Diversity
Via Mick Hartley comes news from the University of California:
“After a group of UC Davis women faculty began circulating a petition, UC regents rescinded an invitation to Larry Summers, the controversial former president of Harvard University, to speak at a board dinner Wednesday night in Sacramento. Summers gained notoriety for saying that innate differences between men and women could be a reason for under-representation of women in science, math and engineering.
UCD professor Maureen Stanton, one of the petition organisers, was delighted by news of the change, saying it’s ‘a move in the right direction’. ‘UC has an enormous historical commitment to diversity within its faculty ranks, but still has a long way to go before our faculty adequately represent the diversity of our constituency, the people of California,’ said Stanton.
When Stanton heard about the initial invitation to Summers, she was ‘stunned’. ‘I was appalled that someone articulating that point of view would be invited,’ she said. ‘This is a symbolic invitation and a symbolic measure that I believe sends the wrong message about the University of California and its cultural principles.’ ‘None of us go looking for a fight,’ Stanton said. ‘We were just deeply offended.’”
Yes, diversity in all things. Except, of course, in thought. Presumably, Professor Stanton is also “stunned”, “appalled” and “deeply offended” by the over-representation of, say, gay people in the spheres of arts and drama, or of women in the caring professions, or of Indian employees in Indian restaurants. Perhaps some recalibration of those industries is also in order, to ensure suitable diversity.
Meanwhile, in Ohio:
“The Office of University Housing at Ohio State, a public university, maintains a Diversity Statement that severely restricts what students in Ohio State’s residence halls can and cannot say. Students are instructed: ‘Do not joke about differences related to race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, ability, socioeconomic background, etc. When in doubt about the impact of your words and actions, simply ask.’”
It’s interesting to note that the University’s Diversity Statement aims to foster learning “from a wide array of human similarities and differences in an increasingly diverse world” and plans to achieve this blossoming of awareness by inhibiting any careless reference to those same differences.
Related. (H/T. Stephen Hicks.)
— the University’s Diversity Statement aims to foster learning “from a wide array of human similarities and differences in an increasingly diverse world”
What do the authors of the University’s Diversity Statement mean by “an increasingly diverse world”? How are they measuring this? Of course, if the world’s diversity is, indeed, increasing, it means that people who operate in the field of “diversity” will be more in demand by employers, but it would be cynical to suggest that their contention has anything to do with that. So what could they possibly mean?
Horace,
I’m still struggling to comprehend the Diversity Statement’s prohibition of “words, actions, and behaviours that… threaten infliction of… emotional harm.” Whatever unspeakable things that might conceivably cover, they’re definitely not permitted. But then I’m also having difficulty with the belief, implied by Professor Stanton, that there are ratios of women and men that “ought” to be found in any given sphere of employment.
David
Yet it’s intriguing, isn’t it? The idea that there’s somehow an ideal social make-up within each office, department, factory etc. X percent women, y percent this ethnic group, z percent that ethnic group etc etc. It must really irk these diversity-heads that so many institutions currently fall short of that perfect mix. But still, they have a dream…
Mind you, if the world is becoming “increasingly diverse” as they plainly state, this must be a bit of a headache for HR departments. I mean, once you establish a department with the perfect socio-cultural mix, the outside world will get just that bit more diverse and your department will again be falling short of the ideal. Time to start drafting those job advertisements again…
They have a dream…
Horace,
I am baffled by just how readily and often this “diversity” schtick is taken to absurd lengths. Provided suitably qualified women are able to apply for maths and engineering positions on an equal footing with comparably qualified men, I see no reason to feel that there “ought” to be more female mathematicians or engineers. On what basis does one determine that there “ought” to be a particular ratio of male and female mathematicians? At what point and on what basis does one determine that a particular gender is sufficiently “represented” in a given vocation? Perhaps Professor Stanton would favour boosting the numbers of conservative academics within the humanities in order to accurately “represent” the political spectrum of the general population?
And Stanton’s censorious horror at the suggestion that biology and disposition could possibly play a role in which occupations a person seeks out says a great deal about her own modish prejudices, and their unsound footing. Not that any of this has prevented others from claiming, rather worryingly, that, “no one is better at teaching students how to think critically” and that, “she exemplifies the very best in higher education.”
“Diversity” (n)
1. The manipulation of an institutions’ selection process by left wing idealogues to prevent merit being used as a selection criterion.
2. The institution of a system of political cronyism disguised as “fairness”
3. Revenge against groups that the left hates esp. white men and right-wingers.
4. A way of frightening opponents of socialism into silence by redefining words so that any opposition to socialist policies appears morally evil.
To ask some more unaswerable questions: Exactly how IS the world becoming more diverse? Are there new ethnic or racial groups emerging spontaneously? Are there new genders (not people with mental disorders) evolving?
I find it interesting that political conservatives in the United States are complaining about a lack of diversity of the political support on university campuses. (Have I detected an echo of that here from time to time?) But, as has been pointed out here, the concern is only with some departments and not others. See: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050404/jacoby
The world isn’t becoming more diverse. It has always been diverse. But we are all closer to each other as information flows more rapidly and in exponentially increasing amounts. One can be culture-shocked living in a cave these days, so long as one has access to the Internet.
Now, as for Mr. Summers, must I invite him to supper at the risk of losing my well-deserved reputation for open-mindedness? Why not spend a little time on this far more significant case:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/09/14/state/n180613D10.DTL
But, all this being said, I find speech codes to be stultifying, if well-intended. I asked the firs’-years in my Anthro section this term simply to show respect for each other–but let everyone know that they would be discussing controversial issues of the day. Surely that should be enough.
“lack of diversity of the political support”
Sorry: I meant “of the political sort.” Freudian slip of some kind?
“lack of diversity of the political support on university campuses”
Dr Dawg,
from cnsnews.com
“Faculty members from Harvard University led the way in overall political contributions — $266,044 — with 81 percent of those gifts going to Democrats so far in 2007, according to the report”.
This is the kind of “diversity” we are talking about. The drive to be diverse is leading to this kind of skewing of the political landscape of colleges (and the media “Journalists give to Democrats 9-1”).
I find such stats frightening. It seems to me that “diversity” is actually leading to anything but diversity by closing down speech and effectively barring anyone with dissenting views.
Discussing “controversial issues” is not enough.
However hard you try, your political views will be a part of that discussion and without teachers with different views to balance the curriculum, your students will be propagandised – not educated.
Dr Dawg,
“As for Mr. Summers, must I invite him to supper at the risk of losing my well-deserved reputation for open-mindedness?”
No-one suggested you should. That’s not the point. Stanton’s preposterous gasping at the very suggestion is nearer the issue, as is her tacit assumption of male to female ratios that “ought” to exist in, for instance, mathematics and engineering.
Being someone who can’t see much of a difference–and certainly not a radical difference–between Democrats and Republicans, these stats (and I do wonder how they were obtained) don’t worry me much. Perhaps we should demand that corporate boardrooms include more Democrats, given that that’s where the real power lies. Here’s a reasonable deal, seems to me: “You give us one Pentagon, one Department of State, Justice and Education, plus throw in the Supreme Court, and we will give you every damned English department you want.”
Source: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050404/jacoby/2
“However hard you try, your political views will be a part of that discussion and without teachers with different views to balance the curriculum, your students will be propagandised – not educated.”
I suggest before judging the quality of my pedagogy, you inquire a little further. I actually say very little–just ask questions now and then.The point is to get people of quite diverse views talking to each other, not listening to me drone on. Maybe that’s why my attendance seems to be good and stable.
To clarify my previous comment…
As far as I’m aware, universities can invite (or not invite) pretty much whomever they wish. I was hoping to draw attention to the improbable *reason* for the uproar. From what I’ve read, Summers’ “offensive” comment was hardly controversial or ill-intended. Indeed, given the gasping and indignation that followed, it’s the prosaic nature of his suggestion that’s noteworthy. What I find hilarious is Stanton’s alarm at the suggestion that biology and disposition could possibly play a role in which occupations a person seeks out. I suspect Stanton’s feelings on the issue are, unfortunately, far from uncommon, at least among her peers. But dismissing Summers’ comment as somehow placing him beyond the pale isn’t exactly a sign of confidence in the veracity of her own position.
David:
Not being a fan, to put it mildly, of sociobiology, I think Summer’s comments were pretty out-of-whack in this day and age. I wouldn’t expect geographers to invite flat-earthers to speak at their dinners either. Occam’s Razor tells me (if razors can speak) that plain old sexist assumptions and systemic discrimination have been keeping women out of “male” disciplines. In Canada, I am happy to report that enrollment in engineering is now approaching gender parity–so much for women’s “innate” inabilities.
Didn’t Mr. Summers allow his name to be connected to this statement when he was an economist at the World Bank?
“The measurement of the costs of health-impairing pollution depends on the forgone earnings from increased morbidity and mortality. From this point of view a given amount of health impairing pollution should be done in the country with the lowest cost, which will be the country with the lowest wages. I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that.”
Dr Dawg,
“I think Summer’s comments were pretty out-of-whack in this day and age. I wouldn’t expect geographers to invite flat-earthers to speak at their dinners either.”
To equate the suggestion of possible biological and dispositional factors in employment choices with ‘flat-earthers’ is disingenuous. (You’re better than that.) No-one here has disputed the possibility of sexist assumptions or tradition or whatever. Yet Stanton and her associates seem unwilling even to entertain the *possibility* of other, biological variables. And, so far as I’m aware, Summers’ views on waste disposal were not the stated reason for Stanton’s implausible outrage.
Naturally, I find your sneering at the idea of (choke) “innate” abilities deeply offensive. I’m outraged and oppressed. Outraged, I say. “Unclean! Unclean!”
David,
Maybe I’m *not* better than that. 🙂 Summers, if his reported comment about women is accurate, is intellectually lazy at best.
I don’t have a problem with the notion of “innate ability,” only with the idea that’s it’s unequally distributed by gender and “race.” Such allegations have often been made, inevitably on the right of the political spectrum, but I do not find them supported by much evidence.
Dr Dawg,
“I don’t have a problem with the notion of ‘innate ability,’ only with the idea that’s it’s unequally distributed by gender and ‘race’.”
I don’t recall Summers mentioning race at all, or suggesting that women are generally deficient in relation to men. Again, that isn’t the stated reason for Stanton’s petition and her subsequent fainting spell. Yet it seems entirely plausible that, statistically, men and women have differing psychologies, possibly for evolutionary reasons (say with regard to social influence), and differing areas of (statistical) expertise. Things like gender differences in large and small-scale spatial acuity come to mind, which might have bearing on preferred jobs.
“Perhaps we should demand that corporate boardrooms include more Democrats, given that that’s where the real power lies”
Then buy some shares and you’ll get to vote on who is the board. The difference with education is that being state funded, I am being forced to “buy shares” and then given no voice…quite aside from the fact that business is not in the business of indoctrinating young people (most businesses are actually about doing business).
“You give us one Pentagon, one Department of State, Justice and Education, plus throw in the Supreme Court…”
The idea that Govt departments, bound by precisely the diversity crap that we are discussing, are somehow biased to the right is patent nonsense. There is certainly not an 81% bias of politocal donations to the republicans. My understanding is that the Supreme court is 5/4 right/left and has rotated more or less around that ratio for sveral decades.
The institutions you name DO NOT have the kind of bias that most universities have. They also DO NOT have hiring policies designed to ACTIVELY PREVENT leftards from getting jobs in the way that the ethos that Stanton and her ilk espouse actively prevents academics who do not subscribe to her groupthink.
This is precisely what we are arguing, Stantons “offence” is exactly the kind of tactic that would put off people with different views from applying, nevermind getting through the selection proceedure. How “welcoming” do you think UC looks to anyone whos views might differ from Stanton?
However much you try to keep your politics out of the classroom, the fact that 80% of the faculty are liberal produces an echo chamber of group think. Just as it would if the faculty were 80% conservative.
The Larry Summers situation, and the OSU’s attempt at enforcing speech-codes in dorms are the sort of things that happen when one side doesn’t call the other side’s bluff. Everybody on both sides knows full well that OSU’s Diversity Statement is *not* intended to clamp down on, say, Women’s Studies students’ conversations about men, or propensities to rape, nor to censor campus activists’ statements about the hegemony of white males; it’s a demand by one side that they be allowed to assume the mount position.
That the justification for the demand is based on the self-reporting of emotional injury suggests there’s can never be any possible resolution, only…chafing.
Dawg, in the interests of a possible future non-redirection of issues, let me ask you a — completely — non-rhetorical question. I ask because I am unable to even partially glean from your comments what your answer might be. The question: Do you believe that there are no innate differences in aptitudes and capabilities in, say, math or spacial ability, between men and women?
I understand that any particular woman is as likely, statistically, to be good in these areas as the guy sitting beside her; I’m asking, really, about the issue as it pertains to Larry Summers’ apparently emotionally-wounding comments: Do you think it’s possible that there might be a different distribution of men and women in the top one-tenth of one percent?
I am possessed of a near-certain belief that you won’t claim to be emotionally injured by the question. /:>)>
“How “welcoming” do you think UC looks to anyone whos views might differ from Stanton?”
Well, I dunno. About as welcoming as the University of Western Ontario, which houses racialist Phillippe Rushton? About as welcoming as Carleton University, home of one of Canada’s most prominent global warming deniers?
My point being that we’re dealing with *universities* here. Does Stanton not a have a right to state her beliefs openly? We’re talking a *dinner* here, for goodness sake, nothing more.
David:
Summers said nothing about “race.” I was merely noting that differing degrees of success are too often attributed to innate characteristics, not of individuals, but of non-dominant groups, by those who don’t want to face up to the simpler hypothesis that discrimination is the likely culprit. Summers made a lazy and indefensible claim about women and certain “hard” disciplines. He included engineering. Women’s enrollment in engineering is busy belying his hypothesis as the same time as he makes it. Back in the 1960s, the psychologist Donald Hebb at McGill stated that women were rare in university faculties because “McGill is a research-oriented university.” That fellow, God rest his soul, is now asleep with the mastodons, but Summers is around to let us know that this sort of thinking is far from dead.
EBD:
I hadn’t realized I had been OT. I’ll try to be a little more careful.
“The question: Do you believe that there are no innate differences in aptitudes and capabilities in, say, math or spacial ability, between men and women?”
The answer: I don’t know. I’ll start from the default position–that there are none–and wait for the evidence to the contrary to pour in. So far I haven’t seen much, but if it’s there, I’ll look at it dispassionately. And no, such questions aren’t emotionally wounding to me. They might be emotionally wounding to a young female student if uttered by the Chair of her math department, though.
Sorry, Dawg, while I was typing with my elbow, you had already answered the question. You said: “I don’t have a problem with the notion of ‘innate ability,’ only with the idea that it’s unequally distributed by gender.”
Is the ability to bench press 550 lbs, or the ability to run 100m in 9.78 equally distributed between the sexes? Assuming that you do acknowledge such tangible physiological differences, doesn’t it seem improbable that there wouldn’t be *some* differences in other, non-athletic realms?
Dr Dawg,
“Summers made a lazy and indefensible claim about women and certain ‘hard’ disciplines.”
But it’s not “indefensible” and you’ve yet to show that it is. Instead, you’ve aired Summers’ view on international waste disposal.
There are gender differences in the distribution of visual receptors, in colour and spatial discrimination, in memory performance, speech acquisition, favoured types of reasoning, types of stress tolerance, tactile sensitivity, susceptibility to disease, etc. Some of these differences are, again, statistical, and often very small indeed or may vary with age; but I see no reason to feel that gender asymmetry of statistical skills and disposition “ought” not to exist, or is implausibly unobvious, or somehow wicked.
Obviously, none of this is to suggest that some women aren’t – or could be – excellent mathematicians and engineers, etc. Nor is it to imply that cultural and institutional obstacles don’t exist. But it may – may – have bearing on the *numbers* of women who will consider a given occupation, irrespective of whatever cultural and institutional barriers are removed. And, again, it’s the readiness with which Stanton recoiled in horror from this possibility that is telling.
I didn’t mean to suggest that you went off-topic — I don’t think you did — just that you tend to steer considerations away from the considerations that those who disagree with you are — dammit — trying to focus on.
I would like to reserve that tactic for those who agree with me; personally, I would never do that.
“[D]oesn’t it seem improbable that there wouldn’t be *some* differences in other, non-athletic realms?”
But instead of this fairly abstract question, why not get down to specifics, EBD? What precisely are those differences? How do they keep women out of engineering? How do we explain that women are now enrolled in engineering in huge numbers? Are they being traitors to their biology?
David:
Whatever differences exist, if they do, they are less likely than simple attitudes to be responsible for under-representatuion of women in the hard sciences, mathematics and engineering. I was wrong about approaching parity in engineering, by the way–the enrollment has actually dropped from an earlier peak. But the fact is that women are enrolling in larger numbers in all of these formerly male preserves:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2003/03/31/university030331.html
No, they are not at 50%. But when I first went to university, at McGill, the engineering department had a grand total of ONE woman enrolled.
EBD:
“[P]ersonally, I would never do that.” Damn, I wish I were as virtuous as you, but I fear I’m incorrigible. 🙂
Dr Dawg,
“Whatever differences exist, if they do, they are less likely than simple attitudes to be responsible for under-representation of women in the hard sciences, mathematics and engineering.”
They do exist, and I find it odd that you would so readily assume they don’t, or ought not to. Again, no-one here has suggested that traditions and social attitudes don’t play a role, possibly the larger role in some cases; but that’s not the issue we’re debating. (Though one might ask why some of those traditions arose, and if there might be a biological component to consider.) No-one here is denying those possibilities, and nor, of course, did Summers. The same cannot be said of the righteous Professor Stanton, who denied other obvious considerations, then took pretentious umbrage, apparently for ideological reasons.
It’s getting late and my hammock is calling, but I thought I’d add this while I remember.
Regarding “under-representation”, I wonder how Stanton knows that numerical gender parity is a ‘natural’ or desirable outcome in engineering and mathematics (and, presumably, in other spheres too). On what basis is she so sure that men and women “ought” to be roughly equal in number in any given profession? Or that they would be if all cultural obstacles are removed? Surely what matters is that women who *do* wish to become engineers or mathematicians, and who are suitably capable, can compete as fairly as possible. Whether that leads to a roughly 50/50 gender split in engineering or mathematics, or in any other profession, seems entirely beside the point.
And it seems to me that there’s a polarised ‘hair-trigger’ aspect to this subject, whereby it’s often assumed (as by Stanton) that a fairly unremarkable statement, even a simple question, automatically implies incorrigible caveman leanings or some nefarious unspoken agenda. Oddly enough, I really don’t care what sex my plumber is, and I’m not about to start campaigning for female engineers to be sent on corrective embroidery courses. But I’m not inclined to look kindly on pretentious educators like Stanton whose political ideology results in fits of passive-aggressive pantomime.
Maybe it’s just my nature.
Summers’ original observation in his Harvard lecture, which started his official persecution by the inquisition (though there is a political history that is less than irrelevant) was that on at least some measures, there is evidence to suggest that the distribution of male behaviour has longer tails at both ends. For example, as a statistical whole, there is evidence to suggest that it is reasonable to conjecture that the smartest and the stupidest subsets of humans have more males (for some values of intelligence).
However, this does not mean that the smartest or the stupidest human is male, that’s not how distribution tails work. Also, the number of individuals in the extreme ends of the tails is very low (approaching zero, by definition), so generalizations do not apply either from the tail subsets to the average individual, or the other way.
I have certainly seen many examples of the above sort in my years of interactions with mathematicians, scientists, and engineers. The ones who are actually best at it don’t care about various non-causal aspects of their colleagues behaviours, such as gender subsetting, or whether lager is better than ale, they care about individual *merit*. (As as aside, I think it is probably the case that the smartest person I’ve every been acquainted with was a female mathematician — but that could be just because I don’t know so many musicians.)
There *are* brain-structure correlations to merit in various fields, for example, Aspergers is highly correlated to engineering success. And it is highly correlated to males. There is a proviso though: that correlation applies to back-office engineers, that is, the gear-heads. We (;-) tend to lack easy social skills though, so we find the front-office engineers (the glad-handers 😉 to be invaluable if we are to bring our work to real-world production. One of the advantages of the increase in females in the field in the increase in the quality of our front-office operations, and that’s a good thing — if, and only if, merit does not suffer simply because of political correctness.
(Another aside, my two favourite engineers these days each have one foot planted in the front office, and one in the back, and one is female, and one is male.)
In cases like the (purportedly visceral, probably drama-queen) objections to the consideration of these sorts of ideas, it is my conjecture that those who are doing the most complaining are those who see their identity as subordinate to their subset(s), thus they see subset differences as attacks on their subset, and so on their identity. Those whose identity is based on their self simply shrug, say “Not me”, and go back to work to prove it.
This produces an interesting feedback cycle. While the groupists are howling and whining, they are expending resources that are then no longer available for them to work on improving their individual ability, thus they slide back against the accomplishments of those who are working toward the latter. This reinforces their conjectures (in their broken world model), which provides positive feedback to their errors, and so the situation worsens until the strength of the subset vessel is breached by the pressure of the groupist stupidity, and the whole thing just explodes.
That’s when you want to be behind the fan.
Vitruvius,
It’s not clear to me whether Stanton is particularly interested in merit and ability, wherever it may lie, as opposed to gender quotas and theatrical gasping. And I won’t linger on the puzzle of a Vagina Warrior whose feelings are so easily hurt. “The things he said… they just weren’t true…!” [ sob, choke ]
“It is my conjecture that those who are doing the most complaining are those who see their identity as subordinate to their subset(s), thus they see subset differences as attacks on their subset, and so on their identity.”
Perhaps it’s the flipside of presuming to speak for all womanhood. It’s interesting to note how advocates of identity politics often regard gender, skin colour or sexuality in rather cartoonish ways. For instance, Duke professor Wahneema Lubiano seems to view “being black” as some kind of profession, as does the Guardian’s Joseph Harker, and in both cases factual challenges to their claims were hastily dismissed as racist persecution.
https://thompsonblog.co.uk/2007/07/harker-barking.html
https://thompsonblog.co.uk/2007/09/duke-division.html
Understood. I have, indeed, read (I think) all of Prof. Johnson’s postings at DIW, and, probably, about 80% of the comments at least since the DNA disaster now almost a year ago. (Remember the Polansky guy? Sheesh!) Never let it be said that the human species is incapable of delusional individual or subset behaviour, or at least, not if we want to avoid them. What’s that I hear, Sun Tzu whistling in the background?
Well, one more kick at this moldy cat. Today there was a news story confirming what is already generally well-known: girls are outperforming boys in high school, are more likely to go to and graduate from university, and do better on standardized reading tests.
Faced with this, the “innatists” go all nurturist on us, attributing this to feminist ideologizing, the “feminizing” of education, and (in the case of the Statistics Canada researchers about whose study we read this morning), it’s single-parent families headed by mothers, the Pygmalion effect, and a decline in the number of male teachers.
Innate abilities, in other words, go out the window when girls start to do better than boys. It must be discrimination. It must be the baleful influence of feminism. It must be the prominence of female authority figures. Anything but innate gender differences.
In response to this glaring inconsistency of approach, I have but one question. Suppose for the sake of argument that all this stuff about the reasons for girls’ success is true. Why is it so unlikely, then, given all of this apparent plasticity, that male dominance and privilege might have been responsible for (and in some areas might still be responsible for) the exclusion of girls and women from traditionally “male” occupations?
If you allow my two cents (In the discussion between Dr Dawg and David).
As far as I recall, the differences between the sexes in general g (IQ) are small and insignificant when looking at the mean of the statistical (normal) distribution.
However, the SHAPES of the distributions are different. The “female” “bell curve” is more “evenly distributed” (has smaller deviation) around the mean, and the male has larger deviation. Hence, if we assume similar sized populations of females and males, one would expect to find more very bright (And BTW more very stupid) among the males.
To me it does not seem very unlikely to assume that this observation should have some importance for the distribution of sexes in posisions where high intellectual capacity is a prerequisite.
Cassanders
In Cod we trust
Dr Dawg,
“Faced with this, the ‘innatists’ go all nurturist on us, attributing this to feminist ideologizing,”
But I don’t recall anyone here doing that, and I’m not about to defend assertions I haven’t actually made. I wouldn’t regard myself as an “innatist”, nor would that describe most of the comments made by others in this thread. My point was Stanton’s implausible indignation at the suggestion that biology and disposition may have a role to play and her apparent assumption that numerical gender parity would emerge if certain social influences were removed. I’ve elaborated on this point at some length.
“Why is it so unlikely, then, given all of this apparent plasticity, that male dominance and privilege might have been responsible for (and in some areas might still be responsible for) the exclusion of girls and women from traditionally ‘male’ occupations?”
If memory serves, no-one here has denied the possible influence of tradition, social expectation, etc. Or “male dominance”, as you so colourfully put it. Again, you’re attacking positions that I haven’t advanced and don’t in fact hold. I refer you to my comments from yesterday, 21:44 and 22:39.
David:
I did not intend a personal attack–I was referring to positions generally held by those who argue for innate gender differences as an explanation for women being under-represented in certain “male” professions (e.g., mathematics, engineering). I can dig up a plethora of references if need be, but we both know that this sort of thing is in the air. I suggest, in fact, that this is precisely what has fuelled, at least in part, Professor Stanton’s indignation.
Even if one accepts differences is visual-spatial ability and so on, I have yet to see a clear line between this and women’s relative unsuccess in the hard sciences. That line has not been drawn here, certainly. I believe that you are simply holding open the possibility that biology plays into these unequal outcomes, rather than being declarative, but without more than correlation I think that such speculation on the part of male authority figures (I mean Summers in this instance, not you 🙂 ) plays into a social debate in harmful ways. For example, what if Summers had openly mused about the unsuccess of Blacks being due to a fixed and irremediable difference in IQ? In both instances, I see science being enlisted, wittingly or not, in the on-going gender wars, but more in the way of scientism than science.
Sorry: I meant “on-going culture wars.” The notion of racial IQ differences has nothing to do with gender, obviously.
Dr Dawg,
“I believe that you are simply holding open the possibility that biology plays into these unequal outcomes, rather than being declarative…”
Exactly. I did, however, get the impression that you thought my position was much more adamant and polarised than it actually is, despite my repeated attempts to make it clear. I have no firm and comprehensive idea how these variables might actually play out; I’m simply saying that to dismiss these possibilities as outrageous and inadmissible, as Stanton and co did, is a sign of closed thinking and gross ideological bias.
“What if Summers had openly mused about the unsuccess of Blacks being due to a fixed and irremediable difference in IQ?”
But he didn’t. The faux indignation and real censoriousness was prompted by something much less provocative and carefully qualified, even rather prosaic. That it met with such preposterous disapproval speaks volumes about those making the noise.
“I think that such speculation on the part of male authority figures… plays into a social debate in harmful ways.”
I don’t. And I’m pretty sure that Stanton’s pretentious adamance, and that of her equally “offended” associates, is much more sinister and harmful to debate. They too are “authority figures” and are entrusted with young minds.
I think that such speculation on the part of male authority figures … plays into a social debate in harmful ways.
Let me get this clear.
We can’t entertain certain uncomfortable ideas, because whether they are true or false, they will harm society.
Some people might say that your speculations harm society. Would you be happy if they attempted to ban you?
TDK:
This was simply a dinner. I am sure that invitations have not been extended to me for all sorts of reasons. I am certainly choosy about whom I invite into my home.
I don’t like the banning of ideas. But ideas don’t just float around in space–they always have a context. A university president suggesting in public that women are innately less capable in the hard sciences is different from (say) raising the issue here at David’s place. A professor pushing the notion of Black racial inferiority, lending his or her professional authority to spurious and harmful pseudo-science, is different from a Usenet discussion group.
So I can understand the unwillingness to rule biological notions of ability out of court. But I think it is important to understand that, in certain contexts, the indignation expressed by some about such notions is actually part of the debate as well.
David:
I know that Summers didn’t argue racial IQ differences. But what if he had? Would you take the view that indignation in such a (hypothetical)case is justified, or not?
But a university ought to be the place where unorthodox and indeed uncomfortable ideas are tested.
Who do you think harmed the reputation of women more: Summers by speculating that innate differences accounts for different numbers of men and women in the science or Stanton, with her attack of the dreaded vapours?
When I was at university I was asked to entertain some very uncomfortable ideas – that one in four university women had been raped. Or that the “rule of thumb” derived from a law about the size of stick it was permissible to use.
http://www.deltabravo.net/custody/tenmyths.php
http://www.debunker.com/texts/ruleofthumb.html
Are these falsehoods harmful to society? They still get repeated. My 10 year old son was told the “rule of thumb” only a fortnight ago.
Dr Dawg,
“A university president suggesting in public that women are innately less capable in the hard sciences…”
That isn’t exactly what was suggested.
“I know that Summers didn’t argue racial IQ differences. But what if he had? Would you take the view that indignation in such a (hypothetical) case is justified, or not?”
You do keep returning to the issue of race, rather slyly, I think. I’ve already addressed this point. But, I suppose my reaction would depend largely on the arguments and evidence presented. Unlike Stanton, I don’t feel certain questions are inadmissible, especially in an environment that is, supposedly, about thinking critically and testing ideas. I’m more interested in how reality actually *is*, rather than what may suit a certain political outlook. I’d have thought that would also matter to people who call themselves educators. But apparently not.
Maybe this can be boiled down to something very simple. From the little I’ve read, I get the impression that I could disagree with Summers about a politically sensitive issue, perhaps quite emphatically, and might still take his views as being presented in good faith. Evidence could be exchanged without inhibition or fear of prompting gasps of pseudo-horror. He would not, I think, try to silence me or burst into tears. We might even learn something from each other in the process. I don’t feel that would be terribly likely with Stanton, whose dogmatism, censoriousness and bad faith are all too apparent.
And, given the apparent lockstep among her colleagues, one has to wonder about the academic environment she inhabits, and just how free-thinking it actually is.
“You do keep returning to the issue of race, rather slyly, I think.”
Not slyly in the least. Gender and race are both contested areas, in which a variety of opinions are held about relative abilities. Both have salience in a society of differing power and privilege assigned by gender and race. Gender bias elicits, or tends to elicit, less indignation in general than does racial bias. But both forms of prejudice are inimical to the individuals on the receiving end. Having an educator openly suggest that the under-representation of women in “hard” sciences is due to innate inability is hardly encouraging for students and faculty of the female persuasion. Entertaining aloud ideas of Black intellectual inferiority, had this happened, would have had similar kinds of effects–and brought forth similar, if perhaps more intense, indignation.
We must look at Summers’ position of authority, not simply the sentiments he flapped his gums about. He wasn’t just shooting the breeze; in a very real sense he was speaking ex cathedra.
Dr Dawg,
“Having an educator openly suggest that the under-representation of women in ‘hard’ sciences is due to innate inability is hardly encouraging for students and faculty of the female persuasion.”
Again, that isn’t exactly what was suggested. Summers’ comments concerned a possible difference in *statistical* aptitude and inclination, which seems to have little logical bearing on female students who have already chosen to pursue a career in mathematics or engineering. (And those that haven’t chosen one… haven’t chosen one.) As I understand it, Summers’ suggestion referred to a possible variable – among others – in why relatively few women *pursue* mathematics and engineering, not the *competence* of those who do.
“Under-representation…”
Again, you implicitly assume a 1:1 gender ratio as some kind of ‘natural’ default in mathematics departments, one that would presumably be arrived at if certain social factors were removed. I don’t see why this should be assumed so readily. I’m all in favour of female mathematicians pursuing their ambitions on an equal footing, but I don’t assume that the freedom to do so would automatically result in an equal number of male and female mathematicians.
And you really should try to look beyond this creaky “male authority” schtick. It appears to occlude more than it reveals.
So let’s look at Summers’ professional approach. Under his stewardship, 4 out of 32 offers of tenure went to women in the Arts & Sciences faculty in 2004. He drove noted African-American scholar Cornel West from his position–West fled to Princeton. Summers is fond of telling a story about giving two toy trucks to his young daughter, who apparently began calling one “Daddy truck” and one “Mommy truck.”
He was not talking simply about why women don’t *pursue* these careers. He was suggesting that “innate differences” account for actual success in these fields.
Just so we’re all on the same page, here are Summers’ remarks:
http://www.president.harvard.edu/speeches/2005/nber.html
Dr Dawg,
“Under his stewardship, 4 out of 32 offers of tenure went to women in the Arts & Sciences faculty in 2004.”
Which, in itself, proves what? It seems you’re trying to convince me that Summers is clearly some kind of reprehensible figure. Perhaps he is, but nothing you’ve said so far demonstrates that; nor does it excuse Stanton’s own absurd behaviour, or that of her associates. It merely demonstrates your own feelings in the matter. I fail to see why you find Summers’ comments so obviously deplorable. If the argument and evidence he presents suggests that, statistically, women perform slightly worse in certain areas, then you have to address that argument and that evidence. Being irritated simply by the *voicing* of the argument, or any argument like it, (as Stanton seems to be) proves very little.
To return to my other key point… I have no idea on what basis one might estimate how many women “ought” to be mathematicians. But I’m not aware of tens of thousands of brilliant but disgruntled would-be female mathematicians who claim to have been unfairly thwarted by sexist bias and oppressive patriarchy. Perhaps they exist, I don’t know. But nor, I think, does Professor Stanton. And I’m not the one pretending to know what the “proper” number of female mathematicians is.
Incidentally, the one disgruntled female mathematician I’ve talked to at some length never mentioned sexism as an obstacle. Socialist ideologues in academia were grumbled about a great deal, but never sexism or “male authority.” Though, yes, I grant you one person is a pretty small sample size on which to base a convincing estimation. 🙂
David:
I have no idea what the “proper” representation of women in the hard sciences ought o be. But barring some actual scientific evidence, not scientistic rationalizing by people like Summers, I’ll start with the default position, as noted earlier, and be prepared to move off it when evidence is presented.
It’s interesting that so much concern has been raised about Professor Stanton’s alleged dogmatism, intolerance of dissent and so on. Perhaps you might care to look at Mr. Summers with the same lens. With the usual caveats about Wikipedia, here is a summing up of his attitude while running Harvard:
“Besides the aforementioned controversies [West, women, etc.], which undoubtedly provided the proximate cause for Summers’ resignation, other factors have been proposed as contributing to his critical loss of support among the majority of faculty members. The first is Summers’ reputed leadership style, described by many as arrogant, blunt, and intolerant of dissenting opinions. Many faculty members claimed they felt intimidated into remaining silent when they disagreed with Summers.”
Gosh.
Dr Dawg,
“Perhaps you might care to look at Mr. Summers with the same lens.”
Indeed, but that’s not really the issue at hand. He may well have been a shit for all I know, though his speech seems thoughtful, measured and polite. But I wasn’t defending Summers as a faculty leader or inspirational role model. I made that quite clear. And Stanton’s reactions were, in her own words, based on Summers’ comments regarding women and mathematics, which don’t strike me as remotely offensive.
“I’ll start with the default position.”
But, once again, how do you know that *is* the default position? How can you assume that? Perhaps the ‘natural’ default ratio is two to one, or ten to one, or twenty, or a hundred? I have no idea, and nor, apparently, does anyone else. You can’t simply lay claim to some supposed “default” position of exact numerical parity, conveniently excused from evidential support, while dismissing dissent as some kind of caveman recidivism.
My apologies to Jeff for the wholesale posting, but I think this post from proteinwisdom.com kind of sums up the debate……
“That dream being the free exchange of ideas, once again under siege from inside the academy — the very place where the free exchange of ideas should, by the standards of liberalism, be most in evidence.
Alas, we’ve surrendered liberalism for the kind of creeping totalitarianism whose resemblance to liberalism is limited to a familiar smile and wink.
From the NYT:
The appointment of Donald H. Rumsfeld, the former defense secretary, as a distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution is drawing fierce protests from faculty members and students at Stanford University and is threatening to rekindle tensions between the institution, a conservative research body, and the more liberal campus.
Some 2,100 professors, staff members, students and alumni have signed an online petition protesting Mr. Rumsfeld’s appointment, which will involve advising a task force on ideology and terrorism. Faculty members say he should not have been offered the post because of his role in the Bush administration’s prosecution of the Iraq war.
“We view the appointment as fundamentally incompatible with the ethical values of truthfulness, tolerance, disinterested enquiry, respect for national and international laws and care for the opinions, property and lives of others to which Stanford is inalienably committed,” the petition reads.
[…]
John Raisian, director of the Hoover Institution since 1989, defended the appointment, which was announced on Sept. 7, saying Mr. Rumsfeld is an expert on the subjects that the panel will study.
“I appointed him because he has three decades of experience, of incredible public service, especially in recent years as it relates to this question of ideology and terror,” Mr. Raisian said. Mr. Raisian said Mr. Rumsfeld had accepted the appointment, which would last one year.
Such short-term appointments, whether by the institution or by an academic department, do not require the extensive review that a tenure decision might.
[…]
The institution, which is housed in a tower close to the heart of the campus, has had close ties to Republican administrations, including Mr. Bush’s. Like graduate schools on campus, it operates largely independently from the university — with its own endowment and doing its own fund-raising — but still is part of the university.
At times, though, there have been tensions. In the late 1980s, some students and faculty members successfully fought a proposal championed by the director of the Hoover Institution to place Ronald Reagan’s presidential library on the campus. Last year, Mr. Bush planned to visit fellows at the Hoover Institution before having dinner with George P. Shultz, a former secretary of state who is also a fellow. But after protests, the meeting was moved to Mr. Shultz’s home.
Another potential conflict could involve Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, a former Stanford provost and Hoover fellow. Ms. Rice, who is on leave from a tenured faculty position, has said she would be interested in returning to Stanford after leaving the Bush administration. In a letter to Stanford’s undergraduate newspaper in May, a professor wrote that she should not be welcomed back.
Pamela M. Lee, a professor of art history who helped write the petition against Mr. Rumsfeld, said she hoped her protest would send a message and prompt the university to review its relationship with the Hoover Institution.
“It’s extremely important for the Hoover to know that their appointments are not in the mainstream of the Stanford community,” Professor Lee said, “as well as to send a very clear signal to the country that this is not what Stanford is about.”
Oh, the message is clear, alright — but I’m not sure it’s the message you’re hoping to send, Professor Lee. Because from here, it sounds something like this: “we have defined ourselves as the center, and from that position of mainstream authority we have positioned ourselves to decide who and what comes to count as so pernicious to the mainstream that it simply must not be tolerated.”
Evidently, having Rumsfeld doddering around near campus could lead one to inadvertently gaze upon him — at which point impressionable students paying big tuition dollars might turn into pillars of salt.
Dr Lee is just trying to protect them. For their own good.
Writes David Bernstein at Volokh:
according to Professor Lee, enforcing ideological conformity among the faculty is “what Stanford is all about.” Having one of the most distinguished public servants of the last half century–an objectively true statement, regardless of what one things of his politics–on campus three to five times (!) is not “what Stanford is all about.”
And, come to think of it, I can’t resist the contrast between the reaction to Rumsfeld at Stanford and, judging from the stories in the Columbia Spectator, the almost complete quiescence, apart from some Jewish groups, at Columbia regarding the invitation to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. In fact, according to the Spectator, some of the harshest criticism received by Columbia president Lee Bollinger is that he didn’t criticize Minutemen Project found Jim Gilchrist, invited by students last years, as he has Ahmadinejad.
Up is down. Black is White. Jonah has a blow hole and likes to sup on plankton and shrimp cocktail.