Unintended Consequences
Let's give Larry Summers credit for one thing: his remarks on women in science really have set off far-reaching discussions, and much good will come out of them. (One just wishes that this result could have happened without all the concurrent damage.)
The Times has an important
piece today that broadens the issue beyond women, Harvard, and science. Karen W. Arenson's article, "Little Advance is Seen in Ivies' Hiring of Minorities and Women," shows just how pervasive and knotty a problem this is. The crucial graf, to my mind, is this:
"The problem in hiring members of minorities, Professor Ehrenberg said, is that the pool of candidates 'just isn't that large.' He said that under-represented minorities earned only 6.5 percent of all Ph.D.'s granted from 1989 to 1993, and that the percentages in the arts and sciences and engineering were even lower. More than 40 percent of the doctorates earned by blacks were in education."
I don't know enough to explain this paucity, and although I have some opinions, I don't want to be provocative just for the sake of being provocative. But I can say from my time spent reporting
Harvard Rules that this is a real problem. It's fascinating to attend a Harvard commencement and see a remarkably diverse audience of graduates and families; it feels like an academic Epcot Center. But look up on the official stage, and you see a horde of old white men. (A situation which has gotten worse under Summers, who doesn't have a single black or Latino or Asian at a high-level post in his administration.)
The obviousness of the disparity is so great, Summers can't help but see it. Why hasn't he done anything about it? One explanation holds that Summers cares about meritocracy, not diversity. Is there really a contradiction between the two?
