Summers is Over: The Washington Post reports on The New Agenda’s anti-Summers position
November 6, 2008
by Sheryl Lee
|Can Obama really be considering a known misogynist for Treasury Secretary?
The MSM is widely reporting that President-Elect Obama is considering Larry Summer for the position of Treasury Secretary.
The New Agenda wrote about Summers and his record on sexism and misogyny last month. We issued a press release yesterday, and this morning, the Washington Post published an article detailing our objections to Obama’s potential appointment of Summers:
Women’s Group Not Hot on Summers, by Garance Franke-Ruta
“Larry Summers has a clear and unequivocal record of sexism and misogyny,” said the group’s co-founder Amy Siskind in a statement. “Summers’ work history demonstrates a clear inability to work well with others, especially women.”
Another founding member of the group, The New Agenda, which has taken pro-Sarah Palin stands in the past and advocated against media sexism during the primary, is Dr. Nancy Hopkins of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Hopkins famously clashed with Summers at a January 2005 MIT forum on women in the sciences after Summers, who was then president of Harvard University, said that the paucity of women in the hard sciences might be a reflection of their “intrinsic aptitude.”
During Summers’ term as President of Harvard, the appointment of women to tenured positions declined every year. Summers demonstrable lack of respect for women should make half the population feel nervous about the prospect of him as Treasury Secretary in an economy that will certainly be disproportionately hard on women.
The New Agenda is also seeking to tie Summers to the current financial crisis, arguing that during his tenure at Treasury he failed to heed the warnings of former chairwoman of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Brooksley E. Born, who sought to warn Summers, Robert Rubin and Alan Greenspan in 1998 of the risks of unregulated derivatives.
The Post, in an October piece looking at the origins of the financial crisis, highlighted Summers’s push-back against Born’s attempts, reporting, “A decade ago, long before the financial calamity now sweeping the world, the federal government’s economic brain trust heard a clarion warning and declared in unison: You’re wrong.”
“Why would Summers have listened to her? She’s a woman,” wrote Siskind on her blog in mid-October.
If Summers didn’t listen to women before, why would we believe he’d listen to women now? In this economic winter we’re facing, Larry Summers can stay behind, where he belongs.
ACTION UPDATE:
As Amy noted in her post above this one, you can take action by contacting Valerie Jarrett, who is part of Obama’s Transition Team, at vjarrett@barackobama.com, to tell her what you think about Larry Summers as Treasury Secretary.
And add your name to the petition, “We Need Real Change”, that goes into the many additional reasons Summers ought not be awarded that post.
Comment deleted by Dawn C
Thank you to The New Agenda for speaking out against Summers. The New Agenda is the only thing keeping me sane right now – this non-partisian group is the best thing to come out of this election. Keep up the great work. Brava!
We need even stronger words than sexist and misogynist. How about anti-woman bigot? It’s bigotry pure and simple. Call him a bigot. That’s what he is.
ugsome, I agree. Good idea. I like the use of gender-apartheid also to describe the state of women in extremist Islamic countries.
I am getting my Ph.D. in organic chemistry and this comment by Larry Summers has completely infiltrated the minds of my male coworkers. I had one male postdoc tell me that “more women aren’t nobel laureates because they don’t tend to score in the highest percentages of IQs.” This postdoc told me he had read all about in The Economist, in an article they published not too long ago which supported Larry Summers’ argument that women aren’t on the ends of the intelligence bell curve. I have done my own research and found a great article which shows that an extraordinarily high IQ is never a predictor of great achievement, like the Nobel Prize, but instead hard work and having a great mentor (which women severely lack in the sciences) are. Here is a link to that article in The New Scientist:
New Scientist article
Also, today I was searching the web for information about Larry Summers and I came across a defense of his sexist statements in an English Ph.D. dissertation from Robert J. Burns, who graduated from George Tech University in 2007 with a Ph.D. in English and a focus on evolutionary psychology. I have attached a pdf of that dissertation. Robert argues that Larry made an unimpeachable argument when he said “given the massive amounts of funding spent on minority recruitment by the top universities in America—there must be only a small pool of well-qualified individuals or else the schools involved would be having greater success.” So, Larry was actually making sexist and racist remarks. I have downloaded this person’s dissertation. You can view it by going to this link:
Dissertation from Sexist
I could not find an email for Robert Burns, but I did find an email for his advisor from Georgia Tech University who directed his research. He is an English professor and his name is Paul Schmidt. His email address is: engphs@langate.gsu.edu
I encourage you to send him an email. I did.
Also, a recent report from the National Academies counters all of these sexist arguments and shows that bias and discrimination are the reasons more women are not in the sciences. It is called “Beyond bias and Barriers” and can be viewed online for free here: Beyond Bias and Barriers
Here’s an idea for an action:
This is a page from Obama’s new site. He’s asking for our ideas for the new government. I wrote that we should have gender parity since half the nation is women, and that his new administration should be 50/50 women and men. I think this is the time to demand that.
http://www.change.gov/page/content/americanmoment
this is great. thank you so much for all you’re doing.
Oh – notice the comment, designed to undermine its argument, that the Group has taken “pro-Palin” stands. Must be a group of right wing nutters then.
What is happening at present is that American dissidents, including feminists, respond to cautionary criticism of the President-Elect with calls for us to listen to this wise, attentive man whose good judgment we can trust. Meanwhile their capacity for critical opposition has been diverted to Sarah Palin, with gleefully sexist and essentially snobbish “exposes” of her various perceived faults. I think the pattern has set in: “liberal” feminists will attack Palin rather than think critically about Obama. This is the flakk they have sent up to prevent real ideas getting in.
Incidentally, the Spanish cabinet has more women than men. Nine to eight. Be ready to counter the conservative response, articulated by Berlusconi of Italy whose own government is arrogantly macho: “it isn’t easy to find women who are qualified.” Countries like Norway have voluntarily applied quotas to women candidates in political parties and boosted representation in their Parliaments and governments as a result. It can be done.
Briar, you make some very incisive points.
Violet would say that what we’re seeing with feminists attacking Palin and giving the misogyny a pass is Stockholm Syndrome – it’s easier to victimize women than to empathize with women who are being victimized.
I’m working on a post that looks at women’s roles in the Spanish and Italian governments, among other things. I don’t have anything on Norway, though – I’d be interested to see an article, if you know where I could find one.
Anna Smith, thank you for providing that information. What Summers said seems inconsequential to some, but because of his stature at the time, his words carry a great deal of weight, and anyone who thinks that the role of Secretary of the Treasury doesn’t impact women’s lives has failed to connect the dots. If Barack Obama—by virtue of his presence alone—in the White House can make things better for people in Africa, then having Larry Summers in cabinet can make things worse for women in America.
“…are you familiar with the role of Treasury Secretary? Because I usually have very good feminist tuners for how sexist blind spots could impede people in their jobs, and I’m honestly coming up on empty as to how it would affect this particular job.” – AB
AB, Summers’ sexist blind spot already caused him to ridicule and discount the warning of the one woman who foresaw the coming of our current fiscal meltdown. The Washington Post ran an article yesterday featuring The New Agenda’s objections to Summers.
During Summers’ term as President of Harvard, the appointment of women to tenured positions declined every year. Summers demonstrable lack of respect for women should make half the population feel nervous about the prospect of him as Treasury Secretary …
The New Agenda is also seeking to tie Summers to the current financial crisis, arguing that during his tenure at Treasury he failed to heed the warnings of former chairwoman of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Brooksley E. Born, who sought to warn Summers, Robert Rubin and Alan Greenspan in 1998 of the risks of unregulated derivatives.
The Post, in an October piece looking at the origins of the financial crisis, highlighted Summers’s push-back against Born’s attempts, reporting, “A decade ago, long before the financial calamity now sweeping the world, the federal government’s economic brain trust heard a clarion warning and declared in unison: You’re wrong.”
“Why would Summers have listened to her? She’s a woman,” wrote Siskind on her blog in mid-October.
If Summers didn’t listen to women before, why would we believe he’d listen to women now?
Oops! I misposted…just came back to get an excerpt to post elsewhere where they’re arguing whether Summers’ sexism matters!
I can’t believe that people find this choice OK (like a few of the comments on the washington post article). I can’t believe people think that his comments are not relevent for the post of Treasury Secretary. I am completely appalled. What if instead of women he had hypothesized about some other minority. Would he still be in consideration for this job? No way! His career would be finished.
I completed the action alert. Here is the content of my message: “Appointing Larry Summers to Treasury Secretary would be a slap in the face to all women in America. It would excuse and condone his comments denigrating the innate ability of women in math. As a female professor of engineering, I can tell you that his comments discourage bright women from going into math, science, and engineering — fields that are vital to our nation’s prosperity. It tells women “NO YOU CAN’T!” This appointment would represent neither hope nor change for women in this country.
The Obama campaign made grand promises. It’s time to deliver.”
This is good work! I’m so proud of The New Agenda!
As an Obama supporter and as a man who feels that women are victims of a ubiquitous silent bigotry in this country, I will be VERY disappointed if Obama chooses Larry Summers in any role whatsoever. More misogyny is not the change we need.
I certainly agree, Ian. His assertion about women in hard science disciplines would cause some reasonable and prudent people to assume he could make stupid fiscal assertions just as easily.
I can’t help thinking that if obama cared about women in the first place, he wouldn’t have chosen this particular economist – especially at this particular time.
Seems to me obama is giving us all the finger.
He’s proven that women don’t matter – and he’s rubbing it in.
Men & Money…geez, look what they have done so far. How about those trillions of $$$ in Derivatives!
Men can’t stand women having control of $$$. And I bet little larry has to upzip his panties to count to 21.
BO only likes women who act, in his opinion, appropriately. He is not what he appears…certainly not a ‘Leftie.’ I had to hold my nose to vote for him. That was a first for me…very difficult.
Glad to find your website.
I found a link to the transcript of Larry Summers’ remarks about women. http://www.president.harvard.e...../nber.html
I’ve deleted a bunch of comments on this thread.
Please continue to comment on the issues in good faith.
A member just emailed me that on Hardball with Chris Matthews tonight, one of the commentators was speaking about Summers. Apparently, this commentator stated that he hoped Obama wouldn’t let some “fringe women’s group” stop him from selecting Summers.
Amy, do we have any more info on that commentator? Who was it?
Do we have a clip yet?
I just wrote a definitive post on Larry Summers, with a link to his original transcript. The mainstream media coverage is a whitewash and that it was not just a women’s group that was upset- the entire scientific community was outraged.
http://tinyurl.com/6627vf
Thanks for the link.
We are also featured in a Boston Globe article today that we will post later. Boston Globe of course is the major newspaper in Harvard’s backyard.
http://www.boston.com/news/pol.....g_baggage/
wtg, New Agenda! Nice ink!
Oh, and notice the absence of NOW from the article. No statement from our supposed champions of women? Well, step aside NOW, we have a new spokesgroup. The New Agenda.
“I can’t help thinking that if obama cared about women in the first place, he wouldn’t have chosen this particular economist – especially at this particular time.”
I wonder if Obama is even aware that there’s an issue with Summers and his comments regarding women. It’s certainly not at the top of his agenda and I agree that he doesn’t care. The man is so obviously arrogant. With that attitude for all the world to see, his fall will be a brutal one…as they usually are. Nixon comes to mind. And, Bill too. Anything not addressed in personal shortcomings is just sitting there waiting to reveal itself.
He seems over his head.
He may be (over his head)!
Let’s hope that our press in the Boston Globe and the Washington Post, plus a NYT articles will have them think it through. I imagine Valerie Jarrett’s inbox is rather full as well.
If Obama does NOT pick Summers, we will have to give him credit as such. We need to reinforce positive as well.
[...] article identifies The New Agenda as an opponent of a Summers’ appointment (also here, and here). A women’s rights group called The New Agenda, established earlier this year by [...]
[...] identifies The New Agenda as an opponent of a Summers’ appointment (and see previous posts here and here). A women’s rights group called The New Agenda, established earlier this year by [...]
I am a PUMA because I supported HIllary. I supported Hillary because she and Bill did a good job in the 90s. They appointed Summers and he was a big part of their economic success.
Before attacking the CLINTON’s Treasury appointee who cleaned up after Bush Sr and did a good job with bailouts — PLEASE look into this more carefully. Please let’s attack some bot candidate instead.
Summers was up for confirmation hearings several times as he worked his way up through the Treasury after Clinton appointed him in 1993 (as Under Secretary iirc). The 1991 memo was an issue then but Bill wasn’t worried (imo the memo was satire).
Accusations of ‘abrasive personality’ didn’t keep Bill from promoting Summers throughout the Clinton administration.
This ‘innate differences’ thing happened in 2005, but it is neo-lib nonsense — like saying Gore claimed he invented the internet, or Ferroro and the Clintons made ‘racially insensitive’ remarks, or Palin ‘thought Africa was a country.’
Restoring the Clinton cabinet is a GOOD thing for the country. Let’s not give the bots an excuse to sabotage it.
For my own PUMA credentials — see my old blog begun last fall, 1950democrat.livejournal.com; and my later web pages ironmyvote.com begun early 2008; turndownobama.com begun May 2008; PumaResponders.com begun this summer. I’ve been posting for months on Hillaryis44.org and from their beginnings on clintondems.com, bitterpoliticz, pumapac.org, etc, as 1950democrat and later as turndownobama-com.
I’ve started a diary at clintondems.com supporting Summers.
It is most certainly not “neo-lib nonsense.” One of the founders of The New Agenda, Nancy Hopkins, was in attendance at the meeting where Summers made his ridiculous remarks. In fact, she was so incensed that she got up and walked out.
Summers has no business in any position of responsibility.
Larry Summers said some controversial statements to provoke discussion. Not because he actually believed them. He has repeatedly appoligised for his statements and acknowledged his mistake. Women who know the man say he is not sexist and actively promotes the education of women. In 1992 he was the chief economist at the world bank and told foreign leaders that educating women is key to economic development.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....42126.html
If this is an accurate record of Summers’ presentation I think it is quite clear what the man was saying. I will let you all decide for yourselves, but for me no amount of backpeddling after the fact will change my opinion.
http://www.president.harvard.e...../nber.html
Read it and see what you think.
http://www.president.harvard.e...../nber.html
Leave your Response Want an avatar? Get a gravatar!
Community Room
February 6, 2012 at 4:25 pm
January 30, 2012 at 2:36 pm
January 26, 2012 at 4:38 pm
January 23, 2012 at 1:04 pm
January 15, 2012 at 11:37 am
January 9, 2012 at 6:36 pm
January 7, 2012 at 10:10 pm
January 5, 2012 at 9:31 am
BUILD your NETWORK
Our Network of College Women
Protecting our Teenage Girls
We’re in the Media »
Click to see our latest stories in the media
More Stories »Recent Comments
The Latest from our Blog
Archives
Pioneer Mentors
Blogroll
Find us Online
Subscribe Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS)
The New Agenda is a 501(c)(4) organization dedicated to improving the lives of women and girls by bringing about systemic change in the media, at the workplace, at school and at home. More...