Last week there was an
article about applying Title IX to the sciences in the Washington Post. I'm only just now writing about it since while I found it to be a frustrating read, I couldn't figure out why. Yes, it's an article that I disagree with. But that in itself is not frustrating to me. I appreciate well-reasoned arguments, even if I'm on the other side. Therein lies the problem - despite its condescending and arrogant tone, the article is illogical and incorrect at times. The author seeks to make her point through alarmism and absurdism instead of through reason. Perhaps she would have benefited from more participation in the sciences.
The author opens with these lines: "What's good for women's basketball will be good for nuclear physics. To most Americans, that statement will sound odd." Quantum physics would seem odd too. Happily, oddness is not usually used as a tool for evaluation.
She describes Title IX as "the law that requires universities to give equal funding to men's and women's athletics." In fact, simply looking at the first paragraph of the
Wikipedia article on Title IX would disabuse her of the notion that the law was meant to apply directly to or only to athletics:
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, now known as the Patsy T. Mink Equal Opportunity in Education Act in honor of its principal author, but more commonly known simply as Title IX, is a United States law enacted on June 23, 1972 that states: "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." Although the most prominent "public face" of Title IX is its impact on high school and collegiate athletics, the original statute made no reference to athletics.
I'm unclear why she brings this issue up now (the Obama quotes she references are from
October). Since we discussed it last time, I've been thinking about how Title IX could be applied without resorting to quotas (which I disagree with). It seems to me that it's all about equal spending of money (isn't it always). In fact, many departments already make up for the small number of women in their departments by spending extra money on women in general (e.g.
sponsorship of Grace Hopper). Certainly, this could be taken into account.
But perhaps some of my disagreement with this article does stem from my disagreement with her argument. The final paragraph makes an argument I have made many times... for the other side:
American scientific excellence, though, is an invaluable and irreplaceable resource. The fields that will be most affected -- math, engineering, physics and computer science -- are vital to the economy and national defense. Is it wise, to say nothing of urgent, for the president and Congress to impose an untested, undebated gender parity policy at this time?
Yes.
