Quotas Limiting Male Science Enrollment May Be To Come
Disgustingly, per Charlotte Allen at Minding the Campus, the Obama administration seems to be trying to expand the scope of Title IX -- as was mentioned in 2009 by the president:
In early 2009 a newly inaugurated President Obama wrote a letter to the American Association of University Women and other advocacy groups arguing that Title IX could be used to make "similar striking advances" for women in science and engineering as it had in sports--via "necessary attention and enforcement." According to Manhattan Institute fellow Diana Furchtgott-Roth, one federal agency, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, has produced a manual, "Title IX and STEM," that recommends that every university hire a full-time "Gender Equity Specialist" with a staff that would monitor science departments and labs for bias. The manual also recommends that universities fund departments based on gender and other "diversity" representation. Expect the rules likely to be issued by the Education Department under White House prodding to be similar--with the penalty for noncompliance to be the loss of federal funds.
The use of Title IX to force universities to restructure their curricula and alter the composition of their hard-science and engineering departments in order to achieve a supposed gender equity that matches neither the aptitudes nor the interests of many women isn't just heavy-handed and totalitarian. As study after study indicates, it's bad science as well.
Hans Bader writes at Open Market:
Quotas limiting the number of male students in science may be imposed by the Education Department in 2013.
...Critics have long argued that the Title IX cap on men's athletic participation is in tension with the Supreme Court's warnings against proportional representation. In a ruling by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the Supreme Court said that it is "completely unrealistic" to argue that women and minorities should be represented in each field or activity "in lockstep proportion to their representation in the local population." (See Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co. (1989)). In an earlier ruling, Justice O'Connor noted that it is "unrealistic to assume that unlawful discrimination is the sole cause of people failing to gravitate to jobs and employers in accord with the laws of chance." (See Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust Co. (1988).)
...I think that it would be a grave mistake to apply its standards, which were designed for allocating resources among all-male and all-female sports teams, to the very different context of math and science classes, which are coed. It is one thing to apply gender-based proportionality rules to single-sex teams, which are already themselves intrinsically gender-based. It is quite another to apply them to classes in science and math that are open to all students, regardless of gender, and are supposed to be gender-blind, not gender-specific or gender-based. Doing so is simply unconstitutional.
...Women are well-represented in scientific fields that involve lots of interaction with people. As The New York Times' John Tierney noted, "Despite supposed obstacles like "unconscious bias" and a shortage of role models and mentors, women now constitute about half of medical students, 60 percent of biology majors, and 70 percent of psychology Ph.D.'s. They earn the majority of doctorates in both the life sciences and the social sciences." By contrast, "They remain a minority in the physical sciences and engineering," which deal more with inanimate objects rather than people.
These gender-based differences are not the product of discrimination, and manifest themselves at a very early age. As a book on the biology of male-female differences notes, "Girl babies in their cribs are especially inclined to stare at images of human faces, whereas infant boys are likely to find inanimate objects every bit as attractive"; "this difference persists into adulthood: when shown images of people as well as things, men tend to remember the things, and women tend to remember the people."