In the Huffington Post article Larry Summers’ True Record on Women, Sheryl Sandberg writes an otherwise glowing review of Lawrence Summers’ (former short-term Treasury Secretary and ex-Harvard president) record on women. There was one bit I had to take issue with, however:
To conclude that he communicated poorly — and even insensitively — is fair.
Summers raised some points of consideration with regard to why women and men choose certain careers disproportionately. He offered his opinions and personal insights in good faith, and suggested further study.
This inflamed the insecurities of certain people who hold fast to an ideological belief that, when it comes to education and careers, men and women must by necessity start out perfectly equal, and so any imbalance must be caused by social factors. That’s a fine theory to hold, but only if you can support it with evidence instead of ideology. Summers’ detractors on this point are afraid of any competing theories, perhaps because they know their own is on such shaky ground.
The fact is, if you really want to increase the representation of women in fields like math and science (or, conversely, the representation of men in the humanities), you need a firm and grounded understanding of what motivates them to enter certain fields. Social factors no doubt play a role, but if that’s all you focus on, I believe you’ll be sorely disappointed with your results.
Rather than being strung up, Summers should have been lauded for his willingness to enter into the conversation honestly and express points that most in academia seem too cowed to.
If Jonathan Martin at Politico is correct, the Republicans are planning a little pow-wow shortly following this year’s elections to figure out the future direction of the party. That’s great… but unfortunately they’ve already decided on the direction, and it’s apparently further to the right.
I would love to see the party move toward a more libertarian bent (not all the way, but partially), but that doesn’t seem to be in the cards. Instead, they seem intent on solidifying themselves as a long-term minority party, a la the British Conservative Party.
Few believe that the Republican party will respond to another brutal election by following a path of moderation, but conservatives are deeply dispirited and anxious to reassert the core values they believe have not always been followed by Bush, congressional leaders and their party’s presidential nominee . Many on the right, both elites and the rank-and-file, see a rudderless party that is in dire need of new blood and old principles: small government, a robust national security and unapologetic social conservatism.
…
[If McCain wins] Palin would be seen as their conduit to power. “She would be the conservative in the White House,” is how the source put it. Should McCain lose next Tuesday, the conversation will include who to groom as the next generation of conservative leaders – a list that will feature Palin at or near the top.
