Is it fair that women are ENTITLED to statistical proportion in Science as Title IX specified for Sports?

by manipulating Gov. funds?

This article is long & written in a verbally difficult way for most people to grasp, so I summarized main ideas here:


Title IX has been effective in promoting women’s participation in sports, it has also caused serious damage, in part because it has led to the adoption of a quota system. Over the years, judges, Department of Education officials, and college administrators have interpreted Title IX to mean that women are entitled to “statistical proportionality.” That is to say, if a college’s student body is 60 percent female, then 60 percent of the athletes should be female.


To avoid government harassment, loss of funding, and lawsuits, they have simply eliminated men’s teams.


That kind of calibration could devastate academic science.


But unfortunately, in her enthusiasm for Title IX, Rolison is not alone.

On October 17, 2007, a subcommittee of the House Committee on Science and Technology convened to learn why women are “underrepresented” in academic professorships of science and engineering and to consider what the federal government should do about it.

Brian Baird, the Washington-state Democrat who chairs the Subcommittee on Research and Science Education, looked at the witnesses and the crowd of more than 100 highly appreciative activists from groups like the American Association of University Women and the National Women’s LawCenter and asked, “What kind of hammer should we use?”


For the five male, gray-haired congressmen, the hearing was a happy occasion—an opportunity to be chivalrous and witty before an audience of concerned women, and to demonstrate their goodwill and eagerness to set things right. It was also a historic occasion…..


In 2006 the committee released a report, “Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering,” that claimed to find “pervasive unexamined gender bias.” It received lavish media attention and has become the standard reference work for the “STEM” gender-equity movement (the acronym stands for science, technology, engineering, and math).

At the hearing, Shalala warned that strong measures would be needed to improve the “hostile climate” women face in the academy. This “crisis,” as she called it, “clearly calls for a transformation of academic institutions….Our nation’s future depends on it.”

Shalala and other speakers called for rigorous application of Title IX and other punitive measures. Witness Freeman Hrabowski, president of the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, stressed the need to threaten obstinate faculties with loss of funding: “People listen to money…. Make the people listen to the money talk!”


“We don’t accept biology as destiny…. We vaccinate, we inoculate, we medicate.... I propose we adopt the same attitude toward biological sex differences.” Said feminist Virginia Valian. In other words, the ubiquitous female propensity to nurture should be treated as a kind of disorder or disease

In 2001, the NSF awarded Valian and her Hunter colleagues $3.9 MILLION to develop equity programs and workshops for the “scientific community at large.” Should Congress pass the Gender Bias Elimination Act, which mandates workshops for university department chairs, members of review panels, and agency program officers seeking federal funding, Valian will become one of the most prominent women in American scientific education.

The NSF has an annual budget of $5.9 BILLION devoted to “promoting the progress of science” and “securing the national defense.” It is not easy to understand how its ADVANCE program or its deep association with Virginia Valian is serving those goals

[ In short Gov. Research fund now being split in 51/49 along the gender line rather than merit. PLUS, numerous funds for women researchers where men researchers would not get.

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 commu nity 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 con sequential changes in the regulations regarding government grants; and congressional hearings attended mostly by true believers.

American scientific excellence is a precious national resource. It is the foundation of our economy and of the nation’s health and safety. Norman Augustine, retired CEO of Lockheed Martin, and Burton Richter, Nobel laureate in physics, once pointed out that MIT alone—its faculty, alumni, and staff—started more than 5,000 companies in the past 50 years

6 Answers

  • ­
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    I don't feel "entitled". I am where I am through studying hard, missing out on much of a social life for 6 years, and from working 60+ hours a week at my job. I've never participated in any pro-woman scholarship or entitlement, that I know of anyway. When I started in my engineering classes, I was the only woman there. There were tests and prerequisites to get into it, and many people, many of them women, were turned away.

    I think that women have been held back throughout history, but I don't think that giving us preference is the way to go. I like to know that I've accomplished what I've done without any special treatment.

  • Sol
    Lv 4
    1 decade ago

    It's not fair for either gender to be specifically entitled to this or that, but you will have a difficult time telling the rest of the world that. I walked into a job last week, said I was looking for (name of the person I was to see) and the man there yelled out to someone upstairs, "Hey, the cleaning lady's here!"

    I'm an electrical engineer, and I've been working as a field engineer for quite a few years now. I was dressed in a jumpsuit that my company likes us to wear for certain onsite jobs. I told my co-workers about it later, and the men told me they've gone onsite to that particular job, and no one has ever assumed they were "cleaning men".

    The world is not a fair place. I personally don't want preferential treatment for my gender.

  • Anonymous
    5 years ago

    Quota systems are never good. Same as that affirmative action rubbish. The best footballer should be picked in the team. The smartest scientist should get the grant. The most suitable applicant should get the job etc. etc. I don't see how anyone can argue differently.

  • ­
    Lv 5
    1 decade ago

    I think what's important is for women to not be discriminated against. I don't think it's any better if the intentions are to discriminate against men to try to make up for previous practices.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago


Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.