[Volokh] Eugene Volokh: Prof. Ben Barres' Response:

[notify at powerblogs.com]

Posted by Eugene Volokh:
Prof. Ben Barres' Response:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2006_08_13-2006_08_19.shtml#1155665795


   Stanford Prof. Ben Barres e-mailed me about my earlier criticisms of
   his Nature article; I then e-mailed him back, and he responded
   further, kindly agreeing to let me post our exchange. Here are the
   relevant parts, starting with Prof. Barres' first e-mail (some
   paragraph breaks added):

     I noticed your blog comments about your discomfort with my comment
     about verbal violence in my recent Nature commentary. If I may
     clarify, I wouild definitely not like to squash free discussion of
     ideas in any way. But I would like to draw a line between a faculty
     member conducting a free discussion as compared to a faculty member
     teaching that women are innately less good as fact in a classroom.
     For one thing it's not a fact, for another by teaching it as fact
     he makes it so. Studies have shown, for instance, that when
     teachers are told a group of their students are less intelligent,
     that they in fact perform less well. Teaching that a group of
     people is innately less good is extraordinarily damaging, as you
     would realize if you were personally subject to the harmful
     consequences of discrimination (no offense intended--but do you not
     think it is meaningful that pretty much the only people defending
     Larry Summers are white men?).

     There is a faculty member here at Stanford, Bill Hurlbut, who is on
     the Presidential Ethics Committee that makes recommendations on
     embryonic stem cell research. He is deeply religious and I
     personally disagree with his views about banning stem cell
     research. However, I would defend his right to discuss this subject
     in the classroom. Whenever he teaches, he discusses a controversial
     topic fully by encouraging students to bring up and discuss and
     explore all possible viewpoints. The students never have any idea
     what his own personal viewpoint is and he discusses deeply all
     viewpoints in a balanced and fair way. This is very different than
     Professor Harvey Mansfield teaching in his classroom that women are
     innately inferior (I really don't care what he says outside of a
     classroom to his friends and relatives). That he has done this is
     documented in the Harvard Crimson. When faculty tell women they are
     less good, this causes them to do less well, demoralizes them, and
     tells them they are not welcome.

   I responded that my original reading was based on Prof. Barres' focus
   on Summers' out-of-class statements (a matter I discussed in the
   quasi-footnote [1]here), and Prof. Barres graciously replied that "I
   can see why you would have come to your original interpretation as
   there was some (unintended) ambiguity. It was not my intended
   meaning." But I also went on to probe a little further Prof. Barres'
   views about the in-class statements:

     Also, I think there's much to a pedagogical style in which "The
     students never have any idea what [a teacher's] own personal
     viewpoint is and he discusses deeply all viewpoints in a balanced
     and fair way"; my sense, though, is that most universities
     generally don't require such a teaching style these days. Say that
     Steven Pinker, who may well be mistaken, as you argue, but who
     presumably has some nonridiculous reasons for thinking that his
     view is correct, teaches a class in which the question of sex
     differences comes up. He discusses deeply all viewpoints (subject
     perhaps to inevitable time constraints) in a balanced and fair way,
     but also mentions that his view is that the data points to
     biological sex differences being part of the reason for the
     disproportionate representation of men in the sciences. Would that
     too be intolerable and verbal violence?

   Prof. Barres in turn responded:

     Don't get me wrong. I am not saying that someone that does this
     should be put in jail. I am simply saying that to tell young people
     that they are innately inferior is deeply harmful. It is presently
     scientifically impossible to sort out with any degree of certainty
     the effects of social forces and prejudice, which are more than
     amply demonstrated to be large, from any possible innate effects.
     Therefore any faculty member who pronounces in a classroom that a
     whole group of people is wired to be inferior is causing great harm
     without having strong evidence to back his contention. If I were
     president of Harvard University and I had a faculty member that was
     doing this, I would ask them to feel free to have a full and
     balanced discussion on the topic, and to feel free to discuss any
     and all aspects of the question, but that they should stop short of
     pronouncing that science had demonstrated that a group of people
     was innately inferior (be it Jews, African-Americans, gay people,
     or women). It is hard for me to see any strong argument for not
     taking the course of action that is least harmful. Since tolerance
     and free speech are both important values, I don't see why one of
     them should always win out over the other, instead of their being
     an appropriate balance. (It bothers me deeply that there is an
     asymmetry here--overwhelminingly it is only white men who argue
     that its ok for faculty to categorize women or minorities as
     innately inferior ....).

   I agree that people "should stop short of pronouncing that science had
   demonstrated that a group of people was innately inferior," unless
   they really have good evidence that science has so demonstrated.
   Certainly statements about such scientific questions should be no more
   confident than the data warrants.

   Yet I'm also struck by Prof. Barres' reaction to my hypothetical, in
   which a professor merely discusses the data thoroughly in class and
   "also mentions that his view is that the data points to biological sex
   differences being part of the reason for" a phenomenon. To his credit,
   Prof. Barres does say "I am not saying that someone that does this
   should be put in jail." But he goes on to say, in a paragraph prompted
   by the same hypothetical, that "to tell young people that they are
   innately inferior is deeply harmful," and "[s]ince tolerance and free
   speech are both important values, I don't see why one of them should
   always win out over the other, instead of there being an appropriate
   balance."

   In principle I agree that we should take "the course of action that is
   least harmful." But there is great harm, for the reasons I mentioned
   earlier in this thread, in stifling discussion of possible innate sex
   differences, and that stifling seems to me to be precisely what Prof.
   Barres' analysis calls for.

   Before science can be said to "demonstrate" something "with any degree
   of certainty," scientists have to be able to discuss their tentative
   findings, both among themselves and with students (who will often end
   up being fellow scientists). If we're going to have a serious
   scientific debate, which will likely span decades and generations, we
   can't demand that one side say nothing (at least to students) about
   where it thinks the data points, while the other side is free to
   express its views.

   If we're concerned about the possible harm that such conjectures may
   cause simply from their being heard, I think it's far better to
   educate students about probabilities, and to show that even if there
   are biological differences between men and women as populations, they
   don't tell us much about the qualities of a particular man or a
   particular woman. We shouldn't have a truncated scientific debate, for
   fear that some might be dispirited by one side's conjectures. Nor
   should we have some sort of secret debate that is allowed to go on
   only among professors because it's seen as too unpleasant or dangerous
   to be exposed to mere students.

   This is especially so because, to his credit, Prof. Barres isn't even
   saying that the view that innate sex differences exist, and form a
   part of the explanation for the observed disproportions, is factually
   wrong. Rather, he says that "[i]t is presently scientifically
   impossible to sort out with any degree of certainty the effects of
   social forces and prejudice, which are more than amply demonstrated to
   be large, from any possible innate effects [by which I presume he
   means innate causes]."

   Now it seems to me that if it impossible to do this sorting, then it's
   hard to accurately estimate "the effects of social forces and
   prejudice." Evidence of the presence of such social forces and
   prejudice can't really tell us much about the magnitude of the
   real-word effects of those forces, given that the observed effects
   might stem from other causes (and might do so to a "scientifically
   impossible to sort out" degree).

   But in any event, science has not, I think, generally advanced by
   saying "it's presently scientifically impossible to sort out with any
   degree of certainty" X and Y, and thus abandoning the project of
   sorting them out, or of making conjectures at weaker levels of
   certainty. Rather, scientists have looked closely at evidence, made
   their best guesses, and over time improved their scientific tools and
   crafted theories that are helpful even if they lack the certainty that
   some might prefer. Likewise, while the impossibility of certainty
   should caution people against claiming certainty that the facts don't
   support, it shouldn't stop people from investigating the facts and
   reporting what they see as the directions in which the facts seem to
   point.

References

   1. http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2006_07_23-2006_07_29.shtml#1153936816