Indoctrinators and Educators

It's a common theme amongst complaining Conservatives: liberals dominate higher education, liberals indoctrinate our youth with biased proselytizing. If Ann Coulter is to be believed, liberal university professors are the theologists of the liberal religion and we hate any science that doesn't support liberal causes.

And certainly, the statistics do support this perspective in part. Democrats are statistically and stereotypically higher educated and clustered in academia, but, contrary to the line spewed in Conservative pulp-trash like Bernard Goldberg's 100 People Who are Screwing Up America, most of these liberals, though espousing democratic political leanings, are careful not to bias their students.

Several news stories have publicized liberal teachers who have been disciplined for infusing their political leanings into their teachings, and have used these instances to argue that vocal liberals should not be allowed to teach classes, or at the very least to support their diatribe against Democrats in higher education. However, I would argue that the problem here is not Democrats who teach, but teachers who can't distinguish between their political ideologies and their jobs.

Last week, in my ethics class, a professor was lecturing about technology transfer and intellectual property, but ended up trying to indoctrinate us in fiscally conservative, hyper-right-wing capitalism and anti-liberal hate-mongering. Amongst the tidbits that I learned include the choice quotes: “pursuit of money is our patriotic duty as Americans” and “Democrats are happy to let sick people suffer by letting medical technology stay on the vine”. From this professor, I also learned that the federal government protects its people from companies that form monopolies and prevent exorbitant prices resulting from patented technology, and that pursuit of further scientific research will not be hindered by increased prices due to having to pay royalties. The professor also chastised his (liberal) colleagues who refuse to prosecute patents, and poo-poo'd other ethical questions about patenting findings paid for by public money. And let us not forget when the professor went on to declare that “third world countries like Zimbabwe and Vietname” deserve their poverty because they (and they alone) try to control intellectual freedom by denying their populace pork.

I and the thirty other graduate students in this class were forced to sit through this lecture, the second one of the year, although many of us were offended by the content of the talk. Certainly, from this experience, I was all the more sympathetic to Conservative students who feel alienated by their liberal professors, but the problem was not in my professor's political ideologies (offensive though they might be) but in his soap-boxing. Not only was my professor trying to convert his forcibly captive audience into raging capitalists, but, in a class about graduate-level ethics encountered by those pursuing careers in scientific research, we didn't actually learn anything about ethics or how to patent our ideas.

Lecturers like the one I encountered and the ones Coulter and company complain about are not rare, but they certainly do not outnumber the truly good teachers out there who happen to have private political tendancies. And certainly, any professor or teacher is, in my opinion, welcome to introduce political ideology into a class that is explicitly about politics, sociology, or current events.

The talking heads should not be interested in typecasting their political opponents as indoctrinators — rather, as we continue to strive towards improving the level of education in this country, both the left and the right should be able to agree upon one thing: whether conservative or liberal, teachers shouldn't proselytize at the expense of good teaching.

Cerebrogenesis (9)

This is a super late edition of Cerebrogenesis, with some backed-up news articles I’ve been collecting over the last little while. Apologies for the parity of blog posts, I haven’t had much time to read.

  • Canada to arm border guards along U.S. border. Apparently, following in the footsteps of our paranoid neighbours to the south, Canada has decided that our border is just not safe enough. Turns out that we now feel that we also need to be arming guards, on the off-chance that a terrorist decides to cross from the U.S. into Canada. I’m not sure I like the message being sent here: sure border security is important, but I dislike the idea that Canada is becoming less friendly to border-crossing. One of Canada’s signatures is how we’re more friendly, more open, and more welcoming to visitors than the U.S. — and this, I see, is an “Americanizing” of our country’s culture.
  • A Brain of One’s Own, an article reviewing a book written that defends the sexual dimorphism of human brains. For my take on this, see my recent post: Sexual Dimorphism and Feminism
  • General Motors Drops ‘Survivor’ — apparently not in response to the “Racial Segregation” ploy, though the news dropped today that G.M. has decided they no longer want to be associated with the show. I don’t buy the fact that G.M. felt that it didn’t want to be sunk by the political incorrectness of the latest season — why else would G.M. announce the news now, as opposed to earlier in this season’s developmental process?
  • Latest ACT scores by race, by Asian-Nation. On a related note, in the last few days, the SAT board announced that the class of 2006 had experienced the greatest drop in scores since the 1970’s, and the AP article included a report of the drop in scores by gender and by race — except Asian. What’s that all about?

Sexual Dimorphism and Feminism

Two months ago, there was a clash of the comic book titans between Scipio of Absorbacon and Ragnell of Written World when Absorbacon published a post arguing the implausibility of female superheroes and supervillains. Scipio wrote,

I will believe a man can fly. It is substantially more difficult for me to believe that women are as likely as men to put on a costume and fight crime… It’s even more of a strain to unflinchingly accept woman villains. Men are more violent than women. Men are more likely to become criminals.

Scipio’s argument boils down to advocating inherent biological differences between men and women resulting in different modes of thinking. Scipio extends this argument to say that because men and women are biologically different, one gender is naturally more apt (and thus more plausible) at playing certain social roles than the other (i.e. being a hero versus being a villain). Scipio backed up this claim in the comments section by linking to a Research at Penn article entitled “Possible Basis Found for the Cliché Depicting Men as More ‘Hot-Headed’ than Women“, in which a University of Pennsylvania researcher used MRI to map the amygdala of adult humans and noted a sexual dimorphism in size of the amygdala of men compared to women. The PDF of the actual research article is here, if you’re interested in reading about methods and actual results. Again, the turn of the conversation was not unexpected — inevitably, those who argue biological differences between people, whether it be gender or race will cite a scientific article (or in this case, the lay-media’s summary of a scientific finding) to support their claims, frequently with little concern regarding critical understanding of the results. In the comments section, I posted a lengthy response, addressing why one cannot jump to conclusions based on this result:

  1. Are the two control groups sufficiently representative of a random sampling of men and women such that the findings could be used to infer differences throughout the entire population?
  2. Is the difference signficant? In Figure 3 of the paper, the variability within gender seems to be just as large as the variability between genders.
  3. Is it reasonable to correlate larger size with greater function? We don’t know how the larger size arises (more neurons? more dendrites? more glial cells?) and whether or not there is a functional difference in the amygdala conferred by this size?

Still, the possibility of a sexual dimorphism existing between the brains of men and women was an interesting question to me, so I chose to do a literature review of sexual dimorphism in the nervous system for my Neurophysiology summer class.

I have to admit that despite the position of feminism when it comes to “natural differences between men and women”, it had never really occurred to me to figure out the scientific position on sexual dimorphism in the human brain. It was certainly of political relevance: throughout history, the power structure have used “natural inequities” to justify disenfranchisement.For generations, White scientists used faulty scientific surveys to “conclude” that Blacks were more genetically pre-dispositioned to excel at manual labour over academic pursuits. White plantation owners believed themselves to be saving the African savage from himself by providing their slaves shelter and a “Christian” upbringing. Nazis published eugenics reports in which skull sizes were measured in order to defend statements of Aryan supremacy. Similarly, the patriarchy has used science to perpetuate gender roles that disenfranchise women, arguing that our supposed “emotionalism”, “empathy”, “sensitivity” and (according to the UPenn study) “unimpulsiveness” is reason enough to deny us equal professional opportunities or social standing. Women are still paid roughly $0.70 to the dollar compared to men, and women are still underrepresented in “traditionally male” jobs, particularly in the military where women are prevented from taking most positions. And some men even find it difficult to believe women are plausibly able to be superheroes or supervillains.

Feminism is about advocating gender equality, which, as far as I’m concerned, demands that men and women be viewed as fundamentally identical both in physical ability and in mental capacity. With that in mind, I was certain that in my literature review of sexual dimorphism, I would be able to find an obvious reason to discount the research as a product of patriarchal conditioning or faulty science. However, the more I read, the more it seemed to make sense — unlike race, in which there is no significant genetic difference between the races, the two genders are distinguishable down to the genetic level (men have an XY sex chromosome, women have an XX sex chromosome) and this difference results in necessary physiological and anatomical differences critical for reproduction.

In the animal world, there are several examples of sexual dimorphism of the brain resulting in different sexual behaviours, and which arise from sexually dimorphic circuitry in the brain. One research article cites a difference in the behaviour of certain neurons of male and female rats arising at embryonic day 15. It came to seem less reasonable to me to argue that men and women did not have biological and anatomical differences in their brains that might result in functional differences. Although establishing a functional effect for anatomical differences in the brain is difficult in humans (and so my belief is that there isn’t any current scientific evidence for a conclusion such as the one cited by the Absorbacon post), I came out of the research project with a revised opinion of the science: it seems less reasonable to me to blindly imagine that men and women would have reproductive differences and differences in hormone production and release in the brain, but not other differences in the initial hardwiring of the brain. However, the science still has not completely resolved this point when it comes to humans, and while it is likely that our different genetic makeups prescribe different neural circuitry in the brain, the nervous system is particularly plastic, and we have yet to distinguish between the effects of nature vs. nurture in the development of the human psyche. I think that while it is reasonable to believe that male and female children might start out with sexually dimorphic circuitry, as we develop post-natally, our brains are capable of converging.

Either way, feminism must be able to adapt to the possibility that science will continue to uncover “evidence” suggesting differences between men and women that some might try to use to justify preferential treatment for men. I was wrong to try and blindly disregard the possibility that science might show a difference between the way men and women would think; by ignoring science, I wasn’t spending my time trying to consider how to argue against these findings in a way that would still benefit women. Fundamentally, I and other feminists must adapt our philosophy to incorporate the findings of science, and vocalize the fact that science cannot and should not be used to justify unequal treatment. Rather than continue to argue that women will be found to be biologically equal to men, we just develop the argument that biological difference does not justify social oppression. So, maybe the Gurs paper is right, and my amygdala is smaller than a man’s; but ask electroman and he will tell you that I can be just as hot-headed as he. And that’s just the way I like it.

Mark Burnett, May You Burn In The Deepest Pits of Hell

Despite being one of the grand-daddies of today’s reality tv explosion, Survivor has suffered in recent years from lacklustre ratings and general consumer disinterest. Gone are the days when your overweight friends held Thursday night Survivor parties with each attendent sporting their brand-new, freshly-ordered off the CBS website Survivor buffs, and “voted off the island” has long past its hey-day as pop-culture jargon. So, what did Mark Burnett do this season in order to remind us that his cash cow was still kicking? He did what all reality television shows inevitably do: he turned to race.

This seasonSurvivor features 20 new cast-members trying to survive in harsh, untamed nature (completely authentic despite the well-fed six-man camera crew following sticking the camera in your face as you attempt to light kindling with two pieces of rock and a machete). Of note is the fact that this season marks the most diverseSurvivor cast we’ve ever seen, with a whopping fifteen people of colour. Of course, rather than try to deflect accusations of tokenism in casting, Burnett went to the opposite extreme: unabashed racism! In the 30-second video promo, host Jeff Probst excitedly informs us that Survivorhas become a social experiment; the twenty castmembers will be divided into four tribes… by “ethnicity”! (Burnett must think we’re stupid if we think that “White”, “African American”, and “Asian American” are ethnicities. They’re races; Burnett is just afraid of sounding politically incorrect, describing what he has nonetheless done).

People divided by race and told to survive in the wild. What could be wrong with this picture, you ask? How about the unabashed racism of just looking at skin colour and separating people into different tribes? How about the fact that the only reason one would pit the tribes separated by race against one another is to play off of the kinds of racial superiority contests best left to the Bell Curve? How about the fact that Burnett is hawking this development not only as a daring “social experiment” but is implying through the commercial that separating people by race will automatically create such delightful racial strife that we will just have to watch (i.e., that racism is human nature)? And how about the fact that despite all this focus on race, the video still emphasizes images of White people?

I am disgusted — absolutely disgusted — by this new season of Survivor. Sure, there’s a rockin’ three Asian American men on the show (although what does it mean that no Chinese Americans, Japanese Americans or Asian Indians are included in this season?), but nothing excuses using people of colour as props to increase your own flaccid ratings, by including us in some sort of desperate affirmative action ploy and re-vamping your show’s rules to only incorporate people of colour when it’s about race. Screw you, Mark Burnett. They should throw you into that Tribal Council fire.



Hey everyone! A brief apology to all you guys who’re reading this blog and wondering why there’ve been no new updates in the past week and some change. Unfortunately, I’ve been super-busy with research projects (trying to wrap up the end of the summer) and with the start of classes that occurred this Monday. I will try to get Cerebrogenesis out as soon as I can, and I have several good post ideas waiting for me to find time to write them. I promise there will be something more substantial to add to this blog as soon as I can get like half an hour on a computer (which hasn’t actually happened in several days).