Can the federal government actually penalize universities that are not actively working to overcome subtle and unconscious gender bias by invoking Title IX of the Civil Rights Act?
Step back and first consider these stats from Harvard on women in the life sciences:
undergraduates: 57%
doctoral students: 45%
postdoctoral fellows: 37%
assistant and associate professors: 31%
full professors:13%
Women in academia make less than our male counterparts, are promoted more slowly, and hold fewer leadership positions. So what's the big deal about examining gender bias? Cathy Young's Boston Globe Op-Ed suggests there could be trouble past all the inquiry. My post over at Correlations is now up exploring the disparity.
Here's what Cathy had to say:
Equal opportunity, most of us agree, should be the law. But what does combating discrimination mean when definitions of bias are expanded to include the "stereotype" that success in science requires single-minded devotion? And what if some gender disparities in scientific careers are indeed related to innate differences in ability and personality? Will institutions be penalized for failing to meet impossible goals?
Can it be possible that efforts to overcome gender differences risk implementing a new and alternative bias? Read more here.
- Log in to post comments
Cathy Young sees potential "trouble" behind pretty much all efforts to ensure women's equality. Not that it's a bad column, but it would be interesting to read one from the other side of the issue as well.
As Intersection readers know, I often like to suggest books that I have reviewed that illuminate the post. Click my name for my review of a 1999 book The Gendered Atom: Reflections on the Sexual Psychology of Science by Theodore Roszak, Foreword by Jane Goodall.
It's among the most negative reviews I ever wrote, not because the author was completely off-base, but rather because he "framed" his discussion in a way that would turn off the people whose minds he most hoped to change, including me.
Sheril, did you read that book? And if so, what was your reaction to it?
One point worth mentioning from the hearing referenced in the Op-Ed you cited, Sheril. Donna Shalala, President of the University of Miami, observed that given the existence of Title IX and the NCAA, it is much easier for her to ensure gender equity in sports than it is in hiring for academic positions. It's an odd circumstance to have sports be more progressive than science on something.
Maybe the issue doesn't need to be more strongly encouraged in marine science, but other disciplines shouldn't have to wait for the old men to die, because by then the young women and minorities will have lost interest or never had the support or encouragement to obtain the positions they want - which we need to fill.
Girls are just not good at science and math.
I don't see why people have a problem accepting that. Think of all the greatest discoveries in human history. How many women come to mind?
Case closed.
Gabe,
You really need to broaden your frames of reference, and come into todays world.
Shame on you...
Equal opportunity must start with equal status. One can only marvel at the obsticles women in science have overcome to receive any recognition at all. Limited of access to education, lack of adequate research facilities, society's view of their proper place and function, distain of careers or interests outside the home and overbearing prejudice of men who belittle them and either ignore or fail to recognize their abilites.
Gabe, you're providing excellent evidence for why sexism is still a huge problem, especially at the highest levels of academia. I know I shouldn't be feeding the trolls, but frankly, your attitude makes me sick.
Gabe is a beautiful illustration of the moronocity so prevalent among the more insecure males of the species. But Gabe, you can make all the wishful pronouncements you want; they still don't add up to reality.
For those of you who would like to know about some of the fabulous things women have contributed to science and engineering, there are many great sites on the web, but here's one that celebrates birthdays of famous women scientists:
http://scienceblogs.com/thusspakezuska/2006/12/lets_all_have_a_party.php
Shameless plug, it's on my blog.
As long as we're shamelessly plugging women in science websites, click my name for iWASwondering.org, the website that the Joseph Henry Press (imprint of the National Academies Press) created for the middle-grade Women's Adventures in Science biography series, of which my Beyond Jupiter: The Story of Planetary Astronomer Heidi Hammel is a part.
Don't full professors usually have a few decades of experience in the academia? If so, that would put their entry into the "marketplace" to 70s or even further, back when things were much more skewed. Include childrearing into the picture, and I can see both time lag and family priorities keeping the higher positions from being equalized yet.
Of course I don't have all the figures. Just going by what is posted here and what I would consider biggest assumed factors.
Don't full professors usually have a few decades of experience in the academia? If so, that would put their entry into the "marketplace" to 70s or even further, back when things were much more skewed.
That may be a factor, but doesn't explain the noticeable drop in gender parity between the PhD and junior academic staff (post-docs, assistant professors) stages.
As for Gabe, perhaps he could provide us with his evidence that the controlled use of fire, writing, agriculture and the wheel were invented by men?
Any article that puts the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the American Enterprise Institute in the same sentence -- to say nothing of on equal footing when it comes to making judgments on scientifically related matters -- (as Cathy Young's piece does) should be looked upon with a certain skepticism (to say the least).
NAS is one of America's premier scientific organizations.
Suffice it to say, "AEI is not..."