Well, no, actually I'm not sorry. I disagree with Keith Halderman's entry about Larry Summers' remarks on numerous grounds, which I set out at some length here (an essay which I wrote yesterday, thus predating Keith's entry).

Although I recommend that people read that lengthier post if they want to understand my full perspective on these issues (and even that essay is quite condensed, given the complexity of the questions involved), let me very briefly address two points raised in Keith's final paragraph:

Lastly, if the evidence cited by Sullum is true then how can Summers’ remarks be considered bigotry. Is it bigoted and racist to say that generally Black people have darker skin coloring than White people? Is it bigoted and sexist to say that women have vaginas and men do not? Bigotry is not about truth it is about falsehood, all Mexicans are lazy, all Blacks steal, all women are emotional. In order to legitimately assert that Summers comments were bigoted and offensive Hopkins, Ring and their allies must first prove them to be false. Maybe I have missed it but I have yet to read anything concerning this controversy that even attempts to do so.

I'm not familiar with the research that Sullum cites, but based on a few of the articles that I excerpt in my post, the evidence would not appear to be nearly so clearcut as Sullum implies; moreover, quite a lot of evidence points to very different conclusions.

I also think Keith improperly shifts the burden of proof. Remember the key part of what Summers said: that women's performance levels in certain fields may be due entirely (or in significant part) to genetic differences between women and men. As I note in my post, this is a genuinely extraordinary claim -- one for which the necessary amount of evidence simply does not exist. And if Summers is going to make a claim like that, then the burden of proof is his. It is not anyone else's burden to prove his statements to be false. This is akin to someone claiming that God exists -- and to view as proper epistemologically his subsequent demand that I disprove his claim.

I would hope that Keith would reject such an approach with regard to the God question -- and I am thoroughly convinced that the same reasons compel the identical conclusion here. But my further objections to Summers' entire approach are set forth in the other post. I think the major root of my disagreement with Keith lies in the importance we attach to cultural factors. As I explain, I think the role of such factors can never be overestimated -- and I further think we are a long way away from being at a point where any genuine differences between the sexes can be objectively and accurately assessed.

On the state of the current evidence, I do not view Summers' comments as plausible at all -- and given his position, I also view them as singularly unhelpful. And I think it is very easy to see why many people would view them as deeply offensive, as I do myself -- not only for their specific content, but for the general methodology they reveal.