Title IX Takes On Science
Federal agencies like the National Science Foundation, NASA, and the Department of Energy have quietly launched several Title IX compliance reviews in university science and engineering programs since 2006, leading some to question the impact the anti-gender discrimination law could have on departments that have traditionally been dominated by men. The New York Times reports that under pressure from Congress, investigators have been taking lab inventories and interviewing science and engineering faculty members at schools such as Columbia, the University of Wisconsin, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the University of Maryland, all of which receive federal grants.
The investigation has stirred up criticism that a heavy-handed approach to Title IX could lead to much-feared quota systems. And although women have made significant gains in science and engineering (women are about half of medical students, 60 percent of biology majors, and 70 percent of psychology Ph.D.'s.), Title IX advocates still believe that the presence of obstacles like unconscious bias and a shortage of role models and mentors continue to plague women's progress.
In the meantime, the federal probes have not led to any new policies or requirements for gender balance, but administrators dealing with new mounds of paperwork and interviews have called the reviews, among other things, a "complete waste of time."
Tags: engineering | science | discrimination | MIT | Columbia University | University of Wisconsin | University of Maryland
Tools: 
Share
|
| Comments (3) | Print
Reader Comments
Bad idea
Whatever they're planning to do, an enforced quota system is simply using Title IX against the original purpose it was created for. By introducing quotas you are expecting men and women to have equal interest in every science which - they are evidently not by the numerous studies between male/female differences - you are in fact reintroducing sexual discrimination simply in a different way.
What if we decided to have fixed quotas for race, imagine having to turn down Asian medical and mathematics students because they are over-represented according to their admissions in these fields.
It's funny they seem intent on applying it singly to male-dominated fields. Never mind the many female dominated fields - they can't POSSIBLY have gender discrimation there. Are male-dominated fields always going to be a source of contempt? Do feminists really hate us this much?
As a male PhD student in magnetic resonance, I can say that women are starting to turn the corner and now new faculty members seem to mostly be females.
As far as the comment from Nick Hanna, nursing, PT and OT are all jobs that don't require rigorous intellectual investigation which is what the article was alluding to. Those jobs are task based and are in the field of health care and are not considered traditional 'scientific discipline'.
I believe as time goes on, things will be balanced in the physical sciences and engineering due to the increases in scholarship opportunities and encouragement given to not only women but minorities as well. Creating a "Title IX" in science will cause so many problems and eventually hurt scientific progress (isn't that the main goal here? Not whether a discovery is by a male or female.) since it is hard enough for the best scientists (male or female) to obtain significant funding from the government due to the current economic state. We are talking about the lively hood of the human species, not athletics. I want the best scientists working even if the ratio is 10:90 or 90:10 male/female.
I wonder
Whenever I hear about the lack of women science students, I wonder if all the Nursing, Physical Therapy and Occupational Therapy students are being counted. As far as I know, the majority of students in those disciplines are women, and those are certainly scientific disciplines. I wonder if they are left out because industry considers engineering more 'scientific' than the health professions.
advertisement
