I belong to a number of women’s groups and one such group, non partisan The New Agenda is, or at least some of its members are,  extremely exercised over the nomination of Larry Summers for anything. (Summers, you may recall, was nominated by President-elect Obama to be the next head of the White House’s National Economic Council to coordinate economic policy making).

Summers may be a whiz at economics ( though some people question even that – see Larry’s Summer’s Judgment in Forbes), but he is pretty much a dud, not to say a disaster, with his people skills.

In 2005, Larry Summers, when he was Harvard University’s President, put forth his theory that women are genetically inferior to men in math, science and engineering. That, he declared, was why women were under-represented on the faculties of hallowed institutions that taught these subjects.

Forget that there is zilch research to support this.  Forget that bias, gender barriers and care-giving for their families have been identified and well documented as the historic and universal barriers to women’s professional progress.

Larry Summers thinks we’re stupid. Or more accurately, riddled with genetic blind spots that leave us incapacitated when it comes to his favorite subjects: math, science and engineering. No wonder no woman has made the cut to become a tenured female professor of mathematics at Harvard in its 370-year history. Must be that genetic deficiency popping up in 100% of the pool of women academics who might have been considered.

Of course, Summers got into major hot water.  He was essentially ousted from Harvard.  And now women, and many academics are looking forward to Summer’s elevation to this high post in the Obama Administration with about the same anticipation they would have if being dragged to the dentist for a full root canal.

Let me fill in a few blanks on Summers.  According to the Boston Globe , Summers had a brief and troubled stint at Harvard. “Nearly from the start, the world-renowned economist managed to alienate faculty with his autocratic management style. And then, in early 2005, he struck the match that ignited the firestorm. In suggesting that women lacked the same “intrinsic aptitude” for science as men, Summers opened a path for his eventual ouster. In a February 2006 meeting, two weeks before Summers resigned, professor after professor stood to tell him they lacked confidence in his leadership. Not a single one rose to his defense during the two-hour meeting.”  Without a lot of choice, Summers exited Harvard, on a sour note.

But…..you’ve probably seen those movies where all’s quiet in the graveyard then at the stroke of midnight some scary creature pops up from the grave to roam the earth again. He’s back!

Summers’ return and pending reinstatement to the highest positions of the land has caused a bit of a divide among women and womens’ groups.

Some high profile women like Wendy Kopp, chief executive and founder of Teach for America, think Summers is a great guy despite some “ill chosen words“. Ruth Marcus in the Washington Post comes to the conclusion Summers may have been right after all, we really are dumb.

Marcus caps this off by concluding: “Summers was boneheaded to say what he said, in the way that he said it and considering the job that he held. But he probably had a legitimate point — and the continuing uproar says more about the triumph of political correctness than about Summers’ supposed sexism.”

I hardly think that opposition to the position of girls being innately inferior in some fields amounts to “political correctness”.  I think failing to do so amounts to political cowardice. Or lack of discipline to read the weight of scientific data on the subject instead of cherry picking any shred of variance which may make Summers look like less of a Paleolithic anachronism. I’m pretty much a believer in former Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright’s remark:”There’s a place in Hell reserved for women who don’t help other women.” And I can’t see that supporting Summers by supporting the thesis that women are genetically stupid is much of a help.

Many other women have lined up to fight Summer’s appointment to any office. ( Out of our sight and back to the graveyard was the general thinking.) Nonpartisan group, The New Agenda, said appointing Summers to that top Cabinet post would be a “grave mistake.”

Sensing an opportunity to distract women’s groups and seeking to focus attention elsewhere, it seems some set out rather cynically to instigate a battle of pro and con quotes from women’s groups or prominent women on the suitability of Summers for such a high profile office. The goal, it seems, was to encourage controversy and a general slug fest among women’s groups on the Summers question.

I think this would be the ultimate magician’s hat trick, to get us to look over there, while Larry Summers is being pulled out of the hat, over here. It is not hard to get women’s groups bickering among themselves.  The challenge, I think, is to hang together, to have a “big tent” of women; to try to work united and in the same tent.  Those of us who are Democrats did that when we stood up for Sarah Palin.  I think the way forward is not to critique each other but to critique and hold accountable Paleolithic men like Larry Summers and call into question the judgment behind appointing him and the ramifications to women and academics of what he stands for which the Obama vetting team clearly doesn’t get.

If you agree, why not fire up your email and let the Obama team know, even if Summers is outstanding in his field, he is a poor choice for high office and as a role model.  When Obama said “We don’t have a Red America and a Blue America, we have a United States of America,” just as we don’t have a white America and a black America, he might well have said, “We don’t have a male America and a female America, we have a United States of America.”  This is his chance to prove those aren’t just words, they are a standard he will live by, including in his appointments to high office.