In his 1869 inaugural address, Harvard University President Charles W. Eliot, class of 1853, stated that “the corporation will not receive women as students into the College” because “the world knows next to nothing about the natural mental capacities of the female sex.” After 136 years, it appears that Harvard presidents are still grappling with the same question. Last Friday, University President Lawrence H. Summers cited innate differences as a possible explanation for the lack of women in science and math. His comments have set off an explosion of controversy—both on this campus and across the country.

In fairness to Summers, it is important to set the record straight: He did not claim that women are inherently inferior to men in math and science skills as popular perception seems to have it. At a conference on women and minorities in science and engineering, Summers listed some possible explanations for why only a small number of women excel at elite levels of scientific study, and one of the theories he cited states that women have an innate disadvantage in math and science aptitude. As far as we can tell, he was not espousing his own beliefs, but merely listing this as one possibility.

Yet this clarification still does not excuse his behavior. Summers is smart enough to know that as long as he maintains his office in Mass. Hall, he will never be considered just another professor. As the leader and spokesperson of this university, his comments—whether in public or private settings—are almost always taken as the thoughts of Harvard University President Lawrence H. Summers, not economist Lawrence H. Summers. The controversy prompted by his comments illustrates the reality that, when Summers offers his thoughts on contentious issues, his words are taken very seriously and will reflect the University as a whole.

Each academic year since he became University president, the percentage of women offered tenured jobs has declined. Ironically, these controversial remarks on women in the sciences were made before a group of distinguished female scientists—the very people he should be actively courting. As a letter from the Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences Standing Committee on Women notes, Summers’ comments would “impede our current efforts to recruit top women scholars” to the University. Many female science students were also offended and hurt by his suggestion, and over fifty professors have signed a letter criticizing his remarks.

Lacking tact on sensitive subjects is not a new problem for Summers. We hardly need mention his past troubles with members of Harvard’s once vaunted African American Studies Department, now much weaker than it was when he came to Harvard. We respect Summers’ determination to engage in academic debate, but he must always make the interests of Harvard the top priority.

Indeed, while we are firmly opposed to censoring academic discussion on controversial topics, citing innate differences to explain gender inequalities can be a dangerous approach—especially when the comments are made by the president of a university that has such a problem with female faculty tenure rates. We want our University president to lead the discussions on ways to overcome gender inequalities—not to offer ways to rationalize them. As the letter from the Standing Committee on Women told Summers, “your efforts to ‘provoke’ your audience did not serve our institution well.”

We are glad that Summers has offered an official apology and recognized his mistake, but, unfortunately, much of the damage to his reputation—and to the University’s—has already been done.