The 20th Anniversary of Larry Summers’ Remarks and the Debut of Cancel Culture

A guest post by Allison Pillinger Choi ‘06

Credit: Harvard Magazine/Jim Harrison

Twenty years ago, Harvard President Lawrence Summers delivered a speech at an economics conference which, as a later Crimson article asserts, “started the war.” As a student in 2005, I viewed the event as a simple battle between open inquiry and political correctness. As an alum looking back, I see it as the debut of what we know today as cancel culture.

The conference was convened by the National Bureau of Economic Research to discuss diversity in the science and engineering workforce. In his remarks, which referenced various studies proposing explanations for the underrepresentation of women in STEM, Summers discussed the importance of rigorously thinking about ways to increase female representation.

As he lays out in his introductory remarks:

“I’m going to confine myself to addressing one portion of the problem, or of the challenge we’re discussing, which is the issue of women’s representation in tenured positions in science and engineering… to think about and offer some hypotheses as to why we observe what we observe without seeing this through the kind of judgmental tendency that inevitably is connected with all our common goals of equality. 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.”

And, as he stipulates in his concluding statement:

“I’ve given you my best guesses after a fair amount of reading the literature and a lot of talking to people. They may be all wrong. I will have served my purpose if I have provoked thought on this question and provoked the marshalling of evidence to contradict what I have said. But I think we all need to be thinking very hard about how to do better on these issues…”

Most would view this as a typical approach to problem-solving and innovation: identify a problem, research possible reasons for the problem, and propose how to solve or minimize the problem. However, not everyone at the conference received his approach this way.

The immediate aftermath of Summers’ speech, as noted by The Boston Globe, “sparked an uproar.” One MIT professor in the audience, interviewed by The Globe and later The Crimson, felt profoundly disturbed by Summers’ references, including an academic study that indicated innate differences between women and men with regard to family desires and variability of intrinsic aptitude in math. As recapped in a February 2005 Inside Higher Ed piece, “When the Boston Globe reported on the remarks–and the anger of some women who heard them–the comments became the focus of an international debate.” Though many came to his defense–even inspiring a Harvard Students For Larry petition campaign–discussion of Summers’ lack of tact per The New York Times and accusations of sexism by The Daily Pennsylvanian fanned the flames beyond Cambridge. Angry posts on a social media startup, then known as “The Facebook,” presumably also contributed to the contagion of indignation. Summers’ attempt at thought-provoking and solutions-oriented remarks turned into a perceived act of toxic male misogyny.

Weeks later, Summers issued a public apology. In it, he notes:

“I attended the conference with the intention of reinforcing my strong commitment to the advancement of women in science, and offering some informal observations on possibly fruitful avenues for further research. Ensuing media reports on my remarks appear to have had quite the opposite effect. I deeply regret the impact of my comments and apologize for not having weighed them more carefully.”

Unfortunately, per the code of cancel culture, public apologies are not to be received as an ask for forgiveness, but rather as an admission of irredeemable wrongdoing. As such, this apology symbolically marked the sunset of Summers’ presidency. It was also the premiere of cancel culture. The success of the public outrage provided a green light for those promoting cancellation over discourse. In this new cultural era, reason-oriented approaches to inquiry and robust dialogue became a minefield of vulnerable feelings and unintended offenses.

In the twenty years to follow, we have seen the proliferation of cancel culture and its consequences. The headline cancellations of major figures are widely known. But there have also been frequent, under-discussed instances involving lesser-known professors, teaching assistants, and students. We have seen a rise in the self-censorship of heterodox ideas, and we have witnessed the disinvitation of controversial speakers from being given a platform to share thoughts at Harvard. As a result, a lack of robust exchanges and challenging views has severely compromised Harvard’s truth-seeking mission.

Two decades after Summers’ STEM debacle, it is past time for the era of cancel culture to end. We must instead re-embrace academic freedom, which requires the ability to speak openly and genuinely in pursuit of truth. The never-ending journey towards Veritas requires an environment where ideas can be proposed and challenged with respect and civility. The Harvard community– faculty, students, and alumni–must view it as a shared responsibility to create such an environment.