Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2000 16:12:52 -0500 (EST)
Subject: CSWA Newsletter of 2/2/2000
To: AASMAIL: ;
AAS Committee on the Status of Women
weekly issues of 2/ 2/2000, ed. by Priscilla Benson
*** send email and addresses to aaswomen
wellesley.edu ***
This week's issues:
1. Minority Scholarship Deadline Extended
2. Voices - Girls in Science, Math, and Technology
3. Why So Few Women?
------------------------------------------------------------
1. Minority Scholarship Deadline Extended
From: "Wright, James P." jwrightnsf.gov
Forwarded from: Joan M. Frye [SMTP:jfryensf.gov]
We have extended the deadline for the APS Corporate
Sponsored Scholarships for Minority Undergraduate Students
who Major in Physics to February 11, 2000. Any Black,
Hispanic, or Native American US citizen who is majoring
Or planning to major in physics and who is a high school
senior, college freshman or sophomore is eligible to apply.
If you know of any students who are eligible for this
scholarship, please have them either dowload the necessary
forms at(http://www.aps.org/educ/docs/download.html), or
send me their US postal address and I will mail them an
application. We can also fax applications to students or
faculty.
The following materials are required for a completed
application:
1. A completed application form and essays
2. Two references (one must be from a science or math
teacher/professor.
3. Current, official high school transcripts for high
school students and college freshmen. Current official
college transcripts for college freshmen and sophomores.
4. Academic aptitude test scores for all new applicants
APS SAT code is 0634 and ACT code is 2675.
For more information or if you have questions, please call
or email me.
Thanks,
Arlene Modeste Knowles
Scholarship Administrator
Outreach Programs Administrator
Education & Outreach
American Physical Society
One Physics Ellipse
College Park, MD 20740
knowlesaps.org
301-209-3232
301-209-0865 (fax)
------------------------------------------------------------
2. Voices - Girls in Science, Math, and Technology
From: brysoncfht.hawaii.edu
From Netsurfer Science 03.02:
Voices - Girls in Science, Math, and Technology
Voices is a three-year program in West Virginia
designed to encourage and help girls do well in science,
mathematics, and technology. Three urban and three rural
schools participated in the first year of the program,
and another one of the program's goals is to
determine if science, mathematics, and technology should be
taught differently in rural and urban areas because of the
different perspectives students may bring to the classroom
might bring to the classroom. In the first and second years
of the program, the girls participate in workshops that put
science and math in an Appalachian context. For example, one
workshop focused in the chemistry of folk medicine, another
on the mathematics of quilt patterns, and another on food
preservation. Maybe you're not an Appalachian parent or
teacher, but you may find some ideas at Voices to help your
daughter(s) take an interest in science and math.
http://www.ael.org/nsf/voices/index.htm
-Liz Bryson, CFHT librarian
------------------------------------------------------------
3. Why So Few Women?
From: donahuestsci.edu (Megan Donahue)
I've read "Pythagoras' Trousers" and found it screamingly
funny, particularly the first and the last chapters. In
fact, the image that formed in my mind was so intense I had
to draw it as a cartoon: a big muscle guy with a reverse
collar, with a brawny foot on the planet Earth (with Earthly
Concerns on it), crushing an atom with one fist and reaching
out and grasping The Ultimate Power of the Universe with
the other. Title: "The Self-Image of a Male Physicist?"
I'm not a great artist, but I did a mighty fine job. :)
I didn't agree with everything Wertheim wrote. Her middle
chapters were an interesting history of science, but not
compelling proof of her thesis. Her energy was mainly
powered by her negative experience as a physicist. However,
I think she makes some extremely relevant points, and some
of the behavior patterns and culture we see (particularly in
academics, not so much in industry) reflect the common roots
of academia and the Church. The reason I was so entertained
by this thesis was all the flashbulbs that went off in my
head: my background is in very conservative Catholicism, 12
years of Catholic education, and I think there's a lot to
what she says. I see it everywhere in the system.
On the other hand, I don't think it's the complete
explanation.
In my experience with working with high school girls in the
Women's Science Forum, I was struck but the distaste that
the majority of girls had for physics and engineering. These
were girls that signed up for the program because they were
interested in science as a career, but they told us many
times that they wanted to hear about biology and
environmental science and medicine. Why did we bore them
with talks about astronomy? It was bewildering for me as an
astronomer, because of course I really enjoy astronomy and I
am used to public talks in astronomy being received with
wild enthusiasm. Not ALL of the girls felt that way, only
about 80-90% of them. I never did figure out why. The girls
themselves wouldn't tell me! Occasionally we would get a
``convert'' who decided to pursue physics in college,who
would tell us later that she had never considered physics
before. So I work on the exposure aspect - not many people
know what physicists and engineers even do, so by learning
that, girls might make a better- informed choice about their
pursuits. But even as early as the age of 15, well before
they are exposed to the academic hierarchy of latent
priests, girls are deciding against physics/engineering.
David Gelernter made a similar observation in his article
reprinted in STATUS. I disagree very strongly with his
analogy comparing science to sports. The analogy is
completely and totally bogus, and, furthermore, incorrect
even in the context of sports -- I would be willing to take
him up on the effects and meaning of Title IX any day of the
week -- he does have a point when it comes to preferences.
I've been musing about this for years, beginning when most
of my girlfriends abandoned our high school math courses at
the first opportunity. It wasn't that they weren't getting
great grades. I hadn't changed. But they had. And like the
girls I meet in my outreach program, they weren't able to
articulate why.
Musingly yours,
Megan Donahue
------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stupendous Man richmonda188-l009.rit.edu
Beth Hufnagel wrote an item in the last newsletter, urging
us to read the book "Pythagoras' Trousers." It describes
the connection between organized religion and organized
science over the past few thousand years. I did read part
of the book, its last chapter, which summarizes the author's
views on the current state of the physics community, and how
it might be changed to accomodate women.
Based on that reading, I wrote a little text of my own,
which describes my reading of Margaret Wertheim's views and
my interpretation of them. I have placed this document at
the following URL:
http://stupendous.rit.edu/richmond/pythag.html
To be very brief, I find
- I agree with Wertheim that big particle accelerators
are not the best way to spend research money
- I agree with Wertheim that some girls are discouraged
from studying math and science by bias in schools, at all
levels
- I agree with Wertheim that it is much easier for any
person to follow a career in science (or any field) if
someone else stays home to cook, clean and take care of the
children
but
- I disagree strongly with her contention that modern
physics and astronomy does not reveal an objective truth,
but is instead simply a cultural construct, full of sexist
bias (in other words, I reject the view of the cultural
relativists)
- I am puzzled by the way that she embraces the
"heaven-earth dichotomy" between men and women: she claims
that if more women enter physics, it will become a more
caring and ethical science, centered on the needs and
concerns of citizens at large
Michael Richmond
------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Kathryn N. Mead" kmeadearthlink.net
I have some comments in response to the articles in the
January 2000 issue of STATUS.
http://www.aas.org/~cswa/pubs.html This posting focuses on
articles written by Hillenbrand, Georgi and Gelertner. Also
mentioned are Burbidge's and John Powers articles. In their
note, editors Frattare and Urry express their desire for
discussion of this issue of Status. Here is my contribution.
1. DOES AFFIRMATIVE ACTION HELP OR HURT MY CAREER?
Lynn Hillenbrand writes, "I have been less than sympathetic
to women's issues throughout most of my life." And elsewhere
expresses the view that she would not want to get a job with
the help of Affirmative Action.
Her view is shared by many, especially younger, women. We
all want to believe that if we have a job and are successful
that it is because of our own objectively-measured
qualifications and performance, not because of favored
treatment dictated by law or political correctness.
In a way, I'm glad that younger women see so little overt
discrimination that they feel safe in pursuing their careers
without "help" and without attending to "women's issues."
However, I am sad that after so much sacrifice and effort on
the part of women who came earlier that the younger women
can not, or choose not, to see beyond their own personal
situation. Nowadays, many women are afraid of retribution
and, to protect their careers, avoid saying anything about
"women's issues." Some go as far as Hillenbrand and speak
out against affirmative action. As long as they have a job,
some women seem unaware, or unwilling to acknowlege
publicly, that discrimination exists and that there is a
need to address inequities. However, because of
discrimination, some women may have a lesser job or status
than they deserve, and others, like me, have left the field.
Compared to the sacrifices some women have made, it's
selfish and cowardly of others to protect their own careers
by being unsupportive of those who seek to build on the
progress that we have made thus far. It is because of
outspoken women that went before us that we can, for
example, observe at Carnegie observatories. Just because
there are no longer formal bars to women at observatories
does not mean that discrimination no longer exists.
I. A. IS DISCRIMINATION ENOUGH OF A PROBLEM THAT I SHOULD
RISK MY CAREER BY BEING INVOLVED IN "WOMEN'S ISSUES."?
EXPECTATIONS DIFFER
There is much more to discrimination than 'the number of
instances of sexism, that Hillenbrand surveyed. These days
sexism is expressed less often by overt discrete instances,
such as physical or verbal harassment, and more often by
subtly dismissive attitudes or remarks toward women and
their performance at work. For example, a woman may find
herself in a department in which many of her colleagues
expect her to fail. These colleagues may be uncomfortable
around women, having worked so little with them. Or the
colleagues in question may actually be hostile to women as
colleagues.
In such a situation, a woman's failures and weaknesses are
noticed because they justify the others' discomfort or
hostility. A woman in an old-fashioned department will have
a lot to "prove" before her male colleagues see an
astronomer instead of a wife, daughter or secretary. In
contrast, younger male colleagues are seen as colleagues
right away, and their "successes" immediately contribute to
the man's stature in the department (and in astronomy
overall.)
In some departments, the attitude toward women seems to be
"prove to me that you deserve tenure" while the attitude
toward men seems to be "prove to me that you don't."In other
words, women are constantly having to prove their
worthiness, while with men it is the default view. It is
more difficult for women than men to be successful in an
atmosphere of criticism. Thus, often this attitude toward
women creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. If, like men,
more women could get a job or a promotion by just being good
or excellent, without being a superstar,that would be
progress.
Department chairs reveal their attitudes toward women when
they say things like,"we hired a woman once, but it didn't
work out. " What - no man has ever "not worked out?" not
gotten tenure, for example? If one woman "fails" they give
up on all other women? I've also heard, "we tried to hire a
woman, but she wouldn't come. " Are we to believe that there
has only been one woman who was ever good enough for that
department?
Sometmes efforts to address inequities involve coercion and
red tape. Unfortunately, the emotional response to these
beauraucratic demands is often directed toward women. Women
are seen as the problem, even though it was not we who were
hiring only white males for all those years. It is
discouraging how often efforts to promote fairness and
inclusion are seen (by, for example, department chairs,
search committees, provosts, etc.) only as a hardship and
burden rather than simply as the "right" thing to do.
Funding and building a new telescope is difficult too, but
people don't gripe as much about that, nor is the stress of
it directed at the people who benefit from the project.
DICRIMINATION AGAINST SOME WOMEN AFFECTS ALL WOMEN
It is because of this subtle but pervasive and often
entrenched attitudes discussed in the previous section that
women have more difficulty rising to the top of the career
pyramid than men. The effect is a slow winnowing out of
women over time rather than a discontinuity at a glass
ceiling. Often while the effects are there to see - low
percentage of female full professors, for example - the
causes are more qualitative than quantitative and so may be
under-identified, under-tabulated, and, as a result, under-
appreciated.
Just because you don't personally experience discrete
instances of overt sexism (quantitative) doesn't mean that
differential treatment (qualitative) doesn't exist or that
it's not effecting you. Your office mate may not grope you
or tell off color jokes, but he may make jokes about you
outside of your presence. Or he may be verbally dismissive
of your comments during a department meeting. Or perhaps
when a student makes a complaint about you to the dean, your
department chair does not defend you as vigorously as he
could. Maybe none of these things happen to you, but they
are happening. I know because people tell me their
experiences. If your colleague is treated less seriously
because she is a woman, then you are too.
OUR EXPERIENCE DIFFERS
John Powers, in his article on page 19, writes about Tony
DiCicco's observations about the differences in coaching
women and men. (DiCicco was the coach of the US Women's
Soccer team that won the Women's World Cup this summer.)
DiCicco says that men tend to blame others while women tend
to take criticism personally. I think this is true and
would like to see it recognized by more people. DiCicco
says, "You can't be an in-your face type coach with women.
You have to recognize the differences."
By no means do I expect department chairs to suddenly turn
"touchy feely" and consciously talk to women differently
than men. I do however think it's reasonable to have the
same positive perceptions of women as men. Furthermore, it's
reasonable to treat individuals with respect, and to
establish a communication style with each department member
that is most effective for that person. I've also observed
that members of successful _male_ sports teams ( '99 NY
Yankees and St. Louis Rams) talk about the importance of
the support of their teammates. Conversely, when the sports
stars who bicker in public are those on bad teams.
Therefore, while arguably more important to women, a
supportive environment is more productive for men as well as
women. Finally, making the effort to communicate
effectively is simple collegiality and politeness.
The difference between our experience as astronomers and
that of men goes beyond how people talk about us. It
includes how people talk about us, as discussed in the
previous few sections. Another area of difference is how
people form opinions and make decisions about us and then
justify those decisions to us. The formation of the opinion
may be done largely out of our presence and based on what
others say about us. But at some point decisions will have
to be disclosed to us. Decisions about getting a job or
promotion, or being invited to give a talk or a decision
about the awarding of grant money. People may have a
certain reason or basis for a decision, but that is not the
explanation they give to you.
A lot of times disparate treatment is extremely subtle and
can be interpreted many ways besides sexism. But over time,
one may realize that illogical but seemingly innocuous
explanations for things are actually excuses for decisions
made on the basis of personal discomfort. "I don't like
you, but I can't use that as a justification for my actions,
so I'll make up something. " Scientists, though often
socially challenged, are smart enough to realize that they
can't say, "I don't want to work with women, therefore I
didn't hire you." I was once told by a colleague that his
negative written evaluation of me was based on the fact that
I took a week to take down the semester's last lab set up.
In his opinion, this was too long a delay. Based on this
one thing, it was his recommendation that I not be rehired
to teach at that school for another year. This does not
seem an adequate basis for such a conclusion. I began to
wonder what his real reason was. I have heard plenty of
other 'strange justification' stories from people.
And as those of us who have been around the block know, it's
not just these major decisions that are determinative of
someone's career but how you are talked about around the
department, or how supportive or derisive people are of
ideas you offer at department meetings. For example, the
formal promotion process often serves not to make a
determination but to justify what your department has
already decided about the candidate's promotion.
These experiential differences mean that more women spend
more time outside their comfort zone than men do because we
are sensitive to things to which men are oblivious. (I'm
not suggesting that men try to change this just that women
and men respond differently to stimuli.) This discomfort may
lead women to leave the profession because they don't like
this discomfort AND because they realize they don't have to
put up with it. I think that women are more cognizant than
men that leaving the field is a realistic option for them.
In other words, I think that women as a population may
experience more discomfort, but even at the same level of
discomfort, I think that women are more likely to respond by
either trying to change the field or leave it whereas men
will simply endure the discomfort.
One could argue that if women can't hack this comfort zone
issue, then good riddance. But I think a lot of men would
welcome a better atmosphere (starting with the men who are
concerned with "family issues" as I discuss below. ) There
is no reason why scientists of either gender should have to
endure hostility. The reason that they endure rather than
modify is that there is not a critical mass of astronomers
who are willing to try to change the culture.
DON'T HIDE FROM "WOMEN'S ISSUES"
Every woman who is marginalized or leaves astronomy
altogether, leaves behind a smaller contingency of women
who, will each be more isolated. Even the superstar women
have different career experiences than men and benefit from
having other women in the profession. The merely excellent
women are in particular need of other women to share
experiences with, because it's the "merely excellent" who
are usually the most isolated. It is they who may
experience most intensely the difficult side of being a
woman in a male dominated profession. Thus, it is in each
woman's self interest to be concerned about the status of
other women in the profession. Even in the complex world of
women in astronomy, the simple axiom, "there is strength and
safety in numbers" holds true.
In a tight labor market, one does take a risk when publicly
addressing "women's issues." I would not want someone to
lose their job because they were outspoken. But the fact is
that there are women have lost their jobs or promotions or
even careers because they were women (outspoken or not.) I
know women who know this in their heart and I know women who
have proved it in court. In a society in which "feminazi"
is a well used word, it's tempting to renounce affirmative
action so as to not be cast in that light. But doing so is
to accept sexism and discrimination. Protecting your career
is one thing, doing so at the expense of other women is
quite another. We didn't get this far by our foremothers
taking the safe route and looking out only for themselves.
We owe it to them, if not to ourselves, to publicly assert
that while we have come a long way, there is still progress
to be made.
1. B. ARE MEN NEGATIVELY EFFECTED BY AFFIRMATION ACTION?
Another issue that Hillenbrand discussed in her articles is
males' negative experiences with differential treatment. I
will discuss two here, one a sociological example and
another which is also sociological but is disguised as a
legal or administrative disparity.
FAMILY ISSUES
Regarding family leave, Hillenbrand writes, "Nor are men
given the same slack as women seem to get when having to
deal with family issues. "This is a definite problem (though
the word "slack" is an oversimplification.) Men who want to
make a bigger family commitment face the view at work that
it is unseemly for a man to, for example, leave the office
early to go to his daughter's soccer game or to stay home
with a sick son. This is not really about "affirmative
action" in its legal meaning. This is about _societal
expectations_ of men and women, which are largely just as
flawed for modern men as for modern women.
Women are expected to have higher levels of commitment to
family. So when a woman takes time from work to deal with
family issues,she's just living up to expectations.
(Extreme examples of these expectations are job interview
questions such as, "are you married?" or "do you plan to get
pregnant in the next few years?" These questions indicate an
effort to anticipate her mobility to accept a job and/or the
amount of time she will have to take off from work. ) BUT,
more time for family means less time for work, thus, the
converse expectation of lower job performance.
Conversely, men are expected to _subjugate_ all family
responsibilities to their job. (Rarely would a man be asked,
"do you have a chronically ill family member for whom you
are the primary caregiver?") Because the man's subjugation
of family responsibilities leaves more time for work, men
are expected to have higher levels of job success, and thus
have less to "prove" at work.
It makes me kind of sick that there is all this pressure for
both workingmen and women to put aside that which is the
most important and that over which they actually have the
most control: family. Finding success at work is largely
out of our control, while Finding personal satisfaction from
family is largely within our control. Yet we spend more
time effort trying to please our bosses and colleagues than
we do on our family and we expect our family to endure being
second on the priority list. Why should someone we don't
love,and often don't respect, be able to demand this much
attention from us? If we aren't going to spend time with our
spouse and children, why do we have them? Is it to satisfy
societal expectations?
Acceptance of men's commitment to family is just as
important for "equality" as acceptance of women's
contributions to their professions. Too many career demands
are a problem for men and women. But these career demands
were not caused by affirmative action. If anything, women's
presence in astronomy will make it more acceptable to for
astronomers to spend less time at work and more time with
family.
BAD MANAGEMENT DISGUISED AS PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT FOR WOMEN
Men sometimes find themselves the "victims" of affirmative
action. Professor Smith, a man, is told by the department
chair that "because of affirmative action" the department is
going to focus on Professor Jones', a woman's, promotion
this year. Or, Smith is told by a local organizing
committee, that Jones is going to be an invited speaker at
the meeting, "because all the other speakers are men. "
What's really going on here? Is Smith the victim of reverse
discrimination or bad management?
In the promotion case, perhaps Jones record will be more
saleable to the promotion committee because she just got a 5
year NASA grant. But the department chair doesn't want a
confrontation with Smith. If the chair tells Smith, "Jones
has that 5 year grant and is thus more saleable to the
administration this year," Smith will feel compelled to
defend his record against Jones, taking up the chair's time
and creating an awkwardness between them where none existed
before (because the chair has now verbalized that Smith's
record is lacking. ) Or the chair can say, "we're working on
Jones' promotion because she's a woman. " In the latter
case, the chair avoids a time consuming and uncomfortable
discussion with Smith and any lingering awkwardness between
them created by any implied criticism. With the second
statement, the chair, and the administration are entirely
absolved of responsibility for the decision. This keeps
these people in their comfort zone, and has the bonus
benefit for them of making Jones' promotion seem like a
gift, rather than a reward for outstanding performance.
Note the difference in her status in the department as a
result of the "woman" reason rather than the "grant" reason.
This is yet another example of how women wind up
marginalzed. (And is probably an example of why Hillenbrand
doesn't want to be the beneficiary of Affirmative Action.
But speaking out against it may not be enough to change the
perception that she is. )
This personal interaction problem is exacerbated in science
because most scientists are much more comfortable at their
computer terminals than they are in social situations.
Managerial situations are the most demanding of scientists'
limited social skills. And think about it, scientists get
into management positions based NOT on their ability in that
area but based on their scientific accomplishments. At a
big department, the chair is some big shot researcher. At a
small department, the chair is someone who rotated into the
job and sees it as a heinous imprisonment. Either way,
these are not people who have any training or natural
ability in management.
So, please please, try to be aware of how often it happens
that a manager (department chair, dean, provost, grant
monitor, grant panel member, TAC member) says something that
is meant to allow that person to avoid taking the
responsibility for a decision.
Now sometimes it's true that numbers dictate a decision,
like at least one invited talk must be by a woman. But
consider: how did it happen that Smith's slot was the one
given to the woman? There are maybe 10 other slots that
could have gone to women. Here again, social skills are
involved. Maybe someone thought that Smith was the least
desirable among the men who wanted to give talks. (Maybe he
gives boring talks, but no one wants verbalize to him that
he is lacking in this area.) Or maybe he would take
rejection with the least amount of fallout (he's the most
junior, or the least likely to protest, or he's from a
"lesser" department) Maybe to the LOC he's the least popular
of the invited speakers. Or maybe he was the last to ask to
give a talk, and thus was the one to be bumped when the
meeting organizers suddenly realized that there weren't any
women speakers.
If there were originally zero female invited speakers, and
now there is one, is Smith the victim of reverse
discrimination? Or has an instance of discrimination (as
indicated by numbers) been reversed, and Smith is simply
paying for his colleagues' oversight?
Understandably, younger men sometimes complain,"We didn't
create this problem, why should we be the ones to sacrifice
in order to solve it. " My response is, we women didn't
create it either, why do you direct your hostility toward
us?" (Of course there are reasons for younger men to direct
their hostility toward relatively un-empowered women rather
than toward the generally male dominant power structure from
whom they seek jobs, promotions, telescope time and grant
money. I won't go into those reasons here. I am just
suggesting that sometimes the premise of a statement or
question does not hold up to scrutiny. )
Furthermore, I think the term "sacrifice" mis-characterizes
the consequences to men. In most cases, I think they are
simply having to compete fairly (something they haven't
always had to do. ) (It's certainly a benefit to truly
sexist men to convince other men that women now have unfair
advantages. ) Sometimes it doesn't seem fair because bad
management and emphasis on counting paint a picture in which
women are overreaching and men are getting the shaft. But
sometimes counting, assailable though it may be, is the most
effective mechanism we have to alert us to situations in
which women are overlooked. A lack of discrimination toward
women is not the same thing as discrimination against men.
2. DOES SCIENCE NEED DIVERSITY?.
Moving along to other articles, I noticed an interesting but
depressing and typical contrast between the "liberal"
attitudes expressed in the Georgi article and the
"conservative" analysis in the Gelertner article. Georgi's
article was a lengthy analysis based on the premise "my
views could be based on my limited experience of being in
the majority. I will try to consider the situation from the
perspective of the minority. " I find this type of analysis
consistent with how I'm trained as a scientist - to analyze
the data objectively and apply it to the problem.
In contrast, Professor Gelertner's analyss was brief and
contained many instances where the author used only his own
experiences as proofs of his preconceived notions. I was
quite struck that he used his child's play group experience
as proof that women don't want to do science. (Have female
astronomers been duped or conscripted into the profession
against their will?) Even more startling was the suggestion
that making science less exclusionary to women would be like
forcing the NFL to admit "weak" players. I was unable to see
the parallel between females in science and weaklings in
football.
2. a. WHAT AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IS _NOT_, DESPITE WHAT YOU
MIGHT THINK.
Perhaps Professor Gelertner is suggesting, as many
conservatives do, that Affirmative Action legally requires
that UNqualified people be hired and promoted. This is
absolutely false. I challenge Professor Gelertner to show
me where in statutory or case law it says that affirmative
action requires that _un_qualified applicants be hired or
promoted. (No newspaper, magazine, TV or other media
stories, or anecdotes please. Also, please confine case
citations to application/evaluation processes which are
qualitative/subjective, as in academic jobs, rather than
quantitative/objective such as civil service jobs in which
the candidate is evaluated on the basis of a written or
otherwise numerically scored test. )
Regarding academic jobs, affirmative action basically
requires that jobs be 'made available' to minorities and
women. This requirement is essentially satisfied by
advertising jobs and reviewing applications from women.
Employers can be "in compliance" with AA guidelines without
ever hiring a woman, as long as women are considered for
jobs. (This is why ads in AASWomen are so important to
employers because, by definition, the job has been 'made
available' to women. And this is why employers really do
want women to apply, because reviewing these applications
keeps the employer "in compliance" with affirmative action.
Yes, an employer could be sued for giving someone a job
without advertising it. But these days, most employers
aren't so ignorant or arrogant that they don't go to the
trouble of advertising, even when they already know to whom
they are going to offer the job. AASWomen is the best
choice to protect employers in these situations because the
lead time is only a few days and there is zero financial
cost. )
In rare circumstances a woman maybe able to prove in court
that because of discrimination against women, an employer
denied her a job or promotion. Such discrimination is
violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and that's
the statute under which employers are sued. They aren't
sued for violating their "Affirmative Action Plan. " And
Title VII does not say that (even qualified) women have to
be hired, only that they can _not be denied_ employment _on
the basis of their gender_. There is a huge difference.
(For more information about this topic, see http://www. aas.
org/~cswa/status/mead-legal. html. )
2. b. DIVERSITY ISN'T ALWAYS AN UGLY WORD
Since Professor Gelertner has raised the subject of
football, and because the Superbowl was yesterday, I would
like to say one more thing about it. "Diversity" is not an
ugly word on a football team. Defensive linemen weighing
350 pounds are just as important as comparatively weak
punters, kickers and wide receivers. While most people do
not visualize a punter when they think of a football player,
a coach or general manager thinks of all the sizes and
shapes of players that are necessary to compose a successful
team. The fat linemen, skinny wide receivers, and weak
punters are all part of a team. And, I might add, their
contribution to the "chemistry"(qualitative attribute)of the
team is just as important as the number of sacks, receptions
or average yards per punt (quantitative attributes. ) This
is why some teams with "stellar" players fail and other
teams with "average" players succeed.
Just as a wide receiver brings something to a football team
that a lineman does not. A woman brings something to an
astronomy department that a man does not. In football, a
quarterback cannot throw the ball without the protection of
his line, and he needs a receiver to catch the ball. An
interaction between players is necessary in football. And
so it is in science; it is about intellectual interaction.
[One final note about football and affirmative action. A
friend of mine remarked in response to all this discussion
of affirmative action that, "affirmative action is about
giving people a chance." It's ironic, in the context of
Gelertner's suggestions, that Kurt Warner won the Superbowl
MVP award, as well as the NFL MVP award for the season.
Kurt Warner is the poster boy for affirmative action. 5
years ago he was not playing professional or college
football; he was stocking shelves at a grocery store. Then
he played Arena football; this is a type of football that is
considered a joke to those in the NFL. This man had a
"resume" that most would have laughed at. But the Rams gave
him a chance, and look what he accomplished. There is
something to be gained from looking carefully at a person
before dismissing them.]
3. CONCLUSION. A BREADTH OF PERSPECTIVES MAKES FOR BETTER
SCIENCE.
Science cannot progress if everyone thinks the same way and
certain ideas are excluded even from consideration. Women
bring a different way of thinking with them when they embark
on a scientific career. As with biological cloning as a
means to propagate a species, intellectual cloning is not
the healthiest way to propagate a profession involving
intellectual exploration. As scientists, we should be able
to intellectualize beyond the basic human tendency to
protect our own survival and to be with our own kind.
Respectfully Submitted,
Kathy Mead
------------------------------------------------------------
End of CSWA Newsletter of 2/2/2000