Inclusion for inclusion’s sake
Posted on December 6, 2009 | 81 Comments
I’m opposed to the idea of inclusion for inclusion’s sake.
This morning, a blog post at hgg caught my eye: “Anthology of science writing: now almost 4 % with ovaries!” The title references The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing, edited by Richard Dawkins. This book:
contains almost one hundred writings on many topics from a diverse variety of authors, which range in length from under a page to approximately eight pages. All inclusions are dated post-1900, and include poetry, anecdotes, and general philosophical musings (via Wikipedia)
In this post, the author says:
But since I can’t seem to leave my gender glasses behind ever, I started counting. And that takes me to the first complaint. Of 83 texts Professor D has selected 3 written by women. That’s about 3.6 %. How hard could it be to find a handful more? Like 10 %? It would still be a wiener fest.
I think that this is most likely a well-intentioned, yet very misguided, objection. (And “a wiener fest”? Um…)
The argument is that an anthology should contain a specific amount of contributions by women. Here, the arbitrary number is 10%. Whether the assertion is that an arbitrary number of women should be included, or, as is the underlying assumption of most such assertions, that all collections should be fully representative of the population from which the pieces are culled, I believe these arguments to be baseless and pointless, and that inclusion for inclusion’s sake benefits no one.
Sheril Kirshenbaum, at The Intersection, takes these assertions even further in “But Dawkins, Are 96.4% Of Modern Science Writers Men?”, in which she quotes the above-mentioned post and goes on to say:
While I don’t own the book itself, I skimmed the table of contents at Amazon and it appears she’s onto something.
“Onto something?”
Oh, come on. This isn’t a conspiracy, for goodness’ sake. What good does it do to treat it as one? What’s the point of implying and/or asserting that women should be detectives of a sort, constantly vigilant, always looking for anything that might even have the faintest tinge of sexism? Adopting such an attitude can lead to finding “sexism” where there is none (as in this case.) What’s much worse, though, and what’s much more damaging to the furtherance of equal rights and the elimination of sexism, is that complaining about such trifling matters misses the forest for the trees. There are actual battles out there. Real and legitimate fights for equal rights. High-stakes, important battles, the outcomes of which will determine the quality of life for the girls and women of the future. Failing to pick one’s battles carefully, or, worse, choosing to fight a non-existent battle, takes one’s time, energy, and passion away from the issues that all of us, regardless of our sex, should be concerned with.
Inclusion for the sake of being inclusive does nothing to help fight sexism. Quite the opposite, in fact. I’m well aware that our society is, unfortunately, far from meritocratic, and that subjective humans make subjective and sometimes biased decisions, some of which have hugely negative effects on the lives of girls and women. But inclusion for inclusion’s sake won’t transform society into a utopian, sex-blind meritocracy. It’s an oversimplified and condescending non-solution and I want no part of it.
Comments
81 Responses to “Inclusion for inclusion’s sake”
December 6th, 2009 @ 2:12 pm
It’s a bit like saying, “There are no women represented by men.” Like you all want to be even if it were true. Not that it’s a bad thing to be. But it seems like they’re insulting themselves in order to prove how others are insulting them. I’ll loan them my wang, though, if they really think they need one to get published.
December 6th, 2009 @ 2:20 pm
I’d agree that it’s pointless to assert a conspiracy, especially when simple incompetence and neglect can account for such inadvertent bias.
To avoid this, would it work to ask the editors for transparency in their selection criteria? Or would that so bog down the process that the work would never be published?
December 6th, 2009 @ 2:48 pm
D’oh, I should have read the comments at the Intersection site which make it clear that in spite of its poor title, the book is actually about the writing of prominent 20th century scientists and not one of those anthologies on science writers published annually.
December 6th, 2009 @ 4:18 pm
@Pete: Yeah, I don’t understand it, either. & Hee, your last sentence made me giggle :)
@Reed: Yes, but I don’t really think that there is bias in a lot of these situations, inadvertent or otherwise. There may well be in some situations, but, if so, I don’t see how making sure that a certain amount of women are included would do any good (and I’m not saying that you’re arguing for this, but there are people who do). Perhaps, in some situations, it would be best to use a blind submission process, hiding the author’s details from the person/people who make the selection, but that would only work for certain types of anthologies (it wouldn’t have worked in this case) and it strikes me as being really unnecessary.
Thanks for commenting, guys :)
December 6th, 2009 @ 9:42 pm
You’re great.
December 7th, 2009 @ 12:17 am
I agree with the admirable Miranda that “Inclusion for the sake of being inclusive does nothing to help fight sexism.” But in any case the critics have misunderstood the purpose of my anthology. It is not one of those end-of-year, ‘Best of 2008′-type collections, nor are the authors professional ‘science writers’. It ranges over the past hundred years, and the authors are distinguished scientists who happen to have written well too. Sex-ratio figures for today’s science writers are therefore doubly irrelevant. A hundred years hence, if somebody composes a similar anthology of writings by distinguished scientists of the 21st century, I hope and expect that there will be no shortage of women.
Richard Dawkins
December 7th, 2009 @ 1:11 am
@Paul Fidalgo: No, you are! :)
@Richard Dawkins: Thank you! I appreciate that so much!
December 7th, 2009 @ 7:46 am
Dawkins, Miranda- you are as wrong as wrong can be to assert that inclusiveness efforts for their own sake fail to combat -isms. Absolute bollocks and utter willing ignorance of how gains we presently enjoy came to be. No, a single purposed anthology is not a silver bullet. Neither is the next professorial job filling or seminar slate. But each event adds up to the collective reality of science, politics, sport, etc.
December 7th, 2009 @ 8:13 am
@DrugMonkey: So if, ‘DrugMonkey’, you were on an appointing committee choosing between a woman and an admittedly better-qualified man, you’d cheerfully appoint the less well-qualified woman? How would you feel if you were the man, deprived of the job you deserved, by such discrimination? How would you feel if you were the woman, knowing that you had got the job you didn’t deserve, thereby depriving somebody else better qualified. And DON’T say you are just redressing the injustice of centuries, because you know very well it was not the present man who dealt the old injustices, nor was it the present woman who suffered them.
The great conductor Sir Georg Solti, when auditioning instrumentalists for the Chicago Symphony Orchestra, made the players sit behind a screen, so he couldn’t tell which sex they were. They even had to take their shoes off before entering the room, to reduce the chance that the sound of their shoes might give them away. THAT is the proper way to exercise fairness. Unfortunately that wasn’t possible when compiling my anthology, but I tried to be as sex-blind as possible. Indeed as blind as possible to everything except the quality of the science and the quality of the writing.
December 7th, 2009 @ 9:43 am
@DrugMonkey: You can think that what I’m asserting is “bollocks.” Fine, whatever. Obviously, you can also think I’m displaying “ignorance,” if you’d like. But “willing ignorance”? Nonsense. I’m well acquainted with the history of how gains in equal rights have come about. And although demanding inclusiveness may have statistically increased the number of women in any given field, or whatever it may be, that doesn’t mean that forced inclusiveness changes attitudes. Inclusiveness for inclusion’s sake is an easy out, a short-term fix, and does nothing to ameliorate the prevailing attitudes that have contributed to causing any sort of gender imbalances/disparities that may today exist in a given field.
Like Richard said, I’d find it terribly dismaying and incredibly condescending to be chosen over a more-qualified male candidate simply because of my biological sex. I’d find it patronizing. And I’d want no part of it, both for those reasons and because it is detrimental to the development of the meritocracy that most of us (I’d hope) would like to someday see become a reality.
And I too fail to see how inclusion for inclusion’s sake does anything to fix the injustices of the past. Offering me an opportunity based on my sex does nothing to fix or remove the injustices and prejudices that my grandmother and my mother faced (and they faced some horrible ones.) I don’t deserve and do not want to be given, on the basis of my sex, the chances and opportunities that they, regretfully, did not have access to.
I’m certainly lucky to have had the educational (just to name one kind) opportunities that they did not. But those opportunities were opened up to me, and to others of roughly my age, not because of forced inclusion, but because of hard-fought political battles that slowly worked to change attitudes and open doors. I’m incredibly grateful for that. But those battles weren’t won by forcing inclusion. No, they were won by raising consciousness, causing a slow but steady shift in the zeitgeist, a movement towards the meritocracy so many of us want. And the success of these fights made it so that I have opportunities that women of the past did not.
I refuse to insult the women who fought those battles by demanding or accepting inclusion based on my sex. I want to be judged on my merits and on my achievements. I don’t want to be the token female. And I’m incredibly disturbed by the assertion that I should want to be, or that I should support other women who want to be given opportunities on the basis of their sex, or who demand inclusion for the sake of inclusion.
I don’t want opportunities that I do not deserve and would find it extremely condescending to be offered such opportunities. I’m far from ignorant about the history of the battle for equal rights, and am certainly not displaying “utter willing ignorance.” I clearly interpret these past events differently than you, and clearly have a different opinion on how current inequalities can and should be addressed. How does my differing opinion make me ignorant, let alone willfully so? That’s very insulting. How does my opinion and my interpretation of this issue and of its historical context make me willfully ignorant? And I realized that you’ve also accused Richard of this, but it’s not my place to speak in his defense, however much I would like to and feel that it is necessary to do so, as I have seen absolutely no evidence to support any ignorance or willful ignorance on his part.
December 7th, 2009 @ 10:03 am
if, ‘DrugMonkey’, you were on an appointing committee choosing between a woman and an admittedly better-qualified man, you’d cheerfully appoint the less well-qualified woman?
Watch the matches around so much straw, my friend. The question is, as always, to ask which among the many, many subjective (read, biases) and objective (selection and weighting of which is subjective, of course) factors contributing to any one human’s decision making which are to be prioritized and which are not. The question very often boils down to what you conveniently shape as your qualifications for a given job.
knowing that you had got the job you didn’t deserve
cough, cough, careful of my allergies dude. What a tired old trope. Again, against the entire battery of subjective considerations which contribute to the *prediction* (and hiring is nothing but a prediction of future accomplishment that by its very nature prevents rigorous evaluation of that prediction) you are making, it is erroneous to say who “deserved” or didn’t “deserve” the position. Until the career has been written, of course. Unless your secret merit markers are different from your public ones, that is. Accomplishment is always, always, a convergence of personal characteristics, opportunity and future circumstance. If opportunity is tied so closely to personal characteristics (such as being a woman) then your evaluation of “deserve” needs to delve a little deeper.
Question, how many highly accomplished people (oh, such as yourself for example) who had every* skin reflectance, socioeconomic, cultural and temporal advantages in the world are anguished because they got the job that was better deserved by someone poor, female, with browner skin, with the wrong parents, etc? I never hear this, funnily enough.
And DON’T say you are just redressing the injustice of centuries, because you know very well it was not the present man who dealt the old injustices, nor was it the present woman who suffered them.
excuse me while I find a face mask or something. Good Lord you can do better than this. The question is about the injustices of privilege right now that continue to benefit white heteronormative males of high socioeconomic and educational privilege over others who do not enjoy those privileges. This whole “you just want revenge for past actions” is an intentional** and willing distraction from the actual argument. You can do better.
THAT is the proper way to exercise fairness.
Yep. But the ultimate selection for an orchestra (a single orchestra) is only a very small part of the problem. Why Solti feel it necessary to do this? Didn’t he think he was a fair judge of performance? Of course he didn’t. And those similarly biased judgments had been applied all through the careers of these auditioning musicians. Also, the very history (of which you are so dismissive) of orchestral/career selection influences which people persist versus give up. And this brings us around from our little diversion into hiring affirmative action to the selection of works for your anthology which was the subject of the OP.
It is very difficult to communicate to those who walk around in a climate of privilege and confidence just how (de)motivating appearances are. I suffer from an excess of hubris myself and my approach to those who may judge me for what I look like rather than who I am and what I’ve done is, in essence, “fuck em”. Nevertheless I have colleagues and trainees and friends that I care about who are quite obviously affected by the subtle barriers. They are real, they have real demotivating power and once you are shown them, it is churlish in the extreme to pretend they don’t exist.
Obviously you are privileged to be able to collect any anthology you see fit and it is likely a very interesting work. But if you are seen as unjustifiably bypassing an opportunity to strike a blow for diversity, opportunity and encouragement of same, well people may think the less of you for it. I’m sure this is pretty tame stuff compared to what your usual antagonists have to say about your other interests when it comes to creating a public debate on touchy issues…
__
*I’ll be fascinated to hear what the Britishy equivalent of the “I was a poor scots-irish white from appalacia and I got into Harvard so there is no such thing as discrimination” argument is..
**I AM willing to consider that this is a novel area of inquiry for you. Given your books and public-policy oriented public persona I tend to doubt it but if true, my apologies for expecting you to know better. If this is the case, I imagine that a web-connected academic stud such as yourself can bring yourself up to speed on the issues in rapid order. Particularly now that they have been brought to your attention. Perhaps you could approach it as you might like the unthinkingly religious to approach your arguments, presumably by suspending your unconsidered doctrine to evaluate the arguments and evidence with your minimally biased rational capacity?
December 7th, 2009 @ 10:11 am
@Richard Dawkins said:
Thank you, Dr. Dawkins, for a towering man of straw for us to all worship at the feet of. The issue is not whether you had to include some poor, unqualified woman at the sacrifice of some more qualified man. There are (and have been) women in science that are as equally qualified as men. The question is, why do we not see them? I would argue that it is the result of an institutionalized bias to visualize what it means to be a scientist in a particular way. With a particular race and a particular gender. I wrote several months ago about the results of Googling the word “professor.” Your brother atheist recently wrote at Pharyngula about the lack of female atheists at events and wondered where they were.
So, don’t sell yourself short. This isn’t an issue of creating a quota, but routinely asking why particular individuals are not brought to the table and evaluated can have a profound impact on the future of science..
December 7th, 2009 @ 10:15 am
@DrugMonkey:
But why assume that an editor should be concerned with “striking a blow for diversity”? Why should that necessarily be one of the concerns of an editor of any particular anthology?
December 7th, 2009 @ 10:33 am
But why assume that an editor should be concerned with “striking a blow for diversity”? Why should that necessarily be one of the concerns of an editor of any particular anthology?
Well, I expect that I’ve laid that out. If not, check some of the additional reading at the foot of this post. Obviously a couple-two people around the ‘toobs have the same take. My simple codification is that I believe since the track record shows we are dismal at predicting, a priori, where the most brilliant and significant scientific advances* will come from, it is best to do what we can to dismantle systematic biases to being a scientist. Wherever we can find them.
__
*musical performance, artistic creation, athletic amazingness….
December 7th, 2009 @ 11:18 am
@DrugMonkey: Well, yes, you’ve laid out your opinion, and done that well. But I disagree that it’s self-evidently important to “strike a blow for diversity” in situations like this. And I know that various bloggers have expressed the same opinions that you’re asserting. I respect that. But I don’t think that the fact that multiple people share that opinion necessarily makes it any more valid. Multiple opinions are being expressed here, and I understand that we’re all going to interpret the bigger issue that’s under discussion in different ways and that we’re going to react differently.
However, and I’m not saying that you’re necessarily making this assertion (I’m not sure), I find very frustrating the attitude of “go educate yourself on the issue! Once you do that, you’ll agree with me/us. Once you understand, you’ll “get it” and get on the bandwagon” or something. I’ve experienced that on multiple occasions. The problem is, it assumes that I’m not educated on this subject, that I’m not aware, that I haven’t done the reading, that I haven’t studied the history, etc. I have. There’s no reason to assume, just because I hold a different opinion on the issue, that I’m not familiar with the information, the ideas, etc.
Again, I’m not sure that’s what you’re asserting here, and if you’re not, I apologize for the misinterpretation. But it is sometimes asserted, and it’s a very frustrating and condescending attitude.
December 7th, 2009 @ 11:24 am
okay,
- do you accept that the notion of pure “merit” when it comes to *any* decision involving a human being and his or her judgment (including their selection of the criteria for evaluaiton) is an unattainable fantasy?
December 7th, 2009 @ 11:29 am
point two,
the fact that you’ve read and considered does not necessarily make you *right*, either. Let us not fall into the teevee trap of equal balance, equal validity of opinion.
You can personally feel like you don’t want undeserved handouts and any consideration of your status is such. Fine. But if we are in the business here of effecting change, we want to know more. Such as what is the relative distribution of people who feel as you do, the distribution of people who believe as I do and the best moves to accomplish goals.
As I said, I think diversity of *opportunity* is essential to getting the best possible science in aggregate. Do we agree this is a common goal? Getting the best possible science?
December 7th, 2009 @ 11:35 am
Point the third:
But those battles weren’t won by forcing inclusion.
Yes they were. You are simply in factual error on this assertion. People being “forced” by commercial opportunity (sports franchises), court order, public shaming (civil rights era in the US), institutional requirements, etc played a very substantial role in creating what limited opportunity the women who went ahead of you enjoyed. The evolved good will of the traditionally privileged who held the positions of power is pretty small stuff compared to this.
December 7th, 2009 @ 11:39 am
@DrugMonkey: Wait a minute. Who’s to say that anyone is “right” or “wrong” on this issue? This isn’t a case in which there is empirical evidence for one side and a lack of evidence for the other. In a case like that, yes, one side has the evidence and the other does not. In this case, what criteria determines who is “right” or which opinion is “valid”? I’m really confused.
I also have no idea how the amount of people who feel one way on this issue vs. the amount of people who feel the opposite way is relevant at all.
December 7th, 2009 @ 11:45 am
I also have no idea how the amount of people who feel one way on this issue vs. the amount of people who feel the opposite way is relevant at all.
Assuming we are still on the topic of how you feel about being the affirmative action hire for an assistant professorship or some such, it is highly relevant.
Let us say the goal is to get more women hired. Fair? So if people like you are going to refuse to take the job when they get wind it is part of an affirmative action effort it suggests a specific action that is necessary. You either have to not do it. Or make sure at the least the candidate never hears about it (this is impossible in standard issue gossipy academic departments so you have to default to the former).
OTOH, if people are going to take the job anyway, either smilingly or teeth grittingly, then you got the job done with the affirmative action hire. So of course it is relevant to that particular goal what the mean opinion in your target population is.
December 7th, 2009 @ 11:47 am
@DrugMonkey: I disagree, and, like I said in the comment you’re referencing:
I suppose I interpret the history in a different way than you do, and see forced inclusion as a barrier to the gains of those political battles and those fights for equality, both then and now. And I feel that I’d be insulting those who fought those battles if I were to take part in or support inclusion simply for the sake of being inclusive. To me, that’s detrimental to the furtherance of the meritocracy that so many of these battles were fought in the hopes of achieving.
December 7th, 2009 @ 11:58 am
Perhaps when you do your reading of history you should consider all the non “forcing” levers that were brought to bear in an escalating fashion prior to the defining moments. The failure of anything to happen, often for years or decades (in the case of US school racial integration, for example, it was round about a century) after the goals were laid out broadly in public and at least nominally endorsed by majorities, needs to be integrated in your confidence.
Since you are so worried about “insulting” people who fought battles for inclusion I would suggest that a prior generation who fought critical employment battles for inclusion in academia throughout the 60s, 70s and 80s are still very much alive and kicking. You might want to ask a few of them what insults them more, taking advantage of the affirmative action policies they won or kicking those policies in the teeth as a personal insult to you.
December 7th, 2009 @ 12:14 pm
@DrugMonkey: I’m really not sure what else to say on this topic. I’m not sure how else to defend myself. I’m well aware of the issues and historical facts you mention. And I work in academia, and am friends with some older female colleagues who fit the description you mention. Some of them feel the way you say they do, some do not.
I think this is an issue on which we may have to agree to disagree. Like I said, I don’t know what else to say on the topic. That’s certainly not to say that others shouldn’t be debating the issue, here or elsewhere. I just don’t know that I have much else to say. (But anyone should feel free to discuss the topic further in this post, even though I might be staying out of it. Just play nice, everyone.)
December 7th, 2009 @ 12:47 pm
@ Richard Dawkins- I didn’t misunderstand the purpose of your anthology at all. I’m simply saddened that you seem surprised that anyone noticed the gargantuan gender disparity…when you may not have. And if you did-…. perhaps it didn’t bother you as much as it bothered those of us of the minority gender. I don’t suppose I have the luxury of not having to think about it- I get to live with it every day.
And I was doing fine with that until I hit your comment above… ‘I agree with the admirable Miranda that “Inclusion for the sake of being inclusive does nothing to help fight sexism.”’and it only got worse with…
‘So if, ‘DrugMonkey’, you were on an appointing committee choosing between a woman and an admittedly better-qualified man, you’d cheerfully appoint the less well-qualified woman? How would you feel if you were the man, deprived of the job you deserved, by such discrimination?
Now I kind of feel like I’d like to vomit. That shit (less qualified woman hired over more qualified man) never happens around here… does it ever happen anywhere??? or is it just a made up scenario to see how we all might ‘feel’ about it. I’m sorry to say this but women have had to deal with being denied hire/promotion etc to less qualified men forever and a freaking day. There is a veritable MOUNTAIN of evidence to support this. I’m not blaming you for that, but what I am doing is blaming you for ignorance of that simple fact.
and…
@Miranda ‘I’m certainly lucky to have had the educational (just to name one kind) opportunities that they did not. But those opportunities were opened up to me, and to others of roughly my age, not because of forced inclusion, but because of hard-fought political battles that slowly worked to change attitudes and open doors. I’m incredibly grateful for that. But those battles weren’t won by forcing inclusion.’
I just have just 5 words for you: CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, TITLE NINE. If that is not ‘forced inclusion’ I don’t know what is.
December 7th, 2009 @ 1:11 pm
drdrA, I think you’ve missed the point. Why do you feel like you need to vomit?
You said: “I’m sorry to say this but women have had to deal with being denied hire/promotion etc to less qualified men forever and a freaking day.”
This is precisely their point; gender should NOT play a role in determining merit for a position. The more qualified man OR woman should always get that position. I’m pretty confused that anyone could argue otherwise.
December 7th, 2009 @ 1:14 pm
“I didn’t misunderstand the purpose of your anthology at all. I’m simply saddened that you seem surprised that anyone noticed the gargantuan gender disparity”
Given that the O.U.P Editor, Latha Menon, and I thought about it a lot when we were compiling the anthology, I’m genuinely curious to learn which distinguished female scientists from the past hundred years you would have included and which male ones you would have omitted to make room for them.
Richard
December 7th, 2009 @ 1:16 pm
and yet it does bryan. I’m pretty confused anyone would argue otherwise.
(unless, of course, it was simply in their personal and craven interest to argue so…that I get.)
December 7th, 2009 @ 1:22 pm
@DrugMonkey:
I’m not arguing ‘does sexism or any other prejudice exist?’. I’m simply asserting that they are not justified, whether it be for or against a minority.
December 7th, 2009 @ 1:36 pm
Someone elsewhere already noted the field primate folks, Fossey and Goodall. Without knowing your thinking on this, one of those would have been a good inclusion. Great writing and some good science… despite my disagreement with many of their expansive flights of interpretation…
Deletions? Well I find Crick unable to write anything compelling myself, I’d delete his contributions in a heartbeat. The Astonishing Hypothesis, as one example, was a total crock of poor writing and faux astonishment, centered around a straw hypothesis.
(see how subjective this is? :-) )
December 7th, 2009 @ 1:41 pm
Yeah, um, what makes selection based on gender for some sort of egalitarian eveness any less subjective in intent than sexism denying women equal rights no matter how subtly it’s integrated into the system? I don’t like the hypocrisy of the latter, but it’s hardly my genitals that bias me either way. To assert so IS blatantly sexist and hypocritical on its own. Anyone who would suggest so is trying to dominate rather than add constructively to a dialogue.
December 7th, 2009 @ 1:42 pm
ok, so we’re making progress here bryan.
now, how to fix extant cases of discrimination. taking the case of an academic hire, by definition you hire one and discriminate *against* up to hundreds of other applicants. Yes?
by the time you get down to the short list of 5 or so, evidence suggests they are all well-qualified. How do we know this? Because some job searches will hire the 2nd or 3rd candidate when #1 takes the other job. Also because other job searches will decline to hire #1, reopen the search next season and hire someone else. (and if you know anything about departmental votes about job candidates you will understand that even #1, #2, #3 etc were not by universal acclaim but rather majority-wins or BSDs-win selections)
Are we in agreement on that reality? Because it shows that there is no such thing as the uniquely one-true “best qualified” person for that hire.
December 7th, 2009 @ 1:48 pm
What’s more helpful to the advancement of knowledge:
A. Bickering over political correctness in historical science in an effort to present a white-washed viewpoint;
or
B. Acknowledging that most of Western history is an abomination towards human rights, with regards to gender, ethnicity, and whatever else was convenient, instead of trying to shoehorn some misplaced sense of egalitarianism where there was none?
I think I’d consider the stark reality to be more relevant to the truth, versus the product-of-modernity concept of trying to make everything equal for the sake of being equal.
As it stands this sounds like a bunch of pointless whining over a history that cannot be changed.
December 7th, 2009 @ 1:50 pm
what makes selection based on gender for some sort of egalitarian eveness any less subjective in intent than sexism denying women equal rights no matter how subtly it’s integrated into the system?
Are you suggesting that the a priori hypothesis that women and men, absent irrelevant biases and hurdles, are approximately equivalently likely to contribute high quality additions to science is just as un-based as the converse?
We can approximate a test of this with the field study of “given approximately equivalent opportunity” of course. Endless numbers of studies tend to endorse my hypothesis just so long as you don’t gate on the very rare extreme of “accomplishment” like international prizes or entirely subjective measures of quality.
December 7th, 2009 @ 3:19 pm
Drugmonkey:
I’m suggesting that a fair amount of individuality and subjectivity enhance any bean-counting and collation of data that threaten to make science as dogmatic as social architects would have it be to suit their purposes and theirs alone. Whether they be man or woman individual imaginative contributions trump equivocation. That might not be well researched but it justifies MY contributions as well as yours if you’d let it.
While I understand that a leveled playing field would be nice for women, black people, gay people, martians et al. the enforcement of it would be adverse to the progress that science represents. There are real assumptions that work against us that it would make a much better world if we addressed. And one of those assumptions is that there is some false standard of objectivity that validates one person’s being preferred based on their categorical statistic as opposed to their individual contribution.
That said, I admire your tenaciousness and thank you for getting me thinking. Also, I love monkeys.
December 7th, 2009 @ 7:22 pm
*high-fives-Miranda*
Exactly what I said about ‘Brother Atheist PZs’ post.
Dawkins– Apparently, all the great female scientists are in virology*. I can name a million if youre ever looking for something different. Though it annoys me you ignore viruses, more than you ‘ignoring’ women.
* except for ‘Jane Goodall’. ‘Hi! Im a white knight for the helpless w00myns in science, and I cant name a brilliant female scientist other than Jane Goodall.’ *rolleyes*
December 7th, 2009 @ 7:33 pm
Rosalind Franklin undoubtably deserves credit for her x-ray crystallography that led to the discovery of the double helix structure of DNA.
December 7th, 2009 @ 7:48 pm
In the interests of getting something productive out of this kerfuffle, I note that the next edition of The Open Laboratory — the annual anthology of science writing culled from science blogs — will be published in a couple months. I have nothing to do with the selection or editing process this year (although I did two years ago, and an essay of mine was included in the 2008 volume). However, my guess is that women will be pretty strongly represented in its selection, if for no other reason than that the gender balance in the scientific community itself has become more, well, balanced!
It would be a great shot in the arm for up-and-coming science writers if a well-known personality in the science communication business wrote an honest and fair review of The Open Laboratory 2009, either on said person’s highly-trafficked website or in another venue which has run essays under that author’s byline.
December 7th, 2009 @ 7:56 pm
No Brian- I don’t think I missed the point. I don’t think I missed it at all. Discrimination is not ‘right’, you win. But- on balance- the bias against hiring women has been vast throughout the history of science – compared to any supposed or hypothetical reverse discrimination in this regard. For years women have had to be MORE qualified than men to get hired and attain high rank in academia, there is a large amount of data to support this. It has never, ever been a matter of being equally qualified. Ever. That should make you totally outraged, it should make us all totally outraged.
So why does some of this conversation sorta make me feel sick? Because I’m so tired of what always feels to me like denial of the problem for women in science with the reverse discrimination argument. I have never seen evidence of such reverse discrimination, I won’t believe that it exists until I see evidence of it. I’m tired of the casual disregard of the inequities faced by women in science- because it might (not it does, it might) hypothetically- result in a less qualified man being hired. Even though there is no evidence of that, to my knowledge.
Now- Dr. Dawkins- thanks for responding- but the fact that your editor is a woman (which is, I presume why you gave her name) isn’t going to get you off the hook on this one. I like DMs suggestion of the women primatologists- and I believe additional suggestions have been put up over at aetiology and on Greg Laden’s blog at scienceblogs. But here is another suggestion- you and your editor seem to have noticed that the gender ratio was heavily tilted in one direction while putting the book together. That’s excellent. But why stop there? Something as simple as a short paragraph somewhere in such a book acknowledging and perhaps explaining this observation, with maybe a suggestion or two on how this disparity might be addressed, or is being addressed out in the real world right now. I don’t want you to get the mistaken impression that I expect anyone to go out and hunt up a bunch of people whose work they don’t really admire and put that in their book- but at least commenting somewhere on the strong tilt toward men would have made me- at the very least- say to myself- wow, this guy recognizes a strong tilt toward men in the annals of great science writing by scientists- and he gets the reason why, and is willing to speak up about it.
Anyway- this is already too long. And you’ll have to excuse me because I have 2 kids to put to bed.
December 7th, 2009 @ 9:37 pm
drdrA, should he also include a paragraph noting the lack of gays, blacks, Jews, child prodigies, the handicapped, and any other disadvantaged group from history?
Perhaps he should just ignore the content of the book altogether and apologize for the inequity of the past?
This is one hell of a slippery slope the argument is sliding down, and it sounds far more like people with a chip on their shoulders trying to find bias wherever they look, versus any real wrong-doing.
December 7th, 2009 @ 10:31 pm
JC, you forgot to include so many people in your argument. Notably martians. You’re going to science hell for that unless you issue an apology forthwith*.
The inventor of Rocks was a martian-woman. Virulent rocks though. Guess that doesn’t count.
*Don’t worry though, neither science heaven or hell exist so you’re off the hook no matter what. ;O)
December 7th, 2009 @ 11:22 pm
drdrA: let’s get a few things straight. Neither of us like the fact that gender, nationality, sexual orientation, social class or any other number of descriptive qualities play a part in how a person is treated regarding something like their inclusion in a compilation of scientific papers. It is a fact that it has happened in the past and it still happens to an extent today. This doesn’t justify implementing some kind of quota that causes a compiler to look at anything other than substance as a form of criteria. If Richard is looking at good, groundbreaking scientific data he has no obligation to even glance at what sex they are. It is irrelevant. Period.
December 8th, 2009 @ 2:24 am
I’m surprised, in a discussion of alleged bias in this English-language anthology of science, that nobody has noticed the British bias. About half the authors are British whereas, by any objective measure of scientific achievement in the 20th century (Nobel Prizes, for example) Americans should have predominated. It is hard to justify this other than on personal grounds. Every extract is introduced by a paragraph from me, often of a personal nature, sometimes frankly affectionate towards the author. Typical is the following, on Alister Hardy:-
<blockquote cite="The oceans cover more than 70% of our planet’s surface. The majority of the sun’s photons that are available for photosynthesis fall in the sea, where, in the green cells of the phytoplankton, they drive chemical reactions ‘uphill’ (thermodynamically speaking) and synthesize carbon compounds that later fuel the ecosystems. Nobody had a better feel for the great rolling pastures, sunlit green meadows and waving prairies of The Open Sea than Sir Alister Hardy, my first professor. His paintings for that book still adorn the corridors of the Oxford Zoology Department, and the images seem to dance with enthusiasm, just as the old man himself danced boyishly around the lecture hall, a strabismically beaming cross between Peter Pan and the Ancient Mariner. Yea, slimy things did crawl with legs upon the slimy sea – and across the blackboard in coloured chalk with Sir Alister bobbing and weaving in pursuit. In this extract, he lights up the page with his description of the remarkable phenomenon of marine phosphorescence.”>
The paragraph drips with Britishness: “Sir” Alister. The two literary references, to J M Barrie and Coleridge are both very English. If I had been educated somewhere other than Oxford, the affection would probably have been directed towards a different professor. I’m afraid that if a publisher asks an individual to construct a personal anthology, that is what you get.
Latha Menon and I did worry about balance, but I’m afraid we were less concerned with balance between the sexes or countries than balance between subjects (biology versus physics etc), and balance between the four sections of the book: What Scientists Study, Who Scientists Are, What Scientists Think, and What Scientists Delight In.
It’s pretty hard getting everything balanced at the same time, and I’m afraid sexual balance was not in the forefront of our minds.
Richard
December 8th, 2009 @ 6:04 am
Yikes.
JC Carter and Pete- I’m not even going to respond to that, other than to say that if you spend any time around the women in science blogosphere at all, you’ll know that I probably have the smallest chip on my shoulder about such topics going.
bryan- I didn’t suggest anything about quotas. I’d be quite happy if everyone was gender blind- unfortunately there are mountains of data to suggest that this is not how things work in real life without special efforts to ensure gender blindness (like the well known anecdote given above about orchestra auditions).
December 8th, 2009 @ 8:32 am
I couldn’t agree with you more, Miranda.
Dawkins set out to publish a science book, not a feminist treatise. Complaining that he didn’t over-represent women given the pool of work he was pulling from just rubs me the wrong way. The idea that men today have to make up for the attitudes of men in the past smacks to me of original sin. I wonder if we can hang some guy on a cross by his scrotum and be done with it.
I think rather than worry about who wrote what, Dawkins would do far better to donate some of the proceeds to initiatives that try to get women in to science and technology.
December 8th, 2009 @ 10:48 am
Drdr, I wasn’t aware you had a chip on your shoulder. Now I know, though, that no matter its relative size you feel it’s important enough to point out that you do. That makes me sad a bit. I guess I’ll tread more lightly knowing there are hostile environments for my particular brand of gender neutrality. Oh, wait! I have been exposed to sexist women and men. None of that reverse-sexism. A bigot’s a bigot regardless of gender. It’s exactly that chip on your shoulders that translates into treating other people badly. Maybe if you put it aside you can have moral high-ground enough to disregard my comments. Until then get sick all you want but I’m gunna’ call you on your being evasive and hostile.
I have a nummy cookie.
December 8th, 2009 @ 12:05 pm
Pete- I was just responding to JC Carter’s supposition that I have a chip on my shoulder. If you spent time on the blogs of women in science you would know that I am not a very frequent participant in the sort of standard mysogeny type conversations. That was all I meant. Furthermore, just because I have reasonably stood up for my position doesn’t make me hostile, a bigot, not nice, treating other people badly- or anything else you choose to hurl at me. If you choose to see me so, that is your deal.
You make certain statements-
‘While I understand that a leveled playing field would be nice for women, black people, gay people, martians et al. the enforcement of it would be adverse to the progress that science represents.’
for which there is no evidence. I find it frustrating when statements and suppositions for which there is no evidence are repeated again and again. I have never seen any evidence that the greater inclusion of women and minorities in science has in any way had an adverse effect on scientific progress. If you have such evidence, I challenge you to bring it forward.
December 8th, 2009 @ 12:33 pm
drdrA, here’s a hint: when you start to actively go out of your way to include people for criteria other than scientific excellence, then you’re no longer operating neutrally.
You might even say you’re including those individuals for biased reasons.
The net message, whether you realize it or not, is that “inclusive” comes to mean “arbitrary inclusion of some pet underprivileged group”.
You never did answer my question about where to draw the line at this nebulous standard of “inclusiveness”, either, which makes the self-served nature of this agenda (not just from you, but this entire nonsense) quite apparent.
Why should your favored victims of (this perceived) discrimination receive any more special treatment than any other party?
December 8th, 2009 @ 12:54 pm
Case in point:
I’ve read everything by Lovecraft, Asimov, Clarke, Bradbury, Dick, and on and on. And I’ve read Sagan, Gould, Dennett, Hitchens, Harris, and why yes, Virginia, even the venerable Dawkins. I have shelves in every room of my garrett, and there’s always more to find…
I don’t give a rat’s ass who writes the stuff, as long as it’s good.
And that is why I’m on this site, not because the author is a female, but because the prose is so frighteningly fantastic, because the points are always so true, and honesty hums from every paragraph.
It’s the writing, stupid!
If it’s good, it’s read.
If if stinks, it’s toast.
Just that simple.
Shall we just quit with the simpering PC garbage and deal with the talent as it sits in the brain, and not what’s between the legs, please?
December 8th, 2009 @ 1:03 pm
” ‘While I understand that a leveled playing field would be nice for women, black people, gay people, martians et al. the enforcement of it would be adverse to the progress that science represents.’
for which there is no evidence. I find it frustrating when statements and suppositions for which there is no evidence are repeated again and again. I have never seen any evidence that the greater inclusion of women and minorities in science has in any way had an adverse effect on scientific progress. If you have such evidence, I challenge you to bring it forward. ”
Let’s break it down into a semi-formal logic argument.
Argument 1
P1. There is potentially a relatively equal number of male and female scientists of comparable skill in a population.
P2. These scientists will experience opportunities where they are chosen for positions, tenure, etc.
P3. Decisions for these opportunities are based entirely merit and no other criteria.
====
C. There will be an equal number of qualified men and women holding these positions
Argument 2
P1. There is potentially a relatively equal number of male and female scientists of comparable skill in a population.
P2. These scientists will experience opportunities where they are chosen for positions, tenure, etc.
P3. Decisions for these opportunities are based mostly on merit but also consider equal sex ration.
====
C. There will be an equal number of men and women holding these positions. Some are qualified and some are not.
Argument 3
P1. There is a disproportionate number of competent male and female scientists in a given population.
P2. These scientists will experience opportunities where they are chosen for positions, tenure, etc.
P3. Decisions for these opportunities are based entirely on merit.
====
C. There will be a disproportionate number of men and women holding these positions. All are qualified.
Argument 4
P1. There is a disproportionate number of competent male and female scientists in a given population.
P2. These scientists will experience opportunities where they are chosen for positions, tenure, etc.
P3. Decisions for these opportunities are based mostly on merit but also consider equal sex ration.
====
C. There will be an equal number of men and women holding these positions. Some are qualified and some are note.
The treatments for each group are Premise 1 and Premise 2. Either a given population does have an equal number of female and male scientists or it does not. Also, either a system values merit alone, or values merit and equal sex rations. A system that values equal gender ratio at any level is going to over look candidates that are potentially better regardless of which way we’re pressuring selection (towards male or towards female). Pressuring towards male happens, and undoubtably competent female scientists are overlooked. This is a bad system. However, the same applies when we pressure selection towards females.
Bottom line: gender discrimination is bad either way. God, why didn’t I just say that before I wrote all of that!? ;)
December 8th, 2009 @ 1:06 pm
Drdr, it doesn’t matter what you were referencing or not. You did admit to a chip on your shoulder which I interpreted as a bias. I choose to see you so based on how you presented yourself. I thought you can do better. That’s what made me sad. I’m sorry that my statements were hostile, I’m usually more oblique than that when I am. There’s a difference between calling a spade a spade and downright name-calling and I crossed that line.
There’s a vast difference between “enforcement” and “greater inclusion”. Even subtle things can be vast, and I think this is important because it’s the difference we see in this debate. That some women ARE biased and willing to force themselves into whatever the hell an objective scientific achievement is. My contention is that that cuts out individual achievements by forcing a sexist ideology onto who can and can’t make a contribution.
Along those lines evidential proof IS an aspect of science in which I am lacking. I’m working on it, and I’m grateful for you calling me out. Still I wish there wasn’t this insistence that linear thought is the only contributor to constructive dialogue. Not every lateral expression is random bs. I think that comes from the dominance of linear thinking in formal education and the applied sciences. But again, I’m biased based on my own abilities. So I can definitely understand your frustration if I do seem evasive myself.
December 8th, 2009 @ 1:16 pm
JC Carter- Please don’t talk down to me, it’s not necessary.
I don’t believe I ever said that I was fighting for including people who aren’t scientifically excellent. There are many, many excellent scientists who are women who, as a group and for decades have been systematically overlooked. Not because their science wasn’t excellent- but for reasons unrelated to their scientific skills and performance (one quick look at the ratio women in grad school vs. the ratio of women in tenured academic positions is just one indicator). In fact, women scientists within the system have to be BETTER and more accomplished to achieve the same milestones as men in the same positions (please read Virginia Valian’s fine book on this)- and there is ample evidence of this for anyone who cares to look. You may not want to believe this, but it is a fact. This is exactly why I find the hypothetical scenario of hiring a lesser woman to make up the gap so offensive. It just is not, and never has been the case. Full stop.
Second- I don’t feel compelled to answer your question, and there is nothing nebulous about my standards. I simply have to start somewhere- and I suppose I hope that advances for one group will translate into advances across the board. Perhaps that is naive, I don’t know. The option of doing nothing because the problem may be too big- isn’t an option for me.
Finally- ‘Why should your favored victims of (this perceived) discrimination receive any more special treatment than any other party? ‘ – First- they aren’t. They might be receiving equal treatment for the first time, but that doesn’t translate into ‘special’ treatment. I would love to operate in a scientific environment where everyone received equal treatment and has equal opportunities.
December 8th, 2009 @ 2:53 pm
Where have I talked down to you? I’ve simply explained the logical outcome of your argument; if that’s “talking down to you” I’m going to have to assume that this is your victim mentality at work again.
As far as the second sentence, what you said, per se, isn’t all that’s relevant; the logical end-point of your argument is important, as well, and unfortunately that’s exactly where this line of thinking winds up – inclusion for the sake of inclusion.
And as I’ve stated I’m not in any sort of disagreement with the general premise, which is “women are discriminated against in the field of science.”
My point of contention, and I’m assuming that of Pete and the others in agreement with me, is that this is not the right battleground for this particular war.
You actually weaken your cause when you assume the mantle of the victim and find oppressors in every shadow. To compare Dawkin’s book to systemic discrimination towards female scientists is such a non-sequitur that it’s barely worth consideration.
You can suit yourself, of course, and I’m not particularly bothered as to whether you answer me or not. Your inability to respond meaningfully only harms your argument, not mine.
As to your standards being nebulous, they most certainly are; for you are in no rage about discrimination towards blacks, gays, or any other minority group.
Then I would assume you’re active in matters that challenge real discrimination, versus simply complaining about a perceived in justice?
Wouldn’t everyone?
But that’s neither here nor there; the point is that you’re railing against this alleged ‘injustice’ done to women, while entirely neglecting the exact same standard applied to any and every other minority group you may choose to name.
Re-phrased: if discrimination is the issue, then why hasn’t the standard been applied to black scientists, or homosexual scientists, or any other group that I’m sure Mr. Dawkins’ book was not equally inclusive of?
Why were women specifically chosen as the harmed party here, when there are certainly others just as ‘wronged’?
December 9th, 2009 @ 1:52 am
I think it is important for us to step back for a moment and examine the situation.
As (pro)feminists, our focus should be on education and raising awareness. Rather than play the “Aha!” game, we need to first establish whether or not there is a problem. Assuming there is a problem, our next step should be to judge its severity.
I do believe there is a problem, but it is quite complex. The problem is that women have been, and are being, overlooked, ignored, and dismissed. Certainly there have been many influential female scientists in the past 100 years, and to my knowledge Dr. Dawkins has not denied this. However their achievements have been obscured at best, profiteered at worst (DNA?). As a result, finding quality publications by female scientists is more difficult than finding those of their male counterparts. These publications deserve to be given their proper weight, but clearly doing so requires a conscious effort.
Now I do not know the selection criteria and so have nothing to say about that. I will note that female empowerment adds an entirely new variable to the equation. Considering the fact that this was a scientific endeavor, it seems unlikely that many others would chosen this approach. Any error on Dr. Dawkins’ part can hardly be considered severe.
I find it a bit curious that much of the harsh criticism has come from the scientific community. To me, it appears that a few scientists have seized upon a chance to berate Dawkins solely on account of scientific disagreement. This is very disingenuous, and I advise those with such conflict of interest to refrain from comment. This issue should be addressed by (pro)feminists with no other concerns. Already this controversy has grown out of control in part because of such scientists. I’ll be frank: keep your shit where it belongs. I don’t doubt your sincerity, but look at what you are doing to the movement. We are not dealing with a militant misogynist here; Dr. Dawkins is a respected scholar who has made vast contributions to humanitarian efforts. He is an ally, not an enemy. We will do well to remember that.
That being said, I must offer words of correction to Dr. Dawkins, gentle as they may be. I understand that this came as a surprise for you. Regardless of how the criticism was constructed, it is not completely without merit. Furthermore your defensiveness reflected negatively upon your character. Try to consider the plight of your detractors before you respond with such aloof dismissiveness. The reason I say these things is because I believe you are more than capable of implementing them. As an intellectual of such calibre, you should should settle for no less. The desire of (pro)feminists is not make you look foolish. Your passionate humanism has made you an ally to us all. All we ask is that you remember the suffering women must endure daily and how much has been sacrificed to progress thus far.
In sociologists’ terms, this situation calls for an interactionist approach over that of a conflict theorist. This is not a case of “us and the.”
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely and solidarily,
Chris Osborn
December 10th, 2009 @ 9:13 am
JC Carter-
To Talk Down To: To speak with insulting condescension.
1. ‘here’s a hint:’ –
2. ‘This is where reading comprehension would pay off, instead of just making things up to get defensive.’
3. ‘Your inability to respond meaningfully….’
You wrote those words, and they were specifically intended to put me down. I don’t want to deal with the sarcasm and endless bullshit insults, they are not productive.
December 10th, 2009 @ 9:27 am
@bryan:
I don’t see how this argument follows. There are (approx.) equal ratios of men to women in the population as a whole. If an equal proportion of each is qualified for the position (your P1) then you should get the same result if you selection the top X people from the entire population, or if you first divide the population into male and female and select the top X/2 from each group. So how do you end up at the conclusion that this will result in some unqualified holders of the positions?
December 10th, 2009 @ 9:40 am
Again, even arguing for equitability in such a mass of talent which requires creative and individual contributions is a disservice to the people involved. I’m not arguing from statistics on purpose, because that’s my whole point. That MORE than half of the population is female should indicate that more females than males should be meaningful contributors. There are circumstantial imbalances that could be constructively addressed regarding those things (role models, education, support etc.) that make up the contributing group. But to rationalize based on equations is determinism and not at all good at promulgating what is really helpful to women in this case.
December 10th, 2009 @ 10:01 am
I’m not wanting to “rationalize based on equations” either. I’m just pointing out that Bryan’s attempt to counter drdrA’s request for evidence of unqualified women being selected over qualified men, by presenting his “semi-formal logic argument” that this will be the inevitable result of applying selection ratios, is not very convincing if his argument is not logically valid.
December 10th, 2009 @ 10:06 am
To clarify – Bryan was responding to drdrA asking for evidence that selection ratios had produced adverse affects in science, rather than the selection of unqualified candidates per se, but this doesn’t make the logic any better.
December 10th, 2009 @ 10:26 am
I understand, CW, and you said it well. My point is just that mine is not an argument to be buttressed with evidence. Even though Bryan gave it a good go I think the flaw is in the assumption that we’re all scientists discussing science. I’m just a guy trying to encourage potential as individuals rather than the mediocrity of forced integration.
December 10th, 2009 @ 11:08 am
I see what you’re saying, CW. I guess I envisioned a review process where, say, a man and a women are being considered. If sex ratios are valued than the review might overlook merit. Repeat this process many times and you have equal sex ratios and potentially under qualified candidates.
December 10th, 2009 @ 11:37 am
So what you are saying is:
IF a qualified man and an unqualified woman are being considered
AND
IF the decision is based purely on ‘balancing the sex ratio’ and overlooks merit
THEN an unqualified candidate will be selected.
However it is kind of obvious that choosing a random woman instead of the best qualified man is not a good strategy. Fortunately no-one is advocating this. What you need to show is that choosing the best qualified woman over the best qualified man (and vice versa if and when the sex ratio is reversed) leads to a worse outcome in the long run than simply choosing the best qualified person on every occasion. Under your original assumption, that the actual qualifications are equally distributed in the two populations, then I think the outcome of both processes would be the same.
December 10th, 2009 @ 12:22 pm
I’ll grant you #1 and 2 as being snarky, though my sarcasm is never meant to put someone down.
#3, however, is just a statement of fact – you weren’t able to respond meaningfully, by your own admission.
Frankly it seems like you simply don’t want to have this discussion now that you’re facing opposition, and you’re using your victim mentality as an excuse not to back up your points by seeing “put downs and insults” where there are none.
December 10th, 2009 @ 12:44 pm
@CW:
Hmm. Let me think about that for a moment.
I guess I still was making an additional assumption that a small sample being reviewed at a given time would accrue a large body of chosen candidates. If, during each of these reviews, a reviewer considers maintaining sex ratio at all, then potentially a better candidate could be overlooked. Over time, we could assume that this model will produce less candidates that are of maximum competence than the system that is sex-blind. …if we ran the simulation to infinitum. Now, is this phenomenon negligible and is there a longterm advantage to garnering more diverse candidates? I’d be open to that.
December 10th, 2009 @ 1:35 pm
@bryan:
I think if the process was run to infinitum, the ‘unfair’ decisions would cancel out rather than accumulate.
December 10th, 2009 @ 1:53 pm
@Pete: But why do you assume the “mediocrity of forced integration”? Surely it depends on both the form of the forced integration and the underlying causes of the lack of unforced integration? The result could be good, bad or mediocre under different starting conditions.
December 10th, 2009 @ 8:41 pm
Good, bad or mediocre for whom?
December 11th, 2009 @ 4:21 am
Bad for those who currently have an edge in selection purely due to having a male rather than a female name on their CV, as reported in this study:
http://www.faculty.diversity.ucla.edu/search/searchtoolkit/docs/articles/Impact_of_Gender.pdf
Good for science/academia as a whole if it means selection of the best X/2 candidates from each group rather than (X/2)+B candidates from one group and (X/2)-B candidates from the other group, which (logically) cannot be optimal if it is assumed that the best X candidates are equally distributed between the two groups.
December 11th, 2009 @ 5:51 pm
At what point did we start talking about within academia? It certainly reveals why/how you’ve just regarded as off the table the majority of my posts. Last time you tried logic it ended up with, “Is so, for infinity.” Try harder or I’m not playing anymore.
December 12th, 2009 @ 2:37 am
@Pete: Pete, are you also Bryan? Because that’s who I was replying to regarding hypothetical effects of certain selection processes under certain assumptions when extended to infinity. I only replied to you when you chipped in to say that equations don’t matter. Fine, if you are not interested in this line of argument, just ignore it.
However, phrases like “the mediocrity of forced integration” suggest you have some underlying assumptions, even if you don’t care to lay them out. I’d rather discuss things with people willing to examine their assumptions, so if you don’t care for this, I’m quite happy not to ‘play’.
And I thought the entire context of the original blog post and subsequent comments was the under-representation of women in science (which, for basic research science of the kind represented by authors in Dawkins book, is pretty much within academia). At what point did we (or you, rather) stop talking about this?
December 12th, 2009 @ 9:34 am
Sometimes I live vicariously, but not through Pete.
December 12th, 2009 @ 11:20 am
CW: Oh goody, lies. That certainly shows you trying harder. Trying to do what is the question…
Logic is a game. Just like reasons are excuses for smart people.
“Underlying assumptions,” is giving me a lot of credit. The very eveness of equal integration is definitively mediocre. I was trying not to hash out semantically obvious things.
And no, inclusion of scientists not in academia wasn’t off the table until you decided to ignore the parts of my comments that include lack of academia as a premise of the cause of discrimination. I was tired of martians.
December 12th, 2009 @ 9:38 pm
@Pete: The example of “forced” integration that was principally being discussed above was initiated by Dawkins’ comments about appointment committees, and I was following up Bryan’s argument about “opportunities for positions and tenure”. Hence I thought we were discussing selection within (or into) academia. I’m sorry if that seemed to you to be missing your point (and I’ll even agree that, in some situations, “academic” qualifications are incorrectly weighted in selection processes) but I think this hardly counts as lying (unless you mean something else – I’m honestly not sure what you think I have lied about – but we do seem to be misunderstanding each other…)
My point to you was exactly this: that whether forced integration has good or bad consequences depends on the situation. So if we are talking about different situations it is not surprising if we disagree.
You say it is semantically obvious that the eveness of equal integration is mediocre. Is that because you think it is very unlikely, in most situations, to be a correct assumption that qualifications (for whatever selection is occuring) are going to be exactly evenly distributed between the subgroups?
December 12th, 2009 @ 9:51 pm
@Pete: Okay, just re-read above. I apologise for implying that my “bad for…good for” post was not in reply to you. It was. I was confused by the fact that your response to this seemed to go sideways by referring to my “process run to infinitum” post, which was not in reply to you.
December 12th, 2009 @ 10:29 pm
Eh. Yeah, it’s the internet, tone is so easy to misconvey. I didn’t mean to jump in on your conversation. Just thought, “If this has gotten us there maybe I can suggest alternatives.”
No,by mediocre, I meant that the very ordinariness of a level playing field would be disastrous. If I were to suggest that a certain percentage of rappers or yogis or martians (damn them!) had to be thirty year old white guys (damn me!) there would at least be a conversation about why they’re not. Regardless of whatever assumptions would lead to people saying I said what I didn’t.
I do have an underlying assumption about academia, which is that it’s linearcentric and excludes far more people than the women who want to be scientists. It’s a side note, but I didn’t read where they aren’t allowed. And it relates to the latter, so I wanted it addressed.
Then again, my, “I love teachers,” t-shirt totally makes me a fibber.
March 14th, 2010 @ 12:36 pm
I'm amused to see Dr. Isis getting all techy here given that she is a Catholic, ergo part of one of the most sexist churches around, one which not only subordinates women on a regular basis, but has been found to institutionally protect child abusers. She'd be much better served going after the Catholic church than a lousy anthology of science. But of course she doesn't
September 3rd, 2010 @ 8:31 am