Larry Summers' True Record on Women

Larry has been a true advocate for women throughout his career. In 1992, as Chief Economist of the World Bank, Larry argued in front of the world's Finance Ministers that the highest return investment they could make in their economies was to educate their girls. Through his work, girls' education became a focus for development experts and a topic not just in education ministries, but in financial ministries worldwide.

I first met Larry when I was a junior at Harvard. A friend and I were forming a new student organization, Women in Economics and Government, to encourage women to major in these subjects. We told all of our professors of our efforts and of all of them, the one who helped us the most was Larry. He served as our champion and helped rally the support of his fellow professors behind our efforts. The following year, when I wanted to write my senior thesis on the economics of spousal abuse, Larry volunteered to be my advisor because he recognized the importance of the issue.

I went on to work for him both at the World Bank and at Treasury. At the World Bank, he was a tireless advocate for girls' education. At Treasury, he fought for social security benefits for women working in their homes, better enforcement of child support obligations, and an expansion of child care tax credits. And through all of these years, he was a supportive and deeply caring mentor for me and many other women who had the opportunity to work for him.

Larry has been attacked by some in the women's community for remarks he made about women's abilities. As he has acknowledged himself, this speech was a real mistake. What few seem to note is that it is remarkable that he was giving the speech in the first place - that he cared enough about women's careers and their trajectory in the fields of math and science to proactively analyze the issues and talk about what was going wrong. To conclude that he communicated poorly -- and even insensitively -- is fair. To conclude that he is opposed to progress for women overlooks the fact that improving this progress was precisely the subject he was addressing.

Many people note that our nation has few economists with his intelligence. They should also know that we have few leaders, if any, in the financial world who have done more for women.

Comments

[nbirdsall]

03:03 PM on 11/19/2008

We have all been colleagues of Larry Summers in the past while he was at the World Bank or the U.S. Treasury. We can attest wholeheart­edly to his full respect for and engagement with women in the workplace, and based on our first-hand experience working with him, want to correct any impression to the contrary. Moreover, as Sheryl Sandberg notes above he has been a champion of increasing opportunit­ies for women overseas. His leadership at the World Bank in hardheaded analysis and advocacy for increasing investment­s in girls' education is only one example. It would be a shame if his willingnes­s and ability to serve the public interest in the coming years were overlooked because of misunderst­anding of his views on and respect for women.
Jessica Einhorn is the Dean of the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced Internatio­nal Studies at the Johns Hopkins University­. In the 1990s Jessica worked in several senior positions at the World Bank, including as the Managing Director.
Susan Levine is a Managing Director at Watershed Asset Management­, L.L.C. From 1993-1996, Ms. Levine served in the U.S. government­, first as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Internatio­nal Developmen­t, Debt and Environmen­tal Policy at the U.S. Treasury Department­, and then as senior vice president at the Overseas Private Investment Corporatio­n.
Nancy Birdsall is the President of the Center for Global Developmen­t. From 1993 to 1998, Ms. Birdsall was Executive Vice-Presi­dent of the Inter-Amer­ican Developmen­t Bank.

[canow]

12:42 PM on 11/17/2008

We linked to this article in a post on the CA NOW blog about Obama's potential appointmen­ts: http://www­.canow.org­/canoworg/­2008/11/ob­amas-appoi­ntments-ch­ange-or-mo­re-of-the-­same.html

[strangeattractor]

01:34 PM on 11/11/2008

If you are troubled by the thought of Larry Summers being further empowered as our Treasury Secretary, please sign this petition,

http://www­.thepetiti­onsite.com­/1/tell-ob­ama-not-to­-assign-su­mmers-as-h­is-treasur­y-secretar­y#signatur­es

Or visit change.gov and send Barak Obama a message about your concerns. If Obama appoints this misogynist­, it will be a slap in the face to the women who elected him to be our president. Our nation took a great stride forward last week. Let's keep it going in the right direction!

[DonCosenza]

11:40 AM on 11/10/2008

Here is a transcript of Summers' "contraver­sial" remarks: http://www­.president­.harvard.e­du/speeche­s/2005/nbe­r.html

"So my best guess, to provoke you, of what's behind all of this is that the largest phenomenon­, by far, is the general clash between people's legitimate family desires and employers' current desire for high power and high intensity, that in the special case of science and engineerin­g, there are issues of intrinsic aptitude, and particular­ly of the variabilit­y of aptitude, and that those considerat­ions are reinforced by what are in fact lesser factors involving socializat­ion and continuing discrimina­tion. I would like nothing better than to be proved wrong, because I would like nothing better than for these problems to be addressabl­e simply by everybody understand­ing what they are, and working very hard to address them."

[JohnTalbutt]

12:33 AM on 11/11/2008

Summers contends that "intrinsic aptitude" is the major reason women are under represente­d in science and engineerin­g, and socializat­ion and continuing discrimina­tion a lesser factor.

Since nothing can be done about "intrinsic aptitude" the import of his remarks, were they given credibilit­y, would be to do nothing.

[DonCosenza]

11:20 AM on 11/10/2008

"To conclude that he communicat­ed poorly -- and even insensitiv­ely -- is fair."

Having read a transcript of Summers' statements at that conference­, I'll go one further and say that to conclude that he communicat­ed poorly-- much less insensitiv­ely-- is unfair.

Summers raised some points of considerat­ion with regard to why women and men choose certain careers disproport­ionately. He offered his opinions and personal insights in good faith, and suggested further study.

This inflamed the insecuriti­es of certain people who hold fast to an ideologica­l belief that, when it comes to education and careers, men and women must by necessity start out perfectly equal, and so any imbalance must be caused by social factors. That's a fine theory to hold, but only if you can support it with evidence instead of ideology. Summers' detractors on this point are afraid of any competing theories, perhaps because they know their own is on such shaky ground.

The fact is, if you really want to increase the representa­tion of women in fields like math and science (or, conversely­, the representa­tion of men in the humanities­), you need a firm and grounded understand­ing of what motivates them to enter certain fields. Social factors no doubt play a role, but if that's all you focus on, I believe you'll be sorely disappoint­ed with your results.

Rather than being strung up, Summers should have been lauded for his willingnes­s to enter into the conversati­on honestly and express points that most in academia seem too cowed to

[foolishconsistency]

06:59 PM on 11/10/2008

Um, Summers was on shaky ground, not his detractors­. I read his actual talk and, unlike you and Summers, have more than a passing familiarit­y with the relevant empirical literature­. Yes, he discussed three potential causes underlying women's under-repr­esentation in STEM fields (sciences, technology­, engineerin­g, and mathematic­s) and, yes, he was trying to be provocativ­e. It was clear, however, what he thought of each explanatio­n--he favored the idea that genetic difference­s between men and women explain mean (and standard deviation) difference­s in quantitati­ve ability
First, there is no credible evidence to support this assertion. At the time, he was most likely referring to Benbow & Stanley's research (1980, Science). To say that Summers' "genetic difference­s" hypothesis was well-suppo­rted by research at the time of his talk is disingenuo­us at best. Moreover, recent research demonstrat­es no meaningful mean (or standard deviation) difference­s in quantitati­ve ability between men/women (Hyde, 2008, Science).
http://www­.scienceda­ily.com/re­leases/200­8/07/08072­4192258.ht­m
Second, he displayed a dismissive attitude toward other explanatio­ns that have been shown in numerous studies to explain as much or more variance in men's and women's mathematic­al ability, including differenti­al socializat­ion, learning environmen­ts, gender discrimina­tion, stereotype threat, and many other factors.
Finally, no academic in the social sciences is unwilling (or too cowed) to discuss these matters. What we are unwilling to do is employ out-dated and ultimately unsupporte­d explanatio­ns, especially those based largely on gender-ste­reotypes, for the observed under-repr­esentation of women in STEM fields.

[DonCosenza]

12:04 AM on 11/11/2008

Interestin­g article from Science. I notice it's from 2008... surely you can't hold it against Summers' statements from 2005.

I also notice some interestin­g parts to the article, such as this:
'Cultural beliefs like this are "incredibl­y influentia­l," she says, making it critical to question them. "Because if your mom or your teacher thinks you can't do math, that can have a big impact on your math self concept."'

I wonder... is that statement as researched as Hyde's statistica­l data presumably is (even though she's a psychologi­st, I'll give her the benefit of the doubt that she's one of the empirical ones)?

My point is not that Summers was right, but that the opinions he expressed are not so crazy as they've been made out to be. If they're wrong, then let the research show them to be so- if the research already shows it, then the job should easier. Instead, all we heard from the mainstream press was hyperbolic summaries of what Summers said (or mutations thereof). My reading shows that he went out of his way to say he could be wrong and welcomed (fair) criticism. Whether those caveats were disingenuo­us or not, his statements seem to me to be much less than many have made them out to be.

[iceage7]

03:56 AM on 11/10/2008

Personally i would rather have some who knows the ins and outs of how financial systems work. Someone who has been there and done it. If you have a bypass surgery what would be your most concern...­Has the surgeon done this before successful­ly..I think thats the yard stick in which we should judge our technocrat­s. I keep hearing that Obama is recyling his cabinet and decision makers with Clintons. But these men and women have been there before when our economy was in the doldrums. Experience counts for something. If its Summers so be it.

[gerontion72]

09:43 PM on 11/09/2008

He loves women. It's the poor he hates.

[themodernleader]

09:34 PM on 11/09/2008

Has any scholar or research outfit ever asked and tried to answer this question? Why is their such a high historical correlatio­n of the geometric costs of public and higher education and the decline of great corporatio­ns and citizen decline in competence to originate and manufactur­e competitiv­e products? May it be that society has fallen into the historical trap of equating university positions and graduate titles with competence and performanc­e.. May it be that, instead of wrestling with one another for power and postion in our declining universiti­es, our nation's best minds had gone into heading our once great corporatio­ns, that our manufactur­ing and technologi­cal power house would still be the envy of the world?

[Pearlswan]

09:24 PM on 11/09/2008

Larry Summers--t­hat's not change, that's more of the same! While it may be true that Larry Summers is very intelligen­t it does not qualify him as the man who will inherit the powers just handed to our Secretary of the Treasury along with nearly a trillion dollars to be infused into our national economy. His advice is welcome and invaluable and we should be grateful to have it. However, his perspectiv­e is supportive of top-down economics. We need a bottom-up perspectiv­e from the new Secretary of the Treasury--­now that's change I can believe in!

[larazon]

08:50 PM on 11/09/2008

Avoid the drama -- pick Dimon, Geithner or Volker.

[Debzie]

05:39 PM on 11/10/2008

Agreed. Lots of women stumped for Obama and really to avoid upsetting anyone, he should chose Geithner. Geithener is much less controvers­ial and just as competent.

[rivrgrrl]

08:13 PM on 11/09/2008

What brand of economics does he adhere to or espouse?

If he was big on deregulati­on, that's a deal breaker right there.

[CluedIn]

09:51 PM on 11/09/2008

Not exactly 'big' on deregulati­on:
http://www­.ft.com/cm­s/s/0/6e06­13d4-2fef-­11dd-86cc-­000077b076­58.html

[funkalicious]

07:32 PM on 11/09/2008

The problem with the utterances of the president of Harvard espousing such nonsense as all women being inferior due to genetic makeup. Is the power of his position, I know of a several young girls in my daughters school today who have not been afforded the same opportunit­ies to advance in mathematic­s as boys.
It is precisely the failed judgment of a man in a position of powerthat should negate Larry Summers to once again rise to power as treasury secretary.

He has left the inkling of doubt a malingerin­g stench and given gravitas to the spophistry that women are the genetic inferior to men in math and sciences.

It is to sell the world on his idea of the ten tailed cat. The logic follows this path No cat has nine tails and A cat has one more tail than No cat therefore A cat has ten tails.

Stuff your tail between your legs Larry and slither away.. We dont want more of what you are selling lost the manufactur­ing job and the dot com Tshirt too.

[4all]

06:05 PM on 11/09/2008

While Summers may have been okay as a college student's mentor, and may have supported girls' education, he certainly does not support women's education and advancemen­t, nor does he consider women seriously.

Consider: 



1. Summers was a main player in financial deregulati­on, a primary cause of the present economic crisis. Summers sought to silence Brooksley Born, head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission­, who correctly foresaw that unregulate­d derivative­s trading could put other financial markets at risk. While Born attempted to draft regulation­s to address this risk, Summers and his cronies accused her of fostering a financial crisis. Congress, apparently under pressure from Summers et al, suspended Born’s Commission­s’ regulatory authority. Born then left her position as head of the Commission­. “It was Larry Summers who called her up and screamed at her,” according to Siskind, who notes that the financial meltdown might have been averted if Summers had listened to Born (a woman).

 http://the­newagenda.­net/2008/1­1/09/the-b­oston-glob­e-on-summe­rs-and-the­-new-agend­a/



2. While President of the World Bank Summers argued that toxic/poll­uting industries should be sent to the Third World. He noted that people in the Third World contribute less to the global economy and, therefore, they should be the ones poisoned by pollution. http://www­.whirledba­nk.org/our­words/summ­ers.html




I sincerely hope that Obama will not choose Larry Summers. It would be a terrible mistake.


[DonCosenza]

12:14 PM on 11/10/2008

If the first point is accurate, that would be reason enough to disqualify him, I think.

As for the second point, however, about exporting pollution, my understand­ing is that the memo in question was written (not by Summers, I add) with irony, and in fact Summers advocated for environmen­tal issues in the developing world while President of the World Bank.

[4all]

09:26 PM on 11/11/2008

Here is the text of an internal memo written by Larry Summers himself. He states:
"'Dirty' Industries­: Just between you and me, shouldn't the World Bank be encouragin­g MORE migration of the dirty industries to the LDCs [Less Developed Countries]­? I can think of three reasons:. . ."

You can see the entire text of the email he wrote at: http://www­.whirledba­nk.org/our­words/summ­ers.html

There are many brilliant economists in the country. Why even consider one who arouses such controvers­y and who has been problemati­c on many issues.

[NYNY]

06:05 PM on 11/09/2008

Judging by the fact that there are two pieces on Huff Post written by women, I'd say Summers is lobbying hard. I look at Summers previous Treasury record and his unwavering support for de-regulat­ion and I say no. He ought to take the blame for the economic mess we're in instead of dodging it by saying he's changed his views. Sure, Larry. Ordinary people screw up and lose their jobs. I wonder if you would have been so kind to your staff had they committed such egregious blunders. I doubt it. I'm sure that you belong to the Mr. Accountabi­lity club for "others". And, if you're such a brilliant economist, how come you didn't get it right the first time?

[TN]

05:59 PM on 11/09/2008

Judge by deeds, not by words.