That column was not "just another opinion piece" dug up from a google search - it was written by a FEMALE HARVARD FACULTY MEMBER.
As for your dismissal of Summers' qualifications for speaking on gender issues because "this guy is a trained economist", I submit that 1) you are engaging in ad hominem because you have no basis for refuting what he actually said; and 2) you don't understand the field of economics at all.
Economics is essentially a behavioral science, and relies on empirical data and sometimes experimentation to address and theorize about a wide variety of issues and phenomena, including such things as gender equity. If the labor market, in this case the market for skilled professionals in the fields of math and sciences, exhibits some apparent inefficiency or inequity, economists will study the problem to try to deduce the cause of the phenomenon they observed. This often involves considering causes that rest outside what the layperson might consider the realm of economics. In considering these causes, economists often collaborate with scientists in other fields to bring in the technical expertise needed to solve the problem. For example, environmental economists work closely with biologists, chemists, ecologists, public health professionals and others with an interest in environmental problems to study and develop policy solutions to those problems.
In any case, if one believes there may be a gender equity problem in the labor market, who else is more qualified than an economist to 1) gauge whether such a problem really exists and 2) explore the myriad of possible causes? A biologist? LOL.
Why was the conference sponsored by the National Bureau of Economic Research if economists have no business exploring gender equity issues?
And a related question - did you think Summers' was interpreting brain scans and drawing conclusions about neurological differences between men and women? I assure you, he wasn't.
Now regarding your new favorite latin terminology, ex cathedra, Summers had been asked to sit on a panel discussing this very issue - gender equity in math and sciences professions. His purpose there was purely scientific, not political. His words were intended to stimulate discussion of, and inquiry into the issue. And his words were "off the record" and not made on behalf of the university or "with the authority derived from" his position as president. In other words, he was not speaking ex cathedra.
Finally, just what is it about his "POV" that you think he has "revised"? |
