It’s not just Joe Biden’s sniffing schnoz that has a preference for young females. His alma mater, the University of Delaware (UD), does as well. Its discrimination stinks of illegality, too, as it excludes men in numerous ways in violation of federal law, namely Title IX.
Writing about this Thursday at the Federalist was Adam Kissel, a former deputy assistant secretary for higher education programs at the U.S. Department of Education.
Kissel first mentions that UD’s Alfred Lerner College of Business and Economics is alone guilty of six Title IX violations, by his count. Its Women’s Leadership Initiative (WLI), for example, “runs an executive education program, ‘RISE UP,’ exclusively for mid-career women,” he writes. “It also runs Female Faculty Connections, exclusively for female faculty. For just $8,000, an organization can enroll a cohort of up to 10 women (no men allowed) in WLI’s new Women’s Leadership Online Certificate Program.”
Moreover and quite ironically, since Biden’s recent “transgender” executive order gives boys and men claiming female status access to everything reserved for girls and women, this would include “programs that currently violate the Title IX ban on sex discrimination by excluding males,” Kissel points out.
“In other words, Biden’s administration insists a school or college that discriminates against males must stop discriminating against them — but only if the males claim to be females,” he continues. “But discrimination against males who live in sync with their biology runs unchecked, with university support, even though that is illegal under Title IX.”
Kissel outlines other discriminatory UD programs as well, mentioning
- an “ACSEND” program only for female undergraduates;
- an “ADVANCE Women’s Leadership @ UD” program only for female faculty;
- a COVID-era program to help undergraduates adjust to college life — but only if they’re female; and
- “UD’s Advance Institute offers ‘mini-grants’ for ‘women’s leadership,’” Kissel writes.
Kissel also cites numerous direct and third-party, women-only UD scholarships. Two examples are “the Mae Carter Scholarship ($1,500) and the African Violet Memorial Award ($1,000),” he informs.
None of this is new, of course. Discrimination against men has long been status quo. The irony of it in college, however, is that beginning in 1982 women have outnumbered men in undergraduate education and since the 1990s have earned 57 percent of all bachelor’s degrees. Girls have long been getting better grades in primary and secondary education as well.
Yet this status quo apparently extends beyond education and even beyond our borders. In fact, a 2019 global study found that men face more discrimination worldwide and in the United States than women do, with men having it harder in 91 out of 134 countries.
In other words, this constant focus on female-only benefits not only violates the erstwhile liberal priority of equality, but also the newest leftist obsession: “equity.” This is the idea that you give some people an advantage so that everyone, as Kamala Harris put it, ends up “in the same place.”
Of course, the anti-male discrimination’s authors may justify themselves by claiming that men numerically dominate certain lucrative fields or earn more money in general, as they cherry-pick statistics to fit an agenda. This not only ignores that these disparities are explained by the different career choices the sexes make (e.g., men are more likely to choose hard sciences; women gravitate toward soft ones), but also omits from the equation “female-friendly” disparities.
For example, despite sanctimonious talk about “glass ceilings” disadvantaging females, there is within “the feminist grievance narrative … no whining about women being ‘excluded’ from working-class male-dominated professions,” commentator Katie El-Diwany pointed out in 2018.
“There is more than plenty of talk about the dearth of women in science, in engineering, in upper management positions, and as CEOs,” she continued. “But there is no one asking: where are all the female garbage-collectors, the female elevator technicians, the female landscape laborers, the female oil rig workers?”
This disparity is why men constitute 92 percent of workplace deaths. Yet there’s no effort to equalize the male-female numbers here as there is when men numerically dominate some coveted sphere.
As El-Diwany concludes, “All of this reveals that feminist clamoring for ‘equal representation’ is not about equality at all. It is about power and prestige.”
Here’s another example: While we hear incessant complaints about women’s lower pay in sports, acting or elsewhere — a market-forces-driven phenomenon — there’s nary a word regarding how female fashion models greatly outearn their male counterparts.
This is why I’ve long maintained that few actually believe in “equality” (or equity): The leftist social engineers never truly try to achieve it, but instead simply seek to advantage favored groups — even if they already have advantages. So their actions really smack more of what the late Rush Limbaugh called “get-even-with-’em-ism.”
Calls for “equality” reflect not principle but ploy. The sooner we relegate use of that term to mathematics and purge it from political science and sociology, the better off we’ll be.
