Inside Higher Education points to another lament about the lack of facutly “diversity,” this time at the University of California, and proposed steps to do something about it.
According to this lament report:
The low numbers present particular problems in math and science fields, where there are relatively few black and Latino faculty members.
Excuse me [WARNING! Political Incorrectness to follow!], but exactly what difference does it make how many black and Latino math professors there are? If their low number is the product of discrimination against them, that’s a problem. But absent discrimination, I don’t see the problem since even ardent diversiphiles have trouble explaining the relevance, not to mention the urgent importance, of “diversity” in math instruction.
Urgh. I read the “executive summary,” John, and it’s one untidy puppy. It defines “diversity” in terms of a list of factors that might influence one’s life experience. The list begins with “race, ethnicity,” and might as well have stopped there so far as the rest of the document is concerned, because there’s nothing about (e.g.) age, ability/disability, or socioeconomic status in there, though all of these are part of the report’s definition of “diversity.”
The terms are unclear throughout. OK, it’s an “executive summary,” so maybe it’s unclear on purpose. But about half-way through, the original careful distinction between “minorities” and “underrepresented minorities” seemed to slip, so that I couldn’t always be certain which group was being discussed. And “underrepresented minority faculty” was nowhere defined. Does it mean faculty from ethnic groups underrepresented in the student body? Or faculty from ethnic groups underrepresented in the faculty? It makes a difference.
Yet another “diversity-lite” approach concerned only with categories of people that constitute potential litigant classes.
Once again I have to point out that MIT is the leader in this field, as I discussed here and John discussed here.
Also check out this article entitled: “Can Title IX Do for Women In Science and Engineering What It Has Done for Women In Sports?” Consider this bait-and-switch tactic:
Thanks, LTEC!
In that “Title IX” APS paper by Rolison, she writes: “Yet applications from women for advertised faculty positions in PhD-granting STEM departments rarely match the numbers of women who graduate from these departments with PhDs.”
Well, geeze! How can you hire people who don’t apply?
Of course that paper is full of laughs.
“Most women in science do not have wives…”
Right, only the most agressive lesbians do–and legally only in Massachusetts. Of course, most women in science have husbands, but somehow those don’t count. (Actually, lesbians with wives do pretty well at the UC, which hired woman “scientist” Denise Denton’s “wife” along with her for an extra $192,000/year.)
Or how to “fix” science? “First option: complete demolition (see the French Revolution).”
Okay, who gets to play Robespierre? How will this advance science?
I could go on but I’m feeling ill. It’s a tribute to the PC Terror created by “French-Revolution” advocates like Rolison that a presumably competent editor of APS News feels compelled to publish her claptrap.
There is a math equivalent of ebonics under development at either University of Arizona or Arizona State. The theory is that minorities (maybe just Hispanics) — understand math differently and need a different curriculum tied to their culture. Amritas wrote about Hawaiian-ized math as well, though this seems to involve word problems about taro patches instead of apple trees. Feminist math is out there too.
The good news is that this stuff has very little credibility outside of a small group of true believers.