Women are equal to men. But they are not the same as men. Thus, while there are of course individual variations, women and men as a whole will tend to diverge in their behavior in certain respects.
The Princeton administration seems not to consider this as a conceivable explanation for the gender disparity in undergraduate leadership roles (Notebook, Feb. 24). Rather, the administration presumes something untoward is going on, as it is already asking — before the campus study of this subject has even been conducted — for “remedies” to the situation.
Men are vastly overrepresented in the criminal population, in car accidents, and in jails. Is this a gender disparity that needs to be remedied? Or could it instead be evidence of inherent gender differences — differences that might in some cases actually favor women?
The administration might “remedy” the disparity, either by inducing women to assume leadership roles that otherwise might not be their top priority, or by tilting the playing field to give women a competitive advantage. But would that not be to impose an artificial vision of reality upon students — to insist that the administration’s philosophy trump the choices students themselves have made?