We Stroll Through PC Land

Harvard President Lawrence Summers prompted outrage with his recent remarks suggesting that some of the many factors holding women back in science may be due to innate biological differences.

The blogosphere has spoken, and the Left Half has provided a marvelous opportunity to observe the mechanics of the Politically Correct process. 

Juan Non-Volokh will be a bit of a guide here - this post provides an eminently sensible statement of the issue; here, he provides an entry to the left by way of the aptly named Preposterous Universe, where new links abound.

I also especially enjoyed Mixing Memory, who provides some links to the underlying science and brilliantly summarizes the "Not in front of the kids!" attack on Summers:

This brings us to the real reason why Summers deserves the harsh criticism. He is probably right that there exist real sex differences, across the entire population, in math abilities, but we know too little about the sources of these differences to be speaking definitively about them in public forums.

Hmm.  Summers is probably right, but he ought to shut up.  OK.  Preposterous takes a bit longer to make the same point, while also illustrating the importance of caricaturing the target of one's criticism:

Nobody should be against seeking the truth and exploring different hypotheses. But when systematic biases are widespread and perfectly obvious, and these biases are strongly affecting the representation of a group such as women, people have every right to be offended when the president of the most famous university in the world suggests that discrimination is imaginary, and it's women's own fault that there aren't more female scientists.

Hmm, Summers suggested discrimination was imaginary?  Maybe the Times was just making it up when they told me this:

"I began by saying that the whole issue of gender equality was profoundly important and that we are taking major steps at Harvard to combat passive discrimination," he recalled in yesterday's interview. "Then I wanted to add some provocation to what I understand to be basically a social science discussion."

Gene Expression may be having the most fun, though.  After absorbing many explanations of how the white male majority is, like all majorities, self-perpetuating, GE links to this Evil Comment:

So if I believe that the 80/20 male/female ratio in a field at Harvard implies subtle discrimination, then what of the fact that there are almost no Evangelical Christians on the Harvard faculty, in spite of the fact that they account for about 20% of the population? Or the fact that Harvard has almost no faculty belonging to the political party that has won 7 of the last 10 presidential elections?

Don't ask - there is no political bias in the hiring process at major universities.  Ignore the appearance of a self-perpetuating majority.

Let me help extract one more theme about Science and The Left.  If the issue is stem cell research or evolution, ethical issues are not important, science is supreme, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a religious zealot.

On the other hand, if the issue is biological differences based on race or sex, science must tread very carefully, and certainly must not entertain a public discussion. 

Now, one might wonder whether this requirement that we tread carefully is likely to have a chilling effect on research.  Would a young researcher, studying the vast range of human DNA topics, really prefer to focus on sex or race differences and risk joining Larry Summers at the bottom of a PC pigpile when so many other questions are also unanswered?

NO!  "Chilling effects" occur (my friends on the left will assure me) only when someone like Larry Summers suggests the existence of sex based differences, thereby discouraging a generation of young women from entering science.  This media massacre won't discourage anyone from actually doing the race or sex based science.

I am now satisfied on the academic discrimination question, anyway - I am not smart enough to be a lefty, because I can't figure this out.

MORE:  The original Boston Globe story; a Pinker defense in the Harvard Crimson

Comments

[creepy dude]

Summers should immediately denounce creationism for the idiocy it is. This would get him back in the good graces of the left by infuriating the right, (with the added bonus that he would be correct yet again).

[Jack Tanner]

'On the other hand, if the issue is biological differences based on race or sex, science must tread very carefully, and certainly must not entertain a public discussion. '

You meant if global warming is the issue.

'"Chilling effects" occur (my friends on the left will assure me) only when someone like Larry Summers suggests the existence of sex based differences, thereby discouraging a generation of young women from entering science.'

But encouraging them to throw public hissy fits.

[Joe Mealyus]

Mixing Memory's real point seems to be that research on the effect of gender stereotypes has already yielded conclusive, rock-solid, take-it-to-the-bank results, while research on gender differences is all very fuzzy and up-in-the-air. Which may be true, but you can't help but wonder about the state of research on how ideology affects the state of research....

[Neo]

Sounds like Lawrence Summers finally got around to reading "The Bell Curve" by Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray.
Murray has always claimed that if there ever was any link between sex and/or race and any human attribute or failing, that the zealots would make it impossible to follow that link.
Summers has gotten a taste of that zeal.

[Crank]

I blame Bill Clinton.

[antiphone]

The term PC is mostly used as shorthand for excessive zeal regarding standards in social discourse, constituting a sort of censorship that makes honest and open discussion of particular subjects off limits. There are instances of this kind of thing and there’s nothing wrong in pointing it out. It’s also true that anti-PC-ism can reinforce a false sense of victimization that is subject to political exploitation as well.

Anyone who doesn't like racial slurs and is willing to object to their use is, on some level, enforcing standards of speech. It seems to me the question is where lines should be drawn and what mechanisms are appropriate for enforcing social standards. The same principal holds true for ethical questions in science and I find your dismissive generalizations about “The Left” to be uninformed, smacking of political manipulation.

Let me help extract one more theme about Science and The Left. If the issue is stem cell research or evolution, ethical issues are not important, science is supreme, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a religious zealot.

It seems to me that the intended result of anti-PC whining like this is to shut down discussion about ethics by making it seem futile and a complete waste of time. This does nothing to advance the state of ethics in this country but as misdirection has proved quite effective in getting politicians elected and then absolving them of responsibility for their lack of ethical standards once elected.

[creepy dude]

There's a tension here that can't hold, and not only for the left. If you accept evolution, then you accept there are genetic variations among individuals, ergo, there must be genetic variations in the genes that encode for intelligence as the brain is basically just another organ. And these genes may vary not only among sexes...

Thus it was superficially surprising that it was the right that embraced "the Bell Curve" when it is they who tend to reject evolution.

So if evolution is the premise, the left accepts the premise but rejects the consequences, whereas the right accepts the consequences but rejects the premise.

[Forbes]

So by extension, there must be innate, genetic differences between those on the right and those on the left, because, well, the brain is just another organ, and these two groups arrive at different conclusions. Dude?

Me thinks a straw (wo)man has made an appearance in your argument.

[Terry J]

Tell me again about Academic Freedom.

Commenter Forbes has a point. Some research suggests the Left is heavy on the Feel and the Right is heavy on the Think in Meyers Briggs.

The answer to some questions we don't want to know and will not listen to.

[Towering Barbarian]

Antiphone,
"It seems to me that the intended result of anti-PC whining like this is to shut down discussion about ethics by making it seem futile and a complete waste of time."

Ah! So all that needs to be done is to prate about "ethics" and this will make all hypocrisy on the part of the Left disappear as though it had never been? How very convenient! :P

[Paul Zrimsek]

One of the rewards for following the Preposterous Universe link is this textbook-quality example of question-begging:

Whenever some group is discriminated against by some other group, people inevitably suggest that the differences in situation can be traced to innate features distinguishing between the groups, and they are never right! If you would like to suggest that innate differences are responsible for some current discrepancies in people's fortunes, the minimal burden you face is to acknowledge that such explanations have been spectacular failures in similar circumstances throughout history, and explain why we have compelling reasons to think the situation is different this time.

There's even a free bonus appeal to false alternatives in the first sentence. (Has there never, anywhere, been an instance of discrimination and innate differences coexisting? Have there never been any differences which, while not innate, are not discrimination either?)

[antiphone]

Ah! So all that needs to be done is to prate about "ethics" and this will make all hypocrisy on the part of the Left disappear as though it had never been? How very convenient!

This kind of response is what I was talking about. If you want to, you can clamp your hands over your ears and chant “I can’t hear you”. Or, we could narrow the discussion to something more manageable than “all hypocrisy on the part of the Left”. The degraded state of politics tends to reduce complex questions to wedge issues that can be exploited to win elections. This does nothing but perpetuate a loud and distracting form of theater while the real rules are written by lobbyists far from public scrutiny.

If we really want to resolve the complex problems that face us it’s necessary to negotiate in good faith, despite an existing lack of trust. To that end, it’s helpful to use terms that can be broadly accepted so the pros and cons of various policies can be debated in a common language. This process of untangling the treads and separating the essential from the merely sensational can’t be left to professional politicians and their attendant parasites. It’s far too important and progress is not in their sort term interest. None of this is particularly convenient but if we are really interested in results it’s going to take some actual work to achieve them.

[Cecil Turner]

"If you want to, you can clamp your hands over your ears and chant "I can’t hear you". "

Not sure why we'd want to, especially when it's such a great opportunity for observations like: "Larry Summers, weeny sissy-boy beat up by girls."

"To that end, it’s helpful to use terms that can be broadly accepted . . ."

Knock yourself out, use any terms you like. But I'll reserve the same free speech rights for myself, thank you. And if lefty academics keep slinging PC nonsense like this around, I'm not going to feel guilty for making fun of 'em.

[antiphone]

I'll reserve the same free speech rights for myself, thank you. And if lefty academics keep slinging PC nonsense like this around, I'm not going to feel guilty for making fun of 'em.

About those free speech rights, how did what I said threaten your right to free speech?

[antiphone]

Cecil Turner, I go out of my way to describe the case for voluntarily establishing common ground in discussing complex ethical issues and you come back with a free speech rights defense. Guess what, the essence of PC hypocrisy is complaining that one’s rights are being infringed upon by someone’s else’s speech.

[Cecil Turner]

"I go out of my way to describe the case for voluntarily establishing common ground in discussing complex ethical issues and you come back with a free speech rights defense. "

If you're defending the PC cause--as you appear to be--your desire to limit us all to "terms that can be broadly accepted" is precisely a free speech issue. Sorry, no sale. (Or, to put it another way, I'm not going to volunteer to use your lexicon.)

"Guess what, the essence of PC hypocrisy is complaining that one’s rights are being infringed upon by someone’s else’s speech."

Oh, you mean like the feeding frenzy over Lawrence Summers's perfectly pertinent suggestion about innate differences (which research suggests is more fact than speculation)? Or his spineless response? Or are you suggesting I should stop making fun of him, because he's suffered enough?

[antiphone]

If you're defending the PC cause--as you appear to be--your desire to limit us all to "terms that can be broadly accepted" is precisely a free speech issue. Sorry, no sale. (Or, to put it another way, I'm not going to volunteer to use your lexicon.)

I’m not defending “the PC cause” whatever that may mean to you. Do you deny that long before the term PC came into existence the issue of socially acceptable speech existed, and that this is a broader question than the political football of PC standards? There are any number of examples: the use of profanity offends some, taking the name of the lord in vain offends some, racial slurs offend some. See what I’m getting at?

If you can agree to that broad premise we will have established a small amount of common ground and we can get on with identifying where our disagreements, if any, actually exist. If we both believe in the principal of free speech we will probably not want to impose legal restrictions on speech, so we don’t have to waste time arguing about that etc.

Now just to be clear, this whole thing is voluntary. Each participant can ask for clarifications as to the assumptions of any other, and if we do this in good faith we can eventually arrive at any points of disagreement with some degree of precision. I did not ask you or anyone to use my lexicon, whatever you think that is. I did say this:

If we really want to resolve the complex problems that face us it’s necessary to negotiate in good faith, despite an existing lack of trust. To that end, it’s helpful to use terms that can be broadly accepted so the pros and cons of various policies can be debated in a common language.

If you approach a discussion or a debate without any sense of fair play, and if you are in the habit of purposely misunderstanding other people’s point of view you may choose to pretend I said something else in order to score points for your side. Media pundits who don’t have to share the microphone with their opponents use this tactic often enough, but it’s dishonest and destructive. If we value reason and if we want a society that honors the truth rather than the temporary advantage lies can offer we will pursue constructive debate though it may be less entertaining than rhetorical mud wrestling.

[Cecil Turner]

"Now just to be clear, this whole thing is voluntary. Each participant can ask for clarifications . . . "

Okay, great, what about those of us who don't feel like participating (in whatever it is that's voluntary)? While you're at it, maybe you can explain how that applies to Mr Summers's job being in jeopardy for saying something true . . . which I'm having a hard time believing he volunteered for.

"If you approach a discussion or a debate without any sense of fair play, and if you are in the habit of purposely misunderstanding other people’s point of view you may choose to pretend I said something else in order to score points for your side."

I'm not sure there is a misunderstanding. I'm interpreting: "it’s helpful to use terms that can be broadly accepted" to mean using only terms that are "broadly accepted"--or agreeing to a standard lexicon. If that's not what you mean, please clarify. If it is, I find it unacceptable. (And I think that's what the PC speech code is in actual application, especially as illustrated in this instance.)

[antiphone]

"it’s helpful to use terms that can be broadly accepted" to mean using only terms that are "broadly accepted"--or agreeing to a standard lexicon. If that's not what you mean, please clarify.

Let me clarify, I’m not talking about any standard lexicon. I’m talking about the necessity of being specific about PC, as you are using it. For my part, I’m saying that most people, whatever their political orientation, have standards and would find some language offensive. Sometimes it’s just language as in the case of profanity, and sometimes it’s because of content as in racial slurs which indicate racist beliefs. I don’t think that’s such a hard concept to grasp. In a generic sense everyone has a standard for what they consider politically (or at least socially) correct. If you have no standards for offensive speech you’re welcome to say so.

What is considered normal today is different from what was normal 50 or 100 years ago. You may, or may not consider this progress. Perhaps this is all just necessary PC noise to you, but that’s for you to say. I think progress has been made in many areas and that progress is reflected in what people consider acceptable speech. This did not just happen as a result of common sense. It’s the result of much hard-fought struggle.

The process continues, it’s not error free, there are mistakes and excesses and they should be recognized. But there’s a distinction between doing this on a case by case basis and wanting to turn back the clock to some pre PC standard. If this is the goal the Summers situation is seen as evidence of a problem with wider implications, how wide? I don’t think it’s at all unreasonable to ask people complaining about “the PC speech code” to define the scope of the problem as they see it.

On the original issue: I don’t think it’s as simple as Summers's job being in jeopardy “for saying something true”.

[Cecil Turner]

"For my part, I’m saying that most people, whatever their political orientation, have standards and would find some language offensive."

Of course they do. And as you pointed out earlier, it's very dependent on the individual. But it's the attempt to place prior restraint on the speech of others I find most offensive.

"I think progress has been made in many areas and that progress is reflected in what people consider acceptable speech."

I think the progress is in the eye of the beholder. And in actual application, the standards are often ridiculous. For example, "white men can't jump" is okay, "black men can't do calculus" is unacceptable. The flap over Summers is idiotic. Having a DC mayor's aide suspended (and later rehired) for correctly using the word "niggardly" was just precious.

"I don’t think it’s at all unreasonable to ask people complaining about "the PC speech code" to define the scope of the problem as they see it."

I'm not sure there is a problem. PC speech codes aren't infringing my rights, because I'm not going to let them. (And if Mr Summers had the same attitude, I'd be a lot more impressed with him.) Lefty academics can go through life finding new ways to avoid offending the sensibilities of the perennially thin-skinned, and I can continue to make fun of them. Everybody's happy, no?

[antiphone]

I think the progress is in the eye of the beholder. And in actual application, the standards are often ridiculous.

Here’s the thing, the term PC is reserved for the occasional ridiculous case. The same people who sneer at political correctness are often quite shocked by the use of the word nigger. Who is the hypocrite in that case? Any sense of PC that they actually subscribe to is invisible to them. What principal prevents us from using words like nigger, kike, wop etc.? It’s political correctness plain and simple, so when people ridicule the subject of PC with gusto it’s not such a stretch to wonder whether they might really be a resentful little bigoted mother fuckers who are tired of being “oppressed” and if they are, my attitude is this: go ahead and tell us what’s on your mind cause I’d rather have it out in the open too.

[Forbes]

I'm with CT, but that's not surprising. His objection is straightforward--I believe it concerns prior restraint on speech. Antiphone describes at great lengths negotiating an acceptable language, to be used, I suppose, for discussing disagreeable subjects. (All the while, Antiphone's standards amount to a Miss Manner's approach, while Summer's impropriety was raising a subject, not the words he used.) Yet, the very idea of disagreeable subjects is precisely the problem in settings that self-impose PC standards. Disagreeable subjects are entirely subjective. Violation of these "community standards," as Summers did, resulted in his banishment to the PC woodshed, with the subject (innate ability) changed to Summers PC infraction. The irony, apparently unseen by the left (for these are not liberal people), is the (female) MIT professor's reaction (gasping for air, ill feeling) to Summer's comments; evidence, certainly, of Summers contention.

The foolishness of Summers and the academic left deserve the mockery they're receiving.

[Cecil Turner]

"Here’s the thing, the term PC is reserved for the occasional ridiculous case."

No, the ridiculous cases provide an illustration (as a reductio ad absurdum) of PC run amok. Most of the rest of the time, it's just people trying to be polite . . . a task I can usually manage without reference to a collection of "common terms."

"it’s not such a stretch to wonder whether they might really be [. . .] tired of being 'oppressed'"

I'm not being oppressed. Not because PC proponents don't want to, but because I refuse to cooperate. If something I say offends, and I agree it was inappropriate, I'll apologize. Voluntarily. But if I don't agree, and someone catches vapors from something I say, that's their problem. Likewise, if I find your speech too offensive to bear, I'll stop conversing with you.

But as Forbes points out, that's really not tbe issue in the Summers case, which is far less defensible. The very idea that the search for truth should be circumscribed by political considerations is idiotic. Academia's recent track record for treatment of dissenting views is shameful: The Bell Curve is a good example, as is The Skeptical Environmentalist. Trying to portray that as a search for "common terms" is nonsense, and it certainly isn't progress.

[Tom Grey - Liberty Dad]

Science will be soon documenting, more clearly, that women who have abortions are more likely to be dead within 5 years than similarly aged women who do not.

Also, that abortion is a risk factor for breast cancer.

Of course, the observable scientific effects of abortion can't be studied if the results would be non-PC.

[Paul Zrimsek]

Luckily scientists, unlike blog commenters, are all dullards who have to go ahead and actually do the research before they know how it will come out. That should buy the abortionists some time.

[Rob Read]

And those risks are STILL lower than giving birth.

[Rob Read]

Cecil Turner,
Some excellent comments!

Thought-Crime Proponents can never seem to understand that if offense was not intended, then this is the problem of the offended party, not the person speaking.

[Jor]

Just one brief remark on evolution and morality. Evolution is basically a fundamental unifying principle of biology. Anyone recently trained in biology or medicine will not have any doubt in it. This isn't because of liberal "group-think", but because people use the principles of evolution to conduct experiments and design new drugs. You stop denying the general validity of Newton's laws after you've used them 100 times and see they work pretty well. (ok, no smart ass relativity remarks here). Anyway, there is no reason why evolution and religion can't be compatible. They aren't mutually exclusive, except in the mind of idiots.