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.