Nancy Hopkins Tells Her Side of the Story
In the March/April issue of the MIT Faculty Newsletter, biologist Nancy Hopkins writes a lengthy (eight-page) explanation of her decision to walk out of Larry Summers' NBER speech. For all those who've written or thought that Hopkins is hysterical, over-emotional, et al, this essay is a must-read. Unfortunately, I can't link to it, because it's on a password-protected site. (A little bird—not Hopkins—sent it to me.)
Hopkins begins with some background on the issue of gender in science, detailing her own experience with a committee that investigated the problem at MIT. "The resulting 150-page report presented vivid evidence of how women professors enter science believing that gender discrimination is a thing of the past, but, as they approach the age of the men in power, suffer marginalization and day-in and day-out biases. These small inequities, as they accumulate, make doing science and attaining top positions much more difficult for women."
She then moves on to the NBER conference, and writes this (italics added):
"Summers told the NBER audience that he would offer three hypotheses to explain the under-representation of women in tenured positions on the faculties of leading universities, particularly in the fields of science, math, and engineering. As set forth in the transcript of his remarks, the three, in order of importance, were: 1. Women's family responsibilities and unwillingness to work the 80 hour week it takes to get to the top; 2. Differences in "intrinsic aptitude" between men and women; and 3. Socialization and discrimination in hiring. Summers dismissed the third hypothesis as unimportant, saying that we overestimate the impact of socialization, and that market forces would work to remove gender bias in hiring within academia. As Summers continued, I became convinced that these hypotheses were in fact his personal beliefs.
To those who work in this field, and to many women who worked their way to the top of elite science or engineering, Summers' comments were astonishing because: a) they ignore decades of research that have already disproven much of what he said; and b) they embody the very attitudes that constitute gender bias and that have been shown to hold women back. "
Hopkins then tackles the idea, put forward by Summers' defenders, that dismay over his remarks is misguided, a sad example of political correctness, and a threat to academic freedom (italics hers):
"Were Summers merely a professor in the field who wanted to advance the genetic inferiority of women to do math and science at elite universities, the processes that accompany academic freedom and enable the academy ultimately to discover the truth would kick in. The speaker would be required to present data...ideas would be tested and those found wanting would ultimately be weeded out. But the President is not a researcher in the field, and the processes associated with academic freedom of faculty to do research do not pertain when he speaks. Summers is the boss. His words are the pronouncements and opinions of Harvard University."
Finally, Hopkins writes about the press reaction to her walk-out and subsequent criticisms of Summers' remarks.
"[Hard] to understand, at first, are certain Harvard faculty critics, particularly our former colleague Steven Pinker, who has portrayed me in the press as being opposed to academic debate and inquiry (The New Republic , February 14, pg 15, 2005).... Why would Steve imply such an obvious untruth? Some Harvard faculty told me that Pinker and his popular-press book The Blank Slate were the source for Summers' NBER comments. Having now read the poorly reasoned and unsupported section on gender in Pinker's book, this seems likely. If so, Pinker's defense of Summers makes sense. In fact I think he owes Summers an apology. But he owes me one as well. Ironically, Harvard psychologist Professor Elizabeth Spelke and I were scheduled to debate with Pinker on the Charlie Rose show about research in biology, genetics, and psychology that debunks Pinker's views, but Pinker backed out. The show was cancelled because, they told me, they could not find a psychologist to take Pinker's viewpoint who was willing to appear. "
I'd be curious to hear Pinker's side of this, but if he really did back out of appearing on the Charlie Rose Show, that's not confidence-inspiring.
Finally, Hopkins asks why this incident seems to have taken such a hold on the public imagination. She concludes: "I think the fascination with this story is that we may be witnessing a skirmish in the final battle - a battle to get to the top, the last step in a process that has gone on for millennia. ...Men hold at least 95% of the institutional power in America, and it's not easy to give that up. What many of us are waiting to see in this symbolic struggle is whether women are finally going to achieve equality or not. And I think it's not only men who fear such an outcome. I think many women do, too."
Agree or disagree with Hopkins, she's clearly a serious figure who has been done a disservice by media caricaturing and conservative punditry. Her article deserves widespread distribution; I hope she and MIT post it somewhere public....
