Larry Summers, the president of Harvard University, continues to be in trouble for pointing out that there are only a few outstanding female scientists because scientific ability is not evenly distributed between males and females. Sarah Baxter provides an update in the Sunday Times.
Why do some people find the mere statement of this fact so upsetting? It seems to be because they have confused moral equality with equal outcomes. The origins of moral equality lie in our Christian heritage. As earlier liberals would have said, we are all equally children of God and, since all will be judged by their maker, all must be seen as equally capable of choosing right from wrong. But career success and failure have nothing to do with moral equality in this sense.
Closely allied with the idea of moral equality is the view that a person’s life chances should not be determined by his or her ascribed status (such as male or female; black or white). All should be able to advance according to their individual merits.
Some people now interpret this ideal to mean that any real and existing differences associated with an ascribed status cannot be acknowledged. This view implies a further assumption, namely that particular abilities are equally distributed between groups defined by their ascribed status. Consequently, it is inferred that, if success or failure in a particular career are not equally distributed between the groups, then it must be because of discrimination. Yet the liberal ideal has always been to allow individual talent an outlet, with the inevitable result that some will be more successful than others because talent is not equally distributed between groups.
Concern with the proportionate distribution of favourable outcomes between groups defined by their ascribed status is a return to a pre-liberal view of the human condition, in which the main category of analysis is the group (the tribe, the clan, the aristocratic family) rather than the individual. So long as any woman is free to become a scientist and to pit her abilities against anyone else, no liberal should be surprised to find disparate outcomes and there should be no liberal objection to the mere declaration that differences in outcome between men and women have been discovered. Let’s hope that Larry Summers will not be deterred from speaking without fear or favour.