The onward march of Political Correctness
Discussion
I was reminded of this by the Male/Female genes thread.
Basically the president of Harvard is facing the chop for some fairly innocuous comments he made about innate differences between men and women-The poison of political correctness is getting ever stronger in American Universities.
Economist Article below
What is happening at Harvard would be funny were it not outrageous
This week, the faculty met to discuss the university's president, Larry Summers; there were calls for him to resign and he may still face a no-confidence motion at the next meeting. For his part, the normally pugnacious former treasury secretary promised to “temper my words and actions in ways that convey respect and help us work together more harmoniously.”
The prompt for this is a speech Mr Summers made in January, in which he postulated that the shortage of female science professors might in part be due to innate differences between the sexes. But the current fracas really began three years ago, when Harvard appointed its erstwhile economics professor to head the place. Rather than merely raising money for an already rich institution, Mr Summers made it clear that he wanted to improve standards at the university—not easy when most professors have tenure (ie, jobs for life). First, he criticised “grade inflation”, the process of awarding pupils ever higher marks (half the grades given to undergraduates were As). Then he told Cornel West, a black professor at the African-American studies department who had become a media star, that he needed to do more academic work. Mr West took his movie-and-rap career off to Princeton.
If these are the sort of “words and actions” that Mr Summers will now temper, then Harvard is already the poorer for it. But now consider his “sexist” January speech. Note first that this was given in a private capacity to an economics conference, and that he had been briefed to ask provocative questions. That would not excuse Mr Summers being gratuitously offensive about women. But was he? A biologist who stormed out said she was so offended that she could hardly breathe.
Reading the transcript, which is available here and which Mr Summers should have released sooner, one begins to wonder what kind of examination of female scientists would not offend some people. Mr Summers does not blame anything on anything; instead, he advances—with plenty of caveats and an uncharacteristic dose of humility—three hypotheses. First, that discrimination and social pressure might hold women back; second, that 80-hour-a-week science careers might be harder for women to take on; and third, that the outcome might be related to findings that men tend to be over-represented at the top of science-aptitude tests.
Mr Summers said that out of the three explanations offered, he thought discrimination was probably the least important. This last judgment, even allowing for Mr Summers's protestations about his lack of expertise, was gauche: after all, in his day job the provocateur has to help decide whom the faculty should hire, and the number of female scientists has gone down. Against that, there is no evidence that Harvard's president has ever acted in a discriminatory manner. And the firestorm is not about one judgment, but about his right to raise the issue of innate differences at all.
Here all the evidence is with Mr Summers. He cited various respectable academic sources; and even beyond those there is a scientific debate about the difference between male and female brains. Boys, for instance, are four times more likely to be autistic than girls. It was a legitimate subject to broach.
In the end, the debate about Mr Summers comes down to a simple choice. On one side sit short-term expediency and censorship; on the other, freedom of speech and long-term effectiveness. If Mr Summers's foes manage to sack or gag him, they may have a happier university in the short term. But they will have snuffed out an invigorating source of criticism in a cosy world. And they will also have endangered the fundamental right of an academic to ask questions. This should be enough to make liberal opinion everywhere start gasping for air.
Basically the president of Harvard is facing the chop for some fairly innocuous comments he made about innate differences between men and women-The poison of political correctness is getting ever stronger in American Universities.
Economist Article below
What is happening at Harvard would be funny were it not outrageous
This week, the faculty met to discuss the university's president, Larry Summers; there were calls for him to resign and he may still face a no-confidence motion at the next meeting. For his part, the normally pugnacious former treasury secretary promised to “temper my words and actions in ways that convey respect and help us work together more harmoniously.”
The prompt for this is a speech Mr Summers made in January, in which he postulated that the shortage of female science professors might in part be due to innate differences between the sexes. But the current fracas really began three years ago, when Harvard appointed its erstwhile economics professor to head the place. Rather than merely raising money for an already rich institution, Mr Summers made it clear that he wanted to improve standards at the university—not easy when most professors have tenure (ie, jobs for life). First, he criticised “grade inflation”, the process of awarding pupils ever higher marks (half the grades given to undergraduates were As). Then he told Cornel West, a black professor at the African-American studies department who had become a media star, that he needed to do more academic work. Mr West took his movie-and-rap career off to Princeton.
If these are the sort of “words and actions” that Mr Summers will now temper, then Harvard is already the poorer for it. But now consider his “sexist” January speech. Note first that this was given in a private capacity to an economics conference, and that he had been briefed to ask provocative questions. That would not excuse Mr Summers being gratuitously offensive about women. But was he? A biologist who stormed out said she was so offended that she could hardly breathe.
Reading the transcript, which is available here and which Mr Summers should have released sooner, one begins to wonder what kind of examination of female scientists would not offend some people. Mr Summers does not blame anything on anything; instead, he advances—with plenty of caveats and an uncharacteristic dose of humility—three hypotheses. First, that discrimination and social pressure might hold women back; second, that 80-hour-a-week science careers might be harder for women to take on; and third, that the outcome might be related to findings that men tend to be over-represented at the top of science-aptitude tests.
Mr Summers said that out of the three explanations offered, he thought discrimination was probably the least important. This last judgment, even allowing for Mr Summers's protestations about his lack of expertise, was gauche: after all, in his day job the provocateur has to help decide whom the faculty should hire, and the number of female scientists has gone down. Against that, there is no evidence that Harvard's president has ever acted in a discriminatory manner. And the firestorm is not about one judgment, but about his right to raise the issue of innate differences at all.
Here all the evidence is with Mr Summers. He cited various respectable academic sources; and even beyond those there is a scientific debate about the difference between male and female brains. Boys, for instance, are four times more likely to be autistic than girls. It was a legitimate subject to broach.
In the end, the debate about Mr Summers comes down to a simple choice. On one side sit short-term expediency and censorship; on the other, freedom of speech and long-term effectiveness. If Mr Summers's foes manage to sack or gag him, they may have a happier university in the short term. But they will have snuffed out an invigorating source of criticism in a cosy world. And they will also have endangered the fundamental right of an academic to ask questions. This should be enough to make liberal opinion everywhere start gasping for air.
Oh for crying out loud....
Women are better at languages then men - FACT
Men have better spatial awareness than women - FACT
Men are better at reading maps than women - FACT
Women are better at dealing with stress - FACT
Women are better at multi-tasking - FACT
Women make better snap judgements - FACT
Men are better at making educated / tactical judgements - FACT
and if I remember correctly, men are more likely to be colour blind....
Men and women are different - whats to flippin' PC about that?
.... and strangely, the different races from around the globe are also better / worse at certain things. Afro-caribean (sp?) people have better body / mass / muscle mixture for high impact atheletics. Not necessarily significant to make them the best, but enough to allow them to make better progress than caucasian for example.... Middle-Africans make excellent long distance runners.... the list goes on. Is this racist?
Stuff you flippin' PC stuff....
Women are better at languages then men - FACT
Men have better spatial awareness than women - FACT
Men are better at reading maps than women - FACT
Women are better at dealing with stress - FACT
Women are better at multi-tasking - FACT
Women make better snap judgements - FACT
Men are better at making educated / tactical judgements - FACT
and if I remember correctly, men are more likely to be colour blind....
Men and women are different - whats to flippin' PC about that?
.... and strangely, the different races from around the globe are also better / worse at certain things. Afro-caribean (sp?) people have better body / mass / muscle mixture for high impact atheletics. Not necessarily significant to make them the best, but enough to allow them to make better progress than caucasian for example.... Middle-Africans make excellent long distance runners.... the list goes on. Is this racist?
Stuff you flippin' PC stuff....
These may be all recognised facts-but to mention it is deemed now to be racist and/or sexist-and may loose you your job in American Acadamia
Remember PC started in the Campuses of American Universities it has spread here and is growing ever more virulent.
In a few years time here -watch this space, a scientist may be hounded to resign for voicing facts that are not PC.
>> Edited by JagLover on Thursday 17th March 17:07
Remember PC started in the Campuses of American Universities it has spread here and is growing ever more virulent.
In a few years time here -watch this space, a scientist may be hounded to resign for voicing facts that are not PC.
>> Edited by JagLover on Thursday 17th March 17:07
pbirkett said:
I heard today that the word brainstorm is apparently not politically correct. You might offend some epileptic.
The correct term is "Thought Shower"
Changing the names of things in order not to offend someone is perhaps the most noticeable element of PC-Occasionally annoying sometimes funny
This is on an altogether different scale-to fire a man for making a statement that is factually correct but not PC-This is reminiscent of the censorship of a totalitarian state.
Communism may have ended but an iron curtain is coming down again.
pbirkett said:
I heard today that the word brainstorm is apparently not politically correct. You might offend some epileptic.
The correct term is "Thought Shower"
My girlfriend held a meeting and she was told that tripe. Of course she insisted on calling it BRAINSTORMING throughout. Apparently it offended mentally ill people - how many of them were in the meeting I don't know!
off_again said:
Oh for crying out loud....
Women are better at languages then men - FACT
Men have better spatial awareness than women - FACT
Men are better at reading maps than women - FACT
Women are better at dealing with stress - FACT
Women are better at multi-tasking - FACT
Women make better snap judgements - FACT
Men are better at making educated / tactical judgements - FACT
and if I remember correctly, men are more likely to be colour blind....
Men and women are different - whats to flippin' PC about that?
.... and strangely, the different races from around the globe are also better / worse at certain things. Afro-caribean (sp?) people have better body / mass / muscle mixture for high impact atheletics. Not necessarily significant to make them the best, but enough to allow them to make better progress than caucasian for example.... Middle-Africans make excellent long distance runners.... the list goes on. Is this racist?
Stuff you flippin' PC stuff....
I wholeheartedly agree with this. I am sick of this PC rubbish.
It seems I hear something or experience something new everyday concerning political correctness. I get so annoyed with people saying "you can't say that; it's not very PC". My response is two fold...... The simple - "I can say it and I just said it" and
"You want PC? How about, you're oppressing my right to freedom of expression!"
These PC loonies should be put on a remote island (somewhere cold) full of chavs and the impending doom for all concerned filmed for a fly on the wall TV show.
Okay check this out.
I have just come back from a governors meeting. We have just had to agree to let the head close the WHOLE school, some 650 odd pupils, next Wednesday if UNISON goes through with it’s threat to strike.
Let’s forget the right’s and wrongs of the reason for the strike in the first place.
Why? Because 25% of the Learning Assistants, 2 of the 6 admin staff, the caretaker, his deputy and 50% of the cleaners might be on strike.
Okay so the head/deputy head can unlock and lock up – we are not talking about this adding more than say an hour’s work to their day – Small problem as might step on a few toes but not the end of the world.
Teachers could empty the bin in their classroom at the end of the day into the main refuse area leaving those cleaners who are not on strike with the spare time to do the important health and safety things like clean the loos – Slightly bigger problem as again there would be a certain ‘your doing my job for free’ about it and you have the fact that some of the teachers are ‘above’ such work, even to help out for a day.
But the lack of LA’s is the clincher – For some reason the school couldn’t run without them for one bl00dy day! They do a vital job, don’t get me wrong but a few of them off for one day and the whole school has to close!!!
So what does this have to do with PC? Well I suggested that we wrote to the parents of the children who relied on having a dedicated LA explaining the situation and asking if they would possibly mind if, in these extreme circumstances, they would be able to keep their child at home that day. That way the school could have stayed open if the strike goes ahead.
I think a few of the PC governors nearly shat themselves at this – “You can’t do that, that would be discrimination!” stormed one of them.
So let me get this right – we have to close an ENTIRE school because a few people are off rather than do this because it would be discrimination.
Or to put it another way:-
Because of the actions of a single union we have to make the parents of 650 children make prospective arrangements to look after their kids IF the strike happens. Well in my case this would cost me about £40 in child minding, thankfully we have a great lady who will do it on spec if it happens, but god knows what it will cost one family who I know would have to cater for 3 kids, not just the one, and whose minder will charge if they book her turn up or not!
So we can f**k everyone because to make the best of a bad deal would be discrimination. What a load of BS
I have just come back from a governors meeting. We have just had to agree to let the head close the WHOLE school, some 650 odd pupils, next Wednesday if UNISON goes through with it’s threat to strike.
Let’s forget the right’s and wrongs of the reason for the strike in the first place.
Why? Because 25% of the Learning Assistants, 2 of the 6 admin staff, the caretaker, his deputy and 50% of the cleaners might be on strike.
Okay so the head/deputy head can unlock and lock up – we are not talking about this adding more than say an hour’s work to their day – Small problem as might step on a few toes but not the end of the world.
Teachers could empty the bin in their classroom at the end of the day into the main refuse area leaving those cleaners who are not on strike with the spare time to do the important health and safety things like clean the loos – Slightly bigger problem as again there would be a certain ‘your doing my job for free’ about it and you have the fact that some of the teachers are ‘above’ such work, even to help out for a day.
But the lack of LA’s is the clincher – For some reason the school couldn’t run without them for one bl00dy day! They do a vital job, don’t get me wrong but a few of them off for one day and the whole school has to close!!!
So what does this have to do with PC? Well I suggested that we wrote to the parents of the children who relied on having a dedicated LA explaining the situation and asking if they would possibly mind if, in these extreme circumstances, they would be able to keep their child at home that day. That way the school could have stayed open if the strike goes ahead.
I think a few of the PC governors nearly shat themselves at this – “You can’t do that, that would be discrimination!” stormed one of them.
So let me get this right – we have to close an ENTIRE school because a few people are off rather than do this because it would be discrimination.
Or to put it another way:-
Because of the actions of a single union we have to make the parents of 650 children make prospective arrangements to look after their kids IF the strike happens. Well in my case this would cost me about £40 in child minding, thankfully we have a great lady who will do it on spec if it happens, but god knows what it will cost one family who I know would have to cater for 3 kids, not just the one, and whose minder will charge if they book her turn up or not!
So we can f**k everyone because to make the best of a bad deal would be discrimination. What a load of BS
Politics of any kind and science rarely make happy bedfellows (or should that be bedpersons? 
), but it is scarey how half-witted morons can force their f
ked up agenda on those who are far more intelligent and know far better. The effect of political correctness on the social sciences is bad enough, but there is something uniquely depressed about seeing its effect on the natural sciences. 
), but it is scarey how half-witted morons can force their fked up agenda on those who are far more intelligent and know far better. The effect of political correctness on the social sciences is bad enough, but there is something uniquely depressed about seeing its effect on the natural sciences. 
Chatting to the wife eariler and came up with another PC nightmare.
Turns out the wife has a nut allergy. Went to the doctors recently since its getting worse and warned about the potential need for an Epi Pen. She was talking to a friend who about this:
Friend: You cant say that!
Wife: Say what?
Friend: THAT, its just not right!
Wife: What the hell are you talking about?
Friend: Its so insulting....
Wife: WHAT?
Friend: Epi, its so nasty and just wrong
Well you get the idea anyway. Epi Pen.... is epinephrine you moron....
PC GONE MAD.....
Turns out the wife has a nut allergy. Went to the doctors recently since its getting worse and warned about the potential need for an Epi Pen. She was talking to a friend who about this:
Friend: You cant say that!
Wife: Say what?
Friend: THAT, its just not right!
Wife: What the hell are you talking about?
Friend: Its so insulting....
Wife: WHAT?
Friend: Epi, its so nasty and just wrong
Well you get the idea anyway. Epi Pen.... is epinephrine you moron....
PC GONE MAD.....
MrRotty was diagnosed with mild epilepsy a few years ago and has to take tablets twice a day at mealtimes. He has received a few odd looks at times, but people get embarrassed when he explains why. So..we resorted to making a joke about it - "They're my/his spaz tablets." But....we were recently taken to task by an acquaintance for 'belittling' the condition. Excuse me? if an epileptic can't joke about his own condition, who can?! World's gone mad I tell ya!
off_again said:
Oh for crying out loud....
Women are better at languages then men - FACT
Men have better spatial awareness than women - FACT
Men are better at reading maps than women - FACT
Women are better at dealing with stress - FACT
Women are better at multi-tasking - FACT
Women make better snap judgements - FACT
Men are better at making educated / tactical judgements - FACT
and if I remember correctly, men are more likely to be colour blind....
Men and women are different - whats to flippin' PC about that?
Men communicate MUCH better than women where facts and figures are concerned. Social communication, such as sending birthday cards or finding out who is dating who is a female speciality.
If a woman feeds the baby with one hand while stiring a pan with the other she is multi-tasking. But oddly if a man phones a business contact while the computer prints out a letter to a supplier he's not multi-tasking. I reckon men multi-task just as much and just as effectively as women, it just isn't recognised as often.
Women better at dealing with stress? On what basis? Men and women tend to face stress over different issues and much of this is arguably cultural, not genetic.
Women make better snap judgements? On which issues?
MrsRotty said:
MrRotty was diagnosed with mild epilepsy a few years ago and has to take tablets twice a day at mealtimes. He has received a few odd looks at times, but people get embarrassed when he explains why. So..we resorted to making a joke about it - "They're my/his spaz tablets." But....we were recently taken to task by an acquaintance for 'belittling' the condition. Excuse me? if an epileptic can't joke about his own condition, who can?! World's gone mad I tell ya!
Genuis
AlexH said:
Politics of any kind and science rarely make happy bedfellows (or should that be bedpersons?
Agreed!!
It reminds me of the Catholic church forcing Gallieo to retract his statement that the earth revolves around the sun, rather than the other way around.
JagLover said:
It reminds me of the Catholic church forcing Gallieo to retract his statement that the earth revolves around the sun, rather than the other way around.
Take that back you heathen
The thing that makes me smile, in a world gone made way, is that its the "possibility" of causing someone offence that is the issue. Rarely have I seen someone who is in the position to take offence actually take offence (my mum who has been in a wheel chair for the last thirty years still refers to herself as a raspberry ripple for crying out loud!).
Jinx said:
It reminds me of the Catholic church forcing Gallieo to retract his statement that the earth revolves around the sun, rather than the other way around.
Take that back you heathen
The thing that makes me smile, in a world gone made way, is that its the "possibility" of causing someone offence that is the issue. Rarely have I seen someone who is in the position to take offence actually take offence (my mum who has been in a wheel chair for the last thirty years still refers to herself as a raspberry ripple for crying out loud!).
You are right there-It is usually The White middle class (sweeping stereotype alert)living in Islington who are offended on behalf of the minority group in question.
We had the brainstorm/word shower PC bull at college a few weeks ago. I was unfortunatly informed that it couldnt be renamed to shower of PC shite as that was also un PC.
The fact is, 99% of stuff that is deemed un PC is deemed as such by white middle englanders with a guilt complex. They assume anything that relates to (or sounds like it relates to) a condition, religion or ethnic group would be found offensive when in actual fact, the assumtion that they would find such petty things offensive is actually offensive.
The fact is, 99% of stuff that is deemed un PC is deemed as such by white middle englanders with a guilt complex. They assume anything that relates to (or sounds like it relates to) a condition, religion or ethnic group would be found offensive when in actual fact, the assumtion that they would find such petty things offensive is actually offensive.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff