Title IX Takes on Science

Congress is investigating whether university science departments around the country are in violation of the storied equality law; its findings could have a grave impact on the future of science

By Brett Zarda Posted 07.18.2008 at 10:47 am 10 Comments

In Class Congress is looking at how well universities around the country adhere to Title IX. iStockphoto

Men once greatly outnumbered women in collegiate athletics—Title IX brought equality. Men currently outnumber women in science—could Title IX have the same effect? Associated primarily with sports since its inception 26 years ago, Title IX actually applies to sexual discrimination throughout education. According to a recent article in the New York Times, the National Science Foundation and NASA, at the behest of Congress, are quietly investigating whether the science departments of universities might be in violation of Title IX.

Most people know two things about Title IX: 1. It created an impressive increase in the quality and quantity of female collegiate athletics, and 2. It resulted in a disappointing elimination of some male collegiate sports to reach the required equal balance. Some are concerned that parallel results could be achieved.

“Colleges already practice affirmative action for women in science, but now they’ll be so intimidated by the Title IX legal hammer that they may institute quota systems,” Dr. Christina Hoff Sommers, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, told the Times. “In sports, they had to eliminate a lot of male teams to achieve Title IX parity. It’ll be devastating to American science if every male-dominated field has to be calibrated to women’s level of interest.”

The numbers suggest the need for quotas might be unnecessary and a generation too late. Finding a blatant disparity similar to that once seen in athletics won’t happen in science. While women lag behind men overall in science there are disciplines where they outnumber men (60 percent of biology undergrads and 70 percent of psychology Ph.D.s are women). Susan Pinker, a clinical psychologist, thinks existing difference might just come down to choice.

“Creating equal opportunities for women does not mean that they’ll choose what men choose in equal numbers,” said Ms. Pinker. “The freedom to act on one’s preferences can create a more exaggerated gender split in some fields.”

It’s uncertain where the Title IX investigation will lead, but following too close to the sports analogy could be dangerous. Nobody would argue that as a nation, we don’t need more women in science. But, we need more men too.

Previous Article: Smoking and Coffee-Drinking Really Is High Among AA Attendees

Next Article: Super Jaws

Want to learn more about breakthroughs in electronics, medicine, nanotech, and more?
Subscribe to Popular Science and enter to win $5,000!

10 Comments

link to this comment

jellybean

07/18/08 at 1:29 pm

i think we need to be really careful not to condescend women and their choices to follow a science career path or something entirely different. title IX is to prevent sexual discrimination, so i think it's great if they examine whether or not it exists in this area, but the deciding factor shouldn't be based solely on the the fact that more men pursue these degrees. and, what's the other side of the coin? will this cause a push to equal out numbers in female dominated degrees - like education? they need to be very careful and who, if anyone, pursuing this will actually help.

link to this comment

Musicman24286

07/18/08 at 1:59 pm

unless you were trying to make a subtle point, I think you meant "as a nation, we need more women in science." Let women choose their career path without any obstacles, and if that career isn't science, don't worry about it.

link to this comment

jfolsom04

07/18/08 at 3:07 pm

Yes I agree with you Musicman, women should choose their own careers. It should be more as an encouragement rather than a legal push.

link to this comment

Lentz

07/18/08 at 8:22 pm

The main problem with this is that they already offer plenty of scholarships and other incentives to women to pursue degrees in science related fields. This use of Title IX just seems like over kill in trying to get more women into science, as many of you already said every one is allowed to chose their career path.

link to this comment

ford2go

07/19/08 at 12:36 am

I can't believe that they're serious. There were mainly Men's athletics ( which, by the way, paid a lot of bills) back in the BAD OLD DAYS

There aren't any Men's Physics/Math/Science/Engineering classes that I'm aware of.

Perhaps some of the profs are a little cold -- ya think! But, as far as I could ever tell, they treated everybody the same.

I hope that no one is seriously pursuing this issue.

link to this comment

JRS ONE

07/19/08 at 12:45 am

This is insane. Just the thing Congress needs to focus on. Where is my scholarship to major in women's studies? I was an economics major and the male:female ratio was probably about 15:1. Every semester the department faculty, 67% women, would hold an event for freshman and sophomore girls but they consistently found that most of them simply weren't interested.

link to this comment

comper6

07/20/08 at 12:01 pm

There are female dominated fields and male dominated fields. So, this would be the equivalent of football. Women don't really go toward football and men may not go for psychology and biology as women do.

link to this comment

jisom@usa.com

07/21/08 at 3:41 pm

20 years ago I needed to hire a Ph.D radiochemist. I was told I would have to hire a woman, preferable a minority woman. I had a problem, there were no women applicants. HR said, no woman, no radiochemist. Further investigation revealed there were only 2 Ph.D women radiochemists in the US. I was able to get one of them to apply and she was hired. I would make a sexist joke about radiochemistry; but you guys don't seem to laugh much.

link to this comment

NotImpressed

07/22/08 at 8:53 am

What should Title IX should have said...........

As long as the percentage of Women in a Sport or Subject area is at or above the percentage of women in Combat areas within the military, then the School is in compliance......

Even though the authors of Title IX were never really trying to assure "Equality", I'd bet that even they, never envisioned it would ever be taken to the extent it has been....

If T9 is to be applied in the sciences, why is it not applied accross the board?....Oh that's right, the percentages are in the other direction in most other areas.....And there is no verbage in T9 to "Fix" that.....

Just watch, there will soon be new Science Departments that all Start with the word "Women's" ..... Then the Scholarships and Assistance Moneys will no longer be based on Credentials, but rather "Skewed" to get the "Numbers" correct.

I pitty the hard working, intelligent HS Boy Wrestler.....

Sexism with good intent, is still Sexism

link to this comment

4_teh_lulz

07/24/08 at 5:36 pm

For those who misunderstood the last line, mainly Musicman24 it seems.

There is no subtle hint or anything else in the line;

"Nobody would argue that as a nation, we don’t need more women in science. But, we need more men too"

I am sure u can see that this makes perfect sense already but i will write it another way in any case.

There is NO arguement that we do need more women in science. But we do need more men too. We need more people in science in general.

That is exactly what that lines says.

See when you say that Nobody would argue that u do not need something or someone. Then you are saying that people will agree that you do need something or someone.

Clear?