Six women computer scientists respond to why women don’t pursue computer science
I read through the responses. It appears all disagree with Stuart Reges. The first few responses disagree, a couple toward the end go farther and discuss the harm that occurs when someone expresses this opinion. One essay does insinuate that perhaps he should lose his leadership position for expressing this opinion.<p>I read all these responses with interest. The only strong opinion I hold is that we should accurately represent the thesis that we are discussing, even if it means we need to use more words to describe it. Mr. Regis didn&#x27;t argue that women don&#x27;t pursue computer science. He didn&#x27;t say that it surprises him when some of the top computer scientists are women, he didn&#x27;t say it surprises him when a woman has great interest in computer science. He made a ratio argument - that he believes that about 20% of the top computer science students and scholars will be women.<p>The sad thing is, I believe there&#x27;s plenty to discuss, argue, even rightly object to in that thesis. But we must not claim that he said women can&#x27;t be, or won&#x27;t be computer scientists. He said the opposite - that some of the top computer scientists will and should be women. If someone believes that 20% of the elite computer scientists will be women, does that mean a woman in a class should worry that this professor doubts her competence or commitment?<p>This isn&#x27;t a purely rhetorical question. If you deeply believe the main reason that women are less represented in computer science is because women ace powerful social deterrents, and that in the absence of these deterrents the percentage of women in CS would rise dramatically (far above 20%), then it could follow that a professor who openly states that 20%&#x2F;80% represents the natural equilibrium must only be a professor who fails to see the issues that women face - and that this disqualifies him from a leadership position in a top computer science department.