Nine Nonsense - Some bureaucrats want to expand discriminatory thinking

http://www.nationalreview.com/lukas/...0604060605.asp
April 06, 2006, 6:05 a.m.


Nine Nonsense
Some bureaucrats want to expand discriminatory thinking.
Carrie Lukas


Consistency isn't a concept particularly valued by feminists. Feminists deny
there are natural differences between men and women - except that women are
more empathetic, more verbally adept, and less violent than men. Differences
can exist, but only if they are in the female's favor.

According to the National Journal, some officials at the National Science
Foundation and Education Department share the feminists' immunity to
cognitive dissonance. They are exploring Title IX's applications to specific
areas of study, but only in disciplines where Title IX's application will
benefit women.

It's well-known that fewer women study the hard sciences than men. As the
National Journal details, men earned about 80 percent of engineering degrees
in 2001 and 75 percent of degrees in computer science. Universities,
non-profits, and the government pour money into programs to address this
discrepancy by encouraging more women to pursue these fields.

Academics frequently meet to ponder the particular problem. Larry Summers
was at such a conference when he speculated that innate differences in
ability might play a role. Dr. Summers should have realized that, for the
gender warriors that populate academia, there is only one acceptable
explanation - discrimination - for women's under-representation in the upper
echelons of science and math. His mistake contributed to the loss of his job
as Harvard's president.

The specter of discrimination fuels current efforts to apply Title IX to
science departments. The National Journal reports that Education Department
officials are investigating specific campuses with departments suspected of
treating women "differently." The officials declined to name specific
universities under investigation, leaving university administrators to feel
as though they are all potential targets.

But why limit the investigation to science and engineering departments? If
the Department of Education is interested in the numbers game, then they
should be just as concerned about areas in which women dominate men. Women
earn nearly eight in ten degrees in education and psychology, and six in ten
degrees in accounting and biology. Overall, women earn 58 percent of
bachelor's degrees. The ratio among African Americans is even more skewed,
with women earning nearly two-thirds of all bachelor's degrees.

The increasingly poor performance of young men is the most significant,
troubling trend in American education. Imagine if this trend were reversed
and men's academic achievement were soaring relative to women's. Women's
groups would howl and the media would be awash in stories covering the
crisis.

For years, the only way that a university could inoculate itself from Title
IX litigation was to have athletic participation mirror enrollment. In other
words, if 58 percent of students were women, then 58 percent of athletes had
to be women. Universities trying to meet this criterion struggled to attract
female athletes. But, all too often, they resorted to the surefire method of
balancing the equation: eliminating men's teams. More than 90 universities
cut men's track and field, and more than 20 cancelled wrestling.

If similar standards were applied to academic departments, university
biology and accounting programs would be forced to try desperately to
attract young men to the major. But if they fell short, they could opt to
expel women to make the numbers balance. Engineering programs would face the
inverse problem: attracting women and cutting men.

Gender warriors may be willing to take this deal. Feminists hardly celebrate
that women gravitate toward majors like education that lead to lower-paying
jobs after graduation. They may embrace a policy that pushes women toward
more prestigious careers. But if academic departments are fair game, then
why shouldn't similar standards be applied to enrollment?

If Title IX were applied to enrollment, schools would face the uncomfortable
proposition of trying to attract more men or artificially reduce women's
enrollment to reach the magic proportional balance. To achieve enrollment
parity today, more than one million women would have to be expelled from
colleges and universities around the country.

It's ridiculous to imagine a quota system taken to this extreme. And, of
course, men would gain little from the enforcement of such a quota system.
They wouldn't receive a better education or be better prepared to
participate in the modern economy if women were denied educational
opportunities. Policymakers concerned about the lack of men in higher
education need to focus on root causes, such as the government-run
public-school monopoly that often fails to educate children.

Expanding Title IX is not the answer, and the Bush administration knows
this. The administration has courageously taken on Title IX fanatics by
providing much-needed clarity about how schools can comply with Title IX in
the athletic arena through the use of surveys, instead of relying sole on
proportionality. It's unlikely they'll let this effort move forward. But the
news that some agency bureaucrats are seeking to selectively apply Title IX
to academic disciplines is a reminder of how the gender warriors' bias
infects government policy.

Feminists are consistent about one thing - they consistently ignore problems
facing American men.

- Carrie Lukas is the vice president for policy and economics at the
Independent Women's Forum, and the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide
to Women, Sex, and Feminism, forthcoming from Regnery Publishing.

Thanks for posting this interesting article. To anyone who looks at the
big picture, it's very obvious that feminists want quotas applied in any
situation where they think this would benefit women. However, the
application of quotas that would favor men never even appears on the radar
screen. The continued glass ceiling on paternal custody is a perfect case
in point.

On the particular issue of quotas to get more women into science and
engineering, I can remember very well the background. This issue was raised,
and pursued, several years ago by Rep. Connie Morella (R-Md.), who is no
longer in Congress. (That's right, she was nominally a Republican, although
most of her policy positions were identical to those of liberal Democrats.)
Morella was chairwoman of one of the subcommittees of the House Science
Committee. She used her position to promote relentlessly the view that the
marked statistical discrepancy between men and women in science and
engineering was the result of discrimination against women. She got a law
passed requiring the establishment of a government commission to look into
the issue.

However, at the very same time that Morella was promoting the
establishment of a commission to look into the statistical difference
between the sexes in science and technology, she was ALSO active in seeking
to have Congress adopt a resolution being pushed by the National
Organization for Women. That resolution would have put Congress on record
as being opposed to joint custody of children. No one told Morella that, if
statistical differences between the sexes were an appropriate technique to
use, affirmative action techniques should have been applied to custody.
There was, and continues to be, clear statistical evidence of blatant
discrimination against men in custody matters.

"Dusty" wrote in message
...

http://www.nationalreview.com/lukas/...0604060605.asp
April 06, 2006, 6:05 a.m.


Nine Nonsense
Some bureaucrats want to expand discriminatory thinking.
Carrie Lukas


Consistency isn't a concept particularly valued by feminists. Feminists
deny there are natural differences between men and women - except that
women are more empathetic, more verbally adept, and less violent than men.
Differences can exist, but only if they are in the female's favor.

According to the National Journal, some officials at the National Science
Foundation and Education Department share the feminists' immunity to
cognitive dissonance. They are exploring Title IX's applications to
specific areas of study, but only in disciplines where Title IX's
application will benefit women.

It's well-known that fewer women study the hard sciences than men. As the
National Journal details, men earned about 80 percent of engineering
degrees in 2001 and 75 percent of degrees in computer science.
Universities, non-profits, and the government pour money into programs to
address this discrepancy by encouraging more women to pursue these fields.

Academics frequently meet to ponder the particular problem. Larry Summers
was at such a conference when he speculated that innate differences in
ability might play a role. Dr. Summers should have realized that, for the
gender warriors that populate academia, there is only one acceptable
explanation - discrimination - for women's under-representation in the
upper echelons of science and math. His mistake contributed to the loss of
his job as Harvard's president.

The specter of discrimination fuels current efforts to apply Title IX to
science departments. The National Journal reports that Education
Department officials are investigating specific campuses with departments
suspected of treating women "differently." The officials declined to name
specific universities under investigation, leaving university
administrators to feel as though they are all potential targets.

But why limit the investigation to science and engineering departments? If
the Department of Education is interested in the numbers game, then they
should be just as concerned about areas in which women dominate men. Women
earn nearly eight in ten degrees in education and psychology, and six in
ten degrees in accounting and biology. Overall, women earn 58 percent of
bachelor's degrees. The ratio among African Americans is even more skewed,
with women earning nearly two-thirds of all bachelor's degrees.

The increasingly poor performance of young men is the most significant,
troubling trend in American education. Imagine if this trend were reversed
and men's academic achievement were soaring relative to women's. Women's
groups would howl and the media would be awash in stories covering the
crisis.

For years, the only way that a university could inoculate itself from
Title IX litigation was to have athletic participation mirror enrollment.
In other words, if 58 percent of students were women, then 58 percent of
athletes had to be women. Universities trying to meet this criterion
struggled to attract female athletes. But, all too often, they resorted to
the surefire method of balancing the equation: eliminating men's teams.
More than 90 universities cut men's track and field, and more than 20
cancelled wrestling.

If similar standards were applied to academic departments, university
biology and accounting programs would be forced to try desperately to
attract young men to the major. But if they fell short, they could opt to
expel women to make the numbers balance. Engineering programs would face
the inverse problem: attracting women and cutting men.

Gender warriors may be willing to take this deal. Feminists hardly
celebrate that women gravitate toward majors like education that lead to
lower-paying jobs after graduation. They may embrace a policy that pushes
women toward more prestigious careers. But if academic departments are
fair game, then why shouldn't similar standards be applied to enrollment?

If Title IX were applied to enrollment, schools would face the
uncomfortable proposition of trying to attract more men or artificially
reduce women's enrollment to reach the magic proportional balance. To
achieve enrollment parity today, more than one million women would have to
be expelled from colleges and universities around the country.

It's ridiculous to imagine a quota system taken to this extreme. And, of
course, men would gain little from the enforcement of such a quota system.
They wouldn't receive a better education or be better prepared to
participate in the modern economy if women were denied educational
opportunities. Policymakers concerned about the lack of men in higher
education need to focus on root causes, such as the government-run
public-school monopoly that often fails to educate children.

Expanding Title IX is not the answer, and the Bush administration knows
this. The administration has courageously taken on Title IX fanatics by
providing much-needed clarity about how schools can comply with Title IX
in the athletic arena through the use of surveys, instead of relying sole
on proportionality. It's unlikely they'll let this effort move forward.
But the news that some agency bureaucrats are seeking to selectively apply
Title IX to academic disciplines is a reminder of how the gender warriors'
bias infects government policy.

Feminists are consistent about one thing - they consistently ignore
problems facing American men.

- Carrie Lukas is the vice president for policy and economics at the
Independent Women's Forum, and the author of The Politically Incorrect
Guide to Women, Sex, and Feminism, forthcoming from Regnery Publishing.