And a double LOL--you don't have to apologize to me, Foil. I know what you meant. It just seemed too ironic, given the subject of the thread, that you managed to leave me off of your list of mathematically competent DBB members. There are more than just you, me, and Lothar--there are a few engineers and general nerds and geeks floating around here, I think.
Anyway, I doubt Summers was expressing the position that women are underrepresented in the sciences for only biological reasons. That's a self-evidently stupid hypothesis. But even if it was what he said, made in a scientific context, it didn't deserve the reaction it got. Even self-evidently stupid hypotheses deserve scholarly attention and sound rejection if they merit it. This--
--is not scholarly interaction. It's hysteria.MIT biologist Nancy Hopkins '64 said she felt physically ill as a result of listening to Summers' speech at a National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) luncheon, and she left the conference room half-way through the president's remarks.
"For him to say that 'aptitude' is the second most important reason that women don't get to the top when he leads an institution that is 50 percent women students--that's profoundly disturbing to me," Hopkins said. "He shouldn't admit women to Harvard if he's going to announce when they come that, hey, we don't feel that you can make it to the top."