Letters to the Editor


I've enjoyed reading the mail generated by my good friend Polley McClure's entertaining and provocative article in the May/June issue of Educom Review ("Technology And Gender; or, Is John Gehl A Sexist?; or, Is Educom from Mars and CAUSE from Venus?")-and I should probably add a couple of comments of my own. One is that all of this "honorary subscriber" business in Edupage is, after all, just an entertainment, not an awards system! It started out years ago as a way of putting a bit of life into otherwise-boring sign-up instructions, but my little joke eventually took on a life of its own, by turning into a very popular feature of Edupage.

A second point is that the word "honorary" is used quite loosely: our honorary subscribers have included many shady characters (mostly male), including Machiavelli, Rasputin, Jesse James, and others. And, for that reason, maybe women should be glad when they are proportionally underrepresented in our little rogues' gallery.

In any event, I'm delighted to have been (I think) exonerated by Polley, and I'm eager to continue this exhilarating probe of my character. Therefore, in the next issue of Educom Review, we will feature an article entitled, "Is John Gehl A Crook?" Look for it on newsstands everywhere that good books are sold.

But I'll tell you right now. I am not a crook!

John Gehl, editor and publisher
[email protected]

Finally a woman speaks up publicly and says that there ARE differences that we should all recognize, that there are also similarities between the genders, and that we need to understand and welcome both. What you did not say is that some of the different visions, viewpoints and philosophies can provide new insights that can open new avenues for research and scholarship. Let us put aside our narrow-mindedness and welcome the differences and the similarities, work with them and use them to our benefit!

Elsa Nadler, West Virginia University



I've always enjoyed the Edupage "honorary subscriber" information, and honestly hadn't noticed the male/female proportions. However, your points about interest and inclination are well-taken.

The article provokes some questions which might brook further research (by some enterprising graduate student, perhaps!). For example: Are those who opt for seven-sister-ish schools likely subsequently to demonstrate interests/vocations closer to the testosterone side than women educated elsewhere? What about girls brought up in predominantly male families; boys, in predominately female families? Perhaps some of the references you cite in the article already address these. I'm going to add a couple of them to my summer reading list!

Rita Seplowitz Saltz, Princeton



Great article! Vive La Difference!

Miriam Drake, Georgia Tech



I want to thank you for your article on technology and gender in Educom Review. You were so right on! I appreciate your willingness to comment on this issue.

Carolyn Parnell, University of Minnesota



I read with interest Polley Ann McClure's article in this month's Educom Review. I have to disagree with her assessment-I don't think different gender styles as she describes them adequately capture what's happening.

Seems to me, the primary problem here is a systematic sexist bias in the workplace that limits the opportunities of women to be successful leaders. In other words, an environment that creates an outcome where in fact "men do inherently more important and interesting work." There's a tremendous amount of data to support this sort of conclusion, even if one restricts oneself to academia.

For example, see: http://dynamic.uoregon.edu/~jjf/chillyclimate.html

Given all of the strong documentation that discrimination exists, it seems parsimonious to attribute differences in success to it rather than to a much more fuzzy difference in inherent cognitive style.

Implicit in McClure's argument is an imputed biological difference. The literature on innate sex differences is quite mixed, but when you look closely at the data it typically does not support a claim that women are inherently poorer at tasks that would naturally correlate with success in IT. For example, if you look closely at most studies of sex differences you find that if there's any difference at all in mean between men and women it's usually accounted for by differences in a very small tail in one or the other distribution. It's not just "overlap"-it's essentially an identical distribution.

A variant of this explanation and of McClure's observation is the possibility that we systematically discount women's legitimate contributions just because they are women. That's at the core of many definitions of "sexism" and is, of course, quite hard to document. But my own experience is that it is a very real phenomenon.

JQ Johnson, University of Oregon



I enjoyed your article in the ER. Among other things I think it is interesting, well written and provides some valuable insights that, even if we know them, or knew them and forgot them, are worth reminding us of. I certainly relate to the bedside table comparison with my wife's reading (when we have time to read). I'll have to get a copy of Cold Mountain since I don't get a chance to read as much non-fiction as I would like.

I do think it may be a stretch to attribute the differences between Educom and CAUSE to the gender of recent leadership. I'd say it is more likely related to stronger cultural forces that reflect their historical roots (academic/administrative computing).

And those of us who support the merger are watching closely to see that things go well, particularly that serious attention be paid to insuring that the things that were hallmarks of one organization (and not necessarily the other) continue to thrive in the new organization. In my view this is Brian's [Hawkins, president of EDUCAUSE] biggest, and most delicate, challenge. Success in overcoming this challenge will ultimately determine EDUCAUSE's success or, heaven forbid, failure.

Foremost among these (on my list) are:

• Delivery of high quality service (in all its dimensions)
• Leadership on policy issues
• Service to ALL of higher education (big and small institutions)
• Focus on professional development
• Inclusiveness encouraged by affordability of its activities.

EDUCAUSE must do all these things (at the minimum) to be successful. It's a big challenge that is important for all of us. Many of us will be watching with a mixed degree of hope and anxiety as things play out.

Dave Smallen, Hamilton College



While Ms. McLure's article may be a concise (if somewhat simplistic) attempt to explain the biological and environmental factors that result in sexual and gender differentiation, I am not sure she ever really addressed or answered the question she raised. One of the hallmarks of most forms of domination including sexism is the existence of privilege--in this case male privilege. The lack of what might be obvious bias or discrimination does not mean that a person or system is not sexist.

In this same issue there is an article accompanied by four critiques all written by men. Is this another indication of John Gehl's sexism? I don't know Mr. Gehl and would not presume to form an opinion about whether he is or is not a sexist. Could a better gender balance been achieved in finding people to critique an article, name honorary subscribers, or identify leaders in the field? I think the answer is yes, but this task takes time and effort. It means going beyond the familiar names.

To answer Mr. Gehl's question-yes, there is bias and discrimination in the IT profession. And placing women's names in a list of heroes won't solve the problem by itself. But it would be a start.

Celia Rabinowitz, St. Mary's College of Maryland


Educom Review Table of Contents