Genetics Is Only A Red Herring

Okay, my earlier efforts to address this topic via scorn and derision are, I think, inadequate. From the right, my friend Tommy Lee points to some research purportedly backing Summers up. From the left, Professor B. observes in comments that "Men sitting around and not objecting to this shit is really infuriating." So here goes and here's the thing: Empirical research into genetics is only a red herring.

Under the circumstances, given the forum, and given Summers' role, the purpose of these remarks was clearly not to make a contribution to the field of cognitive science or genetics. Rather, the purpose of these remarks was to deflect pressure to redress purported bias or sexism in math, physical science, and engineering at Harvard and elsewhere. The relevant issue here, then, is not whether or not there is or is not some evidentiary support for the claim that, on average, women are less able at math than men. Rather, the issue here is whether or not there exists evidence of this sort that's sufficient to defeat the claim that universities and university administrators have a duty to take action to redress bias or sexism in the relevant fields.

To make this clear, let's consider the state of play in the hypothetical universe of PinkerWorld. In this delightful land, most -- but not all -- professors of physics are men. At the same time, most -- but not all -- newspaper op-ed columnists are women. Some men in the punditry business feel they've been mistreated on account of their gender, but most disagree. Similarly, some women in the field of physics complain of discrimination, but most disagree. Someone wonders: Why this disparity? At this point, it might make good sense for a university president or newspaper owner to observe that some research exists suggesting that, on average, women perform better on tests of verbal intelligence while men perform better on tests of certain aspects of mathematical intelligence. Perhaps nothing untoward is happening and this is just the way things shake out, in much the way that certain East African countries seem dramatically overrepresented among the world's elite long-distance runners. People differ, and when you're talking about performance at the very highest levels, small differences in native endowments can have major consequences.

But, obviously, we don't live in PinkerWorld and if you look at the named being bandied-about as replacements for Bill Safire it's clear that we'll continue not to live there for quite some time.

Instead, in the real world women are systematically underrepresented in leading roles at virtually all levels of American society across virtually all fields of endeavor. Women aren't underrepresented on physics faculties because they're all off being at the top of other, more verbally-oriented fields.

On the specific point about whether or not women in math/science/engineering face sexism, I can't speak from a wealth of personal knowledge or a deep familiarity with the data. I can say that the last time I was engaged in vaguely rigorous technical work was high school when I was consistently in the "difficult" math and science tracks. In all of these classes but one, the teachers were male, and, at times, it was clear that the female students were being treated in a sexist manner in all of those courses except the one taught by a woman. This was clear to me even though it wasn't something I was particularly going out of my way to watch for except insofar as I'm a liberal blue America kind of dude who'd been exposed to a lot of feminist ideas over the years. The other course was taught by a woman who was perhaps my least-favorite teacher from the high school years, while the others were mostly taught by excellent people who did mostly excellent teaching and mostly didn't do anything wrong. But nobody's perfect and occassional bouts of sexism are a pretty common flaw among basically decent, intelligent, largely well-meaning men, much as we may like to be in denial about it. Over the years, the number of female students who remained on the top track in math and science consistently dwindled. The causes of this were, no doubt, varied. But did the occassional, yet consistent, episodes of sexism from the male teachers really have nothing to do with it? Let's just say I have my doubts.

And when you have a situation like this, it tends to re-enforce itself and get worse over time. As you move up and up the scale you start moving in spheres that are more-and-more male dominated. Sexist behavior then tends to proliferate, or at least become more salient. On top of that, problems that wouldn't be a big deal if you had lots of sympathetic peers become more difficult to deal with. You're surrounded by a lot of, say, Larry Summers types who probably aren't out there actively discriminating against women, but who are also deaf to the validity of these complaints and the reality of the problem.

That's all a bit speculative and, obviously, extrapolated from a very limited experience with the American education system. But women in the physical sciences and engineering pretty consistently report that this is their experience. It's also merely commonsensical that pretty ordinary people do bad things sometimes, and that, as a special case of that, pretty ordinary men sometimes behave as sexists and that, therefore, women who make their way over the course of a life in a field where men outnumber women by a huge margin will face a lot of sexism over the years and that this will tend to push them into doing other things. Harvard's relative lack of female science professors probably isn't charged by some group of men sniggering in a back room going, "can't give her tenure -- she's only a girl!" but it is related to larger issues of sexism in the world, in the university, and in the fields of math and science. Some kind of difference in innate endowment may well be present, but to maintain that it's presence is so overwhelming as to exclude other factors is inane.

And all this is without getting into the structural issues related to work, family, social expectations, etc. I won't get into that since there's lots of good books you can read on the subject if you want and most readers probably have more personal knowledge of these issues than I do.

At any rate, this business about sexism is really pretty obvious if you think about it. On one level, I think the anathematization of sexism helps facilitate male self-deception on this topic. Lots of men who'd be happy to say about themselves, "hey, I think I'm basically a good person and I think my friends are basically good people, but at times I've been less considerate than I should have been" are weirdly unwilling to concede that they, their male friends, and, in general, men like them are at times more sexist than they should be. For a good example on a pretty different topic see Ezra Klein's classist dismissal of a recent Maureen Dowd column. He employs a form of argument I saw coming from a lot of male, liberal bloggers. Something along the lines of "well, sure, some men do that, but those are the knuckle-dragging brutes, we intellectuals are above such things." The Dowd piece had some real flaws, but one ought to think harder before constructing those sorts of self-serving theories.

To summarize a very long post:

• Genetic, gender-linked differences in some forms of mathematical ability? My non-expert's understanding is that, yes, they're there, along with genetic, gender-linked differences in some other intelligence metrics.
• No sexism in academia or the sciences? Not bloody likely.

Up next: Watch American Idol.