Being a friend and colleague of Larry Summers is rarely dull. He is a brilliant economist, bold thinker, and a caring and loyal friend, who, yes, seems to have a certain penchant for controversy. His recent remarks on innate differences between the sexes concerning math and science created a firestorm.

At the onset of this controversy, public outcry at first seemed to harden into two opposing camps. One side seemed to suggest that his comments revealed him as sexist and lacking commitment to expanding equal opportunity. The other side saw his remarks as provocative academic inquiry and even questioned Larry’s thoughtful amendments to his initial remarks as an unnecessary bow to political correctness.

As a close friend for more than 16 years, the polarized debate left me wondering whether I was the only person in the world who both thought he was right to take back some of his remarks and that the attacks on his character were completely unfair because of his long record of walking the walk for equal opportunity throughout his public life.

He was right to pull back on his comments because the entire controversy moved national discussion from the overwhelming evidence that the lack of women – as well as minorities – in math and sciences is a major challenge to our economy, and that there are substantial, proven steps we can take to reduce social and discriminatory barriers that help propagate these gaps.

When Larry said he regretted that his words sent “an unintended signal of discouragement to girls and young women interested in science” and that he had “substantially understated the impact of socialization and discrimination, including implicit attitudes” on disparities in the sciences, both sides should have seen those comments for what they were: the honest reflection of an open-minded leader who wanted to get back to finding constructive steps forward.

We know, for example, that when girls enter fifth grade they tend to outperform boys in math and science, yet as they hit the teen years, girls’ interest in pursuing math and science falls considerably – due to social pressures and traditional stereotypes reinforced in the classroom.

I initially opposed addressing this problem by having separate science and math classes for girls, yet after interviewing experts, I am convinced that we should be open to exploring this option if all-girl environments are created to reduce – not reinforce – stereotypes about women and science.

In Chicago at the Young Women’s Leadership Charter School, 41% of the 2004 graduating class, consisting of mainly low-income minority girls, plan on majoring in science, math, or technology in college. That compares with only 15% of female undergraduates nationwide. Here in Washington, even some elite private schools have all-girl classes for math and science.

Beyond working to reduce discrimination, universities must make it easier for women and men to be parents and to obtain tenure in all-consuming scientific fields, even if that requires creating an optional alternative tenure track for those with family obligations. One idea from my sister Anne, a tenured professor in immunology at the University of Chicago: Offer additional technical lab support for promising post-doctoral fellows who are balancing major family responsibilities.

As to whether Larry’s comments reveal him to be a closet sexist who isn’t committed to increasing opportunity, the record shows otherwise.

In 1992, as chief economist at the World Bank, he gave a speech arguing that from an economist’s perspective, the world’s single highest return on investment was educating girls in developing nations. I now run a center at the Council of Foreign Relations dedicated to universal basic education, and I can say with some authority that the speech was considered a landmark economic speech for the cause of girls’ education.

Throughout President Clinton’s administration, Larry was a ferocious defender of the earned income tax credit – perhaps the most effective anti-poverty tool for poor working mothers. In 1999, he not only championed greater debt relief for poor nations to free up resources to invest in education and health, he also devised a special tax credit to encourage the development of lifesaving vaccines in Africa.

In 2004, he initiated free tuition for every Harvard student whose family earns less than $40,000 a year and reduced tuition for those whose families make $40,000 to $60,000. Yale University followed suit last week with similar reductions.

Those within and outside of Harvard would be wise to consider the thoughtful letter of two of his critics, Harvard professors Elizabeth Spelke and Mahzarin Banaji.

In an open letter to the Harvard community, they wrote that while they had forcefully criticized him on a number of occasions, they also made clear that “never, however, have we felt marginalized, undermined, or penalized for our bluntness. Quite the contrary, our experience suggests that the best way to get President Summers’s attention is to tell him he’s wrong. He listens.”

As to those who suggest his apologies were insincere, they answer: “His history of speaking his mind and acting on his beliefs, coupled with his current acknowledgement of failures and shortcomings, convinces us that he deserves a chance.”

Honest reflection is the first step toward change; as professors Spelke and Banaji conclude: “The recent statements by this outspoken president forecast a better future for women and men at Harvard.”

Mr. Sperling, who was President Clinton’s top economic adviser, is a columnist for Bloomberg News and a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress.