blogness.
Dear Summers:
I have read both the transcript of your informal talk on women in the workforce, and the resulting apology you entered. I recognize the errors you made, and I believe that you genuinely recognize them, too. Still, as a white, female college student, I would like to point out which of your statements jumped off the page for me, and why.
First of all, you cited variabilities in intrinsic aptitude as a reason for women’s lack of stance in the science and engineering workforce. Interestingly, as Ellen Bublick suggested in her response to your speech, research has shown that women are not simply “little men�; we are very different. However, variabilities in success according to cultural codes (i.e. rank within a university) does not warrant a claim that women’s (lack of) natural aptitude is to blame. In confessing your belief on this subject, you have perpetuated the “women-can’t-do� discourse that I have personally tried very hard throughout my life to diminish. I’m frustrated that someone with your stature made such a damaging claim, seeing as your words represent the body of instruction at Harvard.
Secondly, you cited women’s lack of achievement desire as a reason for our seemingly insignificant presence within the academic community. Bublick counters your argument with the work of Kimberlee Shauman at UC-Davis, saying that desire to achieve doesn’t necessarily inform one’s position within the community. This means that one’s stance in academia is not directly caused by one’s desire to achieve, like you implied. Your statement really drives home the idea that objectivity doesn’t exist, even when it claims to exist.
I’m frustrated by your statements, but also thankful. Your statements galvanized all sorts of passionate discussion in my gender studies class, and I think we’re all the better for it.
Keep it real,
Kelsey