I don't love Caltech, but I wish I could.
May. 22nd, 2012 12:52 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kaberettIt's very difficult, though, given how thoroughly sexist and racist and hereosexist (and anything else you care to think of) the undergraduate body is.
Exhibit A: Caltech's shocking lack of diversity: a microcosm for the United States?
Exhibit B: Diversity should mean more than just race, a shockingly under-researched, misrepresentative and inflammatory article by a Caltech undergraduate, published in the Caltech student press.
I've left a comment on the latter, which is currently in moderation. I reproduce it below.
I find it very interesting that in your second paragraph you've chosen to say "For those who read the above link, or even those who do not, ponder the following: just because Caltech is located in Los Angeles, does this mean our campus demographics should reflect those of the city? Or should we use U.S. demographics instead? Or how about the “demographics” of the universe? Under that paradigm, Caltech should consist of no people whatsoever!" You thereby imply that the author of the article you're responding to gives only LA demographics; Saadi is actually making a rather more nuanced argument, and in fact gives demographic information from a wide variety of contexts to make the point that *Caltech is not doing very well at attracting and retaining students from minority backgrounds*.
Your second obvious misinterpretation (or, less charitably, misrepresentation) of Saadi's article is your question "Does diversity really have to come so neatly wrapped in a difference in skin color?" Saadi makes *absolutely explicit* in the article you are apparently responding to that diversity is to do not with skin colour but, in the case of Caltech, "underprivileged backgrounds regardless of race".
It also seems that the institutional attitude on diversity is not one that actively treats members of minority groups as part of the community. In particular, when the questionnaire for graduating classes includes questions like "how often do you interact with people different from you in [these characteristics]?", and the answer "almost always" is apparently treated as a positive outcome - as opposed to just as great a cause for concern as "never" - it's hard to avoid the conclusion that this is not a survey that was designed with the experiences of members of minority groups in mind.
On a more personal note, you say that "I am a farmboy from South Dakota; my best friend hails from Shanghai, China and makes a great baked chicken." This is indeed a good example of an international student assimilating into US culture; however, the mark of a lack of homogeneity is not your friend's ability to make US dishes, but the extent to which *you* have learned from *them*. (Additionally, the presence of the Chinese Association, Hawai'ian Club, etc is not necessarily an indicator of a lack of homogeneity: you appear to have overlooked the possibility that these groups exist because students belonging to the categories in question feel so alienated by mainstream Caltech culture that they *need* a space in which their cultural assumptions, too, will be shared; in which they can be treated as normal for behaving in ways that are normal to them, instead of acquired behaviours they've learned in order not to be ridiculed.)
Finally - and this is probably, in fact, the most important point, as it contradicts the majority of the thesis of this article - you seem to have thoroughly misunderstood the purpose, nature, and effect of affirmative action programmes. Affirmative action does *not* exist "as a way to make reparations for the wrongs committed by whites against blacks and other races": scientific evidence supporting the role of unconscious bias and stereotype threat in disadvantaging applicants from minority backgrounds is documented at all levels in academic, industrial, and artistic settings. For examples, see:
- an extremely well-cited summary document disseminated by Harvard, discussing race and gender: http://www.faculty.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/downloads/2.2.1%20Mentor%20Resources%20-%20Columbia%20University%20-%20Summary%20of%20Finding%20on%20Bias%20and%20Evaluation.pdf
- the famous Princeton study on the impact of screened auditions on demographics in professional orchestras: http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pwb/01/0212/7b.shtml
- Columbia provides an excellent bibliography covering such topics as automatic activation of stereotypes
The apparent lack of awareness of this body of research is concerning in the context of your article, which frankly reads as an extremely superifical and uninformed analysis of the situation that is intended *not* to provoke reflection on the very real issues that Saadi raises, but instead to encourage irrational knee-jerk reactions of *exactly* the type described in the bibliographies and articles I link to above.
And, to be clear, I won't be able to take you up on your offer of a meeting in the Red Doors: I'm a student at Cambridge University, and I SURFed last summer. I adored my department and my research, but for the most part I was terrified of coming out as queer and trans* to Caltech undergraduates, and on one of the occasions when I did I was *actively ridiculed* - by which I mean openly laughed at, and by a popular member of Dabney Hovse, no less - for my identity.
Given all of the above, I hope it is clear why I am so disappointed in the editorial decision to publish such a poorly-researched and reactionary article. I would love to love Caltech as an institution and as a whole; this kind of attitude is the reason I can't.
Exhibit A: Caltech's shocking lack of diversity: a microcosm for the United States?
Exhibit B: Diversity should mean more than just race, a shockingly under-researched, misrepresentative and inflammatory article by a Caltech undergraduate, published in the Caltech student press.
I've left a comment on the latter, which is currently in moderation. I reproduce it below.
I find it very interesting that in your second paragraph you've chosen to say "For those who read the above link, or even those who do not, ponder the following: just because Caltech is located in Los Angeles, does this mean our campus demographics should reflect those of the city? Or should we use U.S. demographics instead? Or how about the “demographics” of the universe? Under that paradigm, Caltech should consist of no people whatsoever!" You thereby imply that the author of the article you're responding to gives only LA demographics; Saadi is actually making a rather more nuanced argument, and in fact gives demographic information from a wide variety of contexts to make the point that *Caltech is not doing very well at attracting and retaining students from minority backgrounds*.
Your second obvious misinterpretation (or, less charitably, misrepresentation) of Saadi's article is your question "Does diversity really have to come so neatly wrapped in a difference in skin color?" Saadi makes *absolutely explicit* in the article you are apparently responding to that diversity is to do not with skin colour but, in the case of Caltech, "underprivileged backgrounds regardless of race".
It also seems that the institutional attitude on diversity is not one that actively treats members of minority groups as part of the community. In particular, when the questionnaire for graduating classes includes questions like "how often do you interact with people different from you in [these characteristics]?", and the answer "almost always" is apparently treated as a positive outcome - as opposed to just as great a cause for concern as "never" - it's hard to avoid the conclusion that this is not a survey that was designed with the experiences of members of minority groups in mind.
On a more personal note, you say that "I am a farmboy from South Dakota; my best friend hails from Shanghai, China and makes a great baked chicken." This is indeed a good example of an international student assimilating into US culture; however, the mark of a lack of homogeneity is not your friend's ability to make US dishes, but the extent to which *you* have learned from *them*. (Additionally, the presence of the Chinese Association, Hawai'ian Club, etc is not necessarily an indicator of a lack of homogeneity: you appear to have overlooked the possibility that these groups exist because students belonging to the categories in question feel so alienated by mainstream Caltech culture that they *need* a space in which their cultural assumptions, too, will be shared; in which they can be treated as normal for behaving in ways that are normal to them, instead of acquired behaviours they've learned in order not to be ridiculed.)
Finally - and this is probably, in fact, the most important point, as it contradicts the majority of the thesis of this article - you seem to have thoroughly misunderstood the purpose, nature, and effect of affirmative action programmes. Affirmative action does *not* exist "as a way to make reparations for the wrongs committed by whites against blacks and other races": scientific evidence supporting the role of unconscious bias and stereotype threat in disadvantaging applicants from minority backgrounds is documented at all levels in academic, industrial, and artistic settings. For examples, see:
- an extremely well-cited summary document disseminated by Harvard, discussing race and gender: http://www.faculty.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/downloads/2.2.1%20Mentor%20Resources%20-%20Columbia%20University%20-%20Summary%20of%20Finding%20on%20Bias%20and%20Evaluation.pdf
- the famous Princeton study on the impact of screened auditions on demographics in professional orchestras: http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pwb/01/0212/7b.shtml
- Columbia provides an excellent bibliography covering such topics as automatic activation of stereotypes
The apparent lack of awareness of this body of research is concerning in the context of your article, which frankly reads as an extremely superifical and uninformed analysis of the situation that is intended *not* to provoke reflection on the very real issues that Saadi raises, but instead to encourage irrational knee-jerk reactions of *exactly* the type described in the bibliographies and articles I link to above.
And, to be clear, I won't be able to take you up on your offer of a meeting in the Red Doors: I'm a student at Cambridge University, and I SURFed last summer. I adored my department and my research, but for the most part I was terrified of coming out as queer and trans* to Caltech undergraduates, and on one of the occasions when I did I was *actively ridiculed* - by which I mean openly laughed at, and by a popular member of Dabney Hovse, no less - for my identity.
Given all of the above, I hope it is clear why I am so disappointed in the editorial decision to publish such a poorly-researched and reactionary article. I would love to love Caltech as an institution and as a whole; this kind of attitude is the reason I can't.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-05-23 05:45 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-05-23 10:47 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-05-25 11:27 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-05-25 12:06 pm (UTC)