Okay, I have now done something that most of the people calling for Harvard President Lawrence Summers’ head have not done – I have read the transcript of his actual comments at the NBER Conference on Diversifying the Science & Engineering Workforce. If you recall, this controversial speech included remarks some took as suggesting that women simply lack the same aptitude for science and tech that men do. At the time – before the transcript was available – I speculated that “the whole debacle [was] one part misunderstanding and ten parts righteous PC indignation.” (Review my original blog.)

Now we can all read what Summers actually said and draw what I hope will be more intelligent conclusions. Did he say that women lack the same aptitude as men? Well, kinda – drawing on a substantial body of information and research he pointed to factors that suggest the possibility of biological differences between the genders as one component of a much larger problem. He also acknowledged the powerful effect of socialization (while at the same time noting research indicating that the socialization effect is frequently overstated) and manifest inequalities in the dynamics of high-powered academic and professional environments, which routinely place an unfairly greater burden on women.

Furthermore:

• he makes clear that he’s raising questions and not pronouncing truth (in what strikes me as a clear attempt to generate productive discussion on the issue, a stark contrast to what we saw from his detractors, legions of whom sought to stifle discussion without even reading the full text of his remarks);
• he is unequivocal in his insistence that the inequities are very real and entirely unacceptable; and
• he makes clear his commitment to solving the problem – he is determined to do whatever must be done to provide a level playing field for women seeking to establish themselves in scientific and technical endeavors in academia.

So there’s a quick summary of how I read Summers’ remarks.

Now Summers is taking steps we might alternately interpret a couple ways: either A) he is acting in accordance with his initial impulse to further the discussion of the issues in question, or B) he is acting to appease the howling dogs of political correctness. According to the Chronicle of Higher Education: “In a letter to the faculty released with the statement, Mr. Summers said that his remarks had ‘substantially underestimated the impact of socialization and discrimination’ on the gender gap and that he ‘should have left such speculation to those more expert in the field.’ He said he wants to focus on moving forward to encourage girls and women to pursue science at the highest levels.”

Well, first, I’m not sure he either underestimated or overestimated anything in that speech – his remarks on socialization, as noted above, both acknowledged its power and pointed to an independent body of research in noting its limits. Second, there is speculation and there is informed speculation, and Summers’ comments do not read like the opinioneering of a drooling halfwit.

My initial take was that the rage against Summers was not about knowledge or science, but was instead a politically-motivated power play – why waste time winning an argument when you can simply intimidate those you disagree with into laying down without a fight? It’s not a new ploy, it’s not a new dynamic, and it’s not anything I haven’t seen up close and in person any number of times in my own career. It’s also not honest and it’s not about a good-faith search for the truth. I understand the motivations behind the strategy, and at times I even share the goals – and anybody who knows me can tell you that I’m an ends-justifies-the-means kinda guy, all day every day.

That said, having now had the opportunity to read the speech, I stand by my initial guess as to what was happening. Whatever Summers’ motivations for his actions right now, and whatever the motivations of those I have criticized here (and elsewhere), I do sincerely hope the outcome results in improved opportunities for women in research environments such as the one over which Summers is privileged to preside. I’m a big fan of everybody getting a fair shot, and ultimately I’m more concerned with the results than the tactics used to achieve them.