The Academic Bill of Rights

So you are an old testament Christian but not a new testament Christian?

Well, unlike you, I actually came to my decision after reading both your "evidence" and searching for more information on my own and completely examining both sides of the issue.I started as a skeptic and now I am convinced of the political perversion of the both the bill and those who support it. I take this stance not lightly but rather after having reviewed enough information over the course of the past few days to convince me that my skepticism was warranted.So you tell me, how much of the opposition's point have you investigated before coming to your so opposite sweeping conclusions?

---

FOX has a pretty good system they have cooked up. 10 mil people watch the show on the network, FOX. Then 5 mil, different people, tune into FOX News to get outraged by it. I just hope that those good, God fearing people at FOX continue to battle those morally bankrupt people at FOX.
-- Lewis Black, The Daily Show

In other words:"I have not even take the time, nor do I plan on bothering, to critically examine the other side of the argument objectively."Why do you wonder why you can never convince anyone at the board of your positions when you say stuff like this. You are blatantly admitting that you are purposefully ignorant of the other side of the issue.This message has been edited by Jazzns, 06-11-2005 01:06 PM

---

Organizations worth supporting:
Electronic Frontier Foundation | Defending your rights in the digital world (Protect Privacy and Security)
Home | American Civil Liberties Union (Protect Civil Rights)
AAUP (Protect Higher Learning)

Thank you. I feel better about this board as a result.

Everyone has heard about "lies, damn lies and statistics." To argue that women don't earn equally for the same work is such a statistic. The truth is next to impossible to determine, but we do know that a) women tend to feel more obligation to family and therefore leave work for periods of time, decline promotions that will take them away from their children, and so on. We also know that, regardless of what is actually true, women can form companies just like men and hire who they will. In other words, there is equal opportunity. The bottom line is that justice will not be accomplished through quotas. But were it otherwise, then I guess conservatives should be demanding quotas on faculty hiring.You quoted me: "And yet, affirmative action made it easier for my daughters to get into law school and med school than my sons. That was dumb. They had equal opportunity."You responded: "Did they, though?"
Obviously they did. That is why there are more women entering Law school and Medicine faculties than men these days.Then you ask: "If they had been trying to get into law and med school in the 1950's, do you think it would have been just as easy?"Maybe, perhaps probably, not. But what transpired 50 years ago is not relelvant to today's reality.You ask: "Do you think that the attitudes towards women in higher education have become completely egalitarian in a single generation?"Probably, given that there are more women in higher education than men. Regardless, solutions, especially to entirely subjective determinations, do not come from quotas. Were it otherwise, not only should conservatives demand quotas on faculty hiring, but men should demand that education faculties have 50% make students. Smae for nursing faculties. And arts faculties.

quote:

---

Everyone has heard about "lies, damn lies and statistics." To argue that women don't earn equally for the same work is such a statistic. The truth is next to impossible to determine, but we do know that a) women tend to feel more obligation to family and therefore leave work for periods of time, decline promotions that will take them away from their children, and so on. We also know that, regardless of what is actually true, women can form companies just like men and hire who they will.

---

Uh, we are talking about women in academia, are we not?Women cannot "form a university" any more than men can. linkBold added by me.Please pay particular attention to the italicized bolds where it says that women are leaving academia to persue other careers, not because of family issues. Did you even read any of the studies on the page I linked to?

quote:

---

In other words, there is equal opportunity. The bottom line is that justice will not be accomplished through quotas. But were it otherwise, then I guess conservatives should be demanding quotas on faculty hiring.

---

Was there equal opportunity in women's sports at the university level before Title 9?

quote:

---

You quoted me: "And yet, affirmative action made it easier for my daughters to get into law school and med school than my sons. That was dumb. They had equal opportunity."

​

You responded: "Did they, though?"

​

Obviously they did. That is why there are more women entering Law school and Medicine faculties than men these days.

---

Do you mean as students or as faculty?(and anyway, you're wrong. There are still slightly more male enrolees in medical school than women as of 2003)There are not more female medical and law school FACULTY.That's the point, Steve. Women might be starting out in those fields as undergrads, but they are often pushed out the higher they try to climb.

quote:

---

Then you ask: "If they had been trying to get into law and med school in the 1950's, do you think it would have been just as easy?"

​

Maybe, perhaps probably, not. But what transpired 50 years ago is not relelvant to today's reality.

---

Dude, how do you figure it's not relevent?The people who had these sexist, discriminatory attitudes (whiich persisted in blatant form well into the 1870's) are still in power now!

quote:

---

You ask: "Do you think that the attitudes towards women in higher education have become completely egalitarian in a single generation?"

​

Probably, given that there are more women in higher education than men.

---

There are NOT more women than men in positions of leadership and power in academia.Women are greatly outnumbered in most fields, with the presence of women getting smaller and smaller the higher the degree or position.Let's look at medical schools in the US: Sorry, that page was not found. | AAMC

quote:

---

Regardless, solutions, especially to entirely subjective determinations, do not come from quotas. Were it otherwise, not only should conservatives demand quotas on faculty hiring, but men should demand that education faculties have 50% make students. Smae for nursing faculties. And arts faculties.

---

The thing is, can men show that arts, education, and nursing programs have consistently discriminated against men, or have men always been welcome?Where are the masses of men reporting discriminatory practices?This message has been edited by schrafinator, 06-11-2005 07:12 PM

In Canada there are more female law students and med students. If you want to use stats and quotas, fine: Every faculty from here on in must have a 50/50 ratio of leftist to conservative. Every discipline must have a 50/50 ratio of men to women. That means, in Canada anyhow, all law and med schools must accept more men. Here and in your country, that means so must nursing programs and social work programs and ed programs. In fact, university entrance everywhere needs more men to create a 50/50 ratio. (I think the discrimination against males begins in grade schools, where the female teachers favour girls and misunderstand boys. This carries over, adversely affecting boys and education until we see higher drop out rates for boys than girls in high school, and now more girls than boys entering university. Yup, stats prove this, and only quotas will solve it, unlike, for example, changing teaching methods, incorporating the results of studies that are determining why boys do more poorly than girls, and so on.)All ethnic groups must be accepted into university in proportion to their population. I'd suggest that even those who are half of whatever should constitute their own group, their proportion to population be assessed (preferably by an interest group of their own, motivated to skew stats and invent stories of obstruction). Yes, we'll have all sorts of groups at each other's throats fighting for their quota, but nothing that more subdivision of quotas can't solve. After all, once we've accepted that statistical inequality proves inequality, we must do something about it.Or, maybe, afterall, equal opportunity is a whole lot easier to create, despite any subjective doubts as to precise justice.

I think my response may come across as sarcasm aimed at you. It wasn't meant. Rather it was meant to be somewhat sarcastic with respect to the notion of quotas to redress statistically measured inequality. All sorts of variables come into play, most not considered. Each group claims stats prove them to be wronged. Certainly, as i wrote, there is no reason men can't come up with arguments that stats prove they're coming up on the short end in education these days. The question becomes: Should those stats be the basis of some sort of affirmative action? I say that if such is a valid argument for women (especially minority women) or Blacks, or whomever, then such is a valid argument for men (especially minority Black men). But, in fact, such is not a valid argument, not for women, men or minorities - even if, once, there was some validity to it, following eras of objective, regulatory, legislated discrimination.It's a mug's game to determine objective truth. Worse, attempts to redress statistical inequality inevitably means not only quotas (carried out through euphemistically named programs, like affirmative action), but reverse justice. It is unfair that my sons need higher marks than my daughters to get into various programs. My daughters have had every encouragement that my sons have had. Their mom is a lawyer. They do not need, nor deserve any advantage over their brothers. In fact, given that one of their brothers has ADHD, maybe he should be given sone advantage to ameliorate his lower marks that resulted. Or my other son needs an advantage, not because he has ADHD - he hasn't - but because he is the classic case of a boy being bored to death sitting at his desk all day long when he craves much more experiential learning (than girls seem to need). These arguments, in the vein of those used by other groups, are valid once one accepts that principle. But I do not. Universities should accept the best students as proved by the most objective measures they can come up with. If my son with ADHD is disadvantaged, so be it. It is up to him and his parents to help him overcome that illness with respect to academic performance. If my other son gets poorer marks than his sisters, despite having a genius IQ - and he does - and if that is because he is so bored by classrooms that he fails to pay attention, and would rather play hockey or paintball than do homework, then so be it. That is an issue that he and, maybe, his parents need to work through. Maybe schools also need to address that problem, so that their boys are no less successful at qualifying for university acceptance than their girls. But, again, that is not universities' concern. Theirs is to accept the best students through the best objective measures they have, however the stats turn out.Each of us is, as an individual in a liberal democratic society, responsible for his success or failure. That is so despite that there might be mitigating personal and social factors, like coming from a broken home, being fatherless, having a learning disability, etc. But universities, employers, and whomever else should not be burdened. They shoul, maintain their objective standards, applied on an equal basis.If women insist that there is a glass ceiling (and I doubt it) then they should not look to legislation, aside from principles of equality. Instead, they should establish their own businesses, and let men complain if women rise more than men within those companies.If women insist that universities make it easier for men to climb (and I doubt it), then let them establish new universities, or get on the boards of existing ones. But they must not create quotas or differing standards of judgment for themselves as opposed to men. Statistical inequality be damned.The foregoing is the best we can do is to ensure equal opportunity. Conservatives believe, generally, in such reasoning. That is why, when confronted with an overwhelming statistical bias of leftist profs to conservative, their answer is not a demand for quotas or other such affirmative action prgrams. The ABOR, as an example, assiduously avoids quotas as a solution to anything, favouring, instead, principles of equality.

You're not going to get much respect at a science board saying something like that. I mean it's pretty much an excuse to reject any data you disagree with, now isn't it? In other words, women earn less because they deserve less. We know what you're trying to say.

Of course they do. What you've described is the perfect rationale to abandon any sort of responsibility or concern about people who have been discriminated against."We're provided equal opportunity", you say, without any explanation of how that is actually so. "If people fail now it must be their own fault."Brilliant. It's the perfect rationale for your self-centered nihilism. You'll pardon the rest of us if we're too busy actually doing something about problems to play along, ok?

Affirmative Action, Crashfrog, is one of the great successes of our time. There's no question that it has allowed African Americans to move from the lower to the middle class. All praise to Lyndon Johnson, of all people.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 06-11-2005 08:24 PM

I don't know anything about affirmative action. What I do know is bullshit when its put in front of me. It's the smell, you see.

What are you talking about? Are you denying that Affirmative Action has been successful?

What? No, no. Like I said I don't know anything about the effacacy of affirmative action.The bullshit I was talking about was CanadianSteve's bullshit about "equal opportunity." That's just some convinient sophistry to rationalize being selfish.

There was a time when there was deep, instutionalized injustice. It was in segregation laws, Jim Crowe, and went to the heart of American society. It created a huge imbalance of opportunity, one that could rightfully and objectively be seen. To redress all that historical and pervasive wrong, affirmative action made sense. But a society cannot maintain affirmative action forever, as, by definition, it favours one group over others...and it generalized to women and virtually all groups excluding white men.It is now 50 years since the civil rights movement. Affirmative action has now, itself, become institutionalized, and has institutionalized injustice against all those whom it does not target for help - mainly white men. No longer does it ensure equal opportunity, but an advantage to its target groups. Societies based on porinciples of fairness and equality cannot sustain new forms of injustice. In so doing, they sap liberal democracy of its foundational principles.