Heather MacDonald eviscerates Harvard’s Diversity Grovel in City Journal.
Harvard University has just pledged $50 million for faculty “diversity” efforts, penance for President Lawrence Summers’ public mention of sex differences in cognition. The university would have been better off hiring a top-notch conjuror, since only magic could produce a trove of previously undiscovered female and minority academic stars suitable for tenuring.
. . . For connoisseurs of diversity claptrap, Harvard’s just released Report of the Task Force on Women Faculty is a thing of beauty, a peerless example of the destruction of higher learning by identity politics.
The report calls for doing what Harvard’s been doing for years, she writes, only with new bureaucrats and new terminology. The new senior vice provost will issue reports on “metrics,” not plain old “data.”
Harvard may be able to outbid other universities for female and minority science professors, but MacDonald fears the way to produce “diversity” and “equity” in the “metrics” will be to lower standards.
In one of his many groveling apologies for the “wounds” he had inflicted on delicate faculty sensibilities, (Summers) parrots the most left-wing, radical tenet of feminist constructivist ideology: that traditional standards of merit are merely white male ploys to silence female and minority “voices.” The “underlying . . . fact” of universities, he told the faculty at a February 15 meeting, is that they were “originally designed by men and for men.” . . . “That reality [of a male founding],” he said, “shapes everything from . . . assumptions about effectiveness in teaching and mentoring, to concepts of excellence.” In other words, there is a male “concept of excellence” in genome research, say, that may not be the same as a female or black “concept of excellence” in genome research.
I doubt female science professors want to be considered under a separate and feminine concept of excellence.