There has been some degree of concern about the possibility of academic bias. This concern is well-placed. We look towards scholarship as an important source of knowledge in our society. We make a variety of important decisions about our society, our morality and our lives based on what we learn from academia.
If academic bias exists then this knowledge is compromised and untrustworthy. For example, let's say that biologists have a bias against black people. If that bias effects their research then they will be more likely to focus in on any findings that emphasize the inferiority of blacks. Such an emphasis will make life more difficult for blacks. This is not a hypothetical exercise as historically there has been a bias against blacks. This bias has resulted in the corruption of evolutionary theory and comparative anatomy to stigmatize blacks.
This bias was the result of an overall racism in society. In other words biological scientists stigmatized blacks because others in society stigmatize blacks. As we have become more enlightened such overt racism is much less now among biologists and other individuals in society. But what if there are groups that scientists stigmatize more than other people in society. Is it possible that there are certain people or groups that scientists do not like and they will maintain this bias even if such bias is diminished in the rest of society?
I think there are such groups. The stigma among scientists can have profound consequences for members of these groups. In my next blog I will identify them and discuss why such bias has developed.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Friday, December 31, 2010
Friday, December 24, 2010
Bias and Scholarship - Part 1: What is Tolerance?
This blog begins a series on academia. Many claim that there is bias in scholarship. To tackle this question we first have to think about what is meant by bias. A good way to do that is to define the concept of tolerance.
The first quality of tolerance is that to tolerant something, or someone, you have to have disagreement. The Baptist practices tolerance for the Methodist only if there is disagreement with the Methodist. If the Baptist believes that all Protestants are brothers and sisters in Christ then "tolerating" the Methodist does not mean much. Tolerating the Catholic, Muslim, and Atheist is much more relevant. In fact, the more you disagree with a position or person the more tolerance you need.
I point this out because often the measure we use for tolerance assumes that there is disagreement, when that may not be the case. For example, questions about attitudes towards homosexuality are only measures of tolerance if a person disagrees with that lifestyle. For a political progressive, questions about attitudes towards Christian fundamentalists are more telling.
But does tolerance indicate agreement? For the political progressive to be tolerant of the Christian fundamentalist, he/she does not have to agree with that person's religious beliefs. But he/she can not use those beliefs to discriminate against the fundamentalist in ways that are not warranted. What do I mean by that? A political progressive may decide not to date the fundamentalist because of their different outlooks on life. To make such a decision is not being intolerant since on this issue the religious, and possible political, difference matters. But if the political progressive refuses to hire the fundamentalist as an accountant then I would argue that there is intolerance. A person's religious beliefs does not influence how well he/she can count.
What this means in academia is that sometimes bias, or intolerance, is warranted. But it is only warranted if the intolerance about is relevant to the task at hand. A Marxist may be "intolerant" of the ideas brought by a free-market advocate. That intolerance can legitimately come out in criticism of a book written by the free marketer. However, the religion, sexual preference, race, and sex of the free marketer is irrelevant to how the Marxist should treat him/her. Refusing to promote, hire or accept someone because of religion, sexual preference, race or sex is clearly a sign of intolerance.
The challenge in academia is when to be discerning or even "intolerant" of certain perspectives and individuals and when to learn to accept those ideas and people. Furthermore, this is not just about the intolerance of a single or a few academics. It is also important to think about systematic ways that bias can play itself out in academia. If there is a trend of intolerance in academia, then we have more serious problems than the proclivities of a few scholars. Investigating these potential problems is what I like to do in the next several blogs.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
The first quality of tolerance is that to tolerant something, or someone, you have to have disagreement. The Baptist practices tolerance for the Methodist only if there is disagreement with the Methodist. If the Baptist believes that all Protestants are brothers and sisters in Christ then "tolerating" the Methodist does not mean much. Tolerating the Catholic, Muslim, and Atheist is much more relevant. In fact, the more you disagree with a position or person the more tolerance you need.
I point this out because often the measure we use for tolerance assumes that there is disagreement, when that may not be the case. For example, questions about attitudes towards homosexuality are only measures of tolerance if a person disagrees with that lifestyle. For a political progressive, questions about attitudes towards Christian fundamentalists are more telling.
But does tolerance indicate agreement? For the political progressive to be tolerant of the Christian fundamentalist, he/she does not have to agree with that person's religious beliefs. But he/she can not use those beliefs to discriminate against the fundamentalist in ways that are not warranted. What do I mean by that? A political progressive may decide not to date the fundamentalist because of their different outlooks on life. To make such a decision is not being intolerant since on this issue the religious, and possible political, difference matters. But if the political progressive refuses to hire the fundamentalist as an accountant then I would argue that there is intolerance. A person's religious beliefs does not influence how well he/she can count.
What this means in academia is that sometimes bias, or intolerance, is warranted. But it is only warranted if the intolerance about is relevant to the task at hand. A Marxist may be "intolerant" of the ideas brought by a free-market advocate. That intolerance can legitimately come out in criticism of a book written by the free marketer. However, the religion, sexual preference, race, and sex of the free marketer is irrelevant to how the Marxist should treat him/her. Refusing to promote, hire or accept someone because of religion, sexual preference, race or sex is clearly a sign of intolerance.
The challenge in academia is when to be discerning or even "intolerant" of certain perspectives and individuals and when to learn to accept those ideas and people. Furthermore, this is not just about the intolerance of a single or a few academics. It is also important to think about systematic ways that bias can play itself out in academia. If there is a trend of intolerance in academia, then we have more serious problems than the proclivities of a few scholars. Investigating these potential problems is what I like to do in the next several blogs.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Political Truce
Like all of our recent Presidents, President Obama has certainly become a lighting rod for the political divide in the United States. But what he did in the lame duck session is quite interesting and insightful. It reminds us that long-term cooperation often is much wiser than short-term gains from demonizing one's opponent.
President Obama signed off on an extension of the tax break for the wealthy after he made these tax breaks such a big deal in his campaign. Let us be clear about this. He got rolled in negotiating with the Republicans. But doing so got the tax deal out of the way. The Republicans were threatening to stop all legislation until the tax deal was done and had the support in the senate to do it.
But once that tax deal was done, the Democrats were able to get medical support for the 9/11 workers, repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, and the START treaty. Yes he did not get the Dream Act but he got a lot more than you would expect in such a short session. And he got it because he negotiated with the Republicans rather than just insult them.
This is not even about the merits of this legislation. There is enough that happened in this session to encourage and discourage people from all political persuasions. This is about working with the other side. I tire of the endless mud slinging that come from both sides of the political spectrum. I liked seeing what happened because people worked together than against each other.
Can this be the start of a new trend of cooperation and bipartisanship? Sadly probably not. This is a unique situation where Democrats had incentives to work with Republicans and get stuff done before the Republicans take power next month and Republicans had incentive to work with Democrats to make sure the tax cuts were extended. I fear that come January the normal course of events will take place and people will go back to their full-time job of blaming the other side. No the realist in me knows that this is a circumstance that is not likely to be replicated soon. But a self-proclaim moderate can dream, can't he?
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
President Obama signed off on an extension of the tax break for the wealthy after he made these tax breaks such a big deal in his campaign. Let us be clear about this. He got rolled in negotiating with the Republicans. But doing so got the tax deal out of the way. The Republicans were threatening to stop all legislation until the tax deal was done and had the support in the senate to do it.
But once that tax deal was done, the Democrats were able to get medical support for the 9/11 workers, repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, and the START treaty. Yes he did not get the Dream Act but he got a lot more than you would expect in such a short session. And he got it because he negotiated with the Republicans rather than just insult them.
This is not even about the merits of this legislation. There is enough that happened in this session to encourage and discourage people from all political persuasions. This is about working with the other side. I tire of the endless mud slinging that come from both sides of the political spectrum. I liked seeing what happened because people worked together than against each other.
Can this be the start of a new trend of cooperation and bipartisanship? Sadly probably not. This is a unique situation where Democrats had incentives to work with Republicans and get stuff done before the Republicans take power next month and Republicans had incentive to work with Democrats to make sure the tax cuts were extended. I fear that come January the normal course of events will take place and people will go back to their full-time job of blaming the other side. No the realist in me knows that this is a circumstance that is not likely to be replicated soon. But a self-proclaim moderate can dream, can't he?
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Saturday, December 18, 2010
Class over, time for vacation?
Yep. I finished my grading yesterday. So it is that time of the year when I have time off. Contrary to popular opinion, professors do not take off during the Christmas break. For many of us it is an excellent time to do research and prepare for the coming semester. (Summers often work the same way).
But truth to be told I am going to see my family for a few days during the break. It is a "family" vacation. Family vacations are when one goes to be with family members. It is not the getting away from it all that the idea of vacation tends to denote. Do not get me wrong. I love my family. But if I was to go somewhere just to relax, Arizona is not where I would be going this winter (although that is better than the snow-bound northern states).
Then again I do get the opportunity to do a lot of travel with my job. I have been in most states in this country and generally it is because of business travel. On the one hand, it does afford me the opportunity to see things that I would not normally have seen, like Niagara Falls when I was in Buffalo on business. However, I am not there to truly relax. So that is not really a vacation either.
Makes me think about what is a vacation. Is a vacation something where we just get away and do whatever we want to do? When I do that I find myself thinking a lot about the work I left behind. Consequently it is hard for me to take a vacation for a long period of time where I do not bring work.
I guess it gets back to what is the purpose of a vacation. If it is to get away from work then it is hard for some of us to actually do that. We can leave work behind but it is still in our minds. If it is to see family and friends then family vacations work out well. If it is to build relationships then going with someone else is necessary for it to have meaning.
I have no strong pronouncements on vacations. I admit that this is an evolving concept in my mind. But being a sociologist I constantly have to use my sociological imagination to consider what we often take for granted. Yes being a sociologist is a blessing and a curse. Well anyway, have a good Christmas vacation everybody!!!
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
But truth to be told I am going to see my family for a few days during the break. It is a "family" vacation. Family vacations are when one goes to be with family members. It is not the getting away from it all that the idea of vacation tends to denote. Do not get me wrong. I love my family. But if I was to go somewhere just to relax, Arizona is not where I would be going this winter (although that is better than the snow-bound northern states).
Then again I do get the opportunity to do a lot of travel with my job. I have been in most states in this country and generally it is because of business travel. On the one hand, it does afford me the opportunity to see things that I would not normally have seen, like Niagara Falls when I was in Buffalo on business. However, I am not there to truly relax. So that is not really a vacation either.
Makes me think about what is a vacation. Is a vacation something where we just get away and do whatever we want to do? When I do that I find myself thinking a lot about the work I left behind. Consequently it is hard for me to take a vacation for a long period of time where I do not bring work.
I guess it gets back to what is the purpose of a vacation. If it is to get away from work then it is hard for some of us to actually do that. We can leave work behind but it is still in our minds. If it is to see family and friends then family vacations work out well. If it is to build relationships then going with someone else is necessary for it to have meaning.
I have no strong pronouncements on vacations. I admit that this is an evolving concept in my mind. But being a sociologist I constantly have to use my sociological imagination to consider what we often take for granted. Yes being a sociologist is a blessing and a curse. Well anyway, have a good Christmas vacation everybody!!!
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Merry Christmas
I was passing out my tests today. I wanted to greet the students with a "Merry Christmas" to alleviate some of the tension in the room. But I didn't. Why? I figure someone would get offended and who needs that hassle.
Now I first blame myself. I feel a bit like a coward for not mentioning an innocent greeting. So the first culprit has to be myself.
But we are in an atmosphere where even pleasant greeting have become the terrain of the culture war. It seems that we go out of our way to become offended. That is not the way it should be. Even if we disagree with each other can we not accept each others greetings. If someone says "Happy Hanukkah" to me then I can just take it in stride even though I am not Jewish.
So on this holiday season I do wish everyone a Merry Christmas. If that offends you then bah and humbug to you as well. I do have a final on Friday. So I get another chance to greet my class with a hearty Merry Christmas.
Now I first blame myself. I feel a bit like a coward for not mentioning an innocent greeting. So the first culprit has to be myself.
But we are in an atmosphere where even pleasant greeting have become the terrain of the culture war. It seems that we go out of our way to become offended. That is not the way it should be. Even if we disagree with each other can we not accept each others greetings. If someone says "Happy Hanukkah" to me then I can just take it in stride even though I am not Jewish.
So on this holiday season I do wish everyone a Merry Christmas. If that offends you then bah and humbug to you as well. I do have a final on Friday. So I get another chance to greet my class with a hearty Merry Christmas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)