Why Evolution is True is a blog written by Jerry Coyne, centered on evolution and biology but also dealing with diverse topics like politics, culture, and cats.
One of the most horrible and damaging aspects of religion is the tendency of some faiths to refuse medical care to children, relying instead on prayer and “faith healing.” The most famous such faith is Christian Science, but many sects do the same thing. As I recall (and I’m in the airport without my figures), something like 42 states confer civil or criminal immunity on parents who injure or kill their children by withholding medical care on religious grounds. If you withhold medical care on other grounds, of course, you’re liable to prosecution. Such is the unwarranted and harmful privilege of religion in America.
I wasn’t aware that Mormons were guilty of these crimes, but as The Guardian reported (and this is several months old), Mariah Walton, a young woman in Idaho, was permanently disabled because her fundamentalist Mormon parents refused to give her surgery for a hole in her heart when she was born, and so she’s left permanently disabled with pulmonary hypertension. This is what she looks like now:
Photograph: Jason Wilson for The Guardian
Mariah, sadly. lived in Idaho, where parents are immune from prosecution for this kind of neglect. (The last chapter of Faith Versus Fact discusses the execrable religious-exemption laws.)
Mariah, along with others injured in this way, are campaigning for an end to Idaho’s exemption laws. Amazingly, some state legislators (Republicans, of course), oppose the laws’ repeal because parents should have the right to treat their kids with faith-based medicine: it’s “freedom of religion.”
There should be no freedom of religion that allows parents to hurt their children in the name of their god. It’s bad enough that they indoctrinate their kids (which really should be illegal, too), but it’s out of bounds to withhold scientific medicine in the name of a fairy tale.
It appears that the bill to deep-six the exemption laws is still under consideration, so that children are still being injured (the Followers of Christ are notorious for this). There’s a Change.org petition to the Idaho governor to remove religious exemptions from prosecution, but, sadly, it has only 1,207 signers. It’s time to eliminate all religious exemptions for medical treatment: not just for deformities and diseases, but for vaccinations, too: 47 states allow religious exemptions for the requirement for school children to get vaccinated.
This is a crummy situation and I don’t know what to do about it. But what’s clear is that everyone in this situation is a loser.
What happened is that the University of California at Berkeley provided free Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) to students, a real bonus to those who lacked either funds or mobility to attend the school. The problem was that, as the Department of Justice determined after a complaint, most of these courses had no captions or sign language for deaf people. This is from the Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center:
The Department [of Justice] reviewed MOOCs through the UC BerkeleyX platform and determined that some videos were not captioned, documents were not formatted for those who use screen readers, and assorted other issues. Upon a sampling of the YouTube platforms, the Department found a number of barriers to access, including for example automatically generated captions that were inaccurate and incomplete, did not provide non-visual description of the content, or were not contrasted properly for those with visual impairments. Finally, the Department reviewed a sampling of Berkeley’s iTunes U platform and found that none of the videos reviewed were closed captioned, and none provided an alternative format to the visual information contained into the videos.
The Department concluded that Berkeley has violated accessibility requirements. Specifically, the Department found that Berkeley “is in violation of title II because significant portions of its online content are not provided in an accessible manner when necessary to ensure effective communication with individuals with hearing, vision or manual disabilities. In addition, Berkeley’s administrative methods have not ensured that individuals with disabilities have an equal opportunity to use Berkeley’s online content.” Along with its findings, the Department presented a list of six remedial measures that Berkeley must take to ensure accessibility in the future.
You can see the DOJ’s letter here. In response, it appears that the courses will be taken down until (and if) UC Berkeley finds ways to satisfy the requirements.
This is what one calls a “Pyrrhic victory”, for nobody wins. Deaf people don’t get access to the courses (unless Berkeley finds the resources to fix them, and remember that they were free), and neither does anybody else. It’s entirely possible that these courses, and others like them, will simply vanish. Is that good?
The one good aspect of this, I think, is that it calls attention to the needs of those who are hearing-impaired (we haven’t even considered the blind), so that those who have the resources should make their courses accessible to all.
But if that can’t be done for lack of resources, what is the solution? I don’t know, but taking all the courses offline for the interim seems a lousy solution
As a biologist, I’ve learned that there are two related issues that are taboo for academics to discuss openly. The first is the issue of “races”—or genetic differences between human populations. Cultural anthropologists tell us that races are “social constructs.” Well, there’s a bit of truth in that, insofar as there is no finite number of races that can be unambiguously demarcated from each other. But there are genetic differences between groups, and clustering algorithms can divide populations into five or six fairly distinguishable groups corresponding to their geographic localities. Those differences in marker genes undoubtedly evolved via either genetic drift or natural selection in early human populations that were geographically isolated.
But the issue of whether there are genetically-based differences in behavior, physiology, mentation, and other non-physical attributes of populations is simply off the table. It’s not just that we shouldn’t investigate them (for one can make a case that such research might itself have invidious social consequences), but that those differencesdon’t exist. I’ve even heard people called “racists” by cultural anthropologists—one of the worst fields for ideologically motivated scholarship— simply for suggesting that there might be behavioral genetic differences between human groups. You can discuss the issue, but there’s only one position considered acceptable.
My own take is that the separation of human subgroups has been so recent that there hasn’t been a lot of time for extensive genetic differences to evolve, though clearly there’s been time for marked physical differences to evolve. And it’s clear that human intermixing, facilitated by transportation and increased mobility, will tend to efface all of these differences. But we shouldn’t assert that any trait beyond the most obvious physical differences between groups shows complete equality among them.
When it comes to the sexes, though, it’s a different matter. In the hominin lineage males and females have been coevolving (either cooperatively or antagonistically) for 6 million years or so—ample time for differences in behavior, wants, thought patterns, and so on to evolve, just as morphological differences between men and women have clearly evolved. Do those genetic differences in thought and behavior exist? I suspect they do, at least for traits connected to sexuality and sexual behavior. Just as animals ranging from flies to mammals show consistent (though not universal) patterns of male/female differences in sexual behavior—differences explainable by sexual selection—so I expect the human lineage evolved similar patterns. After all, males are larger and stronger than females, and you have to explain that somehow. How do you do so without explaining evolved differences in behavior—probably based on sexual selection?
Yet the idea that males and females show evolutionary/genetic differences in behavior is also anathema in liberal academia, and for the same reason that population differences are anathema. Such differences, so the thinking goes, would support either racism (on the part of populations) or sexism (on the part of males and females). But of course that thinking is false: we can accept evolved differences without turning them into social policy. And it’s of interest to many evolutionists, including me, to know the extent to which groups and sexes have evolved along divergent pathways.
Still, many feminists, liberals, sociologists, and cultural anthropologists deny any such divergence. Yes, men and women differ in body size, strength, and structure, but there are, so they say, no such differences in the brain and behavior. In all other traits, so the trope goes, men and women are equal. And given equal interests and talents, then the only thing enforcing anything other than a 50% representation of men and women in professions must be cultural pressures: viz., sexism. Thus, unequal representation in professions is prima facie evidence of sex discrimination. But as Jon Haidt mentioned in the lecture I posted the other day (watch the video; it’s good!), one first has to determine the cause of such unequal representation before one decides what to do about it.
At any rate, in the humanities and especially cultural anthropology, which in its ideological slant really counts as (sloppy) humanities rather than science, these attitudes are not only religious in nature, lacking empirical substantiation, but are also theological in enforcement. Authors (as I’ve pointed out recently) assume what they want to prove, and then go ahead and collect just those data that support their hypothesis. Confirmation bias is rife. This is what theologians do, not scientists.
The paper I’m highlighting today (link and free download below) is by Charlotta Stern, associate professor and deputy chair of the sociology department at Stockholm University. She is a brave woman, for her paper aims at calling out those sociologists who simply refuse to consider biology as an explanation of sex-distinguishing behaviors. As she says, not pulling her punches:
The present investigation is informed by my long and ongoing experience as a sociologist at Stockholm University. My teaching and research often touch on gender issues. I have served on about five thesis committees that addressed gender sociology or related matters, and I have participated in dozens of seminars that touch on gender sociology. My relationships with my colleagues and students are not heated. When I raise ideas that would challenge the sacred beliefs, I do so only at the edges. I have seen how people react when I or another suggests that maybe there is a difference in math skills between men and women, or that men and women have different preferences and motivations. In my experience, gender sociologists frown upon such remarks about innate differences in aptitude or motivations. I perceive deep and widespread taboo and insularity among gender sociologists. It saddens me. I feel impelled to make available some expression of my concern, hoping that students and others will hear it before sinking into the sacred beliefs and sacred causes addressed here.
Her method was simple, and somewhat subjective. She examined a set of 23 highly-cited articles in sociology journals, all of which cite a classic paper in the field, “Doing gender,” by Candace West and Don Zimmerman (1987); reference and free link below).
West and Zimmer concluded (or decided in advance) that behavioral and non-physical differences between men and women were “constructed” based on their genitalia, so that all differences we observe in later life are the result of socialization. As Stern notes,
“Doing gender” is presented as part of a lamentable system of social control. The paper’s final para- graph reads:
“Gender is a powerful ideological device, which produces, reproduces, and legitimates the choices and limits that are predicated on sex category. An understanding of how gender is produced in social situations will afford clarification of the interactional scaffolding of social structure and the social control processes that sustain it. (West and Zimmerman 1987, 147).”
Stern examined 23 highly-cited sociology papers published between 2004 and 2014 (two per year) that themselves cited West and Zimmer’s influential paper. Then, developing a spreadsheet, she coded each of the articles as whether or not they took the hypothesis of biological differences between men and women as a serious possibility. Her classification was as follows:
Neutral. Discussions of gender differnces but no discussion of their biological bases, nor dismissal of them. (4 articles).
Blinkered. These are the articles in which, according to Stern, biological differences are relevant hypotheses, but are either ignored or dismissed out of hand (15 articles).
Unblinkered. Stern found only one article that considered biology as a possible explanation for sex differences in things like time spent with children, savings for education, and other “family processes.” Stern says the article has a “nuanced discussion of causality.”
Not rated. These articles “do not deal with matters for which biological difference ideas would clearly be relevant.” Four articles.
Here is Stern’s list of the articles and their ratings:
Now of course you can debate Stern’s methods and assessments, but what’s clear even without this analysis is that it’s taboo in much of academia to suggest that measurable differences between populations or sexes (excluding the most obvious physical differences) have any biological basis. But there should be no taboos in academics. One can debate the wisdom of investigating some questions (e.g., “Are Jews genetically acquisitive?”), but what one should not do is assume what’s true before investigating it. And, as Jon Haidt noted, if you don’t know the empirical basis for differences that are considered problematic (such as the underrepresentation of women in mathematics), you’re hampered from addressing them.
Stern’s conclusion is low key (my emphasis):
One cannot draw quantitative estimates on the basis of my investigation, but its findings are consistent with an image of gender sociology as a subfield that has insulated its sacred beliefs from important scientific challenges.
I have extensive first-hand experience with gender sociology’s insularity. But I also know of pervasive preference falsification (Kuran 1995), and I have seen students awaken with an ‘a-ha!’ moment when exposed to unorthodox thinkers such as Catherine Hakim (1995; 2000; 2008). I believe reform is possible. Whether people should ‘do gender’ less, and how they should ‘do gender,’ are questions worthy of personal reflection, scholarly exploration, and public discourse. More definite, to my mind, is that people should do less insularity.
It’s Thursday, October 6, 2016, and I’m off to the Freedom From Religion Foundation convention in Pittsburgh today. If you’re there, and have or buy a book (they’re selling both WEIT and Faith Versus Fact after my talk), I’ll draw a cat in it if you meow. As I said yesterday, posting will doubtless be light for the next few days. I’ll try to take some photos of the doings and post them here; also, there are trips to Frank Lloyd Wright’s masterpiece, the house “Fallingwater,” tomorrow, and I’m going, although photos of the inside are prohibited. Finally, 4,299 people have signed Nazí Paikidze-Barnes’s petitition against women chess players having to wear hijabs at the Women’s World Championships in Iran. I ask you again to sign it if you haven’t yet and agree with the petition.
It’s National Noodle Day, undoubtedly decreed by pasta makers, but also World Space Week, extending from October 4-10: a celebration of technology and exploration. On this day in 1723, Ben Franklin arrived in Philadelphia, supposedly toting a loaf of bread under each arm. And, in 1889, Thomas Edison projected his first motion picture in public. Finally, on October 6, 1981, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat was assassinated.
Notables born on this day include Jenny Lind (1820; there are no recordings of her reportedly superb voice), Le Corbusier (1887), mountaineer Willy Merkl (1900), Thor Heyerdahl (1914), and Elisabeth Shue (1963; “Leaving Las Vegas”). Those who died on this day include Alfred, Lord Tennyson (1892), Nelson Riddle (1985), and Bette Davis (1989♥). Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, the animals are guilt-tripping Andrzej into taking them for walkies:
Hili: The whole world is looking at you.
A: I see. We will go for a walk in a moment.
In Polish:
Hili: Cały świat na ciebie patrzy.
Ja: Widzę, zaraz pójdziemy na spacer.
And in Winnipeg, where walruses waddle wanly in the winter, Gus is soaking up some rare winter sun in the garden. Isn’t he cute?
U.S. women’s chess champion Nazi Paikidze-Barnes has started a petition protesting FIDE’s (the international chess organization) decision to hold its Women’s World Championship in Iran, where all players, Muslim or not, will be required to wear hijabs. On top of that ridiculous religious requirement in a secular venue, I just realized that one’s chess game, which demands terrific concentration, could be thrown off by having to wear a scarf over your head.
Nazí’s original goal was 1000 signatures, and I’m sure she’s terrifically pleased that it stands at a much higher number now—more than 3400. But I’d like it to go higher, as I have a feeling that FIDE may have to respond to the petition. So, if you object to women being made to veil against their wishes, do sign the petition; click on the screenshot below to add your name and perhaps a message.
I should add that Pikidze-Barnes’s husband was the first signer, and added a nice message:
I write here for free, and rarely ask anything of readers; but there are 40,000+ subscribers out there, and if only half of you took the one minute to sign the petition, there would be an astounding 20,000 signatures. Do it for Professor Ceiling Cat, Emeritus.
Well, gang, it’s happened again: a woman named Mary Campos was forced to change her seat on a United Airlines flight because two Pakistani monks didn’t want their airspace polluted by women. Before boarding a flight to Houston, Campos was given a new boarding pass by the gate agent, who explained, “The two gentlemen seated next to you have cultural beliefs that prevent them for sitting next to, or talking to or communicating with females.”
Cultural beliefs, my tuchas! It’s religion, Jake, and United compliantly rolled over on its belly and capitulated. Campos felt she had no choice, and so she moved. Further, the female flight crew was prohibited from serving the monks. (The monks we wearing orange, so I have no idea whether they were Buddhists or of another faith.)
Campos wrote a letter of complaint to the CEO of United (part of her text, which is very good, is in the screenshot below) and heard—nothing. You can see the story on the Los Angeles station CBS2 by clicking the screenshot below. The station, however, got a lame-ass response when writing to United:
A company spokesperson wrote, in part:
“We regret that Ms. Campos was unhappy with the handling of the seat assignments on her flight. United holds its employees to the highest standards of professionalism and has zero tolerance for discrimination.”
Well, if they have zero tolerance for discrimination, they should fire the gate agent and give some re-education to the crew of that flight. That response is really a non-response.
Click to see the story and video:
The station asked Campos, a senior consultant to the oil and gas industry, if she planned to sue United, and Campos said this:
[The reporter Stacey] Butler asked Campos if she intended on suing the airline and she said that was not her intention. But she did want two things from United.
Apologize to every female that was on that plane, including their employees.
Change their policy. Campos said if she didn’t get those things, she would do whatever she had to do to protect women’s rights.
You go, Ms. Campos! That’s an eminently reasonable pair of requests. It’s time for this ridiculous religiously-based discrimination to stop. I’ve reported it here over and over again, and it’s involved Jews, Muslims, and now, perhaps, Buddhists. I’m tired of it, and women must be even more ticked off. It’s unconscionable and, in fact, I’m going to make one of my rare direct tweets to United Airlines. You’re invited to join me:
@united United sex discrimination–forcing woman to get a new seat because 2 monks didn't want to be next to her. https://t.co/O5ahCM3Rdi
