Here is the article. Recommended.
I agree with Sommers (wikipedia) that it’s worthwhile to uncover and challenge the arguments being made in favor of gender equality in universities. These arguments seek to gobble up all in their path.
For example, when research by a psychologist is used to argue how science should be taught, then there may be a problem.
It would seem this ambitious psychologist may be seeking to influence all of science without the understanding to do so. The success such an effort has is in lowering the standard of debate, silencing criticism, inciting the passions, and appealing to politics and current sentiment where one’s own thinking fails.
While her work is welcome, it seems Sommers is fighting fire with fire, and I question what will likely be the outcome of her arguments as well. There are limits to her ideas.
As I’ve posted before, others are responding to the current equity idealogues. These responses are refreshing and often useful, but I’m reminded of this quote:
“Choose your enemies carefully, for you will become like them.”
Please don’t associate the photo with the quote.
Alas, this is not a dead horse, and I’m not still beating it.
Addition: Of course, I’m not really sure that men are inherently any better than women at mathematics. I’ll leave that to someone wiser. As for some of the arguments driving gender equality…