The academic community has long realized that it
has a problem - there are far too few women and
minorities among the science faculty, especially at
the top research institutions. What they haven't yet
figured out is what to do about it.

The percent of women in fields such as physics
decreases with each successive rung in the academic
ladder. In 2001, only 22% of Bachelor's degrees in
physics majors were awarded to women, while less
than 5% of physics faculty at the top 50 research
institutions are female.

However, the problem begins long before women enter
college - the number of girls entering college who even
consider majoring in physics is already small.

While most concerned academics have struggled to find 
ways to modify this number, Harvard President Lawrence
Summers has already succeeded. Unfortunately for all of us,
his statements will only make the problem worse.

Let's start with the science. Whether or not there are
biological differences between the sexes that have any
effect on ability or interest in math and science, there is
a wealth of solid research that shows conclusively that
cultural and social influences completely swamp any such
differences.

To put this into perspective, consider that Summers's
hypothesis - that perhaps there are so few women in
science because of innate gender-based differences -
would suggest that he also encourages the study of
race-based differences in scientific ability. After all,
the evidence presented to suggest this might be true
for women (their severe underrepresentation in
science, certain biological differences including
response to medical treatments, and underperformance
on certain standardized tests) is also true for African
Americans. In fact, race seems to trump gender since
the gap between American boys and Japanese girls
on standardized math tests (Japanese girls far outperform
the American boys) is much larger than the gap between
American boys and girls.

This kind of reasoning is not only repugnant, it is also
sloppy thinking and bad science, ignoring the research
which clearly demonstrates the overwhelming impact
of social and cultural influences on the performance,
evaluation, and aspirations of boys and girls of all races.

What is so disturbing about Summers's remarks is
that research has also shown that the performance
and evaluation of students depends strongly upon
the expectation of their teachers, their community
and the students themselves. When told that a
particular math test would reveal gender-based
differences in the scores, female college students
with strong math abilities scored lower than their
male counterparts. Those who were told that the test
results were usually gender neutral scored the same
as the men. Summers's comments serve to reinforce
what too many people believe, deep inside, to be true -
that men are innately better at math and science - and
this will have very real effects on young girls.

The flurry of media attention Summers's remarks
have received has only served to further promote
this view. A google search of Lawrence Summers
on January 19 returned a page with 16 links. Roughly
one-third were critical of Summers, while one-third
were strongly supportive of his statements, saying that
it was about time the academic community recognized
that men and women are different and that women are
just not as good at or as interested in math and science.
The remaining third were somewhat neutral, but all
claimed it was good that he had started the "debate".

Is it? Remember that much of the public reads only
headlines, and that if something is repeated often
enough it is assumed to be true by too many people -
including parents and teachers of young girls. A
sampling of titles culled from various publications
should chill the blood of anyone concerned about this
issue.

"Men naturally better at Science, Maths: Harvard professor"

"Harvard head says male scientists the best"

"Harvard president: Why women are poor at science"

"Untie your knickers - innate differences, are, well, real"

Finally, rather than opening a "debate", the backlash
against women who are speaking out against Summers's
remarks has made it seem as though we've been sent
back in time about 30 years. As the Boston Herald
put it:  "Harvard president scolded" and "Hysteria
at Harvard over Larry talk goes right off the shrill
meter." MIT professor Nancy Hopkins, who prompted
the MIT study in 1999 that found very real, very
specific instances of discrimination against female
faculty members, such as amount of lab space and
teaching assignments, was described as walking out
of Summers's talk "in a huff", and one commentator
suggested that if Hopkins was representative of women
scientists it was a good thing we have so few of them.

Would we ask our African American colleagues to
sit quietly through a discussion of how African Americans
are biologically more or less suited to certain activities
or talents?