Diversity

Via Mick Hartley comes news from the University of California:

“After a group of UC Davis women faculty began circulating a petition, UC regents rescinded an invitation to Larry Summers, the controversial former president of Harvard University, to speak at a board dinner Wednesday night in Sacramento. Summers gained notoriety for saying that innate differences between men and women could be a reason for under-representation of women in science, math and engineering.

UCD professor Maureen Stanton, one of the petition organisers, was delighted by news of the change, saying it's ‘a move in the right direction’. ‘UC has an enormous historical commitment to diversity within its faculty ranks, but still has a long way to go before our faculty adequately represent the diversity of our constituency, the people of California,’ said Stanton.

When Stanton heard about the initial invitation to Summers, she was ‘stunned’. ‘I was appalled that someone articulating that point of view would be invited,’ she said. ‘This is a symbolic invitation and a symbolic measure that I believe sends the wrong message about the University of California and its cultural principles.’ ‘None of us go looking for a fight,’ Stanton said. ‘We were just deeply offended.’”

Yes, diversity in all things. Except, of course, in thought. Presumably, Professor Stanton is also “stunned”, “appalled” and “deeply offended” by the over-representation of, say, gay people in the spheres of arts and drama, or of women in the caring professions, or of Indian employees in Indian restaurants. Perhaps some recalibration of those industries is also in order, to ensure suitable diversity.

Meanwhile, in Ohio:

“The Office of University Housing at Ohio State, a public university, maintains a Diversity Statement that severely restricts what students in Ohio State’s residence halls can and cannot say. Students are instructed: ‘Do not joke about differences related to race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, ability, socioeconomic background, etc. When in doubt about the impact of your words and actions, simply ask.’”

It’s interesting to note that the University’s Diversity Statement aims to foster learning “from a wide array of human similarities and differences in an increasingly diverse world” and plans to achieve this blossoming of awareness by inhibiting any careless reference to those same differences. 

Related. (H/T. Stephen Hicks.)

Comments

[Horace Dunn]

-- the University’s Diversity Statement aims to foster learning “from a wide array of human similarities and differences in an increasingly diverse world”

What do the authors of the University's Diversity Statement mean by "an increasingly diverse world"? How are they measuring this? Of course, if the world's diversity is, indeed, increasing, it means that people who operate in the field of "diversity" will be more in demand by employers, but it would be cynical to suggest that their contention has anything to do with that. So what could they possibly mean?

[David]

Horace,

I’m still struggling to comprehend the Diversity Statement’s prohibition of “words, actions, and behaviours that… threaten infliction of… emotional harm.” Whatever unspeakable things that might conceivably cover, they’re definitely not permitted. But then I’m also having difficulty with the belief, implied by Professor Stanton, that there are ratios of women and men that “ought” to be found in any given sphere of employment.

[Horace Dunn]

David

Yet it's intriguing, isn't it? The idea that there's somehow an ideal social make-up within each office, department, factory etc. X percent women, y percent this ethnic group, z percent that ethnic group etc etc. It must really irk these diversity-heads that so many institutions currently fall short of that perfect mix. But still, they have a dream...

Mind you, if the world is becoming "increasingly diverse" as they plainly state, this must be a bit of a headache for HR departments. I mean, once you establish a department with the perfect socio-cultural mix, the outside world will get just that bit more diverse and your department will again be falling short of the ideal. Time to start drafting those job advertisements again...

[anon person]

They have a dream...

[David]

Horace,

I am baffled by just how readily and often this “diversity” schtick is taken to absurd lengths. Provided suitably qualified women are able to apply for maths and engineering positions on an equal footing with comparably qualified men, I see no reason to feel that there “ought” to be more female mathematicians or engineers. On what basis does one determine that there “ought” to be a particular ratio of male and female mathematicians? At what point and on what basis does one determine that a particular gender is sufficiently “represented” in a given vocation? Perhaps Professor Stanton would favour boosting the numbers of conservative academics within the humanities in order to accurately “represent” the political spectrum of the general population?

And Stanton’s censorious horror at the suggestion that biology and disposition could possibly play a role in which occupations a person seeks out says a great deal about her own modish prejudices, and their unsound footing. Not that any of this has prevented others from claiming, rather worryingly, that, “no one is better at teaching students how to think critically” and that, “she exemplifies the very best in higher education.”

[Chris Allen]

"Diversity" (n)
1. The manipulation of an institutions' selection process by left wing idealogues to prevent merit being used as a selection criterion.
2. The institution of a system of political cronyism disguised as "fairness"
3. Revenge against groups that the left hates esp. white men and right-wingers.
4. A way of frightening opponents of socialism into silence by redefining words so that any opposition to socialist policies appears morally evil.

[nobody important]

To ask some more unaswerable questions: Exactly how IS the world becoming more diverse? Are there new ethnic or racial groups emerging spontaneously? Are there new genders (not people with mental disorders) evolving?

[Dr.Dawg]

I find it interesting that political conservatives in the United States are complaining about a lack of diversity of the political support on university campuses. (Have I detected an echo of that here from time to time?) But, as has been pointed out here, the concern is only with some departments and not others. See: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050404/jacoby

The world isn't becoming more diverse. It has always been diverse. But we are all closer to each other as information flows more rapidly and in exponentially increasing amounts. One can be culture-shocked living in a cave these days, so long as one has access to the Internet.

Now, as for Mr. Summers, must I invite him to supper at the risk of losing my well-deserved reputation for open-mindedness? Why not spend a little time on this far more significant case:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/09/14/state/n180613D10.DTL

But, all this being said, I find speech codes to be stultifying, if well-intended. I asked the firs'-years in my Anthro section this term simply to show respect for each other--but let everyone know that they would be discussing controversial issues of the day. Surely that should be enough.

[Dr.Dawg]

"lack of diversity of the political support"

Sorry: I meant "of the political sort." Freudian slip of some kind?

[The Thin Man]

"lack of diversity of the political support on university campuses"

Dr Dawg,

from cnsnews.com

"Faculty members from Harvard University led the way in overall political contributions -- $266,044 -- with 81 percent of those gifts going to Democrats so far in 2007, according to the report".

This is the kind of "diversity" we are talking about. The drive to be diverse is leading to this kind of skewing of the political landscape of colleges (and the media "Journalists give to Democrats 9-1").

I find such stats frightening. It seems to me that "diversity" is actually leading to anything but diversity by closing down speech and effectively barring anyone with dissenting views.

[The Thin Man]

Discussing "controversial issues" is not enough.

However hard you try, your political views will be a part of that discussion and without teachers with different views to balance the curriculum, your students will be propagandised - not educated.

[David]

Dr Dawg,

“As for Mr. Summers, must I invite him to supper at the risk of losing my well-deserved reputation for open-mindedness?”

No-one suggested you should. That’s not the point. Stanton’s preposterous gasping at the very suggestion is nearer the issue, as is her tacit assumption of male to female ratios that “ought” to exist in, for instance, mathematics and engineering.

[Dr.Dawg]

Being someone who can't see much of a difference--and certainly not a radical difference--between Democrats and Republicans, these stats (and I do wonder how they were obtained) don't worry me much. Perhaps we should demand that corporate boardrooms include more Democrats, given that that's where the real power lies. Here's a reasonable deal, seems to me: "You give us one Pentagon, one Department of State, Justice and Education, plus throw in the Supreme Court, and we will give you every damned English department you want."

Source: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050404/jacoby/2

[Dr.Dawg]

"However hard you try, your political views will be a part of that discussion and without teachers with different views to balance the curriculum, your students will be propagandised - not educated."

I suggest before judging the quality of my pedagogy, you inquire a little further. I actually say very little--just ask questions now and then.The point is to get people of quite diverse views talking to each other, not listening to me drone on. Maybe that's why my attendance seems to be good and stable.

[David]

To clarify my previous comment…

As far as I’m aware, universities can invite (or not invite) pretty much whomever they wish. I was hoping to draw attention to the improbable *reason* for the uproar. From what I’ve read, Summers’ “offensive” comment was hardly controversial or ill-intended. Indeed, given the gasping and indignation that followed, it’s the prosaic nature of his suggestion that’s noteworthy. What I find hilarious is Stanton’s alarm at the suggestion that biology and disposition could possibly play a role in which occupations a person seeks out. I suspect Stanton’s feelings on the issue are, unfortunately, far from uncommon, at least among her peers. But dismissing Summers’ comment as somehow placing him beyond the pale isn’t exactly a sign of confidence in the veracity of her own position.

[Dr.Dawg]

David:

Not being a fan, to put it mildly, of sociobiology, I think Summer's comments were pretty out-of-whack in this day and age. I wouldn't expect geographers to invite flat-earthers to speak at their dinners either. Occam's Razor tells me (if razors can speak) that plain old sexist assumptions and systemic discrimination have been keeping women out of "male" disciplines. In Canada, I am happy to report that enrollment in engineering is now approaching gender parity--so much for women's "innate" inabilities.

Didn't Mr. Summers allow his name to be connected to this statement when he was an economist at the World Bank?

"The measurement of the costs of health-impairing pollution depends on the forgone earnings from increased morbidity and mortality. From this point of view a given amount of health impairing pollution should be done in the country with the lowest cost, which will be the country with the lowest wages. I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that."

[David]

Dr Dawg,

“I think Summer’s comments were pretty out-of-whack in this day and age. I wouldn't expect geographers to invite flat-earthers to speak at their dinners either.”

To equate the suggestion of possible biological and dispositional factors in employment choices with ‘flat-earthers’ is disingenuous. (You’re better than that.) No-one here has disputed the possibility of sexist assumptions or tradition or whatever. Yet Stanton and her associates seem unwilling even to entertain the *possibility* of other, biological variables. And, so far as I’m aware, Summers’ views on waste disposal were not the stated reason for Stanton’s implausible outrage.

Naturally, I find your sneering at the idea of (choke) “innate” abilities deeply offensive. I’m outraged and oppressed. Outraged, I say. “Unclean! Unclean!”

[Dr.Dawg]

David,

Maybe I'm *not* better than that. :) Summers, if his reported comment about women is accurate, is intellectually lazy at best.

I don't have a problem with the notion of "innate ability," only with the idea that's it's unequally distributed by gender and "race." Such allegations have often been made, inevitably on the right of the political spectrum, but I do not find them supported by much evidence.

[David]

Dr Dawg,

“I don't have a problem with the notion of ‘innate ability,’ only with the idea that's it's unequally distributed by gender and ‘race’.”

I don’t recall Summers mentioning race at all, or suggesting that women are generally deficient in relation to men. Again, that isn’t the stated reason for Stanton’s petition and her subsequent fainting spell. Yet it seems entirely plausible that, statistically, men and women have differing psychologies, possibly for evolutionary reasons (say with regard to social influence), and differing areas of (statistical) expertise. Things like gender differences in large and small-scale spatial acuity come to mind, which might have bearing on preferred jobs.

[The Thin Man]

"Perhaps we should demand that corporate boardrooms include more Democrats, given that that's where the real power lies"

Then buy some shares and you'll get to vote on who is the board. The difference with education is that being state funded, I am being forced to "buy shares" and then given no voice...quite aside from the fact that business is not in the business of indoctrinating young people (most businesses are actually about doing business).

"You give us one Pentagon, one Department of State, Justice and Education, plus throw in the Supreme Court..."

The idea that Govt departments, bound by precisely the diversity crap that we are discussing, are somehow biased to the right is patent nonsense. There is certainly not an 81% bias of politocal donations to the republicans. My understanding is that the Supreme court is 5/4 right/left and has rotated more or less around that ratio for sveral decades.

The institutions you name DO NOT have the kind of bias that most universities have. They also DO NOT have hiring policies designed to ACTIVELY PREVENT leftards from getting jobs in the way that the ethos that Stanton and her ilk espouse actively prevents academics who do not subscribe to her groupthink.

This is precisely what we are arguing, Stantons "offence" is exactly the kind of tactic that would put off people with different views from applying, nevermind getting through the selection proceedure. How "welcoming" do you think UC looks to anyone whos views might differ from Stanton?

However much you try to keep your politics out of the classroom, the fact that 80% of the faculty are liberal produces an echo chamber of group think. Just as it would if the faculty were 80% conservative.

[EBD]

The Larry Summers situation, and the OSU's attempt at enforcing speech-codes in dorms are the sort of things that happen when one side doesn't call the other side's bluff. Everybody on both sides knows full well that OSU's Diversity Statement is *not* intended to clamp down on, say, Women's Studies students' conversations about men, or propensities to rape, nor to censor campus activists' statements about the hegemony of white males; it's a demand by one side that they be allowed to assume the mount position.

That the justification for the demand is based on the self-reporting of emotional injury suggests there's can never be any possible resolution, only...chafing.

Dawg, in the interests of a possible future non-redirection of issues, let me ask you a -- completely -- non-rhetorical question. I ask because I am unable to even partially glean from your comments what your answer might be. The question: Do you believe that there are no innate differences in aptitudes and capabilities in, say, math or spacial ability, between men and women?

I understand that any particular woman is as likely, statistically, to be good in these areas as the guy sitting beside her; I'm asking, really, about the issue as it pertains to Larry Summers' apparently emotionally-wounding comments: Do you think it's possible that there might be a different distribution of men and women in the top one-tenth of one percent?

I am possessed of a near-certain belief that you won't claim to be emotionally injured by the question. /:>)>

[Dr.Dawg]

"How "welcoming" do you think UC looks to anyone whos views might differ from Stanton?"

Well, I dunno. About as welcoming as the University of Western Ontario, which houses racialist Phillippe Rushton? About as welcoming as Carleton University, home of one of Canada's most prominent global warming deniers?

My point being that we're dealing with *universities* here. Does Stanton not a have a right to state her beliefs openly? We're talking a *dinner* here, for goodness sake, nothing more.

David:

Summers said nothing about "race." I was merely noting that differing degrees of success are too often attributed to innate characteristics, not of individuals, but of non-dominant groups, by those who don't want to face up to the simpler hypothesis that discrimination is the likely culprit. Summers made a lazy and indefensible claim about women and certain "hard" disciplines. He included engineering. Women's enrollment in engineering is busy belying his hypothesis as the same time as he makes it. Back in the 1960s, the psychologist Donald Hebb at McGill stated that women were rare in university faculties because "McGill is a research-oriented university." That fellow, God rest his soul, is now asleep with the mastodons, but Summers is around to let us know that this sort of thinking is far from dead.

[Dr.Dawg]

EBD:

I hadn't realized I had been OT. I'll try to be a little more careful.

"The question: Do you believe that there are no innate differences in aptitudes and capabilities in, say, math or spacial ability, between men and women?"

The answer: I don't know. I'll start from the default position--that there are none--and wait for the evidence to the contrary to pour in. So far I haven't seen much, but if it's there, I'll look at it dispassionately. And no, such questions aren't emotionally wounding to me. They might be emotionally wounding to a young female student if uttered by the Chair of her math department, though.

[EBD]

Sorry, Dawg, while I was typing with my elbow, you had already answered the question. You said: "I don't have a problem with the notion of 'innate ability,' only with the idea that it's unequally distributed by gender."

Is the ability to bench press 550 lbs, or the ability to run 100m in 9.78 equally distributed between the sexes? Assuming that you do acknowledge such tangible physiological differences, doesn't it seem improbable that there wouldn't be *some* differences in other, non-athletic realms?

[David]

Dr Dawg,

“Summers made a lazy and indefensible claim about women and certain ‘hard’ disciplines.”

But it’s not “indefensible” and you’ve yet to show that it is. Instead, you’ve aired Summers’ view on international waste disposal.

There are gender differences in the distribution of visual receptors, in colour and spatial discrimination, in memory performance, speech acquisition, favoured types of reasoning, types of stress tolerance, tactile sensitivity, susceptibility to disease, etc. Some of these differences are, again, statistical, and often very small indeed or may vary with age; but I see no reason to feel that gender asymmetry of statistical skills and disposition “ought” not to exist, or is implausibly unobvious, or somehow wicked.

Obviously, none of this is to suggest that some women aren’t – or could be - excellent mathematicians and engineers, etc. Nor is it to imply that cultural and institutional obstacles don’t exist. But it may – may – have bearing on the *numbers* of women who will consider a given occupation, irrespective of whatever cultural and institutional barriers are removed. And, again, it’s the readiness with which Stanton recoiled in horror from this possibility that is telling.