Inconvenient truths

Sometimes, the truth is hard to accept. Recently, a study was released by famous political scientist, Robert Putnam that revealed that diversity contributes to a decrease in civic engagement.

BBC Science Radio covered a story that sought to explain why women were severely underrepresented in science/math/engineering fields in academia. Ironically, a woman scientist tries to explain that nature is why women are underrepresented in the field.

More difference, less engagement
Putnam's research has unleashed a flurry of discussion within various circles. Liberals are afraid that the study hurts years of diversity advocacy. Conservatives are using the study for evil saying this is why segregation works and why illegal aliens are threatening our country.

Putnam has been criticized because he is one of few researchers that wants to address social issues instead of just studying them. Even he is bothered by his work.

Why? Because the numbers tell us that the more diverse a community, the less people vote and participate in philanthropic causes. The study says that people are more isolated and care less about the "us" and more about the "we" within their own circles.

In other words, there is no common good. Some experts within related fields are saying that we just need to work to make these results a positive thing. They refuse (as I would, too) to accept that diversity is a bad thing. The answer: amend the conditions of diverse communities and help the process of assimilation so that diverse groups can identify with the "greater good".

The problem I have with that idea is that concepts like "philanthropy", "greater good" and "civic engagement" are all broadly defined and viewed within the lens of the dominant culture. The reality is, communities of color are highly philanthropic and have strong histories of being civically involved. How else would you explain the role of the Black church in the Civil Rights Movement? How do you explain Jewish philanthropy? How do you explain the large amounts of money that flows from here back to Mexico by way of Mexican workers?

These are all ways in which communities of color have defined engagement. To only look at engagement as voting or how much you donate (monetarily speaking), it will look like diverse groups muddle the patterns of a community. Can you explain voting participation by education or income instead of race? The article suggests that there are high levels of distrust for the "other" in these communities. Gee, I wonder why? Could you wonder why people of color vote less when the democratic process is constantly being undermined by this administration?

Could you explain financial giving in terms of income? Another study that was just released showed the giving trends of low-income people and their giving habits aren't too shabby.

Does Putnam's study assume, then, that when communities are homogeneous that people give more because it's "their own"? I don't see anything wrong with that, but it alarms me that people will somehow use his work to argue that diversity is harmful. Even Putnam warns against doing this.

It alarms me how much we examine communities/people of color through a white lens. When we do this, things are suddenly viewed as problematic and the solution ends up being assimilation. How do we define "we"? When we talk about protecting the greater good through increased civic engagement, whose "greater good" are we talking about?

Out of the kitchen and into the laboratory
The BBC article talks about women in academia. It's no secret that women suffer grave discrimination in higher levels of education despite enjoying increased presence overall. In this piece, scientists say that maybe it really is a matter of nature versus nurture when it comes to women and math/science. Maybe people were too harsh on Larry Summers.

I'm not the sort of lady-ist who will not hear people out when they talk about biological differences between men and women. I know that I am one of those people who were not wired for math and science, nor was it nurtured in me by parents or teachers. But I guess I don't care, because I know plenty of women who love and excel at these technical subjects. Just like I know plenty of men who are better wordsmiths than techies.

I guess I am not bothered by science that shows we're different. I guess I am more bothered when people use it to discriminate or discount when there are living exceptions to the research. Remember when white people used "science" to prove that the Negroid race was genetically stupid, thus slavery was completely justifiable?

If a woman is genuinely adept at math and science and has proven her worth in the area, why are we still giving her a hard time? It's pretty difficult, in my opinion, to BS your way through med school. So I would assume that any woman who is a researcher, practitioner, scientist, smarty-pants whatever really knows her shit and worked hard to do so. Maybe she has better/different wiring than me even though we're both XX.

Feminists and liberals and the like shouldn't cringe at the science that says maybe we're different. We should cringe at the people who say that science proves that the differences make women the lesser sex.

Science sometimes presents us with inconvenient truths; things that challenge our way of thinking. However, it's only inconvenient when science is used to hinder the progress of social justice. Diversity is still a good thing and women are still deserving of equal treatment in the workplace no matter what the numbers say.