July 17, 2008
A New Frontier for Title IX: Science
John Tierney in the New York Times:
Until recently, the impact of Title IX, the law forbidding sexual discrimination in education, has been limited mostly to sports. But now, under pressure from Congress, some federal agencies have quietly picked a new target: science.
The National Science Foundation, NASA and the Department of Energy have set up programs to look for sexual discrimination at universities receiving federal grants. Investigators have been taking inventories of lab space and interviewing faculty members and students in physics and engineering departments at schools like Columbia, the University of Wisconsin, M.I.T. and the University of Maryland.
So far, these Title IX compliance reviews haven’t had much visible impact on campuses beyond inspiring a few complaints from faculty members. (The journal Science quoted Amber Miller, a physicist at Columbia, as calling her interview “a complete waste of time.”) But some critics fear that the process could lead to a quota system that could seriously hurt scientific research and do more harm than good for women.
More here.
Posted by Abbas Raza at 11:58 PM | Permalink
Comments
>some critics fear that the process could lead to a quota system that could seriously hurt scientific research and do more harm than good for women.
Yes... and some "whites" felt that way about the "coloreds" in the 1950s. They got over it.
You'll get over it.
Posted by: Lema | Jul 18, 2008 1:20:47 AM
I second demands for an official quota for women in the academy. This would be valuable both in terms of redressing past harms and to increase diversity.
I also think university faculties should have proportional representation for gays, lesbians and the transgendered. As a non native speaker of english I should like to see speakers of the other world languages represented in full measure. Then we should ensure that the religious composition of the professors represents that of the population at large.
Posted by: D | Jul 18, 2008 7:09:00 AM
Nobody stopped Rosalind Franklin from getting to where the advancement of science needed her to be, they just denied the credit due her. PPI (people poaching ideas) is a hallowed tradition, but due to the importance of the discovery of DNAs helical structure, the rarity of her gender, and the rewards given to Watson and Crick, this one sure stands out, doesn't it?
In other news, I work with scientists every day, and their observation is that in the pursuit of advanced degrees in the sciences in the USA, it is not necessarily women who are underrepresented, it is Americans, by a very wide margin. Do we need a quota for that demographic as well? Or does that finally impinge on the free market?
Posted by: Carlos | Jul 18, 2008 7:46:31 AM
I do research at a gender typical engineering department (ie, 5:1 men to women) at a European academic institution. I'm on the dominant side of the ratio.
There is no doubt in my mind that the working environment is not gender neutral. Imagine this scenario: a bunch of 20-something guys, mostly single, sitting in an environment without any women. What are they talking about? What kind of metaphors do they commonly use? Needless to say, it isn't always a particularly friendly environment for women who dont like sexual innuendo (it's almost never directed at them, by the way). Changing the ratio to 5:1 doesn't change this situation dramatically.
Does this call for some sort of quota system? I'm not sure, but I don't think so. Positive discrimination (to take the French term) has always seemed like tricky business to me. Too much, and institutions degrade in quality. Other times, when there are real biases, some level of active promotion seems appropriate, else problems remain.
My experiences with positive discrimination seem to indicate the health of the institution in question is the most critical factor to consider. As long as the discrimination does not interfere with the at-large performance of the institution, it seems to have generally beneficial affects. The reasons for this could fill an article.
Coming back to the top of the comment, has the generally male dominated atmosphere kept women back in my department? I don't think so. Having watched the hiring processes, in terms of faculty and graduate students, the decisions have always seemed fair and unbiased. It also helps that women here make sure their voices are heard.
I would tend believe the same is true in the vast majority of academic institutions today. The professors who were active sexists have shrunk in number as they retire, and those replacing them, while they may act like juvenile men at times, have no aversion to hiring women. Some even seem to have a curious strong preference toward it...
Posted by: Cyrus Hall | Jul 18, 2008 8:50:04 AM
Cyrus Hall,
You need to educate yourself on the current research on this problem. There are plenty of papers out there that discuss the situation in depth.
One never wants to believe bad things about the system one is currently involved in and has sacrificed for. Nevertheless, the research is clear - the decisions are not fair and unbiased.
Posted by: Hektor Bim | Jul 18, 2008 11:27:41 AM
I wonder if my department will have to set up some sort of sex-change lottery to ensure the continuance of our work!
Posted by: physics | Jul 18, 2008 11:39:11 AM
Well, point some papers my way Hector! I'd be more than happy to take a look.
My post details my experience. I have worked in a grand total of two departments, so my sample is poor - it's quite possible I lucked out.
Either way, I'd like to reiterate my point about the performance of the institution. I had the opportunity to watch a US government agency implement an overly aggressive positive discrimination plan. In the end they hired to fast, the experts in the agency were overwhelmed and couldn't train fast enough, many quit, and the quality decisions went downhill. Any program to rectify systematic inequalities needs to be careful to avoid such a fate.
Posted by: Cyrus Hall | Jul 18, 2008 4:20:44 PM
It's just very much too bad that John Tierney is no scientist and hasn't the first clue on how to critically interpret his data.
Posted by: hysperia | Jul 18, 2008 11:03:37 PM
And should any possible remedy adopted for hard science and engineering also be applied to elementary education, nursing and veterinary science (whose students are now 80% female)?
Come to that, should any remedy be applied to undergraduate education generally in the U.S. -- which is approaching a 60/40 female-to-male ratio?
Posted by: Slocum | Jul 22, 2008 12:24:44 PM
Post a comment