Mixed Messages

As the Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS) met to match words on the University’s president this week, Women in Science at Harvard-Radcliffe (WISHR)—a student group with a membership to match its name—convened to discuss the ways in which current University policy hinders female scientists. The results of that meeting, published in The Crimson on Wednesday, were a disappointing mix of unproductive self-pity and counterproductive generalization.

In light of Univeristy President Lawrence H. Summers’ remarks, one might expect WISHR to suggest that women in science at Harvard are hampered by subtle sexism in their classrooms, by a lack of female role models in their field, and by a general social perception that the sciences are the stomping ground of male scholars. Instead, members’ subsequent comments to The Crimson suggest a set of explanations almost completely in-line with Summers’ erstwhile prescription.

According to The Crimson, “students cited their experiences in introductory classes as particularly traumatic—saying that some male teaching fellows would drive their classes at relentless rate [sic].” Unless WISHR members suggest that women are somehow less able to handle the pace of these introductory courses than their male peers—a suggestion that, had it been made by Summers, would have caused scandal—there’s no reason to suggest that this “relentless rate” of teaching would affect women more adversely than men.

WISHR’s fix for this “problem” is as startling as the problem itself: WISHR policy committee co-chairs Tracy E. Nowski ’07 and Patricia Li ’07 suggested special optional sections just for female students. Why? If, as Summers’ critics have so vehemently argued, there are no innate differences between men’s and women’s respective aptitudes in the sciences, there should be no need for such special classes. WISHR’s only possible defense is some claim to differences in learning styles, rather than in “intrinsic aptitude,” between men and women. If that were accepted, however, then there ought to be special sections for women in every field, not just science. Indeed, we might as well return to single-sex education at Harvard. And Radcliffe.

WISHR’s other concerns are similarly flawed. The Crimson reported Wednesday that, “Li and Nowski said that the potentially stressful experience of placement exams can turn women off from the heavy competition in the sciences.” There are two possible conclusions: either women are somehow less able to cope with the stress of placement exams than men, or placement exams are generally stressful, in point of fact, for all students. I tend to believe the latter explanation: the tests are scary, period. Their difficulty and the stress that surrounds them cannot be used as an explanation for the underrepresentation of women in the sciences at Harvard.

Li didn’t stop there: she cited “science courses’ incompatibility with a study abroad program” as one of the “leading reasons why fewer women declare concentrations in science.” Li didn’t give any indication why this reason shouldn’t also apply to international-minded male scientists. Like most of WISHR’s concerns, this is a very valuable one, but it really has no specific connection to women in Harvard’s science programs.

It is truly disappointing that WISHR chose Tuesday to squander the valuable role it stood to play in the dialogue about the future of women in science at this University in favor of making suggestions that do little more than reinforce the negative socialized stereotypes Summers’ remarks have been criticized for conjuring. It is truly baffling that, even as criticism is levelled at Summers, the group he was most likely to have alienated seems to agree with him. We are left, therefore, with the age-old question:

What do women want?

Adam Goldenberg ’08, a Crimson editorial editor, lives in Grays Hall.