MCIGuy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Anyone here? What am I supposed to update?
Posts: 9,427
|
Post by MCIGuy on Sept 22, 2005 16:30:15 GMT -5
Heaven forbid that the president of an institution of higher learning throw out some thought-provoking comments. Thought provoking? Well it depends on your point of view. If I was President of Harvard and said to the media that I thought the USA in many ways got what was coming to it on 9/11 because of its activities in the Middle East the previous 30 to 40 years, well, then I guess some people would consider that thought provoking. Others though would consider it downright insulting and not even worthy of discussion. And even if I could point to studies that backed up my point of view, I'd better also be ready to be shown the door for saying such a thing in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by FromTheBeginning on Sept 22, 2005 16:51:20 GMT -5
What if the president of the university making those statements had been a woman------?
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Sept 22, 2005 17:22:01 GMT -5
You are mistaken.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,304
|
Post by Cambridge on Sept 22, 2005 18:14:52 GMT -5
This discussion reminds me of something the famed French racist, fascist Le Penn said back in like '97. When asked if he thought there were inherent differences between the races, he said,
"Well of course there are distinct differences. Clearly we are not the same. Look at how much more athletic those of African decent are than us caucasians."
Perhaps one of the most incidiously racist utterings. Subtle, but chock full of pseudo science, eugenics, racism and xenophobia. Clearly his statement was meant to imply that whites were more cerebral and civilized while blacks were athletic and primal. More troubling was how well he did in those elections, because his statement draws on all the historical stereotypes and various statistics but simplifies the a complex and difficult issue to the offensively simple point of eugenics.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Sept 22, 2005 18:41:34 GMT -5
My point is this: given his position, he can't just throw that out there unless he has irrefutable proof. That's a pretty tough standard to meet. You're basically saying he can't throw that out there as a possiblity unless he has proof positive. He can't say, "here's something that may be a factor, may not be a factor, let's examine it further" with out proof that it is a factor in why women only make up 20% of the math/science/technology workforce? It seems like you're putting the cart before the horse.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Sept 22, 2005 18:49:56 GMT -5
this is absolutely incredible. there are actually people here that are engaging in a faux-intellectual defense of not only the use of names and symbols (artfully forgotten in the discussion) representing powerless people in a negative manner, but supporting the president of a university ignorantly musing about the lack of women in science and math. no where in his assinine statements and those of a similar vein here, does anybody attempt to address why #2 may exist, and the absurdity of #3 (as well as its self-propgagting manner of both). 1. Why is it a faux-intellectual defense? Because it's opposite of your point of view? 2. Why is factor #3 absurd? Why is that males outperform females almost across the board on standardized tests? Is it totally because of social and environmental answers? Why is it that males are more likely to be at the top of the charts in mathematical assessments, but also more likely to be at the bottom of the charts? Maybe there's a biological/evolutionary reason for it? I don't know what the answer is, but it troubles me that we're appearing to totally dismiss one possible contributing factor by crying wolf over eugenics or racism. If the goal is to increase the numbers of women in the math and science fields, shouldn't we look at all possible factors?
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Sept 22, 2005 18:57:54 GMT -5
He basically implied that females were not cut out for such fields. You don't think that's wrong, especially considering that there are so many female students at his university which could take offense at such a suggestion? I don't think he implied that at all. I think a lot of people took it that way, and maybe it was bad form on his part, but I think he was saying it's a possible factor and we should examine how to address it. Maybe there is; maybe there isn't. Years ago I read a WPost Sunday magazine article about girls taking science and math courses in high school and how they are outnumbered greatly in the toughest classes by boys. In the article it was pointed out how a handful of smart, normally outgoing and vocal female students were reduced to silent participants this in one particular math class the reporter spent time with. It was as if they were intimidated, either ahead of time or after they joined the class, by some unwritten rule or assumption that they weren't at the same level of their male counterparts in that particular course. Was it all mental on their parts? I don't know. But I don't think that males are naturally better at such things. I think there are a variety of factors involved, including social norms, social pressures, etc. I think all should be looked at. I think that the statistics shows that a greater number of males are naturally better at such things. If the president of Harvard felt that way about female students then the smartest thing would have been to keep quiet about it. Think of it this way: what if the CEO of BMW came out publicly and said that he would not advertise in black magazines like "Ebony" because he thinks its a waste of time since there isn't as high a percentage of black readers who could afford such a car as there is a percentage of white readers who subscribe to "Vanity Fair"? Now you're taking it out of context. Summers wasn't saying that Harvard wasn't going to hire/recruit females. To use the BMA analogy, it would be similar to the CEO trying to figure out why a higher percentage of black car owners don't purchase BMW's and addressing the concerns of that population segment.
|
|
|
Post by WilsonBlvdHoya on Sept 22, 2005 20:20:47 GMT -5
Wilson, I appreciate your well thought out post. But are you sure the KKK was formed in part because of prejudices towards Catholics? As time wore on in the late 19th century the KKK started to target Irish and Italians who were Catholic. But I think when the KKK was actually formed at first its mission was to terrorize blacks (keeping them in “their place”) and to go after anyone supporting Reconstruction. I don’t think Catholics were even a target at first. Maybe I’m mistaken. MCI, again, I'd have to go to the research. I don't know if the KKK was ORIGINALLY founded SOLELY to persecute blacks. That could very well be the case. But I do know that at some point in its history, the KKK actively targeted Catholics and immigrants as un-American and worthy of its noxious and despicable venom and hatred. Plus, the KKK was not the only example in American history of anti-Catholic feeling/sentiment. The Know-Nothings also targeted Catholics as undesirables who would corrupt "decent Anglo-Saxon" values and threaten the separation of church and state.... I'm staying away from the Summers (Larry, not our man/THE man DaJuan! ) argument. Classic example of oversensitivity/ hysterical overreaction on one side and tin-eared/tin-headed, speak-without-thinking-it through stubbornness on the other (for which Summers was famous in academia and at World Bank and Treasury!)...I'll let you guys feast on that ugliness except to say that I think both sides have good intentions in this nasty debate--how best to foster greater participation of women in the "hard" sciences (physics, chemistry, biology) and mathematics. "The road to hell...."
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,607
|
Post by DanMcQ on Sept 22, 2005 21:32:46 GMT -5
As the person who started the original 'PC Police' thread as a commentary on the stupidity of the NCAA (yet again), my official 'knee jerk reaction' is to move this one where it belongs: The Blue & Gray Board. Not because the discussion should be stifled (it's really good - as threads started by ron often are), but because we're talking mostly about Harvard. And we cannot allow that here.
|
|