Constructive gadfly
Published on January 30, 2005 By stevendedalus In Politics

Must I stand accused of feminine hysteria in reacting to the chauvinist George Will who cynically attacked the MIT biology professor Nancy Hopkins for her “hysterical” reaction to Harvard’s president suggesting that genetics — “a gender difference in cognition” — helps explain the lack of women’s proclivity to science? Will promptly attributes the professor’s hysterics to the “solecism” on the part of Harvard’s Summers daring to offend “progressive sensibilities.” Not unlike the infamous Thomas Sowell, Will opportunistically exploits an honest rebuttal to an unsubstantiated view as offensive to “progressives.” Putting aside the female privilege of histrionics, Hopkins’ counter argument was that Summers perceived fifty percent of the brightest minds in America do not have the “right aptitude” for science. Granted she overstated her inference, to an equally overstated hypothesis fed into — surely not progressive — her scientific mind, nonetheless, there was merit in defending women’s intellectual ability.

In citing statistics of men overwhelmingly positioned in the scientific world, Will blatantly ignores that men have had a two thousand year head start. His premise is that human nature starts with a brain with built-in characteristics and therefore the natural proclivity of free, bright men turn to science and math. It is only in the past “several hundred years” that the “political left” has superimposed a “blank slate” whereupon nurture, not nature develops the mind. Neither, of course, is correct: human nature’s mind has nothing to do with gender, but does require the right genes or inner tools to assimilate variable nurtures and acculturation. Will’s statistic that men far excel women in science is as illogical as stating women in the US far outnumber Muslim women in science owing to natural proclivity, rather than lack of opportunity to nurture such skills.

King George of sophistry does not end it with this academic skirmish. He takes a quantum leap by sinuously deferring to Bush’s inaugural address in pontificating natural rights “dedicated to the idea of a nation, as Lincoln said, to the preposition that all men are created equal” as though it were born of the caveman and not the nourishing of “progressive” ideas throughout the ages. George Will has thus turned human history on its head by contending that nature simply holds up the sign of freedom and is there for the taking, except for women who have a different nature.

 

Copyright © 2005 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: January 30, 2005.

http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com

 

   


Comments
on Jan 31, 2005
I'm going to chime in and agree with you here, Steve. I think Will is off base on this, too. But only in a certain sense. If he had just stuck to the notion that rigorous academic freedom (as manifested in the free expression of ideas) inevitably clashes with political correctness, he'd have been OK. After all, we've got that fruitcake in Boulder saying we deserved 9/11- what Summers said was nothing compared to that.

Further, it was a woman who did all the actual mathematical grunt work that enabled Fermi to conduct the first controlled nuclear reaction - wish I could remember her name - and you'd think the Harvard President would be aware of that.

Cheers,
Daiwa
on Feb 02, 2005
Good to have you on board! I'm sure Will had to sleep on the couch after that article.
on Feb 02, 2005
If women are not in the math and sciences field, I would have to guess that its due in part to lack of interest. We certainly know there are brilliant women scientists and mathemeticians out there. Kevlar and whiteout were invented by women, amongst other things. For the president of Harvard and George Will to state there is some chromasomal reason for women to have a lack of aptitude in those fields is ludicrous.
on Feb 02, 2005
The issue of the gender gap in science has always puzzled me a bit... that is until I went to college and saw first-hand how they're attempting to "balance" the equation. I majored in IT. A predominantly male field. Now, in my major there were a LOT of girls... which is odd considering the normal ration you see in the workforce. At first I thought this was great! It meant that the gap was closing (and I would have a better chance at finding a date . However, after talking to a lot of the girls in my classes, I realized that almost none of them were there because they liked technology, this wasn't what they were passionate about (which IMO, you need to be to work in this field). They were in it because they thought it would pay well, or they had gotten scholarships and grants targeting women to get them into science (i.e. bribing them into a major).

I am inclined to believe that there are varrying interests between the genders. Be this a social influence or whatever. I however don't agree that there is a difference in apptitude. In terms of mental power, the playing field is level between genders. Where I now work, there are a fair share of women in the IT force, and they are damn good at what they do. They're good because they care, because this is what they enjoy.
on Feb 03, 2005
For the president of Harvard and George Will to state there is some chromasomal reason for women to have a lack of aptitude in those fields is ludicrous.
How right you are!
I am inclined to believe that there are varrying interests between the genders.
I agree, such as having children--which could dampen enthusiasm for tinkering with a math equation. Thank you for a very interesting response.