Intellectual debate?

I've found the hub-bub over Harvard President Larry Summers's comments about women's abilities in science and math a bit amusing. In the latest articles, it appears that President Summers may enjoy fermenting conversation and dissent by suggesting women are biologically inferior in math and science -- however, he doesn't like dissent much himself. A bunch of Harvard professors were quoted in today's NYTimes about Summers' management style -- apparently when they try to dissent from his opinions in faculty meetings, he squelches their new and different ideas. What's good for this crimson goose isn't good for the gander.

Based on my own experience and research, I doubt that Summers's hypothesis is true but I'm actually happy it has stirred a discussion. There absolutely should be more research about why women haven't advanced further, faster in technical professions (and in many others too).

My bigger concern is that soon exactly that type of research is going to be compromised by a new Bush administration initiative. In July, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which collects enough demographic data every year about American workers to fill a thick book, plans to stop collecting data for women workers. Apparently we've become too well-integrated into the economy and the collection of this information is too burdensome, so they're dropping us off the radar screen. They are going to replace this rigorous Labor Dept data with a less robust amalgamation of data about women -- women, again, being left with a lower standard.

The data that will no longer be collected includes information on how high women climb in technical fields, exactly the type of information required to prove or disprove Summers's theory.

Let's face it -- all the intellectual debate in the world, or even at Harvard, has zero value if the factual resources to explore it no longer exist.

Working together, not in sequence

I read David Brooks's January 15th NYTimes op-ed with interest: he posits an idea -- new to me -- to help address the seemingly insoluble conflict women face in balancing work and family. He suggests women should "sequence" their lives -- focus on marrying and having children in their twenties, then on graduate school and a career in their late thirties and beyond. He believes this would allow moms to spend time with their young children and then enjoy an uninterrupted career of, hopefully, continuing advancement while also, potentially, driving up the woefully low American birthrate. He, a bonafide Republican, even suggests the government should help finance it -- through tax or tuition credits for stay-at-home moms.

In some ways, it sounds smart -- offers a creative idea to address women's struggle to combine work and family, focuses on the problem of women holding off having children until their careers are stable but then regret their delay because they can't get pregnant at 40+, and acknowledges a government role in addressing the women/work challenge.

But in spite of its good points, overall I think women sequencing their careers is a bad idea. Why do women always have to be the flexible ones, make the changes to accommodate the workplace? Why can't the male executives in our societal institutions ever make the changes themselves -- truly revamp the workplace to accommodate a variety of models of work and embrace those changes so everyone feels comfortable taking advantage of them? And why can't male op-ed columnists write essays encouraging the workplace to change, not women?

As creative as it sounds, I envision this "sequencing" model as the next women's ghetto. When women who take advantage of it begin their careers in their forties, not only will they not have as much time to reach the pinnacles of organizations, but they will come with a nickname. They'll be called "sequencers," the women who prioritized something other than career first, meaning they will never be taken as seriously in their careers as their non-sequencing -- read: mostly male -- counterparts.

I say let all women, and men, get in the mix together, and let the workplace -- with our help -- figure out how to allow us all to lead meaningful work and home lives, simultaneously.