When I questioned the need for bias awareness on Tufts' campus and the effectiveness of other similar activist groups (in the March 13 Viewpoint, "What's the point of bias intervention anyway?"), I expected a wave of hostility complete with alienation, death threats, and a protesting Facebook.com group. Instead, the flood of compliments and praise for the article made me realize that nearly everyone is sick of phony activism. I am too.
Unfortunately, I was not off the hook. Sara Weisman responded to my article with a rebuttal that, for the most part, agreed with my main argument. She agreed that most activism on campus is in terrible shape-a conclusion that an anonymous leader of a large activist group on campus frustratingly relayed to me as well.
The apparent trouble with my previous article is that by attacking the state of activism, it seems as though I'm attacking all activism and activists. Apparently activists should never be criticized since they all have good intentions and are trying to make the world a better place. Like politicians and religious leaders, activists are in no way out there to push their own agendas or benefit themselves.
Actually, I am a strong and vocal supporter of earnest, hard working activists. At the 2007 African Music and Arts Festival, I had the pleasure of meeting Karen Sparacio, a photographer turned activist and fundraiser. Upon visiting the Acholi people of Uganda and seeing the extreme poverty, Karen founded Project Have Hope. She was at the festival selling beautiful, glass-like paper beaded necklaces made by Acholi women in order to raise money for projects designed to enable the people to provide for themselves without Western aid. (For more information visit www.projecthavehope.org.)
Any Tufts activists engaged in activism similar to that of Karen Sparacio, or raising funds for programs like Project Have Hope, please know that my previous article was not a shot at you. It was aimed at the r?©sum?© builders who steal needed time, money and attention from worthwhile organizations.
The "activists" I oppose are the ones who whine about real issues without accomplishing anything, or the ones who fight for Sara Weisman's version of equity. As I understand from her argument, Weisman defines equity as statistical equality; she will not be satisfied until all groups are represented properly on a spreadsheet and cite any minute deviance as a need for protest regardless of cause.
One such statistic that Weisman points out is "in the School of Engineering, women make up only 28.8 percent of full-time undergraduates." I believe that statistic. But unlike Weisman, I don't believe it is indicative of any sexist policies.
I am a mathematics major and have taken many high-level math classes with very academically gifted men and women. I feel I'm qualified to make observations about statistical gender disparages in the field; there are noticeably fewer women than men in high-level math classes. Anyone who has taken Number Theory or Honors Linear Algebra will probably agree.
Unfortunately, by saying I don't feel men outnumbering women by more than 2 to 1 in engineering is a reflection of some overarching sexist problem, I open myself to the dreaded, radically liberal 'ist' or 'phobic' attack. The 'ist' or 'phobic' attack is a typical, cyclic argument that uses accusations of bigotry to win a debate. During the attack, a neoliberal will accuse a person who is arguing against them of being racist, sexist or homophobic. By branding the other person as racist, sexist or homophobic, the neolib will have successfully subverted his opponent's argument to a lower-moral ground. The claim of bigotry does not even need to be true; the accusation alone is enough to permanently tarnish not only someone's argument, but his or her character too. Before I am accused of being a conservative puppet, please be aware that I believe liberals are right on many issues. The reason I deride this style of argument is because its use takes away from the real issues within a larger debate.
At this point, there should be an inferno of rage kindling inside some readers. A few of you are probably thinking, "What a sexist pig." I assure you, the previous claim about statistical disparity in math classes was not intended to sound sexist. It is not to be inferred that anyone taking those classes is more intelligent than others by virtue of having a penis. Some of my smartest professors and fellow students are female, including my major advisor.
Regardless, I'm sure I will be called a chauvinist by some for arguing that the statistic does not need to be fixed. Men and women do not need to be equally represented in engineering, mathematics, natural sciences, history, English, psychology, Judaic studies or child development. Those with the most interest and merit should occupy each field; there's no need for institutionally-regimented class demographics.
What about equal representation outside of academia? Did you know that with the capture of Shauntay L. Henderson, the FBI's top 10 most wanted list is again all male! I'm sure those striving for total equity would argue that this intentional exclusion of female felons from the most-wanted list is a male plot to dampen the impact of female criminals compared to their male counterparts.
I agree that something must be done regarding one statistic Weisman pointed out; only 26 percent of Tufts undergrads come from families living below the national median for household income. Tufts is not completely need-blind and that contributes to the problem. The inequality also stems from large problems that need to be addressed on the national scale. In my opinion, the gravity of this socioeconomic problem weighs much more heavily on people than the problems a lot of campus activists combat. (Programs like Teach For America are an example of effective, positive activism.)
Activists who thieve what little money there is for legitimate campus activism make the real problems worse. There are a lot of activists within the Tufts community who are doing great things; it is you who should be furious - you are being robbed of attention and funding. But hey, flaunt 'em if you got 'em because I still think those "Hate Free Zone" pins from last year will be the big spring fashion craze.
Stephen Sherman is a sophomore majoring in mathematics.
