So. The recent remarks by the president of Harvard created a brief flurry of press nationwide (and it may still be swirling up there in Boston). His actual remarks aren’t available as the conference where he was speaking “was designed to be off-the-record so that participants could speak candidly without fear of public misunderstanding or disclosure later” (quoted from this New York Times article). I guess that was only the case if you didn’t say anything too controversial.
From the reports I’ve read, he was asked to make a provocative speech to a lunchgroup. He spoke about the gender gap in the math, science, and engineering fields. The point of his speech, as I understand it, was that in addition to gender bias other possible causes should be studied. The three areas he suggested for examination are the amount of work required at the higher levels of the fields (80 hour work weeks and women with families probably don’t mix well), neurological differences between the genders, and the possible overinflation of the importance of gender bias in hiring.
Now as I understand it, he was suggesting areas for study and presenting the ideas of others, not his own (though even if he were, the context surrounding them should have outweighed any bigotry in the ideas) (and according to several sources others in attendance thought he was presenting provocative ideas to stir thought and research, not to be misogynistic). And as she comes from my alma mater, I have to quote Georgia State University economics professor Paula E. Stephan, who said, “I think if you come to participate in a research conference, you should expect speakers to present hypotheses that you may not agree with and then discuss them on the basis of research findings.”
Having read several articles now, I suspect it was M.I.T. biology professor Nancy Hopkins who broke the story as she was so upset by his remarks she walked out partway through and says she felt physically ill. I have no problem with her reaction. I do have an issue with her being so vocal in her objections as she did not listen to the whole speech and seems to have misinterpreted what was said.
She has stated she didn’t disagree with his ideas on the amount of work reauired. (Of course she then seemed to contradict that statement by presenting anecdotal evidence that she and her friends like to work that much. I can’t find info on whether or not she has a family (in which case her anecdotal evidence doesn’t apply), but I’ll give her the benefit of the doubt.) What irked her the most, was the way the ideas were presented. That, to me, is not a valid reason to force an apology from him and create such a storm (though admittedly one in a tea cup). If she had sat through the entire lecture, I would have less problem with her outcry (as I said, it is just conjecture that she kicked all of this off).
I would still have something of a problem as the conference was intended to be “off the record”. To that end, I think everyone should have just given a “no comment” response (then we’d know for sure who “leaked” the story).
Personally? I think there are neurological differences between the sexes. I also believe that any hurdle can be overcome. (I’m not saying that I do or do not consider the neurological differences to be a hurdle in this case, but if they are, I believe they can be surmounted.) All in all, it irks me how careful one must be nowadays in avoiding saying anything that might be interpreted as racist or biased. I’m not going any farther down that road tonight though or I might lose a number of friends.
Anyway.