A Fuss Over Nothing
We all believe that women and men are, and should be considered, equals. But where should feminists draw the line in the quest for equality? Should they compromise academic inquiry by assuming that men and women are equal in every way? Recent suggestions that there could be a difference between men and women’s aptitude for science have been met with an incomprehensible level of outrage.
I am happy to be called a feminist, yet I am reluctant to join the reactionary ranks of feminists who seem narrow- minded in their responses to the scientific aptitude question, and I fear the implications of their behaviour for academic enquiry. The controversy in question arose as Harvard President Lawrence Summer addressed his fellow Arts and Science faculty members at a conference in January.
Considering that there are many fewer female than male applicants for top-level science jobs, Summer suggested that this isn’t just to do with social factors but may be attributable to “issues of intrinsic aptitude, and particularly of the variability of aptitude.” This suggestion was, by Summer’s own admission, designed to provoke: raising a question to be further discussed and investigated. Summer’s suggestion is naturally controversial: there is no evidence yet to support it.
Thus it is as valid, if not more so, to suggest that the reasons for female underrepresentation in science are related to the challenges facing women in juggling a high-powered career with family demands, than that, as early as school age, science is more the domain of boys than girls. Summer’s comments were bound to be greeted with raised eyebrows, differing from the usual reasons cited for science’s gender imbalance.
But one of the fantastic things about the cutting edge of academia, in an institution such as Oxford or Harvard, is that there should be scope for raising controversial, yet legitimate academic questions and pushing the boundaries. For such efforts to be greeted with the furore seen in Harvard poses serious danger for the freedom of academic inquiry.
So why did Harvard’s feminists react so strongly to Summer’s comments? Perhaps they were fearful of the repercussions should his comments be taken out of context, serving to propagate undesirable, unfounded attitudes and damaging expectations of male and female academic performance.
However, the excessive reactions of many Harvard professors, including several women storming out of his lecture amid cries such as ‘I’m going to be sick,’ may in fact have produced exactly the outcome such professors were fearful of. The ensuing media frenzy and much-publicised vote of no confidence have served to create the impression that some dastardly Harvard professor made callous, sexist assertions that men are better than women.
To this, some may react with disgust, others with a deepening of sexist opinions – both undesirable.It must also be remembered that Summer is not an ordinary professor – as Harvard President he is in a position of authority and must be aware that controversial comments he makes will attract more attention than most.
Speaking to The Oxford Student, Baroness Susan Greenfield, an eminent figure in the Oxford University’s Pharmacology department, emphasised the importance of the sensible judgement of senior figures. “The more senior you are, the more cautious you have to be,” she said. “What you say has to be what you really believe and has to be watertight.”
I concede that Summer didn’t exercise the wisest judgement, but he apologised and, as Baroness Greenfield observed, the reaction of his fellow professors was surprising and excessive. The fact of the matter is that Summer raised a legitimate academic question he hoped to be debated. I’d like to think if a professor made similar remarks in Oxford, academics would not flounce out of the room like petulant children.
Instead the appropriate response, which does far more justice to the feminist cause, would be to be displeased with the prospect of this being true, but to be openminded and rational. The responsible thing to do is to try to disprove this statement, as Summer invited people to do, not to assert that this must be sexist, and never discussed. The situation in Harvard does not just reflect badly on feminism’s place in academia. It also threatens the very pursuit of knowledge itself.
If people can’t discuss these sorts of controversial matters at an institution the calibre of Harvard, then what hope have we for ever furthering our knowledge in any area that carries a whiff of controversy? Harvard professor Ruth Wisse emphasised the potential implications of this matter: “This is a university, which is in the business of looking for the truth,” she said.
“If you look for truth in situations you very often make statements which are not popular with people and sometimes even offend people. This is an attempt to impose a code of speech on the university and I think it is very regrettable.” Can anyone really disagree with Professor Wisse? The comments made by Summer were controversial; of course we wouldn’t want them to be misconstrued. But surely this risk is par for the course, and is not reason enough to stifle genuine academic debate.
Professor Summer’s comments were provocative; he acknowledged as much. Yet I cannot help feeling disappointed that some of the most scholarly feminists responded to this provocation with near-hysteria, rather than a willingness to further our knowledge, without which all academic fields would be static and meaningless. How sad that they have managed to both undermine open-minded feminists everywhere, and to threaten freedom of academic inquiry by making a fuss about nothing.
This risk of misinterpretation and overreaction is inherent to cutting-edge inquiry, and academics should not make sweeping assertions that could encourage such reactions. But, equally, when it comes to controversial suggestions such as those relating to differing gender aptitudes, there is always an element of risk.
28th Apr 2005