Vol. 8 No. 1
September 2005

Return to Contents

Women's Work?
Gender Equity in the Hard Sciences at Emory

Harvard's promise

Gender in the hard science faculty ranks at Emory

Hard sciences faculty by gender at other institutions

"What's happening along the way? Why aren't women choosing academia proportionately, and why aren't women staying in academia?"

"I think the 'nature versus nurture' question is not meaningful, because it treats them as independent factors, whereas in fact everything is nature and nurture."

The Crisis in the Humanities
So what else is new?

Sweeping Away the Dust of Everyday Life
Jazz and the Emory Experience

The Diary and the Map
Sartre and Foucault on making sense of history

This Old Sarcophagus
Life, death, money and chemistry in the Carlos Museum



Race, scholarship, and ideological warfare
A below-the-radar-screen warfare is going on by ideological groups in the name of color-blindness. They have targeted institutions that tried to win through threats and intimidation when they didn’t win in court. In particular, they are going after scholarship programs, pipeline programs for PhD’s, programs that get African Americans, Latinos, other ethnic minorities into math and sciences, into “America”—any and all programs that aim to assist those who have been underrepresented. They are being targeted by those who argue that those programs constitute so-called reverse discrimination. This is an intellectually dishonest or at best a convoluted discourse. All of this is taking place at the same time we are becoming more aware of the growing gap between the haves and the have-nots, quite aside from race. Some colleges and universities are beginning to address class differences and—if they have the resources, and most institutions don’t—moving to ensure that the working class and poor people, regardless of race, are given the opportunities to enroll and matriculate on their campuses. But at the core of the class issues still remains the old bugaboo of race, which is this country’s oldest and most difficult issue, and it isn’t going to go away any time soon.

—Theodore M. Shaw, President, Director-Counsel, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, speaking at the Futurist Forum, sponsored by the Strategic Planning Steering Committee, April 8, 2005

A different Turkey

I have bad news for those against Turkey joining the European Union. We are going to join because we want it. Yes, we are Muslims. Yes, we are not so “civilized.” Yes, we are not 100 percent ready for what membership entails. But we are going to be, because we know that we are asking to join a club and we have to abide by their rules. They are not going to change; we are going to change. Now, people are saying that in fifteen years’ time, it will be a different E.U., it will be a different Turkey. It is going to be a different Turkey, that’s for sure. A different Europe? It will depend on Europe. Because I think that without Turkey, Europe will be a fat commissar. That’s all. I think Europe needs us. We need them more, but Europe as well needs us. We will give them freshness. We are going to give them youth. We are going to give them power. They are going to be a real strategic partner of the United States, once we get in. Because it’s not only a place that you need; you need manpower, as well—men to die, if you want to be strong.

—Mehmet Ali Birand, journalist and commentator, CNN Turk, speaking as a Halle Distinguished Fellow on March 21 on “Turkey, Europe, and the United States,” sponsored by the Claus M. Halle Institute for Global Learning