So this is the (most) controversial part of Larry Summers' speech from a couple of weeks ago. The full transcript, which Summers' office had until now refused to release, can be found here.

It is after all not the case that the role of women in science is the only example of a group that is significantly underrepresented in an important activity and whose underrepresentation contributes to a shortage of role models for others who are considering being in that group. To take a set of diverse examples, the data will, I am confident, reveal that Catholics are substantially underrepresented in investment banking, which is an enormously high-paying profession in our society; that white men are very substantially underrepresented in the National Basketball Association; and that Jews are very substantially underrepresented in farming and in agriculture. These are all phenomena in which one observes underrepresentation, and I think it's important to try to think systematically and clinically about the reasons for
underrepresentation.
There are three broad hypotheses about the sources of the very substantial disparities that this conference's papers document and have been documented before with respect to the presence of women in high-end scientific professions. One is what I would call the-I'll explain each of these in a few moments and comment on how important I think they are-the first is what I call the high-powered job hypothesis. The second is what I would call different availability of aptitude at the high end, and the third is what I would call different socialization and patterns of discrimination in a search. And in my own view, their importance probably ranks in exactly the order that I just described.

In a bit of poetic justice, Summers' only defense--a poor one too--seems to be a variation on the logic that he used to point out anti-Semitism on his campus a couple of years ago, if not in intent then in execution. His comments are definitely misguided but they don't strike me as intentionally so.

professor b has a long rant on the subject, most of which I disagree with but it is very entertaining. She seems to think that Summers is saying that women are simply not as good as men in the field of science. He is saying that. But she ignores the fact that he acknowledges that women are better than men in other fields. This is very nice but Summers doesn't go on to name any of them. I can't think of a single field where women outnumber and outgross men to a comparative degree.

Anyway, check back later on tonight for a picture of David Byrne (my roommate's cat) in celebration of Friday Cat Blogging.