Part of me is secretly delighted to watch the Harvard
president, Lawrence Summers, squirm under pressure from the
politically correct intelligentsia that academic institutions
like Harvard create. Another part of me, however, is sorry that
he caved under that pressure and apologized for making remarks
exploring the possibility that biological differences might
explain why women have not achieved as much as men in the fields
of math and science.
Mr. Summers was absolutely right to suggest that possibility, and
the MIT biologist Nancy Hopkins, who walked out after hearing his
remarks, certainly proved his point. A male scientist would have
stood up and challenged Mr. Summers, not scurry from the room in
an emotional huff.
If I ever had any doubt about the genetic difference between the
sexes, it was dispelled in the mid-1970s when I joined a play
group with other mothers at the Waterside complex on the East
Side. Most of us were older mothers, former career women and
totally free of stereotypical ideals about raising children.
Unsurprisingly, though no guns were allowed, the boys would play
with trucks and sticks or anything they could turn into a weapon.
The toddler girls always went for the stuffed animals and dolls
and talked to one another. As the mother of three boys and three
girls, I can testify to the innate behavior that bore out some
gender stereotypes.
When Mr. Summers made a similar observation about his daughter,
Ms. Hopkins got up and walked out. Apparently, the idea that
there may be physiological differences when it comes to how the
brain works is blasphemy to some academics.
So why are there more men than women in the top ranks of science
and math institutions? For that matter, why aren't there more
members of minority groups?
In 1997, the New York City Board of Education had a special Math
and Science Institute program at Stuyvesant High School. This
excellent program was designed to assist minority students
throughout the city pass the entrance exam to the elite math and
science high schools such as Stuyvesant, Bronx High School of
Science, and Brooklyn Tech.
For the next two summers and part of the fall of their
eighth-grade year, these select students attended intense courses
in math, science, and advanced English composition. They also
learned good study habits and other practical applications that
would help them succeed in high school.
My daughter had the good fortune to be in the program and was
accepted at Brooklyn Tech. She was also accepted at Staten Island
Tech, which is set to become Staten Island's first elite high
school, where admission will be only through the Specialized
Science High School Admissions test.
She opted instead to attend an all girls' school, St. John's
Villa Academy, which also had college-prep courses in math and
science. She performed exceedingly well and was part of an
advanced science and math discovery program at a local college.
She is now on the dean's list at St. John's University and is on
scholarship.
This young woman with a genius IQ, who gets 100s on physics and
calculus tests, does not particularly want to be a mathematician
or a scientist. A talented artist, she would rather find a career
in the arts. She has the brains and talent to excel in any career
she chooses, yet she is not attracted to the technology careers.
Mr. Summers did not say that women couldn't excel in those fields
but was provoking answers as to why they weren't seeking them.
Most women know that, given an equal opportunity for education,
we will perform as well or even better than men in most areas. A
century ago, Marie Curie surpassed her husband, Pierre, and all
her male colleagues in scientific achievements. The Nobel
Prize-winner was also a mother, who raised two daughters alone
after the premature death of Pierre, and endured greater
obstacles than American women face today at Harvard. I somehow
cannot picture this great scientist being the least bit offended
by anything Lawrence Summers had to say.
Women like Nancy Hopkins, and other feminists who are so offended
by the thought that women might differ from men in fundamental
ways, are revealing their contempt for their sex. The disdain for
woman as nurturer erupted during the feminist revolution of the
1960s. Housewifery and motherhood as career choices became
anathema, and only high-paying corporate positions or prestigious
science or technological careers were deemed worthy of pursuit.
Perhaps the question to be debated is not why aren't women
attracted to math and science careers, but why aren't the women
who put their families before their careers being valued for
their magnificent choice.