by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright February 18, 2005
All Rights Reserved.

peaking in Cambridge, Mass. to the National Bureau of Economic Research Jan. 18, Harvard University President Lawrence H. Summers self-destructed, telling a gasping audience that women have less innate ability for mathematics and science than men. Summers' remarks strangely parallel those of Stanford University Nobel laureate physicist William Shockley, insisting that African Americans were genetically inferior to whites. Summer's views on the inferiority of women were equally egregious, and, yes, offensive. Former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott found out the hard way after uttering distasteful remarks at Sen. Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday. Summers uttered equally repugnant words about female inferiority. Summers would like to put the genie back in the bottle but it's too late. No matter how he spins it, there's nothing he can do short of resigning to make things right.

      Talking about the inferiority of women is antithetical to every brick in the nation's oldest and most prestigious university. Harvard is a national symbol for the greatness of American higher education. Summer's ignorant public remarks in the name of scholarship disgrace Harvard but, more importantly, academia. “In the special case of science and engineering,” Summers said, “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,” blaming constitutional inferiority for women's lower achievement in scientific disciplines. Summers' carefully scripted remarks were no accident or mistake: They mirrored his true views despite his best attempts to say otherwise. His statements disgust all sensible faculty and students—and others.

      Summers, a well-regarded economist, was out-of-bounds airing his ignorant personal views, better left to anthropologists, zoologists, geneticists and scientists whose academic careers are spent debating “chicken-and-egg” issues. Summers' gaffe can only be interpreted as a latent desire for early retirement from his job as Harvard University president. No individual so used to the public eye can possibly air such offensive remarks without serious consequences. “I made a big mistake—I was wrong,” said Summers, “I'm somebody who does try to provoke and challenge, and often that can be constructive, but sometimes that leads to big mistakes,” engaging in damage control but failing to see how he killed his moral authority at Harvard. Not only did Summers' disgrace the university but he destroyed his leadership, leaving him no option other than gracefully resigning.

      Weathering the storm assumes that Harvard's faculty, students and governing board can tolerate continuing public relations damage to the university. Like elected officials, university presidents hold symbolic value and are held to a higher standard. What message does it send to overlook such reprehensible statements? Summers knew full-well the consequences of airing his offensive personal views. Asking for forgiveness is one thing but expecting to lead the university is still another. “I think the most important question is how many of these incidents can Harvard take before there is a permanent sense that it has a president problem,” said Richard Bradley, author of the forthcoming book, “Harvard Rules.” Like former Sen. Majority Leader Trent Lott, it's not that his remarks were so malicious or unforgivable: It's that Summers' judgment could be so atrocious.

      Instead of apologizing profusely immediately after his gaffe, Summers fueled his demise making more excuses. He insisted he presented provocative hypotheses of other researchers, not his own personal views. Yet no one can find scientific research examining the constitutional inferiority of women for math and science. Calling Summers' comments “hogwash,” New York's Oneonta State University College chemistry professor John C. Kotz found no academic basis to Summers' views. Summers has impressive credentials but he no longer enjoys that precious commodity called respect. No part of the Harvard community—or others for that matter—can put faith in someone in whom they've lost respect. Riding on his past celebrity or Cabinet post can't make up for the loss of credibility that stems from his own words: No public apology will do.

      Looking at the bigger picture, Summers is a self-wounded leader, unable to command the admiration and respect needed as Harvard's president. Words do count. Dismissing his remarks as inconsequential ignores his incredibly bad judgment that could easily translate into other areas. “He's an excellent president with a vision and an energy and a focus,” said former University of Chicago president and current member of Harvard's powerful governing board, unwilling to admit that Summers' views on women strike at the heart of Harvard's institutional soul. Many otherwise respectable individuals, both in an out of government, have paid a draconian price for speaking out of line. Whether Summers' promotes women's equality has nothing to do with accepting consequences of his own actions. Verbal apologies aren't enough. He must show real contrition and step aside.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2002 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.