Take the 'Third Way' at This Moment of Opportunity

We had hoped that the discussion at last Tuesday’s meeting of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences would focus on the issue of women in science, and on the broader issue of diversity across our Faculty. Our president’s recent statements and actions place us at a time when extraordinary progress can be made in addressing fundamental problems in the composition of our university, the treatment of its current Faculty, and the messages Harvard sends to prospective members of our community. Instead, the discussion turned to issues of leadership, highlighting past problems rather than present opportunities. Accordingly, we offer three points, from our own experience and perspectives, concerning the style of University President Lawrence H. Summers’ presidency.

Outspokenness. No one will disagree: ours is an outspoken president. He has made public pronouncements on a broad spectrum of issues, from the undergraduate curriculum to world conflicts. We have disagreed with many of his claims, none more strongly than his remarks at the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) conference. We hope that Summers has come to realize that the views he expressed at that meeting are wrong, and that the most powerful barriers to gender equity in math and science come from the factors he ignored or downplayed: the pervasive, implicit prejudice against women in professional contexts that all of us, women and men alike, are prey to; the barriers to the advancement and retention of women Faculty, as shown most strikingly at the M.I.T; and the social pressures that lead most individuals of each gender to perceive that they don’t belong in communities that don’t have others like themselves. Although we deplore his earlier views, we don’t wish that the president would stop telling us what he thinks. Without such knowledge, we would have no way to challenge him. Insidious, hidden biases would wreck greater havoc.

Prejudice of all kinds, including gender prejudice, thrives in environments in which people think one thing and say another. Our first line of defense against it is to create a community in which views are aired and debated freely, and in which myths fall not because they are silenced but because their intrinsic flaws are exposed. Some of our colleagues have suggested that free speech is appropriate for faculty members but not for university presidents. Our position is more nuanced. The beliefs that guide the actions of our leaders affect all of us. We need to know their views, however wrongheaded they may be. When a leader voices objectionable views, he creates a space in which those views can be debated. Summers’ outspokenness gives all of us the opportunity to engage in critical debates about the course of our university under his leadership.

Response to criticism. We have each criticized Summers, publicly and openly, on a range of issues that raise passions among students and Faculty, from the line between political opposition and anti-Semitism, to the future geography of our campus and composition of our curriculum, to the causes of women’s under-representation in science and academia. He defends his views tenaciously and focuses more on the substance of the debate than on the social gestures that can signal esteem for one’s adversary. Never, however, have we felt marginalized, undermined, or penalized for our bluntness. Quite the contrary, our experience suggests that the best way to get Summer’s attention is to tell him he’s wrong. He listens.

Openness. Outspokenness and responsiveness to criticism are positive attributes only when they are accompanied by abilities to recognize one’s mistakes, know one’s limitations, and change one’s mind. That has not been the leadership style of Summers in the past and our question is: Is this a moment for him to change how he leads? Each of us has come to Harvard from a sister school where the voice of the faculty drove important university initiatives far more so than it does at Harvard. We long for a model that is less feudal and more democratic.

Summers has now changed his stance on one important issue: the gender gap in our faculty. Many of our colleagues have expressed doubt over the seriousness of this change: Has our president really come to understand the substantial evidence that systematic, implicit tendencies to overvalue the merits of men and undervalue those of women have reduced both the diversity and the quality of our faculty? Will he now use the enormous power and influence of his office to attack a problem that has plagued Harvard throughout its history?

If Summers were an ordinary leader whose statements were crafted only to please, then we too might question his commitment to solving this problem. But his history of speaking his mind and acting on his beliefs, coupled with his current acknowledgement of failures and shortcomings, convinces us that he deserves a chance. We call on all members of the Harvard community who share the goal of creating the highest-quality Faculty and student body, undiminished by prejudice of any kind, to join together with the administration to bring about a fundamental change in how Harvard perceives, fosters, and rewards academic talent. As a community, we have divergent views of the past, but we should set our sights on the road ahead. The recent statements and commitments of this outspoken president forecast a better future for women and men at Harvard.

Elizabeth S. Spelke ’71 is a Professor of Psychology. Mahzarin R. Banaji is the Cabot Professor of Social Ethics and the Pforzheimer Professor at Radcliffe.