Suddenly Anything is Possible

Women in STEM - Howard Ross

The USAToday, in an editorial entitled “First, Dispel all the Myths” on Friday, October 12, suggests that the gap in women’s success in science, math, engineering, and technology (STEM) does exist, but that “girls lag in math and science degrees, but bias isn’t the reason.”

On the surface, their justification makes sense. “The suggestion of a conspiracy coordinated by engineering department chairmen scattered among hundreds of campuses defies common sense.” This point may be viable, if one is looking for examples of conscious attempts to exclude the participation or success of women, but what the perspective does not take into account is the systemic unconscious bias that undermines women’s success in STEM, both because of the impact it has on people in the field already, and people potentially aspiring to success in the field, both men and women. The distinction between conscious and unconscious bias in this case is a good example of how the difference in looking at these two kinds of bias can fundamentally impact how diversity affects aspects of our day-to-day life.

The gap between men and women’s performance in these fields is indisputable. As the editorial reports, while almost 60% of college graduates are now women, only about 42% of science and engineering students are women. Why is this the case? On the surface one might the case that schools and organizations are actively recruiting women to come into these fields, and there is some evidence to suggest that this is, in fact happening. I know that in the case of our clients who are hiring in these fields, many of them are, aggressively in some cases, affirmatively attempting to bring in more women. Active and open attempts to discriminate against them, on the other hand, are clearly less apparent than in the past.

So why then, do the results continue, albeit less so than before?

The reason may exist in the story under the surface. Unconscious patterns of bias against women in STEM are a deeply ingrained pattern in our consciousness. It is a pattern that impacts men, in that we often have intuitive and deeply ingrained beliefs about what a scientist or an engineer looks like, act like, and sound like. We may not actively or consciously discriminate against someone who doesn’t fit that model, but we may look at a woman who looks, acts, or sounds different from that model and just not feel like they are “the kind of person” who would be successful in the field. These beliefs and reaction may exist on a deeply buried subconscious level, and our conscious mind may then create a justification that allows us to live with a belief that may be directly contrary to our conscious ones.

A study conducted by researchers at Harvard and Yale, for example, shows that men generally are less likely to see women as being successful in math. (The Power of the Immediate Situation: Gender Differences in Implicit Math Attitudes, Mahzarin Banaji, Brian Nosek) The important thing to understand in interpreting these results is that they are almost certainly less as a response to individual prejudices as they are to institutional and implicit messages that people have received from their societal experiences and messages. Who are our STEM role models? Who have we seen (and clearly continue to see) in leadership in these fields?

Another interesting aspect to the study, however, is that it also shows that women tend to unconsciously experience low levels of implicit assessments of themselves in math, even when they explicitly know that they are successful. They also tend to have decidedly less positive attitudes of their own competency, and that of other women, when there are mostly men working around them. Where do these attitudes come from? From the same societal messages that women get from the time they are very young. They become part of the deeply imbedded, unspoken value systems that we all hold. It is critical for us to understand that this kind of “internalized oppression” can discourage women from developing successful careers.

This may be the most insidious kind of discrimination…the kind that is so deeply ingrained in our unconscious societal structure, our values and beliefs, that it is “concealed by its obviousness.”

So in looking at the USAToday editorial, we can see that conscious discrimination or “conspiracy” may not be present, but the effects of generations of discrimination might still live under the surface, implicitly impacting people and organizations, every day.

A Cheater is Just a Cheater--Howard Ross

I am a sports fan…always have been. I am particularly a baseball fan, and so I watched with special interest as Barry Bonds approached Hank Aaron's homerun record this summer, and noted the constant media and fan derision he received. (For example, I read one column by USAToday’s Christine Brennan, after the homerun was hit that she began with, “Our long national nightmare is over…a bit of hyperbole, I think, when our soldiers are dying in the battlefield.)

Now I have to say that my inclination is to think that Bonds used steroids. I have no proof of that, of course, as does anybody else yet, but I have been convinced, perhaps by the press, that he probably did juice up over the past few years.

However, I have noticed a pattern in the relentless way that Bonds has been berated about this that strikes me as inconsistent, particularly in light of how others seem to be treated for infractions that would appear on the surface to be analogous.

It particularly struck me this morning as I was watching the report of the New England Patriots victory yesterday and the excitement with which their 5-0 start has been greeted. Noticeably absent was any mention of the fact that just a few short weeks ago Patriots Head Coach Bill Belichick was found to be spying on opposing teams, a direct violation of the rules. And just before that it was Rick Ankiel, the feel good baseball story of the year when he came back to the St. Louis Cardinals, just before he was found to have used Human Growth Hormone; and before that the celebration of Sammy Sosa’s 600th homerun…you remember Sosa, of steroid allegations himself, as well as corked bat fame.

Now as much as I like sports, I also know that a game is a game. So who really cares about all of this in the grand scheme of more serious issues? But sports has had an unwavering ability to cast a light on some of our core issues over the years.

Why Bonds for this level of recrimination and not the others? I know that people have many explanations…it was baseball’s, (and maybe sport’s) biggest record; he never has admitted juicing (but, of course neither has Sosa); Belichick said he was sorry and took his punishment….etc.

I’m sure all of these are factors, but is there another? When Donovan McNabb suggested recently that Black quarterbacks are under greater scrutiny he was quickly greeted with denial. But is it possible that, without even realizing it, we do hold African American athletes (particularly those, like Bonds, who are deemed to have “attitude”) to a different standard…that their failure is more disappointing; their violations more appalling?

Everything we have been learning about unconscious bias tells us that sort of thing can happen to good people all of the time. That we can be swayed in our determinations by hidden judgments and perceptions that we not only don’t know are there, but that may be counter to our conscious beliefs about ourselves.

Yet, as I hear people respond so defensively to the inquiry about these kinds of questions, as they have with both Bonds and McNabb, I can’t help but muse, “Me thinks thou doest protest too much.”

After all, a cheater is just a cheater.

But are you sure?