MORE
DIVERSITY DEBATES AT UNIVERSITY OF
TORONTO
(The Bulletin,
University of Toronto)
Case Resorts to
Sophistries
Vassos
Hadzilacos
Department
of Computer Science
June 28, 2004
Professor
John
Furedy makes two points (Academic Merit Undervalued, May 31).
The first is
that
the low representation of women faculty in the so-called “hard”
sciences is a
consequence of cognitive deficiencies with a “significant biological
basis.”
This thesis is questionable and, more important, irrelevant – my
myopia, whose
biological basis is indisputable, is easily corrected.
The disingenuous elevation of characteristics
with a biological
or genetic basis to ones that are
unsurmountable has a long and pernicious
history. I cringe at the thought of the untapped
talents of people written off because they have the “wrong’ colour or
sex.
The second
point
in Professor Furedy’s letter is that equity policies have subverted the
non-hard sciences’ commitment to merit.
As evidence he cites a study that found the language used in
tenure-track job ads of hard science departments to be stronger than
that used
by their “softer” counterparts. This is
akin to me judging the skill of my optometrist based on the wording of
his ad
in the yellow Pages. I suppose it bodes
well for the success of equity policies that one of their most
outspoken
critics must resort to such outlandish sophistries to buttress his case.
Return
to Issues/Cases Page