Background image

terug

Sex Ed at Harvard

 
 
 
 

Sex Ed at Harvard

 
 By CHARLES MURRAY
 
 Washington
1    FORTY-SIX years ago, in The Two Cultures, C.P. Snow famously warned of the dangers
 when communication breaks down between the sciences and the humanities. The
 reaction to remarks by Lawrence Summers, the president of Harvard, about the
 differences between men and women was yet another sign of a breakdown that takes
 Snow’s worries to a new level: the wholesale denial that certain bodies of scientific
 knowledge exist.
 
2    Mr Summers’s comments, at a supposedly off-the-record gathering, were mild. He
 offered, as an interesting though unproved possibility, that innate sex differences might
 explain why so few women are on science and engineering faculties, and he told a story
 about how nature seemed to trump nurture in his own daughter.
 
3    To judge from the subsequent furor, one might conclude that Mr Summers was
 advancing a radical idea backed only by personal anecdotes and a fringe of cranks. In
 truth, it’s the other way around. If you were to query all the scholars who deal
 professionally with data about the cognitive repertoires of men and women, all but a
 fringe would accept that the sexes are different, and that genes are clearly implicated.
 
4    How our genetic makeup is implicated remains largely unknown, but our geneticists and
 neuroscientists are doing a great deal of work to unravel the story. When David C.
 Geary’s landmark book Male, Female: The Evolution of Human Sex Differences was
 published in 1998, the bibliography of technical articles ran to 52 pages - and that was
 seven years ago. Hundreds if not thousands of articles have been published since.
 
5    This scholarship shows a notable imbalance, however: scholarship on the environmental
 sources of male-female differences tends to be stale (wade through a recent assessment
 of 172 studies of gender differences in parenting involving 28,000 children, and you will
 discover that two-thirds of the boys were discouraged from playing with dolls - but were
 nurtured pretty much the same as girls in every other way); but scholarship about innate
 male-female differences has the vibrancy and excitement of an important new field
 gaining momentum. A recent notable example is The Essential Difference, published in
 2003 by Simon Baron-Cohen of Cambridge University, which presents a grand unified
 theory of male and female cognition that may well be a historic breakthrough.
 
6    “Exciting” is the right word for this work, not “threatening” or “scary.” We may not know
 the answers yet, but we can be confident that they will be more interesting than, say, a
 discrete gene for science that clicks on for men differently than it does for women.
   35   , it will be a story of the interaction of many male and female genetic differences,
 and the way a person’s environment affects those differences. Hardly any of the answers
 will lend themselves to simplistic verdicts of “males are better” or vice versa. For every
 time there is such a finding favoring males, there will be another favoring females.
 
7    Some people will find the results threatening - because some people find any group
 differences threatening - but such fears will be misplaced. We may find that innate
 differences give men, as a group, an edge over women, as a group, in producing, say,
 terrific mathematicians. But knowing that fact about the group difference will not
 change another fact: that some women are terrific mathematicians. The proportions of
 men and women mathematicians may never be equal, but who cares? What’s important
 is that all women with the potential to become terrific mathematicians have full
 opportunity to do so.
 
8    Of course, new knowledge will not be without costs. Perhaps knowing that there is a
 group difference will discourage some women from even trying to become
 mathematicians or engineers or circus clowns. We - scientists, parents, educators,
 employers - must do everything we can to prevent such unwarranted reactions. And the
 best way to do that is to put the individual’s abilities, not group membership, at the
 center of our attention.
 
9    Against the cost of the new knowledge is the far greater cost of obliviousness, which can
 lead us to pursue policies that try to make society conform to expectations that conflict
 with what human beings really are. In the study of gender, large and growing bodies of
 good science are helping us understand the sources of human abilities and limitations. It
 is time to accept their existence, their seriousness and their legitimacy.
 
 http://www.nytimes.com