Diverse thoughts on diversity in physics

Abstract

Before declaring a call to arms in the name of diversity, it would be prudent to briefly evaluate whether the ends justify the means. Shirley Malcom cites statistics illustrating the gender and racial disparities in physics to support her disapproval of the scales being tipped in favor of the white male. After presenting her case, she sets forth a possible course of action—the use of preferential treatment toward women and minorities; she contends that such a policy will end the injustice.On the surface, this aggressive policy to recruit minority members into physics may seem like a good idea; it would appear necessary, given the inequality of representation with regard to men and women and to Caucasians and minorities. However, the issue is surely not as straightforward and easily rectified as Malcom suggests.First, her initial imperative that women and minorities be represented in numbers “commensurate with their proportions in the general population” is naive. Given the variability of cultures and individual histories, it would seem natural that various segments of the population might be geared to pursue certain disciplines over others.Second, many high schools around the nation do not require that students take a course in physics. I attended high school in Missouri, which required courses in biology and chemistry; physics was an elective. In light of the lack of a physics requirement, comparing the number of high-school students who took physics with those who took other sciences essentially constructs a straw man, strips the percentages of their context, and omits relevant factors. And further, physics may very well be one of the most difficult disciplines to study, possibly more demanding both conceptually and analytically than any other science; thus, more individuals are apt to pursue study in the other spheres of science.Third, I have seen no substantiation for the idea that actively recruiting women and minorities into physics—at least by the method Malcom proposes—would be beneficial to the overall health of the discipline. In essence, this is the quality versus equality debate that has plagued affirmative action programs since their inception. Should her proposal be taken at face value, it would hardly be good for the advancement of the physics community. It would sacrifice quality of members for the end goal of diversity in the guise of proportional representation. The solution to the problem of integrating women and minority members into physics is not, and should not be, diversity for diversity’s sake. Rather, the best solutions are educational outreach programs such as those already initiated by universities in primary and secondary schools across the nation and an overhaul of the family and traditional cultural norms that pervade and further embed the current stereotypes and injustices. The programs should not be directed toward only women and minorities, and institutions should not be rewarded for being preferential in their offering of these programs—such a practice can only hurt the study of physics. In fact, the inclusion of race or gender in any matter does nothing to alleviate supposed injustices, but instead hinders the goal of one day achieving a truly gender-free and colorblind society.So indeed, as Malcom says, “failing to consider change is unacceptable to the health of the field.” But the solutions she puts forth are equally unacceptable. Should those in positions of power feel inspired to work for the betterment of mankind, they would do well to realize that the ends often do not justify the means.© 2007 American Institute of Physics.