Re: de-tenuring of Mary Daly (fwd)

[Beth Goldstein <bg28@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Katha,

Well, I've just logged on and found Yoshi's post, which articulates much
of what I wanted to say; that Title IX does not offer the protection one
would like it to.  Thanks Yoshi for providing the text of the bill itself,
it was quite informative.
	
Daly did not deny educational access to the student, she was offering to
teach him one on one.  It seems to me that Title IX, at least in terms of
sports education, certainly offers a recognition of difference and allows
for a 'separate but equal' justification.

I am convinced that, at least for the present, there is a difference
between equity and equality.  Perhaps in the future we can get to a place
wherein there really is no difference between equity and equality, but for
right now we need to redress social and political inequities and socially
invisible, yet powerful, harmful claims. That means that we need to
address different experiences and different needs in different ways, in
order to create equality.  We need to acknowledge that we don't start out
on a level playing fielf, and that to get to the place we would be *were*
we to start out on a level playing field, may require some artifice.

What I see here is Title IX being used against Mary Daly in a swift,
retributive manner.  I seriously doubt that the administration of BC is
concerned about Title IX and not about Daly's radicalism.  Whether or not
I agree with Daly is irrelevant, whethor or not they agree with her is
irrelevant.  What I see here is the administration de-tenuring and firing
a professor the first chance they got because her political views were
abhorrent to them.

The irony, of course, is that Title IX's separate but equal justification
was intended to provide equity as a route to the ultimate end of equality.
In recognizing and providing for that need, Mary Daly violated strict
equality.  But strict equality is a theoretical bug-a-boo --- we have
different needs, different issues and different modes.  Allowing for them
and providing appropriate conditions is, I think, laudable *as long as* it
is done strictly en route to equality.

I earn a living (if you can call it that) through a patchwork quilt of
jobs.  One of them is as a personal trainer.  I also tutor.  I can tell
you from experience that what works with women and girls does not work
with men and boys and what works with men and boys does not work with
women and girls.  I am fairly convinced that this is a socially induced
phenomena, and not an innate difference.  But it is nonetheless true that
I am more effective with women and girls in my woman/girl mode and I am
more effective with men and boys in my man/boy mode.

That having been said, I do think you make an excellent point when you
discuss dealing with the difficult student.  There is a value for students
to see and hear a committed person making a rational, passionate defense
in the face of ordinary prejudices and cultivated preconceptions.  And, it
is part of our job as educators.

Some students are capitalist, some are Republican, some are right wing.
I've had a few of those myself.  Occasionally, they are so extreme that I
do not need to deal with them too much, the class itself takes them on.  I
once had a student who, believe it or not, defended slavery on relativist
grounds.  That one was easy.

The tougher ones are more savvy, and their rhetoric is far more palatable,
though their ideas are not. It is, I think, an important experience for
students to see (and agree with) my defense of, say, Marxist principles in
the face of Capitalist nonsense.  And it is what allows some minds to
open somewhat, those which can be opened anyway.  I think that the
classroom environment I create is safer, but not as safe, as the one
Daly provides.

A few years ago I taught a course on Medical Ethics.  It was through a
nursing program, so the class was almost entirely women.  There was, in
fact, only one man, and he only showed up to class about 60% of the time.
There was a marked difference between the classes when he was there and
the classes when he wasn't there.  I therefore had the accidental
experience of a woman only class, and was able to compare it to that same
class when the lone man was in attendance.

My experience tells me that here Daly is correct -- the environment is
much different, and more conducive to women's discussion, women's
learning, women's involvement and women's ability to assert themselves
when there is no man in attendance.  And, bear in mind that my lone male
student was quite sympathetic to feminist claims and a feminist agenda (he
was sooooo cool!).  Nonetheless, when he was around the women were not as
assertive, were not as involved, did not go the extra mile to discuss the
details of their lives as they related to the material.  There was a great
deal of philosophical difference between these women.  Some were feminist,
some were not.  Some were extremely traditional, others were very
progressive.  But they were all quieter when he was around -- all of them.

So, to sum up:

1. I don't think that Title IX offers the protection cited and, in any
case, I don't think she violated Title IX given that it supports a
separate but equal justification

2. I am sympathetic to the idea that equity requires different treatment,
and that equity can be and is a route to equality

3. I do think that this is a case of a radical thinker targeted for her
radicalism, and an administration getting rid of her the first excuse they
got

4. I am concerned about the precedent set by this action.  Tenure ought to
be revoke-able (is this a word?) for gross misconduct, with the proper
redress to greivance, but that was not what happened here.

5. I think that a strong case can be made out for both Katha's position
that academic classes ought not be single sex and for Daly's position that
a women only space is more conducive to women's learning.


Beth

> Dear Beth -- you say you fear being targetted after tenure like mary
> Daly.  but as long as you obey Title IX, Mary Daly's fate cannot be
> yours.  Nobody objected to the content of her course. It was her illegal
> denial of equal access to education that did her in. She was a fool to
> give the right such an easy bullseye. To my mind, firing her for that is
> like firing a tenured prof for embezzlement. good riddance to both, I
> say.
>   I wonder how 'safe" a space Mary Daly's class would be for a woman who
> disagreed strongly with her? the idea that "women" can all have a
> peaceful, safe, respectful discussion, but put a man in their and
> everything goes to hell -- how well does that accord with people's
> experience of single-sex life? Women can be just as rude, ferocious,
> belittling and contemptuous of each other as any man.
>    the question, though, isn't whether single-sex discussions are
> valuable -- sometimes i think they are, for both sexes.  It's whether an
> academic course can illegally exclude by gender. mary Daly could have
> invited female students over for all the women-only discussions she
> wanted. But a for-credit course? That's something else.
>
> Katha
>
>