American colleges seems to be systematically discriminating in favor of men and against women, and women seem to be cheering them on. Strange? Well, the reason for the discrimination is that the male-female ratio is approaching 40:60. That means that colleges are facing the scary prospect of having only 40 men for every 60 women. The men aren't complaining: even very ordinary guys now have a good chance of dating the attractive gals. But the women aren't happy at all. The Chronicle of Higher Education observes in its July 20 issue that "women are expected to fulfill a guy's sexual desire immediately or risk losing a prospective mate to the next girl in line."
So what are the colleges doing? The Chronicle reports that several colleges, both private and public, are making it easier for boys to get in, even though girls apply with comparable or better grades and standardized test scores. At William and Mary and the University of Richmond, for example, the acceptance rate for boys is around 13 percent higher than that for girls with matching credentials. The most surprising aspect of this gender discrimination is that no one seems to be objecting to it.
At first the feminist groups considered putting pressure on colleges to stop discriminating in favor of men. Then two things got in their way. The first was their own ideology of diversity. The feminists have been calling for gender balance for two decades now, and it's bit difficult to turn around and take the opposite line when the women outnumber the men. The second factor is women themselves, who have made it very clear that they want more men on campus.
I'm all for the merit principle myself, and I don't like smart women being turned away from campus to make room for less-capable men. At the same time I think we should recognize that gender and race are two different things. Race is what civil rights activist Morris Dees termed "the painted face." No one could say that male-female differences are equally irrelevant. Therefore treating men and women differently in some situations makes far more sense than discriminating on the basis of skin color.
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 4)
1. Why should the rules be changed for any reason?
If men aren't qualified, let them work harder.
Why do the do-gooders have to manipulate everything? Let the chips fall where they may.
How can you justify turning away better qualified applicants for any reason? How is it fair to those women? How can these administrators look themselves in the mirror?
Discrimination is BAD in whatever form it takes.
John Makuta at 10:54AM on Jul 24th 2007
2. All of the racist comments, whether from the comments or from the blog, are illogical and, therefore, intellectually inferior. Humans don't achieve race or gender; they don't improve themselves or the world around them based on race or gender. There is no volition, no free will required in race or gender. They are superficial, amoral attributes that have little to do with us as humans. Merit, on the other hand, is volitional and willful; it is achieved; it can better our lives and the world around us. Merit also speaks to, although not all-inclusively, character. An assessment of merit, therefore, is the most important means of ascertaining human value.
Virginia Murr at 11:05AM on Jul 24th 2007
3. I think the feminist movement has been the main cause for holding back women since the late sixties. Just as with civil rights for minorities, once the feminist movement was coopted by the most extreme fringe elements, consensus was lost and the majority of Americans, most of whom agreed with the initial premise of equality in all spheres for women, opted out. Many of these issues which began as legitimate, main stream issues and had the support of the vast majority of Americans have been systematically radicalized to the point that the agendas only include small neurotic constituencies which the average citizen ignores or pays lip service to. The analogy is the difference between the American revolution and the French revolution as pointed out by Edmund Burke. The american revolution worked because the goals were more important then the cause. The flexibility of the founding fathers led to our republic. The radicalism and inflexibilty of the French revolutionaries, who considered the revolution more important then the goal, ended in Napoleon.
eric at 11:11AM on Jul 24th 2007
4. You are so full of it. Do you really believe that race is irrelevent in this country? Were you born here? Have you ever been outside of Stanford or do you simply exsist in your ivory tower oblivious to the world around you. So lesser qualified men are getting spots over more qualified women to even out the dating pool and that's O.K. with you? But safeguards to insure that qualified minorities are given the same access to education (public and private) is not O.K. with you? So is this Hoover Institution anyting more than a place for ex-Republican aids to continue to spew their divisive rhetoric and promote policies of the Christian right? Geo
Geo at 11:23AM on Jul 24th 2007
5. Separate colleges and schools for men/women and boys/girls. This will help reduce competition between the sexes.
sally at 11:51AM on Jul 24th 2007
6. The notion that the feminist movement's hands are tied by female students purportedly there in college to better themselves but are not apparently making decisions based on the availability of male companionship... is hilarious!
Guess it goes to show that when it comes to winning there can be too much of a good thing?
You site one university accepting less qualified males... to please the females?... to give the females a bigger 'dating pool'?
Are universities places for the 'brightest of the bright' to train their minds to push back the frontiers of knowledge...
... I think that it is/was hypocritical to allow political motives to interfere with this learning/teaching process...
... we now hear that the interference has become HORMONE driven.
I should check myself into a mental institution... it must be me... how can it be EVERYONE else on the entire planet?
pboyfloyd at 12:16PM on Jul 24th 2007
7. You mention two colleges. What others could you have referenced if you weren't so lazy and hyperbolic? What feminist groups are you talking about? NOW? Another? No one knows from the copy, do they? That is because you are lazy; deeply marinated in your existential irrelevance and just plain sloppy. Why do they pay you? Why on earth?
Alex Hamilton at 12:52PM on Jul 24th 2007
8. What the feminist movement did was to show women that they are in control of their own lives. There were fringe elements, yes Eric #3, but it also told women that there is more to life than catching a man and having babies.
The feminist women brought women into colleges at record numbers. Having a better educated work force of females has been a positive thing for this country. I don't get your comment Eric about the movement "holding back women." Women were far more held back before that.
After all, you men who have daughters, don't you want them to be successful in a career?
David S. at 1:05PM on Jul 24th 2007
9. The question they should be asking is why the men with higher test scores are avoiding so many "main stream" colleges. Believe it or not there are some guys who aren't interested in getting into college just to party and get laid, which is about all a LOT of colleges these days have to offer.
Anyone who wants a serious educaion in a technical field is not looking at William and Mary for sure.
Darkmanwp at 1:12PM on Jul 24th 2007
10. I think everybody needs to stop being so lazy. As for the guys, I agree completely with comment #1 - they need to work harder to step it up and get the grades, no one is handing them success anymore and it shows. As for the girls, think outside the box. Are the only guys you date or look to date in your tiny college circle? There's a whole big world out there, celebrate your success and hit the town.
Jessica at 1:22PM on Jul 24th 2007
11. I went to college in the sixties where I met my wife. We were all raising our consciousness regarding equal rights for all Americans and equal opportunity for women. I wasn't disputing the need for change or failing to give credit to those, both men and women, who were in the forefront of the women's movement. I was criticising those people who coopted the women's movement and took it to a place where the good will and consensus that had been established and fought for by hard working people entailing great self sacrifice, squandered and in some ways retarded the progress that was made. While most of us agreed with things like equal pay for equal work and breaking down the glass ceiling the movement veered so far left that mainstream agendas were abandoned for the most part. I have a daughter who attended Cornell and became a senior editor for a major magazine. I have a daughter-in-law who is getting a PHD. We live feminism. We don't pretend to man the barracades because of some fanciful view that progress hasn't been made and cannot be made any other way.
eric at 2:10PM on Jul 24th 2007
12. More women make it to college because as a society, we try harder to do more for our girls than our boys. It is our instinct it seems, to protect our girls from having to work at a strip club (or worse) in order to survive. Conversely, a man is thought to be ultimately responsible for the choices he makes and so men are more likely to be truly on their own with regards to how to make a life for themselves. If the support wasn't there at the time the would-be college student would enter college, chances are, it wasn't there before either. Kids aren't dumb...they see the writing on the wall and know that college probably isn't going to happen for them unless their family has money or they are unbelievable athletes. So, they just don't apply themselves academically because there isn't much point. What you need to do is look at other aspects of this student's life. Is there something that he applies himself to? Does he work? Is he good at his job? These are things that take effort, hard work, intelligence and commitment. They are also things for which he was able to see a benefit from. We all want to see the fruit of our labor. If you want to see more from boys at the college level, we have to change the playing field in high school so that these boys can see a 'light at the end of the tunnel'. Keep the academic standards the same but lower the cost for boys and you will see more of them trying harder to reach an ATTAINABLE goal.
Keith J. Mohrhoff at 1:41PM on Jul 24th 2007
13. Consideration of women by consideration of Hillary Rodham Clinton U.S. Presidential candidate. She could be the first woman President. Read her bio of public service as a civil liberty lawyer and social activist in the League of Women Voters. Will Hillary get the women's vote? Yes.
Alan Klaus at 2:27PM on Jul 24th 2007
14. Conservatives - skip over this entry because it won't fit your version of truth. What this blogger is doing is merely mimicking the Bushies 'Big Lie' strategy. Tell a big enough lie (or in this case, a big enough absurdity) and people will think you're either telling the truth or in possession of some information the Hoi Polloi doesn't have.
Here's the truth: This blogger, "a minority" in this country I might add, is setting the stage for attacking cooperation between women and people of color. Conservatives love "colorblindness" and "fairness" until it begins to impinge upon their "rights" or, until it starts benefiting others. Then, when the the playing field is leveled, the anger over racial quotas or rights to neighborhood schools boils over. It is a tired, but constant conservative tool: divisiveness. It's sad to see a man of color (East Indian, I presume?) buy so totally into a paradigm of self-hate. BTW, GEO, you are right on the money.
Jae at 2:32PM on Jul 24th 2007
15. Who said that people "should be judged by the content of their charachter"; NOT, the color of their skin? Add GENDER!
David Chowes at 11:12PM on Sep 4th 2007