A Conference of the Science and Engineering Workforce Project (SEWP) at the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)
Sponsored by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
14-15 January 2005
Please see the Conference
Agenda for links to presentations and selected readings
On January 14 and 15,
2005, the
Science and Engineering Workforce Project (SEWP) convened a conference
at the
Cambridge facility of the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)
in order
to discuss issues of diversity in the S&E workforce. Approximately
fifty
people attended, comprised of economists, physical scientists,
mathematicians,
psychologists, policy makers, program directors, sociologists,
students, a
lawyer, and a recruiting director from a Fortune 500 company. The
presentations
reflected the diverse backgrounds of the attendees, with talks ranging
from
highly abstract models of achievement, to tales of successful program
efforts
to address representation, to personal accounts of gender
discrimination in the
sciences. The lunchtime address by Harvard President Larry Summers
captured
virtually all of the mountainous press attention concerning the
gathering, but
in fact it represented only a tiny portion of the overall content
presented at
the conference.
PANEL I:
INTRODUCTION – THE
CURRENT SITUATION
Professor Richard
B. Freeman
of Harvard University began with welcome and greetings and then
launched into
his presentation with three main messages regarding doctoral level
scientists and engineers: (a) something has “worked” in that
there have been substantial increases in women and URM
(under-represented
minority) PhD proportions, (b) there is some evidence that policy
efforts
contributed to improved diversity, (c) but most of the gains can be
explained
by a normal supply response from the increase of female S&E
undergraduate
degrees. He showed data for the NSF’s
Graduate Fellowship program documenting that the gender and ethnic gap
in GRE
scores of applicants has been shrinking since 1980. Freeman
also presented a preliminary analysis showing that the
distribution of minority graduate students in university S&E
departments is
very unlikely to have occurred by random processes alone. That is, URMs
are
somehow more favored to appear in some departments than others.
Finally, he
recommended that policy efforts be directed towards structuring S&E
careers
to be more compatible with the changing demographics of the workforce.
Next, Mary Frase,
from
the National Science Foundation -- Division of Science Resource
Statistics,
presented highlights of the NSF's Women & Minorities Report,
confirming the
gains in statistics showing the influx of women and underrepresented
minorities
(URMs) into the sciences in the past two decades. From
1990 to 2001, the total
number of degrees awarded of S&E bachelors, masters, and PhDs all
experienced gains (21 percent, 16.5 percent, and 2.0 percent
respectively). The gains for URMs and women were
much
greater. The gain for each demographic
group (American Indian, Black, Hispanic, or Women) was at least 20
percentage
points higher than the overall percentage gain for the same
degree level
awarded. Despite substantial increases
these groups still remain underrepresented in S&E when compared to
the
general labor market. Further, the picture varies depending on the
scientific
field. For instance, women are actually overrepresented in psychology
occupations (65.6 percent), but only 10.9 percent of workers in
engineering
occupations were female in 2000. In
2003, women received 20.2 percent of doctoral degrees in engineering
and 59.3
percent in the social/behavioral sciences. Catherine
Didion of the International Network for Women in
Engineering & Science (INWES) responded that when women do not
enter the
workforce in a scientific field, they are essentially lost to science,
even if
they had pursued degrees in an S&E discipline. Economist
Charles Brown of the University of Michigan
noted that URMs seem better represented in fields that have received
more ample
funding from the Defense Department.
Denice Denton, Chancellor Designate of UC
Santa Cruz,
delivered accounts from her career as an engineer when she faced
discrimination
as a woman scientist. One of her examples focused on the "lab bully"
who
is often characterized as an equal opportunity bully. But this type of
behavior
differentially affects those colleagues who are most marginalized to
begin
with. Male colleagues have a tendency to excuse abhorrent behavior by
saying
that a powerful professor acts like a jerk toward everyone, and
therefore is
not guilty of discrimination. Denton
suggests that the climate for women and for all in academe could
improve substantially
if there were more support for “zero tolerance” towards the bullies and
“jerks.” It is not enough to rely on
ombuds personnel to root out creepy activity. Her
conclusion, “We needed, and still need, cultural change in the
sciences.” Finally, speaking as an
educational leader, she discussed the importance of succession planning. Having served as dean at the University of
Washington, she helped women achieve 16 percent of the faculty in
Engineering,
compared to 4-8 percent in peer institutions. Without planning for
succession, a dean can watch gains come
undone fairly quickly if the successor is particularly ignorant of
representation issues.
PANEL II: RESEARCH
UNIVERSITY
EXPERIENCES
The second panel of
the day
began with Barbara Grosz of Harvard University who discussed
the state
of women in S&E at Harvard. She focused on women professors in the
Faculty
of Arts and Sciences where the proportion of female S&E faculty is
about 10
percent, one-half of the female proportion in the entire FAS. When Grosz began this work on female
under-representation in the early 1990s, there were only four tenured
female
professors in science at Harvard; it is now up to thirteen. To help make academic careers more attractive
to women, Harvard, according to Dr. Grosz, has adopted some innovations
designed to support child rearing including (a) delay of the tenure
clock, and
(b) special funds for daycare when traveling to research meetings. The federal government has tended to deny
funding childcare costs to attend conferences, so the Harvard policy is
helping
to redress this implicit discrimination. For
Grosz, junior faculty appointments will remain a significant area to
get more women appointed to tenured chairs: currently 45 percent of
male
faculty and 69 percent of female faculty in science come from internal
promotion. (Such a giant disparity does
not seem to exist in the humanities and social sciences.)
Then, she discussed the Radcliffe fellowship
as a specific program which women found very helpful to their ability
to thrive
in academe. Twelve out of 45 recipients of this fellowship are in
science. Professor Grosz advocated the
development of
role models, an inclusive team-oriented science education, and more
research
into understanding “pipeline” issues. She stated that issues of
representation
require constant vigilance against complacency.
Nancy Hopkins reviewed the gains in women
faculty at
MIT over the past ten years and the reforms that grew out of the
Committee on
Women Faculty in the School of Science at MIT, which she chaired in
1995. In
summer 1994, there were 15 tenured women and 194 males with that status
in the
School of Science. By 2001, 22 women
had tenured posts. The report of the
committee found that tenured women faculty had been the object of
subtle gender
bias manifested as “the gradual marginalization of women faculty as
they
progressed through their careers . . . often accompanied by the women
receiving
less space and fewer resources for research, and lower salaries, and in
their
having little or no role in the important decision-making processes
within
their departments or the Institute.” Her analysis of the situation at
MIT
showed that even if MIT continued its affirmative hiring efforts, it
would take
60 to 100 years for that institution to attain rough parity between
males and
females. She lauded former MIT president Charles Vest for recognizing
the
gender problem and supporting efforts to address quality of life issues
in
support of a diverse faculty.
Linda Hamilton
Krieger spoke
on implicit bias in faculty search
committees, proferred Sexist Bullshit Bingo as a humorous way to
highlight
implicit discrimination in group situations, and spoke about the legal
hurdles
and legal protections in cases of alleged racial or gender
discrimination. She
discussed how Title IX, Title VI, and Title VII are pursued in the
legal
system. In her commentary on how the
law defines discrimination, she explained the categories of individual
disparate treatment, systematic disparate treatment, and disparate
impact. Statutes have tended to prohibit
discrimination but failed to define it, and thus the society has relied
on case
law to arrive at more precise definitional rigor. Professor
Krieger wrapped up her talk by passing out the paper
& pencil version of the Implicit Association Test that relates
gender with
humanities or the sciences. For
instance, in general, people more quickly connect the words “chemist”
with
“son” than connect “chemist” with “daughter.” Krieger
has worked closely with Harvard psychologist Mahzarin Banaji on
IAT issues at the Radcliffe Institute during 2004-2005. The
IAT has become an important tool in
overcoming the reality that many people in ordinary polling situations
try to
give the pollster appropriate or so-called politically correct
responses on the
issues of racism or sexism, rather than their true feelings. IAT testing is conducted at a major website,
https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/,
which seeks to assess conscious and unconscious preferences.
LUNCHTIME SESSION
After participants
were invited
to help themselves to catered sandwiches, the session began with Larry
Summers's lunchtime speech (Transcript).
Detailed summaries and analysis are widely available in press archives.
Following this, Shirley
Malcom, who heads the Directorate for Education and Human Resources
at the
AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science), expounded
on the
prospects for affirmative action policies in the university world
following
recent rulings at the University of Michigan. She
pointed out that many pro-diversity forces hailed it as a victory,
but they failed to see how the opposition quickly mobilized to overcome
its
potential impact. Malcom discussed
challenges ahead for science, as she entertained questions of shortages
and
oversupply of scientists. There are
those eager to “push” women and underrepresented minorities into STEM
fields
that years down the road could lead to unemployment. National
security issues are driving home the need for more
scientists from the United States and less reliance on
foreign/international
students. But there remain
problems. Postdocs are becoming a
parking place for many young people whose scientific careers are
essentially on
hold. So much of the research money is
increasingly going to older researchers. Moreover,
many minority students shoulder levels of debt that are
unacceptable. Malcom praised HBCUs for
their traditions of internationalism and mentioned a science PhD from
Egypt who
had done her undergraduate work at Howard University. But
she also indicated that there are problems with the domestic
pipeline when some fields have such a high proportion of international
students.
PANEL III:
PSYCHOLOGICAL AND
SOCIOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF OCCUPATIONAL CHOICE
Catherine Good of Columbia University
presented data
supporting the existence of "stereotype threat", under which
performance differs depending on whether subjects are aware of existing
negative stereotypes. For instance, Good reported that white males
scored worse
on standardized math tests when they were told that their scores would
be
compared to Asian males. The same type
of effect was shown to exist with blacks taking diagnostic tests, women
taking
math tests, and Latinos taking verbal tests. Good
suggested that the effects of stereotype threat may be ameliorated
by fostering an incremental theory of intelligence, rather than a fixed
view of
intelligence. In terms of mathematical
ability, “entity theorists” adopt the view that “intelligence is fixed.” The “incremental” view posits mathematical
ability as “malleable,” a learned skilled that is honed through
practice and
interest. Professor Yu Xie
responded that in many Asian societies parents constantly tell children
that
they can do better and that hard work will lead to mastery of
mathematics. In the United States, he finds
among parents
and professors attitudes pervaded by the belief, “either you have it or
you
don’t.” The dominance of the innate view
in the United States could be a significant obstacle to raising
mathematical
achievement.
Daniel B. Berch of the Child Development and
Behavior
Branch of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
reported
on the work of a variety of researchers funded under the Program in
Mathematics
& Science Cognition. He surveyed
experiments in neuroscience and cognitive science concerning
mathematics
learning in general, and gender differences in the brain in particular. There is still much to be done in this
preliminary research. Berch paid
particular attention to the work of Diane F. Halpern of Claremont
McKenna
College, including her essay on “A Cognitive-Process Taxonomy for Sex
Differences in Cognitive Abilities” from Current Directions in
Psychological
Science (August 2004). Reflecting
on her own framework and a research project by Ann Gallagher, Jutta
Levin, and
Cara Cahalan, Halpern had observed that males did better when there was
“a
spatially based solution strategy,” but females were more successful
when the
“solution strategies were more verbal or similar to the ones presented
in
popular math textbooks.” For Gallagher
and her team, wrote Halpern, “average performance of different groups
on standardized
tests could be minimized or maximized by altering the ways problems are
presented and the type of cognitive processes that are optimal for
generating
solutions.” Halpern concluded that
“everyone can improve in any cognitive area – that is the reason for
education
– and rapid changes in the proportion of men and women in some fields
show that
huge changes can occur across populations by changing educational
opportunities
and social expectations. People do not
have to be the same to be equal.”
Yu Xie of the University of Michigan
and co-author
Kimberlee Shauman of University of California, Davis presented
results
from their book Women in Science, detailing their “synthetic
cohort”
analysis technique and “life course” approach. Shauman
emphasized that the traditional “leaky pipeline” picture of
gender attrition in S&E may be flawed since women also tend to
enter or
re-enter S&E at stages of life later than usually expected. Xie and
Shauman
presented a couple of alternatives explanations for the
underrepresentation of
women in S&E, and then presented their analysis of these
alternatives. Their summary of the causes of the
persistent gender inequities in S&E shows no support for hypotheses
that
involve a lack of mathematical preparation or training at the high
school
level. Instead, they found support for
three issues, (a) gender gap in interest in S&E or in expectation
of
attaining an S&E undergraduate degree, (b) occupational segregation
within
S&E fields; for instance women are more likely to be employed in
teaching
universities, while men more likely to be employed in research
universities,
and (c) differences in gender roles in regard to raising children. (Note that marriage per se does not seem to
matter much: “Married are women are disadvantaged only when they have
children.”) While math and science
participation is equal between males and females in high school, except
for
physics, there is a substantial drop-off in the transition to college:
women
are at that crucial moment half as likely as males to express an
expectation of
going into science and engineering.
PANEL IV: LEARNING
FROM
SUCCESSFUL PROGRAMS
Sue Rosser of Georgia Institute of
Technology spoke
on programs on her campus that promote the participation of women,
POWRE and
ADVANCE. Rosser stated that in her
years of experience it has become clear that many women went to
teaching rather
than research institutions in part because the former are seen as
family
friendly. She noted that it is often
very hard to make the transition from a teaching college to a research
institution. Catherine Good wondered if
some
research could be conducted on postdocs, many of whom are bailing out
of
science when they recognize that its demands make it nearly impossible
to have
a family.
David Manderscheid,
current chair
of the University of Iowa
Math department, reported on the success of its departmental
initiatives to
recruit underrepresented minority students into Iowa’s math program. From 1993 to 2004, the URM enrollment went
from essentially 0 percent to approximately 22 percent out of about 120
graduate students. The initiatives were a faculty-led effort and
included a
three-week summer institute for incoming students, creation of a
“mentoring
community”, and regular help sessions throughout the year.
Dr. Manderscheid noted that the department’s
culture has shifted as a response to the graduate student compositional
change,
and that ethnic and gender inclusion “have become the norm”. Further,
many of
the non-minority students have “availed themselves of many of the
initiatives
initially created to help minority students,” and “the new environment
has
become a successful recruiting tool for the department.”
Sheila Tobias presented background on the
expansion of
PSM programs (Professional Science Master’s degrees) focusing on a
range of
scientific disciplines: biotechnology, bioinformatics, industrial
mathematics,
computational science, and forensic chemistry. She
argued that the typical MBA lacks meaningful knowledge of science
and engineering, and the PSM degree may fill the gap. Tobias
also took up the early efforts to discredit affirmative
action in the academy. She referred to
Princeton University’s Richard A. Lester (1908-1997), whose study for
the
Carnegie Commission in 1974 claimed that affirmative action for women
and
African Americans threatened to lower academic standards.
According to her interpretation of Lester,
he believed that affirmative action could work for blue-collar jobs and
industrial plants; but it would fail in the world of universities where
the
most exacting standards of excellence had to be maintained. Lester’s critique of affirmative action had
many supporters at the time, but Tobias believes his thesis has failed
the test
of time.
DINNER SESSION
During the sit-down
dinner at
the Harvard Faculty Club, Nila Bhakuni, the new director of the
Office
of Technology Transfer at Rice University and a specialist on
nanotechnology
issues, gave some opening remarks and introduced the first of the
dinnertime
speakers, Jaline Gerardin (Harvard) and Saundra Quinlan
(MIT
& National Society of Black Engineers). Ms. Gerardin spoke about
the
difficulties of being a science major and also her perspectives on
gender &
science. She emphasized how much summer math and science camps had
helped her
progress in the field; but it was her sense that many of these programs
are
overwhelmingly male. High schools and
many programs are helping to entrench gender under-representation at a
very
early stage. These intensive summer
workshops help develop the advanced tools and networks for later
success in
science. Ms. Quinlan spoke about the
decision making process that led her to choose MIT as a college and
engineering
as a major, and further on the benefits of participating in an
organization
such as the Society of Black Engineers. Bhakuni
elaborated on the National GEM Consortium, an organization based
at Notre Dame that has 50 corporations and 90 colleges among its
participants. GEM, which stands for
“Graduate Education for Minorities,” calls itself “the only privately
funded
nonprofit graduate education organization providing underrepresented
groups the
opportunity to complete graduate study at the nation’s best science and
engineering programs while gaining practical work experience with
leading
employers.”
Following the student
addresses,
Anne C. Petersen, Senior Vice President for Programs at the
W.K.
Kellogg Foundation, spoke about the efforts of the Kellogg Foundation,
(and
other charitable foundations) in affecting the issue of representation
in the
sciences. The Kellogg Foundation has
taken many initiatives, including the funding of a five-year, $2.75
million
partnership with the University of South Carolina and six HBCUs to
improve
research on disparities in public health outcomes and ultimately
increasing the
numbers of minorities entering the public health field.
PANEL V: ACADEMIC
EMPLOYMENT
ISSUES
Catherine Weinberger from UC Santa Barbara
presented an
analysis of test scores to see if the S&E Workforce is comprised of
only
those people who are at the very top of the distribution in terms of
“ability”. Her data was drawn from high
school students’ math tests and the later outcomes of these students
including
college major, educational attainment and labor market outcomes at age
32. Prof Weinberger proposed three simple models
for the distribution of “ability” in the workforce to test against the
data.
The conclusion: the distribution model where these workers are drawn
from the
upper 25 percent of test scorers is consistent with real data, while
the model
where they are drawn from only the top 10 percent of the distribution
is not
consistent.
Donna Nelson presented results from her
survey of
science and engineering faculty across the nation, demonstrating very
poor
representation of women and URMs in tenured faculty positions, much
worse than
the respective PhD proportions in the same fields. Looking at the top
50
science and mathematics programs in the nation, Nelson and her
colleague found
that 48.2 percent of B.S. recipients in mathematics were female in
2000; but only
8.3 percent of the faculty in this field were women as of 2002. For the same time period, 21.4 percent of
physics undergraduate degree recipients were female, with women making
up only
6.6 percent of the faculty in this discipline. In
Computer Science, 20.5 percent of the PhDs were women, but only 10.8
percent of assistant professors were female between 1993-2002. In most fields, the disparities between PhDs
and assistant professor representation were less dramatic, but were
still
significant. Astronomy, mechanical
engineering, and civil engineering were the only three out of 14 fields
that
women could be said to be over-represented in the ratio between PhDs
and
assistant professorships. URM males
earned 4.2 percent of the PhDs in chemistry, but only had 1.6 percent
of the
professorships in this time span. Mathematics
was a different story, as URMs had 3.3 percent of the PhDs
and secured 5 percent of the assistant professorships.
Cathy Trower, of the Harvard University
Graduate
School of Education, reviewed the salary and promotion gaps that still
exist in
S&E, despite concentrated efforts by many organizations and
professional
groups starting in the 1970s and through the following three decades.
For
instance, gender and URM disparities in faculty salaries compared to
white
counterparts have remained largely unchanged over the past 20 years. Looking at four-year colleges and
universities as of 2001, she observes: “Studies have shown that gender
disparities in faculty salaries have remained unchanged at
approximately 20
percent over the past 30 years, with unexplained disparities of about
12
percent remaining after accounting for time in service and discipline
for women
over 40.”
Ronald Oaxaca of Arizona State University
presented an
analysis of faculty salary structure at a research university. As part
of this
work, he focused on gender pay gaps and other gender differentials in
the
characteristics of female vs male faculty. The “unadjusted salary for
men
exceeded that of women by nearly 16 percent.” Generally,
male faculty tend to publish more articles and had more
coauthors, while women won teaching awards at a much higher rate. He
argues
that teaching should be given improved compensation, and that this
gender-neutral reform would benefit female faculty who are doing more
of this
educational heavy lifting. Oaxaca noted
that their findings also “illustrate the erroneous conventional wisdom
which
holds that unexplained gender salary gaps will shrink if
productivity/performance
measures can be incorporated into salary regressions.” Further, he
speculated
that gender salary gaps at the full professor rank may be partly a
result of a
larger rate of men seeking outside offers as a strategy for salary
augmentation, which women may not practice to the same extent.
PANEL VI:
NON-ACADEMIC
EMPLOYMENT ISSUES
Kirsten Roby from Microsoft Corporation
described her
company’s recruiting programs, and how she sees the benefits of having
a mixed
talent pool from which to select employees. Leadership
development is a key challenge in cultivating diversity in
industry, as it is in academe. Microsoft is
facing the huge reduction in H-1B visas, and this is a
problem because it is not so simple to do software development in India. Proximity is important for Microsoft, despite
the outcry about global outsourcing conquering the planet.
Microsoft expects a much more scientifically
trained workforce, and it will no longer be hiring significant amounts
of
“liberal arts-types.” She also
mentioned the Explorers Program, an intensive coding class and
experimental
program that brings 24 students around sophomore year to the company. She spoke of plans to double the size of the
program and how it has brought many women and minorities to the company. Roby finished by admitting that Microsoft
has had to change its culture. For too
long the company behaved as though it were still a small start-up when
it is
now a corporate behemoth that hovers around Wall Street as the second
largest
company by market capitalization. The
frenzied atmosphere and the stress on Social Darwinian categories such
as who
has the highest IQ must give way to new values. When
so many people from the company’s earlier history had become
wealthy, Microsoft recognized that it now had to do some new things for
retention
of good people. Microsoft wants to keep
the informal atmosphere, creativity, and passion for getting things
done from
the earlier period; but there is much that can be done to bring a
positive
climate within a transformed corporate culture.
William Berry of the US Department of
Defense
highlighted the need for US citizen scientists and engineers to work in
national security related activities, noting that the number of
students
eligible for security clearances pursuing such activities is small and
declining. Turning to issues or representation,
Dr. Berry’s data showed that female
percentage of DoD S&E workers was smaller than the overall
percentage of
women DoD workers. The gap was only a
few percentage points at most, much smaller than the comparable gap in
the
general (non-DoD) workforce. However,
this is probably because the percentage of women working in the
civilian DoD is
smaller than the general population. As
for non-white minorities, there was also a slightly larger gap between
S&E
workers and the overall DoD civilian workforce. The
percentage of DoD employees who are minorities appears to be
slightly larger than this same percentage in the general workforce. DoD lacks centralized recruiting, as is the
case with Microsoft; labs and others are recruiting at the same time. David Manderscheid added that many
science and math jobs at NSA and other agencies are 40-hour positions,
unlike
the 80-hour demands of contemporary academe. There is a growing cohort
of PhDs
who find that an appealing feature of work for government agencies.
Kjersten Bunker
Whittington
reported on her work analyzing the
collaboration networks of scientist patent writers in academe and in
industry. An interesting result: men
tend to patent more frequently, while women have more cites per patent. Academic patenting (at least in
biotechnology) is dominated by a small number of well-connected nodes. Since 1980, academic patenting has soared
700 percent. Whittington has
collaborated on research with Boston University sociologist Laurel
Smith-Doerr,
who has found greater gender equality in smaller, dedicated
biotechnology firms
than in the large pharmaceutical companies. They
are committed to investigating whether different types of work
settings make a difference in achieving the goals of diversity.
Sharon Levin of University of Missouri and
Paula
Stephan from Georgia State University reported on their work
examining the
data for attrition rates from Information Technology (IT) careers
depending on
gender or ethnic status. They found
that about 70% of those working in IT in 1993 were retained in 1999,
the
retention rate was higher for men than women (73% vs. 66%), higher for
whites
than African Americans (70% vs. 66%), and higher for Asians (70%) than
whites
(70%). Further, they found that African
Americans leave IT occupations for other occupations; do not leave the
labor
force or become unemployed. Women leave
IT occupations to leave the labor force or become unemployed, not to
move into
another occupation. The policy
implication: programs directed towards retention will have differential
outcomes depending upon group in question.
CONCLUSIONS AND
OBSERVATIONS?
While women have been
studying
and entering into S&E fields more than ever before, there appears
to be an
impediment at the upper echelons of prestigious institutions.
Specifically the
proportion of women holding senior faculty positions at research
universities
is significantly below what would be expected given the growing pool of
women
with PhDs and records of academic distinction. For
underrepresented minorities, there are gaps that can be even more
acute than for females in general. For
instance, out of the top fifty physics departments in the U.S., not a
single
one had appointed an African American female to a full professorship as
of
2002.
David Goldston, Chief of Staff for the U.S.
House
Committee on Science, offered a few conclusions that he sought to be
pursued in
the future. First, he argued that fine
distinctions matter, and there needs to be a recognition of differences
between
the challenges facing women and those confronting many underrepresented
minorities. Second, he thought some of
the perspective could be broadened to include a wider historical range
of
vision on underrepresentation. Earlier
in the twentieth century, Jews and Catholics found themselves locked
out of
many positions at prestigious and mainstream universities, with both
groups
sometimes described as “races.” He
noted that social class almost never came up in the conference. For Goldston, some types of attacks on
meritocracy at the top can have harmful effects for those at the bottom. He cited the views of James Fallows that
Japan has achieved its postwar economic miracle by having what might be
called
the best bottom 50 percent in the world. Japan
did this in part by pushing its top to strive for the highest
standards. Third, he called on
academics to be careful about arid theorizing without paying attention
to what
goes on in daily practice. Finally, he
thought some of the people in academe and at this conference had turned
very
ideological, and he argued that this should be an arena that strives
for more
non-ideological approaches to knowledge. He
finds that Washington is a place permeated by ideological conflict,
and he had hoped the university could be a place freer from this
framing of
information. For Goldston, he was
troubled that the fury over President Summers’s views had led some to
treat his
observations as though they were a return to eugenics.
While willing to
concede that
Summers had not gone down the road to eugenics, John Trumpbour
of the
Labor & Worklife Program at Harvard Law School criticized the
increasingly
aggressive tendency in the human sciences to find biological
explanations for
inequalities, and he thought that President Summers had clearly been
too
dismissive of social explanations for underrepresentation.
Sheila Tobias asserted that Summers
had judged the work of so many of the scholars at this conference to be
of no
value in his ultimate conclusions, though Richard Freeman
countered that
the Harvard president did read some of the papers and would stay
engaged with
our debates. John Yochelson, the
president of BEST (Building Engineering and Science Talent), thought
there was
some excellent social science analysis of the problem at the
conference, but
much more would need to be done in the areas of policy prescriptions
and
reform.
The ideological storms generated by this conference have led to much institutional activity and an array of task forces on improving diversity at Harvard and in the rest of academe. Despite the slow pace of change in achieving diversity, this conference showed that there are grounds and resources for hope. To cite just a few examples: three decades ago in the U.S., there were approximately 13 times as many boys in the seventh-grade than girls achieving a 700 on the Math SAT. Recently that gap has closed to 2.8 times. Though there may still be a long way to go, this progress indicates that there is an enormous amount of malleability in academic achievement. While some have tried to use the 2.8 times gap as a sign of a fixed biological gulf in math achievement, those who look at it historically see it as evidence that the best in academic achievement has yet to come. Again, when it comes to the production of PhDs among URMs, it might be observed that the highest five departments in Chemistry have 19 percent of the degrees going to URMs, while the lowest five Chemistry departments are awarding URMs the degree to a microscopic 2 percent. This variation indicates that some places are doing a considerably better job, and it might be helpful to find out what has been working in the few places with a history of higher numbers. This conference should be regarded as part of a continuing engagement with these issues. By promoting structures and practices that open doors to scientific opportunity, conference participants and members of the network will undoubtedly maintain a role in meeting this formidable societal challenge.