Part of me is secretly delighted to watch the Harvard president, Lawrence Summers, squirm under pressure from the politically correct intelligentsia that academic institutions like Harvard create. Another part of me, however, is sorry that he caved under that pressure and apologized for making remarks exploring the possibility that biological differences might explain why women have not achieved as much as men in the fields of math and science.

Mr. Summers was absolutely right to suggest that possibility, and the MIT biologist Nancy Hopkins, who walked out after hearing his remarks, certainly proved his point. A male scientist would have stood up and challenged Mr. Summers, not scurry from the room in an emotional huff.

If I ever had any doubt about the genetic difference between the sexes, it was dispelled in the mid-1970s when I joined a play group with other mothers at the Waterside complex on the East Side. Most of us were older mothers, former career women and totally free of stereotypical ideals about raising children. Unsurprisingly, though no guns were allowed, the boys would play with trucks and sticks or anything they could turn into a weapon. The toddler girls always went for the stuffed animals and dolls and talked to one another. As the mother of three boys and three girls, I can testify to the innate behavior that bore out some gender stereotypes.

When Mr. Summers made a similar observation about his daughter, Ms. Hopkins got up and walked out. Apparently, the idea that there may be physiological differences when it comes to how the brain works is blasphemy to some academics.

So why are there more men than women in the top ranks of science and math institutions? For that matter, why aren’t there more members of minority groups?

In 1997, the New York City Board of Education had a special Math and Science Institute program at Stuyvesant High School. This excellent program was designed to assist minority students throughout the city pass the entrance exam to the elite math and science high schools such as Stuyvesant, Bronx High School of Science, and Brooklyn Tech.

For the next two summers and part of the fall of their eighth-grade year, these select students attended intense courses in math, science, and advanced English composition. They also learned good study habits and other practical applications that would help them succeed in high school.

My daughter had the good fortune to be in the program and was accepted at Brooklyn Tech. She was also accepted at Staten Island Tech, which is set to become Staten Island’s first elite high school, where admission will be only through the Specialized Science High School Admissions test.

She opted instead to attend an all girls’ school, St. John’s Villa Academy, which also had college-prep courses in math and science. She performed exceedingly well and was part of an advanced science and math discovery program at a local college. She is now on the dean’s list at St. John’s University and is on scholarship.

This young woman with a genius IQ, who gets 100s on physics and calculus tests, does not particularly want to be a mathematician or a scientist. A talented artist, she would rather find a career in the arts. She has the brains and talent to excel in any career she chooses, yet she is not attracted to the technology careers.

Mr. Summers did not say that women couldn’t excel in those fields but was provoking answers as to why they weren’t seeking them.

Most women know that, given an equal opportunity for education, we will perform as well or even better than men in most areas. A century ago, Marie Curie surpassed her husband, Pierre, and all her male colleagues in scientific achievements. The Nobel Prize-winner was also a mother, who raised two daughters alone after the premature death of Pierre, and endured greater obstacles than American women face today at Harvard. I somehow cannot picture this great scientist being the least bit offended by anything Lawrence Summers had to say.

Women like Nancy Hopkins, and other feminists who are so offended by the thought that women might differ from men in fundamental ways, are revealing their contempt for their sex. The disdain for woman as nurturer erupted during the feminist revolution of the 1960s. Housewifery and motherhood as career choices became anathema, and only high-paying corporate positions or prestigious science or technological careers were deemed worthy of pursuit.

Perhaps the question to be debated is not why aren’t women attracted to math and science careers, but why aren’t the women who put their families before their careers being valued for their magnificent choice.