 |
A short time ago, I received a thoughtful letter from
an alumna, calling on me and other college presidents to make a public case for science
and its relevance to national policy debates. Because so many scientific issues have
become increasingly politicized, her letter prompted me to share with you some of
my reflections on public advocacy and the ways in which Smith can best advance national
conversations.
 I
believe strongly that scientific literacy is a critical element of a liberal arts
education. It surprises me how frequently people use the term “liberal arts” to
mean the humanities. People often ask me, for example, whether Smith’s development
of science and engineering means that it will abandon the liberal arts, as if the
sciences were not liberal arts. Indeed, I have argued that in today’s world,
we should regard engineering as a liberal art. I have twice taught a course on science
and literature with Professor Marjorie Senechal, precisely to encourage more conversation
across what the physicist and novelist C. P. Snow called the two cultures. No doubt
many of you recall an op-ed piece by Nicholas Kristof in The New York Times several
months ago, criticizing those who regard a person as liberally educated who understands
Plato and Dickens but not relativity or stem cell research.
Many thoughtful people are concerned with the United
States’ vulnerability to losing leadership in science and technology, a central
theme of Thomas L. Friedman’s best-selling book, The World is Flat. Motivating
women to enter scientific and technological fields is a critical piece of this issue.
Women comprise almost 60 percent of the college population, a fact that makes their
low participation in science and engineering a concern not only of gender equity
but national competitiveness. The ongoing media interest in Smith’s engineering
program attests to the leadership Smith has taken in this regard.
 More
fraught, however, are the increasingly political controversies about scientific evidence—debates
about evolution and intelligent design, stem cell research, or global warming. In
keeping with our commitment to undergraduate teaching, we often give public forums
about these topics at Smith; we held one about stem cell research last year, from
which the papers will be published, and one about evolution and intelligent design
this year, at which students and faculty packed Stoddard Auditorium.
It is dismaying the degree to which topics like evolution
and global warming—topics that should be matters of scientific argument and,
indeed, on which there is broad scientific consensus—have become ammunition
for party politics. I do not believe that it furthers the aims of colleges for presidents
to wade into partisanship, especially at a time on our campuses when we are trying
to widen the spectrum of political debate.
Today, a college president’s bully pulpit
is a strategic resource. In choosing which subjects to speak and write about publicly,
I rely not only on my convictions but also on what I feel best furthers the mission
of the college. In my public writings and speeches, I have chosen to focus on such
topics as women in science, the debate about college access and affordability,
the need to build the capacity for civil discourse among college students, the
importance of women’s colleges, work/life balance for women and for men,
and the competitive frenzy in admissions. All of these are related directly to
Smith’s legacy and future and to the contributions it can best make to our
world through education.
This column appeared in the Summer 2006 issue of
the Smith Alumnae Quarterly. |
|
What
Alumnae Have
Said
Register
for an Event
President's
Columns
on Smith's Future
Summer
2006
Spring
2006
Winter
2005-6
Fall
2005
Summer
2005
Spring
2005 |
|
