Reader Randy Hull encouraged me to look at this article in The Weekly Standard, in part because it criticizes “the decidedly mixed record of the Bush administration in eliminating gender quotas under the law.”
It was a good suggestion, because it’s a good article, and it brings to mind a concern both broader and deeper than its focus on Title IX debates: the degree to which those who vigorously criticize oppression often portray the subjects whose interests they mean to support as helpless victims.
Perhaps the most influential example of this phenomenom was the publication in 1959 of Slavery: A Problem in American Institutional and Intellectual Life, by the influential American historian Stanley Elkins. Influenced by the research of psychoanalyst Bruno Bettleheim, who had argued that Nazi concentration camps had “infantalized” their inmates, Elkins argued that the institution of slavery, like the concentration camps, was so oppressive and so all-encompassing that it broke the wills and psyches of slaves, making the “Sambo personality” real, not a figment of the imagination of deluded slaveowners. Elkins himself, by the way, was a liberal, and his analysis influenced many policy initiatives in the 1960s, not least of which was his friend Daniel Moynihan’s call for efforts to shore up the black family.
Elkins’s influence can also possibly be seen in the reference to the “comfortable concentration camp” by his Northampton neighbor, Betty Friedan, in her Feminine Mystique (1963). For a later generation of much more radical feminists, the “concentration camp” was not so comfortable. Andrea Dworkin, for example, was widely known for arguing that “all sex is rape,” i.e., that women have been so oppressed, so victimized, by male hierarchy that they are incapable of giving consent.
Although Dworkin’s view was extreme, it was not as far from mainstream feminist analyses as one might think. Thus, as I pointed out here in discussing EEOC v. Sears, Alice Kessler Harris, a feminist historian who testified as an expert for the EECO, literally testified “that women’s own choices and interests have nothing to do with the jobs they take.”
In fact, she was so hostile to the idea that the system leaves women any room at all to choose that she insisted on placing the terms “choice” and “women’s interests” in quotes, and even went so far as to deny that women themselves choose their own major subjects in college or that women business owners choose the types of businesses they own.
Which brings us back to the debates over Title IX and the Weekly Standard article linked above. Margaret Spellings, the new secretary of education, has tried to rein in some Title IX excesses. Here’s the passage that got me launched on victims:
Under Spellings … the department has shown some willingness to challenge Title IX quotas. Last year, the Education Department issued guidance making it easier for colleges and universities to show compliance with the law without resorting to quotas. The change would allow schools to use email surveys of students to gauge interest in sports and have the results, instead of a quota, determine which men’s and women’s teams they would sponsor.
But even this common sense approach has been portrayed by feminists as undermining women’s rights under Title IX. Soon after the new guidance was issued, two proponents of Title IX quotas, Donna Lopiano and Nancy Hogshead-Makar, wrote that surveys can’t gauge men’s and women’s relative interest in sports because “culturally, men are simply more likely than women to profess an interest in sport.” Women, on the other hand, “are less likely to profess an interest in sports, even if they are interested!”
It’s a good thing this strain of feminism was not prevalent during the debates over extending the vote to women. In those days the argument that women were too sheepish to have or express their own opinions was made by opponents of women’s suffrage, who argued that women would simply parrot the opinions of their husbands.
Echoes of this denial of individual responsibility and individual agency abound in discussions of the “culture of poverty” or the effects of racism, and people who criticize these views are often denounced for “blaming the victim.” On the contrary, what we denounce are victimization theories that rob people of their individuality by regarding them as zombified victims.
I thought you’d have an interesting take on this article, John. I wasn’t disappointed.
While some Title IX activists’ statements appear misguided (i.e. Cultural stigmas make women less likely to profess an interest in sports), the fact remains that women have made unprecedented strides toward (past?) equality due in large part to activists’ efforts.
The misstatements of a few activists should not completely undermine the effort to achieve equal opportunity for women. In this regard, you are right in comparing race to gender. As is the case in racial preference scenarios, oftentimes a poor messenger can make the entire effort seem unworthy. But whether the proponent is Jesse Jackson or Donna Lopiano the fact remains that there has been a history of prejudice and oppression against both women and ethnic minorities and some action beyond the honor code (“I promise not to discriminate anymore”) must be taken to ameliorate invidious discrimination in these areas.
As for individual responsibility and agency – How are individuals supposed to effect discrimination on the institutional scale? In the case of Title IX, if a woman feels that a disproportionate amount of the athletic department budget is directed towards men’s sports, how does individual responsibility or agency address this issue?
The misstatements of a few activists should not completely undermine the effort to achieve equal opportunity for women. In this regard, you are right in comparing race to gender.
Virtually no one — and literally no one whose views I respect — oppose “equal opportunity” for women or blacks. The disagreement comes over what “equal opportunity” requires: I believe it requires no less, but also no more, than non-discriminatory equal treatment. You believe it requires unequal treatment.
In short, I don’t regard non-discriminatory equal treatment as an “honor code.” I believe it is what fairness does, and the law should, demand.
As for the person who disapproves of a colleges athletic spending priorities, I think there are many avenues for making her views known. As for having the federal government tell it how to prioritize its spending on sports, where are all those First Amendment absolutists who viewd a temporary visit of ROTC recruiters as a violation of academic freedom?
“In those days the argument that women were too sheepish to have or express their own opinions was made by opponents of women’s suffrage, who argued that women would simply parrot the opinions of their husbands.”
And the solution was equality regardless of opinions expressed.
Sounds like a good solution to use here.
Hull,
The way Title IX has been used regarding college athletics has very little to do with “equal opportunity.” The reason proponents of the equal-participation school of thought oppose using evidence of, say, actual interest in participating in collegiate athletics as a rough guide to how large the women’s vs. men’s programs ought to be is that if you actually ask the students, you get the wrong answer. Better to assume that men and women are, or ought to be, equally interested in sports.
But, really, why stick to sports? I suggest that all courses offered on all campuses receiving Federal funding have enrollment gender-balanced to within a fairly narrow margin. So if you hold an honors linear algebra class and only three women show up (as happens — I was one of the three, in a class of thirty-odd, at UC/Berkeley in 1984), no more than four men who want to take the class can be admitted. Do it by lot, or something.
It can work the other way, of course; female enrollment in any course shouldn’t exceed, beyond some narrow margin, male enrollment, and if many more women than men happen to want (or perhaps I should say “profess to want,” since what we want and what we say we want apparently aren’t necessarily the same) a particular course, tough luck. We mustn’t let that nasty cultural conditioning affect what courses either gender takes. What say you, Hull?
actus,
And the solution [re female suffrage] was equality regardless of opinions expressed.
Sounds like a good solution to use here.
Ummm . . . actus, what was “solved”? The rough equivalent of the enforcement of Title IX as it has been practiced would be a law stipulating that all legislative bodies be at least 45% female. If that’s the goal, we aren’t close yet, are we?
… The reason proponents of the equal-participation school of thought oppose using evidence of, say, actual interest in participating in collegiate athletics as a rough guide to how large the women’s vs. men’s programs ought to be is that if you actually ask the students, you get the wrong answer. Better to assume that men and women are, or ought to be, equally interested in sports.
But, really, why stick to sports?
This is exactly right, and in fact this “theory” has not been limited to sports. As was made irrefutably clear in the Sears case referenced above, the assumption that a statistical “disparity” between the participation or presence of men and women in something is strong evidence (for many, all the “evidence” needed) of discrimination rests on the assumption that men and women are equally interested in, qualified for, and available for everything.
I am really not exaggerating here. EEOC statisticians, checked and corrected by Sears statisticians, “took account” of every extenuating variable they could measure — education, experience, hours of availability, access to transportation, etc., etc., etc. Every single variable (yes, every one) reduced the number of women the EEOC would “expect” to find in each job category, but then it was argued, with a straight face, that the remaining “disparity” could be explained only by employer discrimination. It was an article of faith, in short, that men and women were equally interested, qualified, and available.
Thus, say that a particular store had 8 employees who installed home heating and cooling systems, and they were all men. After the statisticians had done their magic, explaining away some of the “disparity,” the EEOC then would claim that, based on its analysis, it would expect, say, 2 or 3 of those employees to be women. Mind you, it had no evidence that 25% or 30% of the relevant labor pool was female. What it had was an absence of evidence: all the evidence that could be analyzed reduced the “disparity,” but it argued what was left must be discrimination. Insofar as that makes any sense at all, it makes sense only if you treat the assumption of equal interest, qualifications, and availablity as an article of faith.
The judge was not impressed, and held that Sears had actually proved itself innocent, a quite rare occurrence.
Moving on (in Michelle’s wake), why not cut off federal funds under Title IX or Title VI to all universities where men are “underrepresented”? Surely more men would have been interested in going on to college if they had not been subject for generations to female teachers and the whole psychological development establishment telling them they are not as smart as girls, wouldn’t they?
I don’t disagree with the idea that a minority group or group that has been historically discriminated against should have a say in whether they feel that the discrimination should be remedied or not. That is the situation with the surveys, correct? Women were discriminated against in funding and promotion of women’s sports, so the Dept of Education decided to issue a survey to determine women’s interest in ameliorating the situation. I don’t disagree with this plan at all.
First, this plan goes beyond John’s honor code for discrimination, which is: the law says that everyone will receive equal treatment under the law regardless of race, gender, etc., so when groups suffer disproportionately (i.e. women in sports, or minority enrollment in school) no action should be taken unless one can prove that an act of invidious discrimination occurred. In the Title IX context, no one has concretely proven that women were barred from sports, but the disproportionate participation indicates that discrimination may have occurred. The Dept of Education then suggested use of surveys to determine which aspect of disproportionate participation should be ameliorated. I have no problem with this tactic and if the the EEOC suggested a similar plan for minority enrollment in school or for minority hiring, I would advocate it wholeheartedly.
Is this plan better than quotas? Yes, we’ve seen that quotas seek to compel equality where it might not have existed regardless of whether discrimination occurred or not. Is this plan better than the “honor code” of “I promise not to discriminate?” Yes, because it acknowledges that discrimination is extremely difficult to prove, but given the history of this country, it is also likely to occur. (Without a tape recording or written statement, how can I say whether you denied me an opportunity because of my gender or race or legitmately because of my qualifications? Trying to prove discrimination is tantamount to proving what someone is thinking and that is no easy task)
So, carrying John’s comparison between race and gender a bit further. How about we offer surveys to ethnic minority groups to determine which fields they feel they should have broader access to? If, for example, Latinos do not feel there is any discrimination against them, then we do not have to offer any additional action. On othe other hand, if Asians feel that they are underrepresented in criminal law, we can provide more programs to encourage their participation. This is the plan John and Michelle are advocating and I fully support it.
Actually, you probably don’t want to see if Asians feel they are discriminated against. Most of AA is aimed at denying them access to higher education.
BTW, has anyone else noticed that, in these comments, women are an oppressed group, whereas in earlier comments they were “white blonde girls”?
If you are going to survey Latinos about discrimination, then you really should survey everyone else. The Latino experience in America has been no different than that of any other ethnic group, although they have been hindered by AA, bilingual education, etc, something my parents never had to go through.
Let’s have a show of hands — how many people think that a government policy that takes their race into account to deny them access to higher education feel that they are being denied access to higher education because of their race?
“The rough equivalent of the enforcement of Title IX as it has been practiced would be a law stipulating that all legislative bodies be at least 45% female.”
The equivalent would be equal spending on sports for the sexes.
Why spend equal amounts if one sex has more interest than the other? I think you missed the entire point, Actus.
actus,
The equivalent would be equal spending on sports for the sexes.
The “equivalent” I was talking about was an equivalent for female suffrage using the Title IX model. So maybe it would be that 50% of campaign dollars must go to female political candidates?
And, as I said earlier, why stop with sports? Let’s have gender-equal spending in all areas of academia. If a class attracts more men than women, or more women than men, tough. Admit as many of each sex as you need to make up a gender-balanced classroom. If that means that honors linear algebra is economically unsustainable, tough again. If there aren’t enough women interested to sustain a subject, it’s irrelevant almost by definition, yes?
“Why spend equal amounts if one sex has more interest than the other? I think you missed the entire point, Actus.”
Because it doesn’t depend on interest.
“The “equivalent” I was talking about was an equivalent for female suffrage using the Title IX model. So maybe it would be that 50% of campaign dollars must go to female political candidates? ”
The equivalent would be women get the same amount of voting access as men, regardless of their interest in voting.
“If a class attracts more men than women, or more women than men, tough. Admit as many of each sex as you need to make up a gender-balanced classroom.”
Are sports gender balanced by number of participants, or by spending? I can totally see a problem with spending more on classes for one sex. An easy way to fix that is coed classes.
“Because it doesn’t depend on interest.”
Of course it depends on interest. Isn’t that why they have certain sports (or classes) at certain schools in the first place? Trying to equalize the number of sports (or the dollars spent) on male and female sports doesn’t take into account the needs of each. It’s a lazy approach, rather like “zero tolerance.”
“Of course it depends on interest”
Then the voting comparison is inapt.
Ultimately there is no resolution between people who evaluate based on groups and people who recognize individuals.
Never said it was.