The spring issue of Ms. Magazine will soon be available. One highlight of the upcoming issue will be a detailed and searing expose of Ward Connerly, the infamous anti-affirmative action crusader.
I haven’t blogged much about affirmative action here, though I have long supported it in both principle and action. In 1996, when Connerly succeeded in getting Proposition 209 on the California ballot, I was on the steering committee of the college’s campaign against the initiative. 209, which ended up passing by a fairly wide margin, struck a serious blow to outreach efforts across the Golden State. (Famously, the percentage of black and Latino students at UCLA and at Cal plummeted). Connerly repeated his California success in Michigan a decade later, with the “Michigan Civil Rights Initiative.”
The Ms. expose focuses on several aspects of Connerly’s career and mission. For one thing, his anti-affirmative action work has made him a very rich man; Ms. reports that Connerly receives well over $1.6 million per year from the non-profit anti-affirmative action charities he controls. (Most of the funding comes from the construction industry, which profits enormously when Connerly’s propositions ban the “minority set-asides” that level the playing field in bidding for government contracts.) As Connerly (who is, of course, partly of African-American ancestry) continues his fight against affirmative action, he makes a very nice living.
The damage done to women (both white and non-white) by Connerly’s movement is deftly explored in the new Ms. Kimberle Crenshaw, who teaches law at UCLA and directs the African American Policy Forum, writes about the way in which Connerly’s “Civil Rights Initiatives” are marketed to draw support from white women, who make the mistake of assuming that affirmative action isn’t vitally important for them as well:
Perhaps one reason for this divide is that white women
are virtually invisible targets of the CRI assault on affir-
mative action, as the CRI strategy has been to ignore them
as beneficiaries of affirmative action in favor of targeting
people of color, especially African Americans. This may
well lead many white women to imagine themselves not as
beneficiaries of these policies but as those aggrieved by
them. Connerly’s capacity to stir up fears about affirma-
tive action is easily facilitated by a media that does virtual-
ly nothing to deepen understanding of this vital issue.
According to a Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting study,
not only does mainstream media consistently describe af-
firmative-action policies as preferential and discriminato-
ry, it rarely mentions women as beneficiaries of the
policies or discusses the exclusionary barriers affirmative
action is designed to dismantle.A key step will be to reframe the terms of this debate so that affirmative-
action policies are properly associated with the elimina-
tion of unwarranted obstacles faced by white women and
people of color.
Crenshaw notes that in most of the famous recent cases (such as the Michigan case that the Supreme Court ruled upon in 2003) the plaintiffs challenging affirmative action were white women.
Since Alan Bakke’s famous lawsuit against the University
of California’s Davis Medical School in 1978, most of the
symbolic victims of affirmative action have been white
women—such as Jennifer Gratz and Barbara Grutter, lead
plaintiffs in the University of Michigan affirmative-action
cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2003. They
were not likely chosen to play this victim role by accident.
The effort to fully mobilize women to resist this assault
on affirmative action will require us to tap the deepest
traditions of antiracist feminism and remind all women of
their own very real experiences with discrimination in
disparate sectors of American society. A key step will be
to reframe the terms of this debate so that affirmative-
action policies are properly associated with the elimina-
tion of unwarranted obstacles faced by white women and
people of color… If efforts to defend
affirmative action are going to be suc-
cessful, advocates will have to redirect
the public’s attention to the conditions
of everyday life for women and minori-
ties that are themselves unfair, and to
which affirmative action is a modest but
a very necessary solution.
People of color here does not include people of Asian descent. At least at Cal and UCLA, as things currently stand, prospective students of Asian descent would be the ones most negatively and severely impacted by a return of affirmative action. By definition, admissions is a zero-sum game: affirmative action for one must mean negative action for another.
The Asian & Pacific Islander student organizations at Cal just this past year spearheaded an effort to track separate Asian ethnicities separately in admissions. (Cal is about 20% Chinese or Chinese-American, for example, but less than 2% Hmong, or Laotian, or Filipino, respectively). I wonder if this is a defensive and pre-emptive move, to disaggregate the 40% Asian student body and make it appear somewhat less monolithic in the wake of any move against them.
Not-so-famously, the percentage of female students did not. I attended the last affirmative racism class at Boalt, and the class after mine had a slightly higher percentage of female students than mine (or previous ones) did. The disingenuous rhetoric about “women and minorities” was nothing more than cheap propaganda aimed at convincing a majority that they would all benefit from the racial/ethnic/identity spoils system. This rhetoric was made cheaper still by affirmative action apologists like Erwin Chemerinsky, who lied through their teeth about the effect of clause (c). The reason Connerly won that debate and affirmative action apologists lost is simple: he was telling the truth, and they were lying. Fortunately, the vast majority of men and women alike understood that.
So let Ms. and the Orwellian-named FAIR go ahead with the fine liberal tradition of smearing the hell out of anyone who disagrees with them. In the end, it isn’t going to make a lick of a difference anyway. State after state is following California’s lead in abolishing this vile practice (no, not as vile as Jim Crow, but vile nonetheless), and it’s only a matter of time before the Supreme Court finishes the job. It can’t help that the two Supreme Court cases that endorsed affirmative racism were both 5-4 decisions (effectively - Bakke was actually 4-4-1), or that both were effectively overturned by their respective states. Even less help is that the left for decades pooh-poohed Alan Bakke, a respectable physician, and lionized Patrick Chavis, a butcher who never should have been allowed anywhere near a medical school.
In AY2004-2005, about 826,000 women and 613,000 men nationally received Bachelor’s degrees. (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d06/tables/dt06_258.asp) If we look just at these aggregate numbers, it looks like things are going well for women in academia. But the reality is far more complicated. Women outnumber men in biology (about 40,000 to 25,000), are dead even in business (156,000 for both), and are outnumbered in engineering (15,000 to 65,000) and the physical sciences (8,000 to 11,000; this category is, basically, chemistry and physics). And, if I recall correctly, the ratio of women to men drops in every single field (yes, including fields such as gender studies and English) when you look at Ph.D.s.
I don’t know the right way to address the gender gaps here. Most likely, there are a variety of things going on here, that have to be addressed in different ways — you probably can’t deal with macho culture among physics and computer science majors, for example, using an Affirmative Action programme. But this doesn’t mean Affirmative Action programmes couldn’t be used to benefit women alongside programmes that address other causes of these gaps.
“you probably can’t deal with macho culture among physics and computer science majors, for example, using an Affirmative Action programme.”
Sorry, I had to giggle at that one. Few of the physics and computer science majors that I remember at Cal I would have described as macho.
Most of the funding comes from the construction industry, which profits enormously when Connerly’s propositions ban the “minority set-asides” that level the playing field in bidding for government contracts
Do you think you are cherry-picking the words in the Ms. expose? The article states “his initiatives appear to be largely financed by contractors and a handful of prominent conservative individuals and Republican donors. But it’s difficult to learn who they are.” The words “appear,” “and a handful of,” and “difficult to learn” don’t exactly provide concrete proof of your assertion. Also, the authors don’t use the word “charity,” but non-profit - they are not necessarily the same, but the use of “charity” makes the large compensation seem more worthy of scorn.
In fact, earlier in the piece, the authors note less than $500K in direct contributions (to Prop 209) from “the building industry” while the Republican party gave 10 times that amount. Media transparency noted that Connerly’s ACRI received 47 foundation grants totaling more than $5 million. Major donors included the Sarah Scaife Foundation, The Carthage Foundation, the John M. Olin Foundation, and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, which itself has given more than $2.5 million.
The authors want to make the very dubious and unsupported conclusion that businesses (in general, not necessarily construction) supporting Connerly funneled money through the Republican Party. Of course, one could look at funding for both parties and come up with similiar “conclusions.”
The 5 Feb edition of The Chronicle for Higher Education, stated, “Mr. Connerly dismissed as “totally bogus” the magazine’s assertions that his campaigns were heavily financed by construction associations with a vested interest in the elimination of affirmative-action preferences. Connerly claims the compensation also covers his travel and related expenses, but he receives the amount as taxable salary as opposed non-taxable reimbursement.
I don’t know much about Connerly or ACRI, but other “non-profit” leaders also construct complicated organizational structures to mask compensation to top officials (Jesse Jackson and PUSH/CEF come to mind). They also make a “nice living” pushing advocacy on various issues. Should I doubt Jesse Jackson’s sincere desire for American labor and union workers stated in his Washington Post piece today arguing for Congress to award a very substantial defense contract to Boeing just because Boeing is one of the biggest financial supporters of Jesse Jackson and his organizations?
Macho in the sense of muscular and athletic? Stereotypically, no (although of course this is a notoriously false stereotype). Macho in the sense of aggressive, competitive, and notably hostile to women in their ranks? Documentedly, yes, although things have been improving. There’s a book on diversifying the computer science majors at Carnegie Mellon — mostly in terms of gender but also in terms of race — that documents both the macho culture that existed in the majors and the steps CMU took to greatly increase the percentage of women. Unfortunately, I’m not at home, and can’t seem to find the title.
I’d have to check that book out. Hostile to women I’d have to have a more specific definition of. Aggressive and competitive… well we are talking about usually impacted majors at national universities, and, beyond that, typically jobs in the private sector that start in the $50K range, where aggressiveness and competitiveness are pretty much par for the course. Much as with the broader question on affirmative action, there isn’t really an “everybody wins” scenario. Someone’s not going to have a chair when the music stops.
Okay, the book is Unlocking the clubhouse by Margolis and Fisher. They have one whole chapter on `geek mythology’ and the macho culture (in the sense I used that term above) of the School of Computer Science at CMU, and another whole chapter on what life is like for women students of the SCS. I also recommend a paper they cite, `Why are there so few female computer scientists?’, especially chapter 2, `The masculine environment’. (You can get a PDF of that here.)
I’m tempted to go through and address your specific arguments, but I think it’s less annoying and more effective to just quote from that latter chapter. First is a female student: (Brackets and ellipses are Margolis and Fisher’s.)
They [male students] have the pressure to do well, but they don’t have excess pressure from us [women] saying, “You know, you’re pathetic, you just got in because you’re a guy,” or something. We do’t give them that …. Their confidence hasn’t hit rock bottom because of that. They tell us all the time, and it isn’t something we like to deal with. We shouldn’t have to deal with it. (88)
And second is Margolis and Fisher themselves:
none of the male students we interviewed mention pointed barbs or snide remarks directed their way. None of the men report having his existence in the department questioned because of his gender. And none reported a fear of being thought of as a “stupid male” if he asked a question in class. (88)
I’d be interested to see what CMU did about all of that. I can definitely see how a toxic environment like that would definitely hold back students (female in this case, but I’d bet it’s at least as bad when it becomes a racial issue as well.) Thanks for the heads up.
If there were no admissions with special circumstances–which is to say, lower standards–there would be no reason for comments about people being admitted with lower standards.
What happens in a women’s studies class if a guy asks a question which is either already settled by conventional wisdom, or might unsettle conventional wisdom? Is he thought of as a stupid male, or misogynistic male?
Clean all the houses.
Richard, you’re headed for trolling territory.
Hugo.
What for? Either there are different standards for defined groups or there are not.
If there are, pointing it out may be rude, but insisting on stifling the discussion makes things worse.
If there are not, then there isn’t much point in discussing the non-existent and people probably don’t.
And do you have any idea of how a guy feels in a women’s studies class when he asks a question which may not be in accord with CW? Or might indicate he missed something? If you don’t have any idea, why not? If you do, what is the guy thinking/feeling?
Do you have a problem with cleaning all houses? Or just some?
Richard, I have a problem with thread drift. Standard troll behavior is to come on a feminist blog and turn virtually any post into a debate about academic feminism, when that was not the subject.
I do not require all my commenters to be feminists, but they must be feminist-friendly — or address other subjects.
I’ve written tons about men in women’s studies classes (having been one myself); search my archives and leave your comment at a more appropriate place.
Regarding “Unlocking the Clubhouse” and its claim that hostility, stereotypes, and an unfriendly culture explain the lack of female computer engineers. I’m skeptical - because there are plenty of female computer engineers - overseas. I suspect smart American woman figure they’d make more money being lawyers, and they are probably right.
I think you can only go so far with these explanations that every difference in outcomes is a result of coercion and hostility. It is interesting and amusing to compare “Unlocking the Clubhouse” with Steve Sailor’s riff on the sad, shocking lack of gender diversity in the illegal drug trade.
Hugo. The “thread drift” was a direct result of the implication that there is a deliberate effort in certain IT fields to make women feel uncomfortable.
That needs sourcing.
In addition, if this sort of thing is wrong, it’s wrong all over.
Some years ago, Sears spent $10 mill defending itself against EEOC accusations of discrimination. Women were not proportionally represented in the highest-income departments–selling such things as lawn tractors and snow blowers. Sears best efforts could not get enough women to volunteer. Apparently free choice is not legitimate.
I don’t know where these easily-wounded women come from. My sister, wife, daughter, daughter-in-law, DIL’s sisters, various friends don’t seem to be bothered by this ephemeral fog of misogyny.
The last time any of them said anything about it was when my dtr was maybe eight and playing mixed AYSO soccer.
“Dad [I was also coach]they’re making fun of me because I’m a girl.”
Moments later, when the dust settled, there was one guy down, two looking for their shoes and my daughter headed up field with the ball.
The only trouble any of these notable women have had has come at the hands of other women.
But if it makes you happy to think of malicious computer geeks doing the locker-room thing in the physics lab, go for it.
Richard, I never claimed that `that there is a deliberate effort in certain IT fields to make women feel uncomfortable.’ The claim, rather, was that the culture in fields like physics and computer science (and, I would add, my own field of philosophy) is one of the major reasons women don’t major in these fields.
Sweating Through Fog, chapter 8 of Unlocking the clubhouse describes the specific interventions the School of Computer Science at CMU took to increase the enrollment rate and decrease the attrition rate of women majors. Prior to these changes, in 1995, 7% of new students enrolled in the School were women; five years later, that number had risen to 42%. (137) They identify the following interventions:
1. Adjust admissions criteria to admit a greater percentage of students students with less CS experience. (130)
2. `[P]ut better, more experienced, and more senior teachers … into the earliest courses of the curriculum, where women reported having the most distress’. (131)
3. Integrate `a unit on diversity, particularly gender equity, into the teaching assistant training’. (131)
4. Alter the curriculum in ways that emphasise `technology in the context of its real-world uses and impact’ (131).
5. `[D]iscussing the results of our research [on women’s experiences in the School] … and introducing diversity considerations into discussions of curriculum and programming’ (133) with faculty.
6. `Among students, in addition to stressing to entering students that prior experience in nto a critical issue, we began to talk about achievement in computer science as more multidimensional than the standard “boy hacker” icon.’ (133)
7. Cultivating relationships between CMU faculty and high school CS teachers, who in turn encouraged their students — both male and female — to apply to CMU. (134)
8. A handful of interventions designed to encourage women to apply and form a community of female students of the School, which the authors do not believe was successful.
It seems clear to me that interventions 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 were designed to target the macho culture of the School, and all the interventions taken together were extraordinarily successful. Also, none of these 8 are Affirmative Action programmes in the standard sense — though they were, of course, affirmative actions taken to increase the percentage of female students in the School.
Incidentally, starting in AY 1999-2000, the Office of Admissions for the School began to consider `applicants’ nonnumeric attributes’, including `economic, ethnic, and gender diversity’ (136). This suggests, Richard, that gender was not taken into consideration in the mid-’90s, when the women interviewed by the authors were admitted. So not only were the women interviewed ones who had been admitted to the school without the benefit of Affirmative Action programmes, they were ones who had the self-confidence and fortitude to survive in a hostile community that falsely accused them of being `admitted with lower standards’. The fact that this blatant falsehood was used to marginalise these women is another indication of how hostile the community was to their presence.
Finally, Richard, it’s fantastic that the women in your life haven’t been discouraged by misogynistic personal attacks. (Although you said they don’t `seem to be bothered’. Have you asked them directly?) But, as the woman I quoted above said, `We shouldn’t have to deal with it’.
Noumena.
“non-numeric attributes” here in Michigan are virtues only when held by accredited victim groups. Straight white males do not possess non-numeric attributes. See the long-running AA stuff at U-Mich. Non-numeric attributes are used to overcome shortfalls in qualifications previously thought important. Were there not legion examples of lower standards allowed for accredited victim groups, the idea that women in the IT curriculum you describe were admitted with lower standards would never occur to anyone. So, even if, in your example, the standards were held, the world of AA provided grounds for suspicion. Because that’s the way it’s generally done.
Is there quantifiable data proving the previous experience (messing around with ‘puters) has no effect on education in the field?
One of the reasons my female acquaintances are not bothered by misogynistic attacks is that there are so few attacks. As with racism and homophobia, if you choose your lens carefully, any ambiguous situation can be labeled as some kind of ism.
Example. When my dtr was in school, she had a job which I will describe as gatekeeper in a retail situation. A group of state troopers showed up according to the scheduled meeting. One had not done his homework and, as a result of what he was not going to be allowed to do, got rude. She was not hurt. Not offended. Did not collapse in a pile of angst. She did report his behavior. She was later interviewed by some shooter from the state police who led her to believe this guy is a loose cannon, but not for much longer.
This could be considered a misognystic interaction, except the guy would have–had, according to the interviewer–been just as much a butthead to guys.
Whichever, the institution responded appropriately. If my daughter were interested in stacking up misogynistic attacks, this could be a counter. But she’s not, and, besides, this clearly isn’t.
IMO, feminists would grab on to this as gold. Not only was it male-female, the male in question was a big, strong guy with the uniform and gun and all that patriarchal oppressor equipment.
To die for.
My daughter was assaulted once. By another girl.
My dtr and DIL have both had career obstructions put in their way–and have overcome–by corrupt, dishonest, incompetent ‘crats. Who happened to be women. I am sorry the ‘crats in question were not men. Imagine what could be made of that.
When I was a very young child, women wore odd, complicated things on their heads referred to as “hats”. These were the subject of stand-up comedy, cartoons, and various other sneers.
A psych prof explained “gestalt” by hypothesizing a woman walking down the street in one of these things. Across the street, a couple of guys are laughing. The woman, conscious of this floral monstrosity on her head, thinks they’re laughing at her. But she has no way of knowing. Nevertheless, when she gets home, she has a “counter”. She’s absolutely certain the guys were laughing at her hat.
Now, the second part of this is that it’s a false positive. But she doesn’t know it. After the first false positive, she’s more inclined to believe a second ambiguous situation is a laugh at her. So that’s two. Three is, naturally, easier. By ten…. Pick your gestalt and anything is possible.
My wife, when she first taught at the university level, was asked to join a group of university women. The first item on the agenda of the first meeting she attended was how her career had been negatively impacted by men. She had no stories of such and was not invited back. I guess she was supposed to know she was supposed to make them up.
The father of one of my dtr’s friends was institutionalized for bipolar when the kid was in high school. The “crazy dad” was a subject of teasing from her female acquaintances. The boys said nothing. Maybe they didn’t know.
I don’t know that the women in my immediate circle “deal with” misogyny, or are so interested in other things that they don’t notice it, which is a different issue. I suspect it’s the latter.
It could be that it’s ‘way overblown and they don’t have to deal with much at all, or ignore much at all.
And they do not –most especially do not–use the accusation of misogyny as a club to shut down arguments over, say, whether Hillary is a good prospect for pres.
Just occurred to me that my experience in the real world is…my experience in the real world.
The IT folks who come to my office are all guys. But one day I saw a young woman in the room which is the center for heat, A/C, and phone switching. She had a bound sheaf of schematics and a laptop. I don’t know what she was doing.
The guys don’t seem like socially inept Trekkies. I do know one guy who’s in the business who’s happily married, and I know his wife. They seem okay.
The IT guy who helps us at home started with us at about sixteen. Said he took his father’s computer apart and reassembled it when he was nine. He did off-the-books IT work for home computers for spending money. I ran into him working at the local supermarket and asked how it was going. He got very serious and said the work was physically challenging. Fortunately, I’ve trained myself not to react overtly to surprises, so I just said something like, “I bet,” and changed the subject.
The kid is not macho and my wife, who knows a bit more about him, says his relationship with his girlfriend looks pretty standard.He’s since graduated, gotten a job with a school system, traded up to a gently-used Cadillac and no longer answers his phone. Ungrateful pup.
So I don’t buy macho.
I will allow for the defensiveness of the nerd.
IMO, that would be approached in a different fashion from macho.
Richard, I’m not going to argue with you about what happened at CMU, since you can pick up the book for $15 and read it yourself. And I’m certainly not going to try and analyze the experiences of your daughter and wife based on one-paragraph descriptions of particular incidents.
All I’ll do before leaving this thread is point something out, and make a suggestion:
I don’t know that the women in my immediate circle “deal with” misogyny, or are so interested in other things that they don’t notice it, which is a different issue. I suspect it’s the latter. It could be that it’s ‘way overblown and they don’t have to deal with much at all, or ignore much at all.
(My bold.)
You don’t know; you just suspect and talk about what could be. You haven’t read what women have to say about their experiences, and it doesn’t really sound like you’ve talked to the women in your own life about whether they’ve had to deal with misogyny, and if so, how. You just suspect they haven’t.
So my suggestion is that you talk to them, and take some time to read the Margolis and Fisher book and the Spertus paper (neither is very long), or other books on women’s experiences in SME (science, math, and engineering). Personally, I suspect that what you’ll find will be surprising.
It would be.
My daughter and wife would not require me to ask.
Ditto my DIL. Because she would tell my son and he would tell me.
My DIL’s mother is pretty forthright and won’t take any crap, and we have talked about the obstacles her daughters have faced. No mention of misogyny.
My DIL had an athletic full ride to Enormous State University until the coach said, sorry about your dying grandpa but you can’t miss practice. She said take this ride and shove it and took up coaching a high school varsity team in the area. The coach, it should go without saying, was a woman.
The point I was making was not whether my female acquaintances encountered misogyny. It is that they have never said they did despite opportunities to do so. And the obstacles they have encountered would be considered misogyny had the perps been men.
But, too bad for you, they weren’t.
The difference between ignoring misogyny and not noticing it exists, but it means, in either case, that misogyny is meaningless. I may not notice an ant I step on, or I may decide to step on it. In neither case am I bothered. And the difference between that and no ants (metaphor alert!!)is meaningless.
I am also making the case that, if you are sufficiently trained in finding misogyny, you’ll find it where it does not exist.
I don’t think reading stories by women who’ve had conscious-raising experiences is going to tell me much other than that they’ve had a filter carefully emplaced.
Some years ago, I was cleaning up a public space on a beach when three people stopped to talk. One was a woman about forty and two were girls of early high-school age, I judged. I asked about the latters’ school. They went to a charter or magnet or something. I asked about that. Then I asked what they’d do if they wanted to go to a football game.
“Oh, you can go to Central if you really need to.”
That sneering, superior condescension towards one’s age mates is not normal in that age group. It has to be carefully taught and I figured one of the teachers was right there.
I asked about their studies and we chatted a bit.
The older woman said, “You know a lot for a man.”
“Oh, come on,” I said.
“No, really. Not many men know about history like you do.”
[I was not being deep, philosophical, or profound]
I felt that if I came back briskly, it would give her grounds to tell the girls that all guys are buttheads.
At that moment, over the lake three A10 Warthogs went screaming south. I turned to look, placing the three women behind me.
“Your tax dollars at work,” the older woman said with a vile and sneering tone.
I turned around with a big, dumb smile oblivious to the undertone. Without knowing me, she was inviting me to participate in her view dishonoring an institution in which I had been a proud participant. Bitch.
“Isn’t that great! The more of those I have working for me, the better I like it.”
She looked at me in horror.
“You were in the Air Force?”
Crap, I thought. Hogs are ground attack aircraft. If they’re working for me, that means the targets are on the ground and so am I. So I WOULDN’T BE IN THE BLOODY AIR FORCE!! WOULD I? Where do they GET these people?
But I said, with a bigger, dumber, more oblivious smile,
“No. Infantry.”
I raked another few bits of trash.
When I looked up, they were thirty yards away and picking up speed.
Am I a meanie to laugh when I think of this?
And, boy, would I be interested in how the stereotype repair went. I’d pay some good money for that.
So when I hear about misogyny, which I have never seen in operation and which my female family members have never mentioned, I think of that day on the beach.