Chicago Tribune
Op-Ed Page
January 25, 2005

by Evalyn Gates

A man walking down the road comes upon another man who has an elephant sitting on his chest. Seeing that the second man is struggling for breath and wanting to help in some way, the first man thinks very hard for a few minutes.

"My friend, " he says gravely, " you might want to see a doctor - such shortness of breath as you so clearly exhibit can be a sign of a serious heart problem."

Then, nodding his head sagely, he continues down the road, pleased that he remembered the recent warnings of the Surgeon General and happy that he was able to help a fellow traveler.

Now, the trapped man may indeed have a heart problem (although he didn't before the elephant tackled him, and the fact that he's still alive in spite of the elephant's weight and the stress of the situation would argue his heart must be in pretty good shape) but it's rather ridiculous, not to mention very bad manners, to even speculate on such possibilities while the elephant is still happily parked upon the poor man's chest.

According to several recent op-ed pieces defending the remarks of Harvard President Lawrence Summers who suggested that "innate" differences might explain why there are so few women in science, the man beneath the elephant should stop being so easily offended by the passerby's remarks, and even spend some time thinking about his suggestions. After all, there may be some truth in his recommendations.

The truth is, that 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. These influences constitute a very real, very large elephant sitting on the potential scientific careers of a lot women and girls (and minorities).

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 - suggests 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 to many of us who care deeply about this issue 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. (There are similar studies, with similar results for African American students.)

Unfortunately, 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 than women - and this will have very real effects on young girls.

Further, there are limited resources for research into the reasons that women and minorities are so underrepresented in science and for programs to remedy this situation. The main focus has to be on correcting the well-documented environmental issues that continue to be the main stumbling block to full participation in science by women and minorities.

If we truly hope to make progress in increasing the numbers of women in science, we first need to get rid of the elephant. Not, as Summers did, toss it a few more peanuts.