This rather dubious premise drives the structure of the program: According to Professor Yanagisako, feminist studies investigates “how societies create gender differences as part of gender inequality.” For Stanford's feminists, all societies in which gender differences are manifest—that is, all currently existing societies—must have artificially created these differences, often with the intent of oppressing women. Consequently, any area of society in which such differences still exist must be unjust. The resulting political program has a revolutionary and utopian dimension: Only a society radically different from our own will be able to eliminate all gender differences.
Professor Yanagisako indicated that even a field as seemingly apolitical as athletics involves such unjust differences: “Money is directed into men's athletics, not into women's. Thus, it is not surprising that men tend to be the ones who excel in athletic disciplines.”72 Even these very brief observations suffer from two very significant mistakes—of the sort that are endemic to almost all of the pseudoscientific claims made in feminist studies. First, Professor Yanagisako's observation is not completely accurate factually: There are some sports (volleyball, for example) in which women's teams receive considerably more funding than men's. Second, and more important, correlation does not prove causation: It may be the case that money is directed into men's sports because men are the ones who excel in certain athletic disciplines. Only if one assumes that there are no natural differences—that men and women would perform equally well in football if they received equal funding, or that if enough money were poured into women's sports they would become as popular as men's football or basketball—could one infer that every difference is caused by the cultural bias.
For some of Stanford's feminists, the suspicion that unjust gender differences have shaped Western society extends to all fields.73 Consider, for example, just those Feminist Studies classes meeting the new gender studies DR in Spring 1994. Anthropology 154, “Creation/Procreation: A Comparative Study,” investigated “the gendered aspects of cosmological or religious systems” and studied biology “as sexual politics.”74 Anthro 250, “Gender and Nationalism,” explored the thesis that nationalism and other forms of “hegemony” are male creations that oppress women.75 Linguistics 154, “Language and Gender,” sought to find “differences between the speech of females and the speech of males, and to relate these findings to characterizations of women and men and their respective places in society.”76 The class also explored the “embedding of power in language,” “linguistic authority,” “meaning-making rights,” and “the reproduction of male power and the male perspective in language.”77 Feminist Studies 135, “Women and Organizations,” searched for “women's cultures that are not male-defined” and “a definition of female personhood that is not ultimately dependent on the exercise of male power and approval.”78 The class also maintained that capitalism, industrialism, and bureaucracy are “male strategies of organization.”79 Finally, History and Philosophy of Science 160, “Gender and Science,” asked in what ways science is “gendered” and what a “feminist science” might look like.80 History professor Estelle Freedman, who has taught the class, explained that because most scientists have been men, much of science has been warped by a “male perspective.”81
The demands for a “female science,” “women's organizations,” and a special “female perspective” point to a contradiction that permeates all of feminist studies. If there are no gender differences and men and women are completely fungible, then it would not matter who is doing what: The fact that all of the physicists of the 17th century, for instance, happened to be men should not discredit the theory of gravity. Nor is the revolution of Earth around the Sun sexist because the scientist who discovered this fact, Copernicus, happened to be a man. Had women studied these matters, presumably they would have discovered the same things. Feminism's egalitarian rhetoric does not square with its multicultural gnosticism.
Along these lines, it is worth noting that women happen to teach the overwhelming majority of these gender studies classes. Now, if there are no natural differences, then the very funding of these programs would be evidence of unjust gender discrimination—albeit one that favors women. By the very criteria feminists have defined, are we not long overdue for more of a “male perspective” on feminist studies?
In practice, of course, gender (or any other multicultural) studies do not require a great deal of internal coherence, because they are not concerned with truth. Rather, for the activists pushing these programs, the most important feature of these courses is that they suggest a political realignment in American society. Political theory is the major component of the gender studies classes, and it is here that the agenda becomes most apparent. A random and cursory glance through some of the books used for feminist studies courses produces the following insights into the human condition:
If the professional rapist is to be separated from the average dominant heterosexual, it may be mainly a quantitative difference.82
Women's struggles must be directed immediately against male dominance. In order to do this…women must forsake heterosexuality, which divides women from each other and ties them to their oppressors…. [W]omen's bodies are socially constructed. Nothing about women is ‘natural': women are made not born…. [In the] new society, there will be only persons: both women and men will have disappeared…. [F]eminism is the theory and lesbianism is the practice.83
The future: Artificial parthogenesis, egg fusion, and cloning; if developed, these techniques would produce children from women's eggs without the use of sperm…. [S]ome of us would be glad if they became available. One woman said: ‘I have a real longing for egg fusion because I am in a deep and long-term relationship with a woman and would love to have a child which comes truly from both of us…I do yearn to create a new being with her from the start.’84
Ardent feminists are convinced that [‘qualified'] is a contemporary euphemism for penis, and in a high proportion of cases they are absolutely right…. Here are some no-no's:…. Never reveal what salary you are making…. If the agency recruiter or prospective employer insists that you give this information, lie…. Put down the salary that men in equivalent jobs make if you know it; otherwise, add approximately $10,000 to what you got paid.85
If one did not know better, one might think that these texts were a satire of feminism, or the product of some malicious stereotype—so preposterous are the claims that they make. But these feminist writings and ideas are not unrepresentative of much of what passes for scholarship in this area. The passionate hatred of men, the utopian demands for an elimination of all gender differences, the (totally inconsistent) demands for a uniquely female perspective, and the belief in widespread gender discrimination are the core of the new gender studies curriculum.
If there is something to be learned from the new race and gender requirements, then perhaps it concerns the futility of multicultural victimology. Ironically, the basic tenets of multiculturalism should make it impossible to determine who victims are in the first place. This problem is caused by the necessary involvement of a third party: Besides the victim and victimizer, there must be a person assessing the victimization itself, the one awarding victim status. But multiculturalism denies the possibility of individual objectivity. In its view, each group is jostling every other for position in a giant power struggle, where the judgment of every individual is colored by his membership in, and allegiance to, a particular group. According to multiculturalism, it should be impossible to find impartial third parties to assess victim status. Because every individual seeks to promote the interests of his group, the very act of assigning victim status must also be seen in the context of a larger intergroup power struggle. The group that successfully obtains victim status—and the privileges of redress and proportional representation this status confers—may be seen as a victor in this power struggle. And yet, if it is a victor—that is, if it is a powerful group—then, by definition, its members can no longer be the �
��victims.”
The details of the passage of the new race and gender DRs perfectly illustrate this internal contradiction. The supporters of the race DR, which revolves around “systematically discriminated” minorities, claimed that the requirement was needed to remedy these groups’ lack of institutional power and their consequent exclusion from curricular decisions. The proposal identified African Americans, American Indians, Asian Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Pacific Islanders as such discriminated groups. Irish Americans, Slavic Americans, and Mormons did not make the list of those with victim status, even though all of these groups have in fact experienced some discrimination in America's history. Not surprisingly, before a Faculty Senate meeting to evaluate the new requirements, several dozen students protested outside.86 According to a Stanford Daily poll, only 39 percent of the overall student body supported the new race studies requirement, and even fewer—only 31 percent—supported the gender studies requirement, but both changes passed anyway.87 Apparently the groups who had successfully lobbied for the new requirements were not as deprived of institutional power as they claimed.
The very establishment of well-funded minority studies departments ironically demonstrates that many self-proclaimed “victim” groups possess institutional power quite disproportionate to their numbers. In recent years, the Stanford administration has launched more than a dozen different programs benefiting minority and women students and faculty:88
The Undergraduate Scholars Program pairs minority students with faculty mentors to complete and publish research projects. The program also invites six minority scholars to campus to speak and hold workshops with students.
The Stanford Center for Chicano Research (SCCR) Graduate and Undergraduate Mentor Program similarly sponsors research projects and pairs Chicano students and faculty.
The Chicano Fellows Program provides funds for graduate Chicano fellows and visiting professors.
The American Indian Summer Institute Program provides special instruction for incoming American Indian freshmen “to ease their transition from high school to the Stanford environment.”
The Graduate Program for Aspiring Law Teachers, sponsored by Stanford Law School, identifies and supports minority law school graduates seeking careers in teaching law.
The Irvine Dissertation Fellowship Program assists “promising minority graduate students during critical stages in their development as professors.”
The Field and Summer Research in Latin America Program, sponsored by the Latin American studies department, aids blacks and Latinos in their pursuit of master's and doctoral degrees.
The Master Tutor Program and Minority Student Outreach and Tutor Development Program train minority tutors and also provide special tutoring for minority students.
The Lalarza Prize for Excellence in Chicano Research helps “to identify and recruit the most promising [Chicano] students for graduate study, and to introduce them to the rewards of an academic career.”
Other programs include (but are not limited to) the Physics Department Recruitment and Retention Program; the Martin Luther King Papers Faculty Development and Mentoring Program; and the Stanford Teacher Education Program (STEP), which seeks “to contribute directly to the preparation and credentialization of ethnic and minority teachers for California schools.”
In addition, reflecting perhaps the latest trend in preferred victim groups, special scholarships have recently been endowed for homosexual students.89 Racial quotas have even been applied to the purchasing of goods and services through the university's centralized procurement department, including the Stanford Shopping Center (a university property). As part of the policy, departments receive a booklet listing established minority, women, and disabled vendors in a variety of goods and services. The policy influences $10 to $15 million spent annually on smaller purchases by departments.90
The bulk of these affirmative action programs are directed at faculty recruitment, and closely resemble the CIV hiring clause, which urges “that race, ethnicity, and gender be considered as factors in the hiring of new faculty.” Consider the Stanford Daily's explanation of the hiring clause:
The spirit of the hiring clause is not to simply consider a faculty applicant's pigmentation, accent, surname or chromosomes in their evaluation. What is meant is to consider the applicant's ethnicity, race and gender as it applies to their intellectual and academic perspective.91
Like CIV, race and gender studies depend on the notion that minorities and women have a special knowledge about the contemporary situation. As the Stanford Daily notes, however, not every minority person possesses the perspective necessary to teach minority studies. Not just any minority or female faculty would be good for the new curriculum—pigmentation, accent, surname, or chromosomes are not enough. Only those with the proper “intellectual and academic perspective” need apply. Of course, since the “academic perspective” sought by CIV, race studies, and gender studies is a multicultural one, the most qualified minority or women faculty—that is, those with the correct “academic perspective”—will be multiculturalists. Those minority persons who have the “special perspectives” needed for the new curriculum will, by definition, share the requisite left-liberal bias. In the name of “diversity,” race and gender studies departments have brought to campus a group of faculty almost monolithic in its thinking.
As “subordinated” minorities, moreover, these special recruits will enjoy at Stanford a privileged perspective that is not subject to review or criticism. This unchallengeable perspective enables the transmission of multiculturalism, which in turn justifies separate race and gender studies departments, new race and gender DRs, and more recruitment programs. Multicultural victimology and race and gender studies reinforce one another, and provide cover (as well as money and jobs) for the same political movement.
The Radical Curriculum
In a number of the new classes, radical politics—camouflaged elsewhere as therapy, trendiness, or redress—move to the center. All pretense of objectivity is dropped. Particularly notable among the latter were the Innovative Academic Courses (IAC) and Student Workshops On Political and Social Issues (SWOPSI) programs, which ostensibly were concerned with enabling people from the surrounding community to teach Stanford classes on issues that would not otherwise be covered. After a reorganization in 1992, many of the courses were transferred into departments like Feminist Studies.92
Most of the SWOPSI and IAC courses provided three to five units of credit towards graduation, and many of them required students to engage in explicitly political activities. The classes often received “mixed reviews,” reported the Stanford Daily, as students criticized them for “being too liberal or too subjective by professors.”93 IAC Director Margo Horn proudly admitted as much: “I think that what people teach reflects politics.”94
Consider the three-unit “Issues in Self-Defense For Women,” one of the more reasonable-sounding of the SWOPSI offerings, which later became a feminist studies class. Surprisingly enough, the class has remarkably little to do with physical education for women (there is a reason it is not offered through Stanford's athletics department, which offers a range of karate, judo, and other self-defense classes). Instructor Alyson Yarus explained: “It is less important that we teach individuals in our classes how to defend themselves than it is to change society.”95 Yarus said the class was an important step toward a “feminist utopia,” which would end sexism, starvation, classism, and hierarchy.96 “I guess a feminist utopia is probably a socialist world,” she explained; “I am a socialist at heart.” Jae Choi, another member of the Women Defending Ourselves Collective that teaches these classes, echoed these priorities: “What we've got right now is shit. We need to show people that there is an alternative…. Stanford provides lots of people who will be in positions where they can influence. The more they are aware of issues like this, the more they can influence.”97
Because of the need to comply with federal regulations that prohibit gender discrim
ination at universities receiving federal funding, the feminist studies department was forced to add a new men's section in 1993—a prospect about which the instructors were not enthusiastic. Choi explained: “The purpose of the class is empowerment…. It wouldn't make much sense to teach that to men who already control all of the power.”98 The separate and unequal men's section did not include “assertiveness training” or “physical defense techniques,” but still kept the readings, such as This Bridge Called My Back: Writings By Radical Women Of Color, a book that won a prize from the Before Columbus Foundation.99
Perhaps the most unfortunate consequence of the self-defense class is that it leaves women technically and physically unprepared to deal with real-life assault situations. Instead of teaching women the holds, moves, preventive measures, and familiarity with weapons necessary to protect themselves from aggressors, the course seeks to give women a false sense of “empowerment” through a feminist ideology that does nothing to overcome the natural disadvantages in strength, size, and quickness that women face when confronting men. One hopes that the women who got A's in the course will not be emboldened to walk by dark alleys.
The intellectual mischief of the multiculturalists is not limited to the classroom. At academic conferences and in academic journals, many of the same ideas—regarding the evils of the West, the need for 1960s-style activism, and the push for a new society, all couched in talk about victims and oppressors—are recycled ad nauseum. A complete review of the state of multicultural scholarship is beyond the scope of this book, but an examination of two of these academic conferences at Stanford—each billed as major events and sponsored by the university—will provide a representative sampling of the new thinking.
The Diversity Myth Page 13
