No, not athletic playing fields but in the field of science. Several months go I discussed (here) a new effort to use Title IX to bring about the hiring and promotion of more women scientists. As a reader reminds me by sending a link to this article by Richard Zare, a Stanford chemistry professor, they’re still at it.
To demonstrate the problem calling out for a government solution, Prof. Zare presents two charts: one showing the percent of women graduate students and postdocs in chemistry from 1994 through 2003 (35%–40% grad students; just under 20% to just over 20% postdocs); one showing the percent of women professors and full professors from 2000 through 2005 (9%–12% professors; 5%–8% full professors).
These charts lead Prof. Zare to ask, “What accounts for this lack of progress in achieving gender equity?” They lead me to ask, where do the women chemistry Ph.Ds go who do not move on to postdocs and into faculty ranks? Do they become unemployed welfare recipients? Sales clerks? Stay-at-home moms? (If the latter, does that necessarily mean they were forced to stay home by a lack of “gender equity” in academe, or might they have found that choice more rewarding than continuing immediately professional career?) Could it be that they found opportunities in industry or elsewhere that were more rewarding than what they had seen of academia?
To Prof. Zare these charts demonstrate a lack of “gender equity,” but what is that? He believes that a smaller proportion of women chemistry professors than women chemistry graduate students/postdocs reveals “a deep cultural problem.” If the problem is simply “underrepresentation,” why not simply follow the example being proposed in India for “the backward classes” (discussed here) and require chemistry departments to hire 50% women? If the Democrats can require that (at least) 50% of the delegates to their presidential nominating convention be women, it would seem that the holder of the federal purse strings could do the same to those receiving its funds.
Of course if that were proposed no doubt some fuddy-duddies would be heard to say that such a policy would violate, well, Title IX, which commands:
No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
But never mind. We’ve certainly learned by now that these so called civil rights laws don’t mean what they say.
Finally, remind me again what the problem is here. If women are being discriminated against in admissions or hiring or promotion, or if they were being overtly or even subtly discouraged from pursuing science, that would be a problem (although I’m not sure it’s a problem of “gender equity” so much as fairness and law). But I’m certainly not convinced that mere “underrepresentation” alone is a problem at all, much less one requiring government intervention to solve.
No one of talent should be turned away, and no potential talent should go un-nourished, but are there great scientific discoveries that are going undiscovered because only women, because of their genetic makeup or something, are qualified to make? Have today’s women chemists discovered things that could not have been discovered by men? If not, and in the absence of evidence of widespread or systemic gender discrimination (evidence other than mere “underrepresentation”), why should “gender equity” involve anything more than treating individual women fairly, which is to say equally?
When I read people like Zare talking about “gender equity,” I feel like Meg Murry shouting “Like and equal are not the same!”
So what if the percentage of female undergraduates in a department does not equal the percentage of male undergraduates? Why would Zare care about this? Why should anybody?
When the “under-representation” of conservatives in academia is brought up, one response is “Conservatives get jobs in corporate America instead”.
Why can’t we say the same about the “under-representation” of women? Feminism constantly pushes the idea that women should be self-sufficient. Maybe they prefer corporate jobs over academic jobs.
As I always mention when this idiocy shows up, I note that no one seems to much mind that certain fields are dominated by women: the two most obvious are women’s studies and early education. But also I understand that veterinary medicine is becoming “disproportionately” female. And of course, certain human medical specialities tend to get more women than men (I’m guessing pediatrics and obstetrics/gynecology).
Is someone making the argument that these fields need more gender diversity? I’m asking this seriously. It seems people only care about stuff like engineering and hard sciences having too few women, and really don’t care about the “gender balance” of the humanities, because I guess these are the “important” subjects. Just as no one much cares that most garbagemen are, in fact, men.
Federal law banning sex discrimination in schools may do as much for academics as it has for athletics.
Since one of the unintended consequences of Title IX has been the dropping of certain male sports teams in order to achieve the requisition percentage of women athletes, will we start seeing schools dropping departments in which there are too high a percentage of males? So what if it is a procrustean solution, it achieves the ends desired by the Left.
After reading the article I can make one suggestion to Professor Zare – stick to chemistry. Some of the comments he made are embarrassingly stupid such as:
Many colleges and universities have started to recognize that women and not men bear children and that women are often the primary caregivers and homemakers.
Is he really suggesting that the university, this bastion of brilliance does not understand something a four-year knows? In the words of that great sage Homer (Simpson), D’oh!
The greatest challenge is changing the perception of what constitutes a successful academic career in STEM. Many have the impression that unless someone is pursuing academic activities with maniacal fanaticism, the person is not performing up to expectations.
Just think about that statement for a moment. He is not looking for equal opportunity for women. What he is suggesting is that we lower the standards for women. It woman cannot or do not want to put as much effort into science as men then we should lower the requirements. So the real solution he proposes is that we artificially make everyone equal. If men have the audacity to work too hard we will impose a limit on the amount of time that they are allowed to spend on research. Yes, that should improve the quality of research done at the university.
“Hi. I am Richard Zare, and I appear before you as a recovering racist and a recovering sexist.”
Since Professor Zare insists that he is part of the non-existent problem, I have a modest proposal that would allow him to be part of the solution. Why doesn’t he give up his professorship to a woman?
Many colleges and universities have started to recognize that women and not men bear children
This is outrageous discrimination! Universities must demand — the federal government must enforce it, if necessary — that men bear children in equal numbers! Gender equity in pregnancy!
First off, most women do not believe in lowering standards or requiring departments to hire 50% women. Women are competing at the same level as men in many fields. I’m sure that as time goes on, more women will participate in math and sciences and as more men help with the rearing of their own children and more women will earn advanced degrees or forgo childbearing alltogether to do so. Most women will agree that though equal in being and worth, men and women differ in areas of strength, spatial / communication skills and of course physical child birth. However, as an HR Director I regularly see men hem and haw over whether to hire a woman due to her breeding capabilities – highly illegal, but happens never-the-less. Women can be significantly set back in career paths due to child birth where men are not. I think it’s a shame that I man can have everything he wants – career, wife and children, yet the women who want the same cannot. It takes two to create a child.
Every developed nation in the world is suffering from a declining population. Outsourcing and immigration will only help so much. Women are having fewer and fewer children because it hinders their careers. One of two things needs to happen as a result: 1) Men need to cut their working hours and participate more in the raising and nuturing of their children – which I’m happy to say is already occuring. 2) To ensure a young and growing labor market, it would behoove large companies to provide family friendly hours and services to both men & women.
I think the overall message (though misplaced)of the article is to eliminate obsticles to opportunity for women – inaverdently removing obsticles for men as well.
Another disparity in the authors? Mostly university administrators! – obviously an UNbiased source of information of universal importance.
Rebekah seems not to be aware of – or else remains troubled by – the fact that men do not share the burdens of childcare equally anywhere in the developed world (or undeveloped, ofr that matter). SO much for the Great Egalitarian hope!
Messing with nature is more complicated than anyone anticipated. and pressing it farther and farther, too. How about confronting that?
…waiting…
…still waiting….