Law School Discussion

Women in Law School

snikrep

Re: Women in Law School
« Reply #10 on: January 01, 2006, 03:42:31 PM »
I am definately out of the loop... Can someone explain, what exactly was the fiasco at Harvard last year?

The Dean said what everybody knows to be common sense, but a couple women freaked out because it wasn't PC... you ever see those guys in the NBA who fake getting pushed down to get a call by the ref?  It was pretty much like that.

To insinuate that men and women have some inherent differences is pretty controversial - and thank goodness we spend all our time on crap like this instead of, oh I don't know, feeding starving people?

drama gal

  • ****
  • 1259
  • D-Jet
    • View Profile
Re: Women in Law School
« Reply #11 on: January 01, 2006, 04:10:30 PM »
I am definately out of the loop... Can someone explain, what exactly was the fiasco at Harvard last year?

The Dean said what everybody knows to be common sense, but a couple women freaked out because it wasn't PC... you ever see those guys in the NBA who fake getting pushed down to get a call by the ref?  It was pretty much like that.

To insinuate that men and women have some inherent differences is pretty controversial - and thank goodness we spend all our time on crap like this instead of, oh I don't know, feeding starving people?

Oh that!  Yes, it's all coming back to me now.

drama gal

  • ****
  • 1259
  • D-Jet
    • View Profile
Re: Women in Law School
« Reply #12 on: January 01, 2006, 04:21:52 PM »
I also recall immediately dismissing it.

corky

  • ****
  • 993
    • View Profile
Re: Women in Law School
« Reply #13 on: January 01, 2006, 05:45:46 PM »
I also recall immediately dismissing it.

I found it depressing how someone who said something reasonable got cut to pieces by the PC Police.

Re: Women in Law School
« Reply #14 on: January 01, 2006, 09:36:25 PM »
A brief summary of what Summers said, with commentary on why it was problematic, by Stanford Law Professor Deborah Rhode.  The last paragraph details the "women-friendly" initiatives that I mentioned in a previous post.

National Law Journal
May 23, 2005
SECTION: PODIUM; Pg. P31 Vol. 26 No. 84

Summers schooled;
GENDER EQUALITY

BYLINE: Deborah L. Rhode; Special to The National Law Journal

American women's rights advocates have long been adept at turning sex-based blunders into sex-based opportunities. A classic illustration was the attempt by Southern segregationists to increase opposition to the pending Civil Rights Act of 1964 by adding sex as one of the prohibited forms of discrimination. Women's rights supporters seized the moment and joined forces with civil rights opponents to secure passage of the additional prohibition.

A gaffe earlier this year by Harvard President Lawrence Summers has created another occasion for advancing gender equality. And again, women have taken full advantage of the opportunity, as is clear from a recent release of reports by Harvard faculty task forces. 

The controversy began with remarks that Summers offered during a conference of the National Bureau of Economic Research on Diversifying the Science and Engineering Workforce. He had agreed to come on the condition that he could speak "unofficially," and could offer some "attempts at provocation." He succeeded in that role well beyond expectations.

To account for women's underrepresentation in science and engineering, Summers ventured three explanations. The least important, in his view, was gender "socialization" and discrimination. The most important was the "near total commitment to work" expected of those in elite professional positions. The second most important was women's allegedly inferior mathematical and scientific ability at the "high end" of the performance range. Although he "would like nothing better than to be proved wrong," Summers indicated that his reading of the data revealed sex differences in "intrinsic aptitude." In support of his hypothesis, Summers referred specifically only to one study. It had found half as many female as male 12th graders who scored in the top 5% of mathematics and science aptitude tests. He also found it telling that his 2 1/2-year-old twin daughters, when given trucks, concluded that the "daddy truck is carrying the baby truck."

Summers' remarks attracted international coverage and widespread condemnation, because of both the substance of his claims and the institutional position from which he spoke. In a subsequent letter to Summers, Harvard's Standing Committee on Women noted what should have been obvious: "The president of a university never speaks entirely as an individual." Assertions about women's intellectual inferiority raise questions about an administration's professed commitment to diversity, a commitment that in Harvard's case was already in question. During Summers' previous four years in office, the percentage of tenured positions in the arts and sciences going to women dropped from 37% to 11%.

Once the controversy erupted, many conservative commentators leapt to Summers' defense. Many became at least temporary converts to the cause of academic freedom, now that it was threatened by what op-eds in the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal described as "gods of political correctness" and "hysterical" "uber-feminists." Other, more liberal observers, like Harvard professors Alan Dershowitz and Richard Freeman, applauded Summers for departing from the usual presidential "pablum " and "babble." But provocation is not the only alternative to pablum. As Barbara Gorsz, chairwoman of Harvard's task force on women in science and engineering noted, the problem with his comments was not that they were "politically incorrect, but that they were just plain incorrect." His overgeneralization from selective data misrepresented gender research. His initial unwillingness to release a transcript, while claiming academic freedom, compounded the problem.

Assertions about women's intellectual inferiority have a long and unbecoming history. For centuries, an array of "scientific data" was assembled to justify women's exclusion from higher education and all of the elite professions. What Summers failed to acknowledge was that many studies show no significant persistent differences between male and female aptitudes for math. Nor is there evidence that small differences in scores at the top range of standardized aptitude tests predict achievement in math and science. Moreover, sex differences in test scores and academic performance vary considerably across time and culture and are influenced by social expectations.

For example, Japanese girls score higher than American boys, a fact hard to square with genetic explanations for sex-based inequalities. Since the late 1960s, women's representation among Ph.D.s has grown from below 1% to about 17% in engineering, from 2% to 18% in physics, and from 12 % to 44 % in biological and agricultural science. What has changed is not women's "innate aptitude," but rather social attitudes. So, too, a wealth of data reveals persistent and pervasive biases that impede women's advancement in traditionally male-dominated fields. Summers offered no evidence for his assumption that those biases were less important than differences in aptitude, which are more contested and less consistently documented.

The saga of "Summers and Smoke" at least had a silver lining; Harvard got two task forces on women and generated an unprecedented level of concern and a demand for accountability on gender issues. The task forces' recently released recommendations cover a broad range of issues and include three central proposals: the creation of a new senior vice provost position for diversity and faculty development; new funds to support appointments that would enhance faculty diversity; and a comprehensive system for collecting and reporting data on hiring, retention and quality of life issues. Summers has pledged $50 million in support of the proposed initiatives, and they can serve as a model for many institutions within and outside the academy.

Deborah L. Rhode, an NLJ columnist, is the Ernest W. McFarland Professor of Law at Stanford Law School.

Bodhisattva

Re: Women in Law School
« Reply #15 on: January 02, 2006, 12:07:35 PM »
"For example, Japanese girls score higher than American boys, a fact hard to square with genetic explanations for sex-based inequalities."

I can offer a pretty plausible hypothesis to explain this, which still allows for Summer's belief: Japanese have higher IQs on average than Americans (this is already established, I believe).  So that was a dumb point wasn't it?

snikrep

Re: Women in Law School
« Reply #16 on: January 02, 2006, 12:27:44 PM »
"For example, Japanese girls score higher than American boys, a fact hard to square with genetic explanations for sex-based inequalities."

I can offer a pretty plausible hypothesis to explain this, which still allows for Summer's belief: Japanese have higher IQs on average than Americans (this is already established, I believe).  So that was a dumb point wasn't it?

Aghh!!

*runs screaming out of the room searching for the nearest reporter to whine to*

Re: Women in Law School
« Reply #17 on: January 02, 2006, 12:37:16 PM »
"For example, Japanese girls score higher than American boys, a fact hard to square with genetic explanations for sex-based inequalities."

I can offer a pretty plausible hypothesis to explain this, which still allows for Summer's belief: Japanese have higher IQs on average than Americans (this is already established, I believe).  So that was a dumb point wasn't it?

Hardly. If "intrinsic aptitude" causes men to do better, you would expect men to do better across the board, no matter the culture.  

Japanese students performing better overall could be a case for the importance of socialization, given that their society seems to place more value on academic achievement.  Unless, of course, you believe that the Japanese are inherently smarter, and therein lies the problem with Summers' premise.  Even if there is a difference in intrinsic aptitude between males/females or Caucausian/Japanese, how do you prove it?  We are, after all, socialized from birth.  


Bodhisattva

Re: Women in Law School
« Reply #18 on: January 02, 2006, 12:47:33 PM »
You didn't really attack my hypothesis.  I'm not saying it's true, but IF it's the case that Japanese are smarter on average, then that could explain why Japanese girls do better on average than American boys.  There is no "across the board" problem.

With that said, there is a way to test it, despite effects of socialization.  Even Japanese babies adopted into American homes have higher IQs, if I remember the interesting studies I read earlier.  "What if this is the effect of the attitude of adoptive parents?" you might ask.  Well, we can rule that out, because the effect isn't present with other race babies.

Also, there are non "social" ways to measure intelligence, like seeing the amount of time it takes somebody to memorize a sequence of numbers and recite them backwards.

Re: Women in Law School
« Reply #19 on: January 02, 2006, 04:45:15 PM »
I'm a man who discovered the wheel and built the Eiffel Tower out of metal and brawn. That's what kind of man I am. You're just a woman with a small brain. With a brain a third the size of us. It's science.


 ;D

I'm not going to argue nature v. nuture, since I'm a prospective law student, not a sociologist/psychologist (although my sis the Ph.D. wrote a journal article about the formation of racial identity in small children). Many of these traits become self-fulfilling prophecies, as ingrained stereotypes affect the way one party treats another.  But, again, not my specialty. 

My specialty is university public relations. From that standpoint, this was a huge error on the part of Summers, and frankly, Harvard's massive communications team as a whole. His Director of Communications never should have let this speech through. Insinuating that your female academics are inherently less intelligent in certain fields cannot possibly go over well, ever.