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

[tangenjill]

Summers flubbed but he's human; let's forgive. I know a woman who's worked with him who feels strongly that he has learned a lot from this experience. Let's not make him a scapegoat for being less-than-stellar in the social skills. His hearts in the right place; he just put his foot in his mouth. His record speaks for itself. Let's move on and make progress for all people, regardless of their genitalia.

[EuropeanComment]

http://www.president.harvard.edu/speeches/2005/nber.html (transcript of the speech) He ventures into areas which are not even remotely within his otherwise vast, regarding behavioral science, genetics and psychology nil/zero/nonexistant, range of expertise. As such, too many (though not all) of his proposals, unfortunately offered as a quasi scientific analysis with a result (instead they are just his own bias), are wild speculations. As such the speech talks far louder to me than this particular personal testimony. The issue is not so much what his attitude towards women really is or is not which cannot be judged by a single speech alone. Which does not seem to be the only issue here anyway. I disagree with the attitude towards exercizing and vocalizing judgement in areas of incompetence with too much vigor, judging that particular speech. The quality that I respect most and particular in the highest ranking positions is: know thy limits. That is clearly lacking. If that was a speech about race instead of women, there would be an outcry.

[impatient]

I completely agree. If he had said black men were genetically disadvantaged in taking on the "ahrd sciences", this would not even be under consideration.

Quite frankly, the issues at Harvard were not the only incident relating to Summers' notorious misogyny. Unfortunately, charges of misogyny have also been leveld against Obama. If he decides that of all of the excellent economic advisers available to him in the US, that larry Summers is the best, I will certainly alter my view of Obama.

This is NOT the way to bring about change.

[DonCosenza]

Had he said that women were genetically disadvantaged in taking on the "hard sciences", you might have a point.

He did not, however say that. He offered a conjecture that, when comes to those at the top of their field, variability in aptitude among a population will play a decisive role. Is it proven? Probably not. Is it wrong? Maybe. Is it a crazy thought? Nope.

In fact, in the transcript, Summers only mentions the word "genetics" twice, and both are when mentioning "behavioral genetics" during the question and answer section.

[PhDiva]

Summers statements about women show a flaw in judgement and analysis that would make him dangerous in a leadership role. He wasn't just offensive; his analysis of the data was flawed. Well, how can we trust him with other kinds of data? How can somebody repair the American economy who dismisses the abilities of the millions of women who will determine the success of or failure of our economic future.

[Oxonian2001]

The very fact that Summers' analysis was so flawed indicates that his judgment is questionable. He completely disregarded the fact that Western women have long been discouraged from studying the sciences. It was not until the '50s that this trend started to change. (In fact, I can remember that back in the late '70s, I was one of a handful of girls in my advanced physics and chemistry classes.) His supporting evidence--that his daughter had no interest in the sciences whatsoever--was probably the most limited and asinine rationale that I'd ever heard. (Somehow, one girl represents every woman?!) He didn't bother to account for the fact that the gender imbalance in the sciences does NOT apply to non-Western nations, particularly Asia; there is far less of a gap between men's and women's math scores on standardized tests (e.g., SAT's and GRE's ) If Summers can't analyze something this simple, how can we trust him with more complicated matters?

[DonCosenza]

Summers' comments were about the top of the fields. Are non-Western women at the top of the fields of math and science at the same rates as men? We can look at the Nobel laureates and Fields Medal recipients- oh but I suppose those are nothing but "boy's clubs" too (as, I'm sure, can be claimed about any evidence contradicting feminist ideology). If you're looking at the top of these fields, SAT and GRE scores are not going to offer an predictive power. I aced my SATs, but I'm no Fields Medal recipient.

I'd love for more women to enter the fields of math and science- we certainly need more scholars there regardless of gender. But to do so, I fear it is not sufficient to simply prejudge that women and men share the same interests in the fields and thus any imbalance must be due to institutional sexism. Instead, if we actually seek to understand (a) are different motivations and behavioral predispositions a factor, and (b) if so, can education be reformed in a way to adapt to these and offer opportunities to (and reap the rewards from) a diverse population of people?

[AnAmericanWoman]

I don't give a c r a p about the politics with what someone said years ago - get someone in there who can get us out of this financial mess!

[AnAmericanWoman]

I don't give a cr ap about the politics with what someone said years ago - get someone in there who can get us out of this ditch!

[jayburd]

There shouldn't even be a debate over this one. We can't let a few unfortunate remarks blind us to the fact that there is no better candidate for Treasury Secretary. It's a no-brainer. There are too few economic realists out there and this guy is the best of them...

[impatient]

Who says? Can you tell me why the guy who was treasury secretary during the internet bubble is better qualified than any of the others routinely mentioned on the short list?

No. Neither can anyone else. There is never any actual evidence provided as to why Summers would be superior to anyone else.

As I said before, there are some things that are grievously wrong positions to hold; Summers' record on women is one of them. If he had this record in relation to the races, he would never even be mentioned for this post.

[mentalslavery]

He wasn't. His model did not take into account human greed. You think he's that stupid or maybe these "economist" are serving an economy for a specific group?

[mentalslavery]

We don't need an economist would is trained in the discipline. We need a whole new way of thinking. No models, a developmental plan in stages. A political economy for the the people. Don't worry, coming soon. This one will work for us. And we will have to make them represent our needs.

[WritusMaximus]

Girl oh girl! Larry's campaign is in full swing! I wonder how many of these gals will get jobs in Larry's administration? Stands to reason those with high visibility, campaigning for him and are interested will get them. Nothing wrong here. To the victor and his friends belongs the spoils. NOW now, keep your collective mouths shut and let these gals have a piece of the pie!

[impatient]

What? What does this even mean?

[ceti]

World Bank practice -- give with one hand, while plunder with the other. No more of this neoliberalism please. It will impale Obama's economic policies from the get go.

And Summers had a hand in driving out Cornel West and Jeff Sachs from Harvard, while denigrating African American studies and women in science in the stupidest possible way. He'd be an awful administrator.

And why isn't Stiglitz's name being bandied about? He is universally respected. He broke with World Bank orthodoxy and won the Nobel Prize.

[eveningsky]

Summers was ousted as president of Harvard for his disparaging remarks about the abilities of women. This man has no place in the Obama White House, nor in any leadership position anywhere on the planet.

[ggooch]

While at the World Bank, Larry Summers sent out a memo expressing his support for women in so called LCDs:

"'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]?

The measurements of the costs of health impairing pollution depends on the foregone earnings from increased morbidity and mortality. From this point of view a given amount of health impairing pollution should be done in the country with the lowest cost, which will be the country with the lowest wages. I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that."

[ggooch]

While at the World Bank Larry Summers sent out a memo that speaks to his support for women:

"'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]?

The measurements of the costs of health impairing pollution depends on the foregone earnings from increased morbidity and mortality. From this point of view a given amount of health impairing pollution should be done in the country with the lowest cost, which will be the country with the lowest wages. I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that."

[LCassidy]

The main reason that Summers is unqualified for any ecomonic advisory position or governmental office is because his "genius" is as oversold as was Greenspan's. See, for example, the recent Washington Post article which details the tribulations of the woman, Brooksley Born, who tried to regulate derivatives. The Greenspan-Summers-Levitt cabal shot her down. I'm sure her being a woman had nothing to do with their resistence.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/14/AR2008101403343.html

For Sandberg and anyone else with apologist anecdotes I would like to ask, would Summers still be on the national scene if he had intimated that African-Americans were not achieving what Caucasians are in math and sciences because of differences in innate abilities?

Finally, for the record, I only started struggling and failing my rigorous engineering courses after I was sexually assaulted by one of the engineering professors. This happened many years ago, but don't fret, the university finally realized it was a bad idea to have a rapist on the faculty (after a more recent victim filed a law suit against the university) and they fired him. In 2004.

[POTUS2008]

Isn't Summers a big advocate of lots of deregulation? I think he is out of step with what Obama ran on, and Obama needs to make policy that reflects what got him elected.

[Artos]

I think that if I were to recommend anyone for the Job at Treasury it would be Nouriel Roubini. The man will talk straight with forthrightness and honesty. That's what we need in Government now.

[mentalslavery]

His economic training is irrelevant, models are overly simplified, a poor economist or even someone with basic math skills can manipulate economic models. The importance of someone in his positions is creative thinking, we need it now. Hope we don't get someone who is just a modeler.