|
HomePage |
|
|
|
|
The Globe headline deftly linked MIT and "gender bias." But the first line seemed like some sardonic joke – "It was a proud time for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology."
The "proud time" was in fact the roll-call of MIT associates in the most recent round of Nobelists. The report of the committees charged to evaluate the position of women in each of the five schools of the Institute seemed only to verify what many had long suspected (and what the School of Science had formally and fully acknowledged, some months ago) – like most of the rest of the known universe, the Institute discriminates against women. But that hits especially hard in a place which insists it is a total meritocracy. The implication seemed inescapable: intentionally or thoughtlessly, bad deeds had been done, for a long, long time.
A shameful day? Let me argue the opposite, from two perspectives. "Hello, my name is John, and I'm an alcoholic." We all know the AA drill – and its analog in every contemporary 12-step program. In that sense, to admit the problem (all the more so since, as the committee reports argued again and again, invisibility is a crucial element in the problem) is a necessary first step, in and of itself.
Before I venture to my second angle of consideration, I should perhaps admit my own biases. I was raised in a staunchly Calvinist tradition – in which public confession is a recurrent and serious action. The time was when congregants were expected to stand up, in full view and hearing of their neighbors, and admit to sins of omission and commission.
Which is what MIT has now done, and even in its own favored language, numbers. Knowing that NPR and The New York Times and The Boston Globe and probably Scientific American and The Chronicle of Higher Education would quickly run with the story, the Institute, lead by the top echelon of its administration – aloud, and in writing! – confessed a long career of sin.
Not that the report is perfect, by any means – at most it pays lip service to the "race card," as we are wont to call it in these post-OJ days. But still it is an open and wide-ranging self-assessment.
I call that a proud day, indeed. Not, by any stretch of the imagination, the final step, nor even a long journey toward it. Now the frank discussion, and the truly hard work, can begin.
|
HomePage |
|
|
|
|