Academic Honesty/For the Record/People, not Causes
Share
6:19pm Monday, Aug 27
I meant to write up a lengthy discussion on PAX, and gamer culture, and reasons that Wil Wheaton is actually quite awesome, and about the happiness I felt seeing an old friend for the first time.
 
Instead, I'll dig up an old saw that my new Facebook friend and old roommate Dan might remember.
 
I am not a sexist.
 
I've been accused of hating on women two times of significance in my life. Once by some anonymous posters at Albion, and once by Liz. The first incident involved my decision to give up my ticket for the Vagina Monologues because I felt I would not enjoy it at the end of the day. Because, I felt, being a male and lacking a Vagina, I was excluded and derided, my commitment to ending violence against women somehow less worthy, because I acknowledged and was committed against violence against men and children as well.
 
This is something of a recurring theme during various feminist causes. (It should be noted that while this is a targeted attack against certain feminist groups, its a problem that exists in well, every special interest group) The drum is beat on how terrible things are for women, and if you don't follow the script, you're The Enemy.
 
Where this becomes part of the general trend of groups, is that ethics gets thrown out the window in favor of exclusive morality. What i mean by this, is something is determined as Right. In this case, that women are equally capable of doing everything that men can, and, the implication is, somehow are more deserving of everything, because they've gotten so much shit in the past and present. People and things that suggest otherwise become Wrong, ignoring whatever process and protections they have been granted to be wrong.
 
With the case of Lawrence Summers, former president of Harvard, this came up again. For those of you not familiar with what I'm talking about, Summers went to a closed economics conference and was asked to be provocative. To pull from Wikipedia: In analyzing the disproportionate numbers of men over women in high-end science and engineering jobs, he suggested that after the conflict between employers' demands for high time commitments and women's disproportionate role in the raising of children the next most important factor might be the above-mentioned greater variance in intelligence among men than women, and that this difference in variance might be intrinsic.
 
In plain English, there is some statistical evidence that boys and girls have the same average intelligence, but that there are more boys at the extremes, high and low, than girls. Summers said this might be because of intrinsic differences. An attendee leaked Summer's comments to the public, a bunch of people got offended, especially in the humanities department at Harvard, and he resigned.
 
I supported Summers' right to say what he did. I still do. I do, for the record, think he is probably incorrect that intrinsic differences are the second most important thing. I'm not convinced they exist in a real way and aren't in fact evidence of intrinsic differences leading to different but equal in capability brain function, which leads to different but equal in capability learning styles, which thanks to a crippled US. Education system, ends up showing up as problems on certain intelligence tests, but hey, I'm a teacher in training who hates the system and holds hope that everyone can learn, if we learn how to teach them. I am further, and for the record, convinced that the most important indication of anyone's success in anything, is that individual, not their race, class, or gender.
 
Liz was offended by Summers and supported his resignation. I, on the other hand, felt that what he said was a form of protected speech (academic inquiry). Liz found offense at this. Which should not have surprised me. In fact, if I had been paying attention I would have predicted that saying anything would lead to a fight. Actually to be honest, I /did/ predict it. But I'm a debate coach, a writer, a future teacher, and future historian. I believe in the conflict of ideas, and that if you're willing to speak your opinion, you should expect people to come at you where you have flaws. I am also something of a curmudgeon, so we can file the fact I keep picking up the gauntlet when she chucks it at me as a character flaw.
 
Summers was, to refer back to my notion of exclusive morality, Wrong. He said something that was Not Allowed by our academic liberal conceit that socialization is the only thing holding women back. (It isn't, although I'll bet it takes the lion's share by far)
 
On the other hand, the ethics of a closed academic conference say that he nothing is beyond the pale of academic inquiry. So, my opinion was very tightly limited to protecting Summers' right to be provocative and well, Wrong and incorrect. Because science dies when people are afraid to say something that isn't Right. Nothing is beyond academic inquiry. Everything should be examined, tested, battered until its broken.
 
It is ok to me when people disagree with the idea of academic freedom and honesty. I think they're dead wrong, and thats fine. I am ok when people think that Summer's was a sexist and or incompetent to begin with. I am skeptical as to the first, and have no opinion on the second
 
I do not however, enjoy being called a sexist. Or a racist, or any of the other societal bogeymen that exist. I am tired of it, because I hear it from some of the most intolerant people in the world. People who blame Religion and religious people for everything, men for everything, and wealthy people for everything. I am religious, male, and I come from a wealthy background. I have seen the same people swear up and down that I'm brilliant at math because I'm Chinese, call me ignorant in turn, because I point out the real deficiencies in the public education system to teach minorities, women, and people of low income.
 
For the record, I know and have befriended, and done my best to understand people of multiple faiths. I know more atheists and agnostics than I can count, I've met religious fundamentalists, held conversations with perfect strangers and respected their opinions on religion. I support their rights as human beings, and I accept them as who they are
 
For the record, I know and have befriended people across the spectrum of so called sexual orientation, from rather heterosexual to rather homosexual and back again. I have dealt with pan-sexuality, and while I don't understand it and remain somewhat skeptical, I accept that I do not understand it, and respect the fact that self identified pan-sexual do believe it. I support their rights as human beings.
 
For the record, i know and have befriended people who are across the spectrum of gender. I know males and females, and those who find themselves identifying in between, or have been born male, and felt female inside. I know (not well) a woman who was and is, physically hermaphroditic (XXY chromosomes) and done my best to listen to her explain herself. There are parts of me that are skeptical of trans gendered, or gender queer movements and science, and position statements to be sure, but I support their rights as human beings.
 
For the record, I know and have befriended people who have a number of strange (from my perspective) sexual kinks. I know those who are sick and disabled. I know the those who are far too thin, and those who are far too fat. I know people who are very smart, and people who are very dumb. I accept all of their rights as human beings.
 
I do not judge any of them as somehow less worthy or morally deficient and I'll bet many of you do.
 
For the record, I know and have befriended people who are intolerant of at least one of of the above. I accept them as who they are. And while I disagree with their choice, and believe that the most moral lifestyle is to find a way to love and embrace all around us, as who they are. For those of us who can, we must try to heal their wounds, fix their problems, and embrace their personalities, and know how fraught with danger and difficulty such a path is.
 
The point of this little exercise, is not just to flaunt how tolerant I am, but to make a point. My tolerance is real, and it comes from experience not by going to advocacy groups and banging the drum. It comes from people. Because the ultimate expression of tolerance is to love people, and to embrace them with your heart. At the same time, we must use our minds and reason to analyze as objectively as possible the problems in their lives. We need to resist the temptation to declare ourselves the Heroes, and all those who oppose us the Enemy. Then, we need to act. Its not enough to have the correct opinions, its a question of action.
 
If you can't do that, I understand, but don't call me a sexist, a racist, or label me any of the other villains in our society.
 
I know I am not, and if you took the effort to know me, you would know that too.