When the perfect is the enemy of the good

As many of you know, in real life I'm a professor of science at a large university.  There aren't many of us women who have made it to the top of the academic ladder in science.   We tend to take longer to get there.  We are frequently paid less than the men, even if we have superior credentials.   We go to the full professors' meeting and find everyone else is pale (white), stale (old), and male.

 There is a positive correlation between a man's academic success, and being a parent, but for women, the correlation is negative.  Dare to have a family, and you are much more likely to be on the non-tenure track, or hover as an associate professor for your entire career.  Try finding space for pumping breast milk at a major conference, for example. 

Part of the problem is an attitude of some young women that they aren't going to engage in a deeply flawed system to try to change it.  "Fix it first," one told me once.  "THEN I'll come back." 

Well, honey, sorry but if you don't engage, you don't get to play.  Thing is, it's a big, very competitive field.  If you go stand off by yourself, and expect us to come to you hat in hand to beg you to join, that's not going to happen.  Because there are other women, equally talented, who will roll up their sleeves and dive in, not waiting. They are willing to effect change from the inside, which is the only way change will happen.  And each one of us who makes it to the top of that tenure ladder, fingernails bleeding, makes it a little bit easier for the one coming up behind.

They are not going to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.  

I feel the same way about the people (and there are many) who are angry about the Episcopal church's liturgy for blessing of a same sex union.  It's not the BCP liturgy for a marriage.  It should be, i agree. (It's quite lovely).  But it's not there yet.  

Still, if you don't engage it, take the opportunity granted, you will not be able to make change happen. Because if you don't participate, why should they make any changes to it?  "There's no demand."  

This is one of the reasons we married prior to Prop8, knowing that with DOMA it was all very very imperfect.  Yet marrying BP was the greatest thing I have done in my life, despite the imperfections.  And look what has happened since....Prop8 fell, DOMA clause 3 is done.  In part, because of the witness of people who married even though it wasn't perfect.

And it's one of the reasons we jumped at the chance to get our marriage blessed, as soon as it was approved by our Bishop (prior to the current liturgy).  In San Diego, same sex couples have to write a letter to the Bishop explaining why they want to be blessed (or now, why they want to marry). Some of our friends are very upset by that, because straight people don't have to do it.  So what?  I did not mind being asked to articulate why it mattered to us.  If it educates people, if it gives the Bishop ammo to educate people who might be opposed, why should I object?

So, many LGBT couples will not engage TEC because it's not BCP-marriage and it's not uniform across the church.  I think that's a sad thing. Because being part of the process gives you a voice that standing alone in the hayfield never will.  

Eventually, I hope the liturgy will be available to both same- and opposite-sex couples (I mean, have you read the BCP marriage liturgy?  Talk about archaic views of women! ;-)  Eventually TEC will welcome everyone, everywhere. It takes time.  We can help it along by working from the inside and educating people on what it means.  We can show them what a married lesbian or gay couple looks like, and why it matters that we can marry.  Our witness is our greatest weapon.  

And we can't do that, if we don't engage. 

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Are today's Republicans actually stupid?

The conservative side often complains that universities are liberal places. And they are, but part of that has to be that universities are places that celebrate knowledge and discovery, and increasingly, the conservative movement and the Republicans oppose these things.

This may be why most conservatives on university faculties are of a libertarian, rather than typical Republican bent. The old style Republicans--socially libertarian, fiscally conservative, responsible supporters of free market policies-- they are independents, now, as the Republican Party has embraced social conservatism--at the cost of intelligence.

Now in the majority, Republicans want to hold hearings on the "global warming conspiracy". Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), who will seek the Energy and Commerce Committee chairmanship maintains that we do not have to worry about climate change because God promised in the Bible not to destroy the world again after Noah’s flood.Their electoral base "doesn't believe" in evolution. They characterize homosexuality as somehow unnatural, or a pathology. They have a regrettable tendency to believer birther conspiracies and complain that Obama is a Muslim. They consider scientific findings to be politically manipulated by self-serving liars.

Given all this, I think it is not surprising that the GOP has a brain drain, especially among the young.

[T]he picture that emerges is alarming. In good universities across the nation, students flee the Republican Party. And the better the universities, it seems, the more drastic the trend. …
Today’s top students are motivated less by enthusiasm for Democrats and much more by revulsion from Republicans. It’s not the students who have changed so much. It’s the Republicans….

Under Presidents Eisenhower and Nixon, Republicans championed science and knowledge. But over the past 30 years, national Republicans have formed an intensifying alliance with religious conservatives more skeptical of science and knowledge. I don’t know whether discarding evolution goes against common sense; but I’m pretty sure it goes against most Ivy League-educated senses.

To advance this alliance, national Republicans have derided elite universities as dangerous and hostile places….

In the age of Fox News and the Tea Party, the cultural war has heated up, and the anti-academic and anti-science rhetoric has intensified. …

The culture war that Republicans have waged has paid off. They have stoked up resentment against the educated "elites" and worn their anti-intellectualism as a badge of pride. And increasingly, they rely for votes on an uneducated, resentful class -- the left-behind class, the ones displaced by the modern global high-tech economy. With this current strategy, it is actually to their advantage to maintain a large part of the population as ignorant, ill educated, and aggrieved.

I think the Republicans are divided between the cynical manipulators, who politicize inquiry, mis-state facts, and use the media to enforce the idea of disagreement where none occurs, and the proudly ignorant, who willingly state that they don't "believe" in evolution or global warming, and who glare balefully at those who do.

While other countries rush ahead with investments in the future, developing science and technology and investing in education, the current Republican party wants to take the country back--into the 1950s, or beyond. I don't believe that ALL of them are that stupid. But those who aren't, are willing to sell out for short term gains and power. And that is truly frightening.

Meanwhile, the stupidification of America is well under way.

Sabbatical

Definition:

Sab·bati·cal (sə bat′i kəl), adjective
1. of or suited to the Sabbath
2. bringing a period of rest that recurs in regular cycles
Origin: < Fr sabbatique < LL(Ec) sabbaticus < Gr sabbatikos < sabbaton (see Sabbath) + -al

noun
1. a recurring period of rest
2. sabbatical leave: a year or shorter period of absence for study, rest, or travel, given at intervals (orig. every seven years) as to some college teachers and now to people in other fields, at full or partial salary
3. sabbatical year: among the ancient Jews, every seventh year, in which, according to Mosaic law, the land and vineyards were to remain fallow and debtors were to be released

When I was a kid, how I envied my classmates who had a professor parent. They got to go live for a year in Europe , or Asia. Somewhere different, anyway. Even as late as my postdoc, I met senior professors, all men, who on sabbatical moved their entire families abroad. Their wives were either other academics, or had the sorts of jobs they could leave, if they had jobs at all.

Alas, for people married to those with "real" jobs, up-and-moving overseas for a year isn't feasible--not with the family anyway. And, most universities only give one semester off at full pay; going for a year means getting half a salary. And a scientist can't take a lab of 10 or 15 along. So my sabbatical this fall will be spent at home, focusing on doing lab work in my own lab, and free of teaching and administration for one semester. In my 17 years as a professor, it's my first one. It's quite freeing to answer all requests for university service with the holy words, "I'm sorry, I'm on sabbatical." I think I'll turn off my phone. But never fear: I'll still be blogging!

Does academic freedom mean you can criticize homosexuality?

An adjunct professor at the University of Illinois, who teaches two classes in the religion department about Catholicism, has been fired for criticizing homosexuality.

Howell has been an adjunct lecturer in the department for nine years, during which he taught two courses, Introduction to Catholicism and Modern Catholic Thought. He was also director of the Institute of Catholic Thought, part of St. John's Catholic Newman Center on campus and the Catholic Diocese of Peoria. Funding for his salary came from the Institute of Catholic Thought.

One of his lectures in the introductory class on Catholicism focuses on the application of natural law theory to a social issue. In early May, Howell wrote a lengthy e-mail to his students, in preparation for an exam, in which he discusses how the theory of utilitarianism and natural law theory would judge the morality of homosexual acts.

"Natural Moral Law says that Morality must be a response to REALITY," he wrote in the e-mail, obtained by The News-Gazette. "In other words, sexual acts are only appropriate for people who are complementary, not the same."

He went on to write there has been a disassociation of sexual activity from morality and procreation, in contradiction of Natural Moral Theory.

A student became upset and wrote to complain.

"Teaching a student about the tenets of a religion is one thing," the student wrote in the e-mail. "Declaring that homosexual acts violate the natural laws of man is another. The courses at this institution should be geared to contribute to the public discourse and promote independent thought; not limit one's worldview and ostracize people of a certain sexual orientation."

Howell, an adjunct, will not be renewed.

Howell said he was presenting the idea that the Catholic moral teachings are based on natural moral law, and the Catholic understanding of what that means.

"My responsibility on teaching a class on Catholicism is to teach what the Catholic Church teaches," Howell said. "I have always made it very, very clear to my students they are never required to believe what I'm teaching and they'll never be judged on that."

He also said he's open with students about his own beliefs.

"I tell my students I am a practicing Catholic, so I believe the things I'm teaching," he said. "It's not a violation of academic freedom to advocate a position, if one does it as an appeal on rational grounds and it's pertinent to the subject."

While I obviously disagree with Howell's views, based on this article I agree with his conclusion.

It's a course in Catholic thought. He's teaching "by the book" Catholicism. Where he might have failed, in my opinion, is to state clearly that "The Catholic Church teaches", or "I believe that". He needed to make the context clear to the students and respect that opinions differ. For example, on exams, one would write questions like "The Catholic Church teaches that sexual activity should limited to opposite couples because...." that include the italicized bit. That way the student can answer correctly without offending his own views.

But overall I believe this is generally covered by academic freedom and the non-renewal or firing was wrong.

Cary Nelson, ....president of the American Association of University Professors, agreed. He said while many professors choose not to share their beliefs with students, they are free to do so and to advocate for a particular position.

"We think there is great value in faculty members arguing in a well-articulated way," Nelson said. "What you absolutely cannot do is require students to share your opinions. You have to offer students the opportunity to freely disagree, and there can be no penalty for disagreeing."

Now I don't think Howell should get a bye completely. It's clear that he was explaining Catholic thinking as The Truth, rather than the Catholic view of Truth. For example, writing this to his students is rather arrogant:

Unless you have done extensive research into homosexuality and are cognizant of the history of moral thought, you are not ready to make judgments about moral truth in this matter.

I think there's a legitmate concern if he attacked students in this way. But firing offense? I don't think so.

We all tend to be passionate and vocal advocates for free speech when it's our speech we want to be free. It's much harder to defend the rights of those who disagree. We see this on university campuses all the time when students protest conservative speakers. They shouldn't. If they don't want to hear the speaker, then don't go, or stand outside with a counter protest. But if my voice deserves to be heard, like it or not so does the opposition's.

Update PZ Myers takes it on (H/T Paul(A))

A letter that condemned students, that threatened students if they didn't agree with his views, that discriminated against a segment of society, or that denied people full participation in the culture for their views or background or private practices…that would be hate speech. This letter, though, is a pedantic and polite explanation of the views of the professor and of the Catholic church and of his interpretation of utilitarianism, and in fact is careful to say that he isn't condemning any individuals. We can't endorse using this kind of discussion as an excuse to expel people from academia — we want professors and students to be able to communicate freely with one another, without fear of retaliation. I see no sign that the professor was discussing the matter in a way that disrespects any of his students.

And the student complaining was doing so poorly. The professor's ideas made him uncomfortable. He disliked what he said. He thought the professor was insensitive.

Those are not good reasons. If a student is never made uncomfortable, that student is not getting an education.

On closets and the academy

We've talked a little here about Elena Kagan, and the is-she-or-isn't-she speculation in the media. Over at Telling Secrets, Elizabeth Kaeton has mused further over closets, and what it means that our culture assumes that any accomplished unmarried woman of a Certain Age is (shhhh!) a lesbian!

In my internet perambulations on the subject, I also came across an article on Religion Dispatches about "Lesbian Panic":

And yet, the terrifying-to-many ménage a trois of religion, sexuality, and education continues to serve as a condensed metaphor for all manner of cultural fears and anxieties; and prompts Armageddon-ish warnings about how values and morality have been thinned out.....

The author considers disparate cases: the music teacher in Canada furloughed from a Catholic school (could it be because she and her female partner had a baby? or for other reasons?) the ever-present concern about lesbians in women's college sports (particularly basketball and softball). And then, she linked to an article by Louie Crew in 1974 in the Chronicle of Higher Education:

For centuries the academy in the West has made quite clear the only terms on which gay persons could be accepted professionally at any level:  complete invisibility.  Gay men and women have been forced to pass as straights.  Our unique sexual orientation has been shoved into a closet.

    Many of us have learned thus to survive, even to prevail, some of us even to forget, except for very frantic moments, that we really are gay.  By playing the game of invisibility we have held every possible position of leadership; we have been major forces in the arts, in literature, in science, in technology, in every discipline.  ....

    Some gays argue that we have never had it so good, that we now even have power.  Many straights concur, even saying that gays have too much power, that too many bosses are gay an d that straights often learn too late the sexual politics of the game of invisibility.  The one constant is the game itself, invisibility, passing, closeting, wearing the heterosexual mask, reassuring straights that all is really right with the world.

Written in 1974. Which makes me awed by the courage of Louie Crew in coming out THEN, because those words are still so true today.

Although people think of the academy as a far-left liberal place, it's really not, especially outside of the humanities. Many faculty are still closeted, 35 years after Louie Crew's article. Indeed, I think it's inculcated into professionals of A Certain Age, that it's safer that way. Especially those of us who discover our sexuality, or come to terms with it, later in life, the professional closet seems like a prudent decision. Why discuss it? We so often internalize our own "don't ask don't tell"---and we don't realize how suffocating it is until we escape it. I am so lucky in my current institution, where I have never been anything but out, and where my colleagues are supportive. But I know many who aren't so lucky.

Our success in the academy is incredibly dependent on individuals -- fellow professors, the external reviewers who write letters for the tenure file. And review papers and grants. Some of those powerful, older men are not at all gay-friendly (nor woman-friendly). It can still cost at tenure time--especially at private institutions, or those in hostile parts of the country. Tenure, which is supposed to give us freedom and protection, actually denies us those things until we achieve it. (But that's a subject for a different post).

And, it's inevitably tangled up with gender as well. Women, gay folk, people of color all challenging that comfortable power structure of older, largely white men: Pale, Stale, and Male, as one colleague describes it. Calling a woman a lesbian is a way to try to keep her down, because it's still "acceptable" to consider it an insult. Damned upstart women.

As the Religion Dispatches piece puts it,

[S]omeday, soon...
We will not confuse competency in one’s chosen field with lesbianism—not a soccer field, not a religious pulpit, not a bench behind which legal decisions are propounded. Nor will being called a lesbian be a charge, or an accusation, defamatory, or a slur.

Well, we can hope.

Today's youth won't have this problem. They are out and proud at a young age, able to embrace the fullness of their identity. In a meeting with GLBT scientists at one of my professional societies, I was struck by the difference in their experience. The young ones never have been, and would not dream of being, anything but out. It's hard to convey to them the caution that their elders still have about coming out. They really don't "get" the closet.

One young postdoc said to me, "oh, you're gay too!" in some surprise. He was happy. I had become a role model. A woman graduate student thanked me, saying "you show me that I can be out as a lesbian, and still be a professor!" The choice for them is not in or out of the closet. They wouldn't dream of being in the closet. The choice is whether or not they try for academic positions. Some of them will have problems, with the pale stale faculty. But more of them will not.

And then there's the surprised recognition some of us older ones find at these meetings at seeing some of our own age cohort, who have finally come out themselves. Oh, you are too?

Hooding

It's graduation season, and the campus is filled with the happy faces of relieved undergraduates. There are also joyous faces who are a little bit older: the doctoral students who are "being hooded".

The PhD is the senior doctorate in US academe, the highest degree given. Other doctorates are considered "professional degrees": think MD, or JD. The recipients, while very accomplished, are more likely to pursue a profession at a high level of expertise. The Doctor of Philosophy is a research degree, with its traditional purpose academic. In my field of science, a PhD takes 5-8 years, rarely less, sometimes more.

Research students don't live on the academic clock, they live on the timing of the laboratory. One finishes when one finishes, which is seldom in graduation season. I did not "walk" the graduation ceremony when I finished my doctorate. In my 17 years as a professor, I have graduated a number of PhD's under my supervision, and none of them has walked either. Graduation seems more about the undergrads, the timing was bad, and our celebration has occurred at the thesis defense. But this year it was different.

As you know, academic regalia is mediaeval in origin, with a nod towards the ecclesiastical. It is a bit like wearing a sweltering tent, but it is impossible not to feel stately while wearing it.

In the US, Doctors' robes used to be basic black , but many universities now have the option of distinct colors. Regardless of the color of the robe, however, you can always identify the degree of the wearer by the length of the academic hood (4ft long for all doctors) , the width of the velvet around the neck (widest for doctors) and the colors. The velvet color around the neck specifies the degree: dark blue for PhD (regardless of field), dark green for MD, light blue for Ed. D (Education); pink for DMus (Doctor of Music), for example. Inset into the back are satin chevrons with colors of the university: blue and gold for the University of California, green and gold for the University of Oregon, and even plaid for Carnegie, etc. A few universities break with this system but most follow it.

In some universities, the transition of the young student to the community of scholars is achieved by having the advisor meet the student in a formal ceremony in full regalia. The student, wearing her doctoral robes, carries the doctoral hood over her arm and presents it to her dissertation advisor, who unfolds it and drapes it over her head: "hooding".

My current university takes this very seriously, and two of my students are nearly finished. This entitled them to walk in this year's PhD hooding ceremony, where each new PhD was met and hooded by their advisor. So I enveloped myself in The Tent that is my own regalia, choked by my long hood and with my tassselled tam set at a rakish angle, and processed into the auditorium with my fellow faculty, where we waited to walk up and meet our students in order. Although the University rules sternly advised PLEASE DO NOT HUG OR KISS YOUR STUDENT DURING THE CEREMONY, I couldn't resist giving them each a hug after I looped the heavy blue velvet around their necks.

And I will remind them that the title "Doctor" comes from the Latin docere, which means: to teach.

Gaudeamus igitur!

Update
All done.