Our president-elect, Barack Obama, will face many tough challenges when he assumes the presidency this coming January 20. I hope that he will not aggravate those already difficult circumstances by having to worry about political correctness.
On the personal level, Barack and Michelle Obama have two decisions to make regarding their family life. Where are they going to send their daughters to school? Also, what kind of dog are they going to get? Just in case Barack and Michelle were about to solicit my opinion on these important topics, I will take this opportunity to state the obvious: In your capacity as parents, act in the interests of your children, and ignore any political ramifications.
I read today that the mayor of Washington, Adrian Fenty, has put out the word that he at least hopes that the Obamas will consider sending Malia and Sasha to a public school in Washington, D.C. It seemed to me that President Carter sent his daughter to a public school because that would reinforce his just-plain-folk image. Perhaps I am being unfair to Mr. Carter, and to the D.C. public schools, but Barack and Michelle Obama should send their daughters to whatever school will best serve the interests of Malia and Sasha. If that should happen to be a private school, even if it is one with considerable snob appeal, then that is where those kids should go. The educational environment is a big consideration, as is the social environment, and the fact that Secret Service protection will be ever-present for the president’s immediate family. What Barack and Michelle should not consider at all is how the choice of a school for their children will impact his political standing.
In a similar way, the choice of a First Dog should be based on what is good for the family. The dog should not be a political prop any more than the children’s school. According to the president-elect, one of his children has allergies to most dogs, but apparently certain dog breeds should not be a problem. He stated his preference for getting a dog from a shelter, but noted that this goal tends to conflict with the more important issue of the allergy in the household. Personally, I think that mutts are often great dogs. My favorite dog was a Save-a-Pet mutt who lasted about 13 years. Then again, nobody in our household has dog allergies. I am sure that, in the end, the Obamas will do the sensible thing and get a dog who presents little or no risk of allergic reactions in the Obama family. Whatever dog they wind up getting, I just hope that political considerations will not enter into the decision-making process.
Okay, so much for two issues that are interesting but of no real importance outside the Obama family. There is a more substantive political correctness matter facing Mr. Obama. Larry Summers, a highly respected Treasury Secretary in the Clinton administration, is believed to be under serious consideration for the same job in the upcoming Obama administration. However, there is serious opposition to Mr. Summers, because of remarks he made as Harvard University President a few years ago. Mr. Summers noted that, while men and women on average performed about equally in academic achievement in math and science, the variance among men was greater, so that men were over represented at both the top and bottom ends of the spectrum. He suggested that these differences should be studied, both to verify (or refute) the observations, and (if those observations appear to be verified) to test possible hypotheses that might explain the reason for these differences. Mr. Summers never suggested any inherent inferiority of women, but some of the P-C police declared that he was guilty of being out to keep all young women barefoot and pregnant.
Let me add a personal note here. I am the father of two sons (and no daughters). None of the three of us have ever been especially good science students. In contrast, my sister was an outstanding science student, and she has a good job now doing… scientific stuff. She probably would be annoyed to have me publicly characterize her as an “accomplished scientist,” but that label fits her more than almost anybody else I know.
I cannot see that Larry Summers is guilty of any serious wrong-headed thinking. Even if his premise (that males are more likely than females to reach the top academic percentile in math and science) is wrong, he was speaking as the head of a prestigious academic institution, where inquiry and challenging conventional wisdom are supposed to be the way of life. If we think he is wrong, instead of condemning him for heresy, demonstrate the error of his ways by constructing a superior study that will (or at least might) refute his assertions.
We should also keep in mind that Larry Summers is under consideration for Treasury Secretary. I believe that his alleged views about the differences in abilities between men and women have been badly misconstrued, but even if that is not the case, it is of no relevance to the government post in question. If Mr. Summers was under consideration for heading the Department of Health and Human Services, or Education, I could at least understand the objections, and I might agree that the controversy at Harvard would deserve careful scrutiny.
The economy is in recession, possibly the worst recession in the lifetime of most of us, and President Obama will need the best Treasury Secretary he can get. Maybe that person is Larry Summers. The Treasury Secretary should be chosen on the basis of how it is believed he or she will perform in that capacity, and not on the basis of whether he/she offended some people with remarks made on an unrelated subject a few years ago. Maybe somebody else would be better than Mr. Summers for that job, but the decision should be on factors directly relevant to the specific job.
