Ill-chosen Words Reopen Gender Wars

It is a bit like having claimed in 1898, 33 years after the Civil War ended, that the continued gross underrepresentation of former slaves at the higher reaches of intellectual endeavor in this country could be proof of their intellectual inferiority.

But this is what Lawrence H. Summers, the loose-lipped and now somewhat repentant president of Harvard University, is perceived as having done in regard to women in science and other fields today.

Just 33 years after discrimination against women on the campus became illegal under the Title IX legislation, he has expressed concern that women have made little penetration into the higher levels of their chosen fields. He has suggested that lack of commitment and aptitude, relative to men, could be the two primary reasons for this.

To be fair, in making these remarks at a conference on diversifying the science and engineering workforce in January, Summers said he could be wrong. He also said his aim was to provoke discussion. He has certainly done that. But it has been largely an unenlightening exchange of charges and countercharges of male chauvinism, female hysteria, and political correctness.

There are two central and possibly related issues concerning all intellectual activities that are in need of thoughtful discussion and more study. One, indeed, is the influx of women. The other is the slower growth, or even declines, for men.

Such study should include meaningful exploration of how well women, the relative newcomers, are doing in traditionally male-dominated establishments. Studies should also further explore the enigma of why young men are tending to shy away from college education in general.

In pondering the real and continuing dearth of women in the upper ranks of science, one has to remember that--with the exception of a handful of precocious and true geniuses--those who lead in any profession are disproportionately from the ranks of more experienced practitioners who have had time to gather a body of work and other contributions.

The bulk of those in such positions in science today earned their Ph.D.s 20 or 30 years ago. This was a time when the percentage of Ph.D. graduates who were women rose from about 7% to 14%.

With this starting point, and under the unreal assumption of no discrimination against, or other gender-specific impediments to, women over the past 30 years, logic suggests that women would be unlikely to hold more than about 10% of the top spots in science today.

In light of the reality of continued, if declining, barriers that women scientists still face, what percentage of the top spots do women have to hold before the demeaning theory that they lack aptitude is no longer propounded? It is noteworthy that women won nine of the 47, or 19%, of American Chemical Society national awards this year.

Hard data from the National Science Foundation, the National Center for Education Statistics, and ACS on graduations quantify the extent to which women have taken advantage of the greater opportunities offered them by Title IX. On this numerical basis, they have made astounding progress that runs counter to any thought of lack of aptitude.

The number of bachelor's degrees they earned in all subjects surged from 423,000 in 1976-77 to 742,000 in 2001-02 for a gain of 319,000. Over the same period, bachelor's degrees earned by men rose a far more modest 55,000.

At the Ph.D. level, for all disciplines, these same 25 years brought a gain for women of 12,400, which brought them from 24% to 46% of the total. Over the period, the total for men dropped by 1,300.

The change for chemistry has been even more glaring. According to data from ACS's Committee on Professional Training, the 9,923 bachelors' graduating class in 2001-02 was only slightly smaller than the class of 10,207 for 1976-77. But this seeming stability was attained by a 2,945 decline in male graduates and a 2,661 gain for women.

Chemistry Ph.D. graduates show a similar divergent pattern over the period, with a decline of 67 for men and a gain of 459 for women.

The same strong trend exists for women in law and other professions. Between 1976-77 and 2001-02, the number of men earning law degrees fell by 6,200 while the number of degrees earned by women rose by 11,000. The percentage going to women rose from 23% to 48%.

Alleged and unproven intellectual inadequacies of women should no longer be a major issue for academia. Concern would be better focused on why young men are, in many fields, not buying at the rate they used to what academia is selling.

At the key entry portal to all intellectual and professional activity--the acquisition of a bachelor's degree--women reached equality by the early 1980s. They are at more than 57% today, and the trend is still up. NSF puts this figure at 59% within the next decade.

There is no consensus on what this widening gender gap will eventually mean economically, socially, culturally, and even in terms of male/female relationships and family values.

Be that as it may, the still primarily male intellectual community needs to get used to the gains women are making, try to understand them better, rejoice in them, and stop niggling. Without these gains, intellectual activity in this country would be in a sorry state.