Title IX and Science

"Few academic scientists know anything about the equity crusade. Most have no idea of its power, its scope, and the threats that they may soon be facing. The business commu­nity and citizens at large are completely in the dark. This is a quiet revolution. Its weapons are government reports that are rarely seen; amendments to federal bills that almost no one reads; small, unnoticed, but dramatically con­sequential changes in the regulations regarding government grants; and congressional hearings attended mostly by true believers."

For the record, I'm one of those women who never spent two minutes wondering about whether or not academia and science were gender-biased enterprises. (Can we just do some science please?) I've worked in the corporate world at various times, and I've learned that sometimes you have to kick a little more ass as a woman in order to get things done. (Do I enjoy it? Maybe a little bit, if you've really ticked me off. ;) But science and academia always seemed to me to be more of a meritocracy - if the idea was good, or the talent was there, other factors (like gender) were irrelevant. (Go ahead and tell me how I haven't been in the system long enough to see how naive that statement is.)

The article quoted above goes on and on and on about perceived gender differences as they pertain to the enterprise of science. Finally I had to wonder - Jeez, was I missing something? Was my experience of the scientific establishment just better than other women's? Had I been forced to change aspects of my personality in order to accommodate my desire to do science? (Shake it off!)

For the record, I left academia and the pursuit of science within the academic realm because I wanted more freedom to be "capable of independent, autonomous action" when it came to my work. I was too 'assertive' and 'task-oriented' to pander to the taboos and politics of academic research. I think good science comes from people who like science and who are free to do it. If we're going to examine the enterprise of academic science for flaws, gender-disparity wouldn't be the first, second, or third thing I'd look at. (BTW, the female author of the article also seems to think that the idea of forced gender equity based on stereotypical gender differences is a bad idea.)

The idea that women should be promoted or advanced simply because they are women is insulting to me. Not because I am a woman, and am therefore insulted by the idea that women need this extra help (although now that I think about it...). I am insulted as a scientist who believes in a meritocracy. Title IX-type 'entitlements' diminish the very foundation of a meritocracy. (Go ahead and tell me how unrealistic I am. Go ahead and tell me that the only people who believe in a meritocracy are those who would win in one; everyone else would fight for any extra edge they could get.)

So perhaps we really talking about my idealism here... My idealism is a reflection of how I see myself and my world. Perhaps that makes me a poor choice as a representative of women in science. Perhaps there are compelling arguments for changing the enterprise of science to accommodate a different way of being, but I haven't heard them yet. After all, I haven't given much thought to the whole thing. (Can we just do some science please?)

I realize that this is not a politically-correct opinion, but I've always balked at the idea of sacrificing my integrity at the alter of someone else's ideals. And since I'm representing only myself here, there's not much point in endorsing things I don't believe in.

That's it for this edition of the soapbox. Can I go do some science now?