New York Democratic Senate primary is more complex.
U.S. Sen. Gillibrand
The fight is for the U.S. Senate Seat now held by Kirsten Gillibrand, appointed by Gov. Patterson to fill …

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 MITIn 2005, Harvard University’s President Larry Summers proposed that women are genetically inferior to men at the high end of the ability spectrum in math, science and engineering. Summers said this is the second most important reason women are under-represented on the faculties of elite universities in these fields. Summers got into trouble for his ideas because decades of …