Miscellaneous

Maybe we should paint math and science classrooms pink, too?

Ok, I'm looking for my friend Tammy to speak up in the comments on this one, because as a chick who's gotten a PhD in a scientific field where there ain't many gals, she's much more qualified to comment on this story than I am. Of course, that won't stop me from saying that I think the idea of applying Title IX to science is fucking ridiculous.

Title IX, as you may know, was passed in 1972 and has been used to increase the number of women participating in collegiate sports. It's worked, and I'd say it's worked pretty well. Even though it has also killed men's sports teams at many schools because, where the schools were unable to find enough girls interested in playing on their sports teams, they could only meet Title IX quotas by axing some boys teams.

Well Title IX's wording does not limit itself to university sports, and there's apparently a movement to have it applied in some form to university science and math programs, halls where women are few and far between. Now I'm all for anything that increases the number of people interested in math in science, don't get me wrong. And when I was in college, I would've loved -- loved -- for there to have been more female physics majors to hang out with. And anything that improves math and science education gets my support too. But look at what this MIT biologist, Nancy Hopkins, says:

?It is a system,? Hopkins says, ?where winning is everything, and women find it repulsive.? This viewpoint explains the constant emphasis, by equity activists such as Shalala, Rolison, and Olsen, on the need to transform the ?entire culture? of academic science and engineering. Indeed, the charter for the October 17 congressional hearing placed primary emphasis on academic culture: ?The list of cultural norms that appear to disadvantage women...includes the favoring of disciplinary over interdisciplinary research and publications, and the only token attention given to teaching and other service during the tenure review process. Thus it seems that it is not necessarily conscious bias against women but an ingrained idea of how the academic enterprise ?should be? that presents the greatest challenge to women seeking academic S&E [science and engineering] careers.?

Ok, facing sexism head-on is one thing. I know there is sexism in the math and science fields, particularly from the older generation. But to use this sexism movement as a basis for changing the entire culture just reeks of the worst kind of liberal crap (and this is coming from a staunch liberal). I mean, I actually agree that the lack of emphasis of teaching and the overarching push to publish are bad things about the academic side of the system. And if you think there's a way to change these things in a way that's better for both the educational system and the scientific community, great. Do it. I got your back. But don't fucking couch it in this gender equality argument which, to my money, just doesn't support it. I mean, she says that women find it "repulsive" that the system is one of "winning is everything?" Really? So what, women are above that type of culture and atmosphere? Sounds a bit fucking sexist to me.

Anyway, this article over at the American is a long, but very interesting read. To be fair, author Christina Hoff Sommers is certainly on my side of the argument, but her overall discussion is pretty compelling, to my culturally sexist mind, anyway.

Full post as published by Quiz Law on March 12, 2008 (boomark / email).