Just over one year ago, Harvard President Lawrence H. Summers gave a speech which sparked outrage among women's groups. In the speech, Summers suggested that one possibility why there are few women science and engineering professors at the nation's elite schools may be due to innate differences between men and women. Maybe, Summers suggested, that at the very top of these disciplines there are just naturally fewer women.

It does appear that on many, many different human attributes-height, weight, propensity for criminality, overall IQ, mathematical ability, scientific ability-there is relatively clear evidence that whatever the difference in means-which can be debated-there is a difference in the standard deviation, and variability of a male and a female population. And that is true with respect to attributes that are and are not plausibly, culturally determined. If one supposes, as I think is reasonable, that if one is talking about physicists at a top twenty-five research university, one is not talking about people who are two standard deviations above the mean. And perhaps it's not even talking about somebody who is three standard deviations above the mean. But it's talking about people who are three and a half, four standard deviations above the mean in the one in 5,000, one in 10,000 class. Even small differences in the standard deviation will translate into very large differences in the available pool substantially out.

For merely suggesting this, Summers was pilloried ruthlessly. Harvard's Faculty of Arts and Science passed a no-confidence vote on Summers.

So, imagine my surprise when I encountered this little gem in Washingtonpost.com chat with National Review's Kate O'Beirne and former NARAL head Kate Michelman.

Rockville Centre, N.Y.: With more women enrolled in 4-year colleges and universities than men these days in the United States. Do you believe that its is time that the education system began addressing this inbalance to increase male enrollment in higher learning?

Kate Michelman: We just need to inspire more men to learn!

Does anyone here believe that Michelman would've given the same answer if the genders were reversed? (And yes, the quote is accurate.) Can you imagine what Michelman and her ilk would've said if Summers had offered the same solution with regard to women and science education? It would feel like deja vu all over again for Summers.