Larry Summers to Resign the Harvard Presidency

For those who have been following the tumultuous presidency of Larry Summers at Harvard:  today Harvard announced that he's stepping down at the end of the academic year.   Summers' resignation letter says, "I have reluctantly concluded that the rifts between me and segments of the Arts and Sciences faculty make it infeasible for me to advance the agenda of renewal that I see as crucial to Harvard's future. I believe, therefore, that it is best for the University to have new leadership."  Summers made this announcement in the face of a possible no-confidence vote by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences on February 28.

A no-vote would have only been symbolic, as the faculty had neither hiring nor firing power.  In fact, in a similar vote not quite a year ago, the faculty voted 218-185 that they lacked confidence in Summers' leadership.  But this time around, there was a growing sense that the Harvard Corporation (who does have hiring and firing power) was considering action. The instigating  (but far from sole) issue a year ago was Summers' remarks at a conference suggesting that perhaps women's relatively low presence on mathmatics and science faculties resulted from a combination of (1) their relatively lower interest in high powered jobs that required massive professional commitment; and (2) innate difference in abilities. Summers' ever-so-slightly more nuanced version of the second point posited a different degree of variance across the sexes, which would mean that even if women were in aggregate as talented as men in math abilities, they might be underrepresented at the very high and very low ends of mathmatical aptitude.   Quite apart from the dubious merits of his claim, many deemed the remarks highly  inappropriate given his institutional position as Harvard's President.

(I won't even go into the substance of his earlier remarks, except to note that one of the many things that bugged me about his remarks at the time was that even if -- and it's a really big if -- there were truly more men at the far outer limits of mathematical aptitude, why should we be so sure that this should translate in a direct way into the sex make-up of, say, biology and chemistry faculties?  Math departments, okay, perhaps. But is there really such a clear correlation between pure math intelligence and success in creative research design and execution in the sciences more generally?  Is that empirically justifiable, or is it just the unwarranted assumption of an economist with math-envy?)

Derek Bok will serve as interim President until Harvard names a replacement.

Comments

[women/men]

Actually, he also listed (3) discrimination as a reason for the disparity.

Far from being dubious, Summers' claims are well-documented by scientific inquiries. See Stephen Pinker's "The Blank Slate" for a summary. During the brou-ha-ha, Pinker defended Summers' statements for their truth-value, while his critics just kept repeating that his words were "dubious" "beyond the pale" and "hurtful."

As far as your points about the cognitive disparities documented matching up neatly to departments - both Summers and Pinker address this point, and only claim that the more the particular type of cognitive ability posited (such as spatial ability) as different is drawn upon in a given department, the greater difference you will find. Therefore, it is unsuprising that women earning Phds in the top departments in physical sciences such as physical biology (a very non-spatial enterprise) are approx 50-50 with men, but in astro-physics (a very spatial enterprise) women make up a very small percentage of the Phds.

The more disturbing notion is that a president of a university should be silenced for offering a theory about men/women (a theory already published by one of Harvard's professors, nonetheless.) It is quite a shame that Summers did not stand his ground against all the people "made ill" by his comments. Political Power 1, Pursuit of Truth 0.

[Jennifer]

Yes, he did also mention discrimination. But he also made clear that he believed it did less explanatory work than factors (1) and (2).

[not a harvard grad]

His comments are here:

http://www.president.harvard.edu/speeches/2005/nber.html

His intro paragraph was:

"There are three broad hypotheses about the sources of the very substantial disparities that this conference's papers document and have been documented before with respect to the presence of women in high-end scientific professions. One is what I would call the-I'll explain each of these in a few moments and comment on how important I think they are-the first is what I call the high-powered job hypothesis. The second is what I would call different availability of aptitude at the high end, and the third is what I would call different socialization and patterns of discrimination in a search. And in my own view, their importance probably ranks in exactly the order that I just described."

[MondaleHall]

what of the points made by John Tierney on Sat in the NYTimes and by other observers? Is the Summers firing less about his gender comments and more about the dangers of challenging entrenched faculty on the matter of how they fulfill their obligations to the university?

[MondaleHall]

and I should say resignation instead of "firing"

[vivi]

so nice article,i never see nice blog like this before!http://www.onepearls.com just for you,don’t think twice!