Thanks very much for your letter. The Schwartz article is truly troublesome and you are good to motivate some of us to try
and make a response. I have enclosed a copy of the original article from the Harvard Business Review in case you haven't
seen it. I would be very glad to collaborate with you on a rebuttal. It could take the shape of a letter to the Times, or
we could try to have it printed as an "op-ed" piece, or we could send it to Science. Unfortunately, however, I can't
to write a first draft, although I will be pleased to comment on a draft that you might do. This is not because I am not interested,
but really just because my plate is too full at the present time.
In thinking about the points that might be made in such a piece, I suggest the following for your consideration. Scientists,
in a sense, experimented with a two-track system. That is exactly what most women were put in years ago and were
called research associates, or something of the sort. The net result was that a lot of very gifted women never had the chance
to do their own thing. Worse yet, they were exploited by the men for whom they worked, sometimes their own spouses. Perhaps
a letter coming from a group of scientists could describe this earlier system and why it didn't work, and why in recent
years such great progress has been made. I agree with you that the general point is that the options ought to be there for
everyone. One of the really discouraging things about the Schwartz proposal is that people have to decide very early on which
track they are going to go on, and thus would be in dead end situations.
I look forward to hearing more about this project, and thanks again for getting it started.