Skip to comments.Title IX Expansions
Posted on 11/20/2009 9:05:46 AM PST by bs9021
Title IX Expansions
Bethany Stotts, November 20, 2009
During a November 10 press call on Women Scientists and American Competitiveness, speakers suggested that Title IX should be used to focus on educational equity and not just athletic equity.
One speaker stressed, in particular, the importance of reaching out to federal agencies such as the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Institutes for Health (NIH), the Department of Defense (DOD), and the Department of Energy (DOE) for additional grant money. (Predoctoral women received 63% of the NIHs awards in 2007, but only 25% of competitive faculty grants that same year, reports a recently released Center for American Progress (CAP) study).
The speakers also suggested that universities should increase pre-tenure benefits for female scientists in order to encourage women to remain research professors following childbirth.
According to the joint CAP- University of California at Berkeley report, Staying Competitive: Patching Americas Leaky Pipeline in the Sciences, also released on November 10,
women in the sciences who are married with children are 35 percent less likely to enter a tenure track position after receiving a Ph.D. than married men with children
And they are 27 percent less likely than their male counterparts to achieve tenure upon entering a tenure-track job. By contrast, single women without young children are roughly as successful as married men with children in attaining a tenure-track job, and a little more successful than married women with children in achieving tenure. Married women without children also do not fare quite as well as men....
(Excerpt) Read more at academia.org ...
Once again, the genius of Phyllis Schlafly is borne out by her criticism of Title IX long ago. She has been proven again and again that she was spot on. She knew that legislation like this was a Swiss Army Knife to be used on many different fronts, just as we are seeing here.
She was just as correct in her criticism of the Equal Rights Amendment. As with Title IX, she asked the questions that other people were too politically correct, disinclined, uninformed, uninsightful or too stupid to ask, and all of them so far have been shown to be astute insights into the effects of over-reaching government legislation.
Back in 1972, if the issue had come up about someone invoking Title IX because of their inner gender identity people would have laughed and ridiculed the person who made the statement.
But that is exactly the kind of statement Phyllis Schlafly made.
This is the second thread I have seen today on Title IX. Hmm.
Title IX reviews should look at these policies to ensure that universities are in compliance, write the authors. However, if the success of Title IX as applied to college sports is any indication, federal intervention on this issue runs the risk of chilling male participation in the sciences.
So for sake of discussion, an engineering school has a graduating class where those with BSEE’s are 75% male, 25% female. Will further implementation of Title IX require that 2/3’s of the males be eliminated from applying simply for the reasons of “gender equity?” If a woman drops out of the EE program, will a male student be required to drop out as well?
BTW, the only curriculum harder than electrical engineering was chemical engineering. At NJIT the class starting ChemE was about 200. The graduating class might make it up to 25. P-chem and organic were the elimination points there.
That’s exactly the point. They want 50/50 male/female ratio in the sciences.
And they wonder why men are fleeing the universities in droves?!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.