My take on the CBS debate.
This CBS debate was something else.Read More »
H/T GlobalWarming.org. Kowalski’s gonna love this.
What’s good for women’s basketball will be good for nuclear physics.
To most Americans, that statement will sound odd. To President Obama, it apparently does not. In an October letter to women’s advocacy groups, he declared that Title IX, the law that requires universities to give equal funding to men’s and women’s athletics, had made “an enormous impact on women’s opportunities and participation in sports.” If pursued with “necessary attention and enforcement,” the same law could make “similar, striking advances” for women in science and engineering. …
[To quote from the President’s letter,] Title IX must be pursued with “necessary attention and enforcement” in the sciences. This is nearly certain to happen. But the president should note the level of partisanship in the groups monitoring the enforcement. For example, in a 2008 briefing statement, the American Association of University Women, one of the more combative advocacy groups and a leader in the Title IX movement, issued a warning to “adversaries” who get in the way of its equity initiatives:
“Our adversaries know that AAUW is a force to be reckoned with. . . . We are issuing fair warning — we ARE breaking through barriers. We mean it; we’ve done it before; and we are ‘coming after them’ again . . . and again and again, if we have to! All of us, all the time.”
Title IX was never intended to be a tool to enforce quotas in education, but that’s sure how the courts have interpreted it in the realm of athletics. Historical programs in men’s sports like wrestling and baseball have fallen by the wayside to be replaced by women’s crew and bowling, which in large measure are more about compliance than they are about athletic competition.
Athletics are one thing, but science and engineering are a matter of national security and economic competitiveness. Just as they do with the military, the Left’s approach to the subject is more about social engineering and demographics and less about the collective good. Women constitute the majority enrollment in higher education, and their participation in science and engineering programs is more a reflection of interest than discrimination.
African Americans are a tiny fraction of graduates in science and engineering. Shall we apply the same kind of quota system on a racial basis? The only way to meet racial and gender goals would be to actively discriminate against Caucasian, and especially Asian males in enrollment.
Does anyone think this is a good idea?
Full disclosure: I am the father of two daughters, both of whom are pursuing their educational goals. I am also an engineer. One daughter is a grad student in marketing. Her younger sister is an undergraduate student in the sciences. She will be a success on her own and without Obama’s help. She deserves to succeed without the taint or suggestion that she benefited from any kind of EEOC help.