OPINION:
Standing starkly in contrast to America’s historically dominant “melting pot” philosophy is the philosophy of pitting one identity group against another for the purposes of political and ideological supremacy.
Most noteworthy in this regard is President Obama’s recent rally-the-troops video seeking to reconnect with “young people, African-Americans, Latinos and women” before the November elections. Identity politics might work, but at what cost?
The greatest danger is backlash by the nonfavored segments of the population, with the potential risk of class, ethnic, racial or gender conflict, which today’s article about Arizona’s ethnic studies programs clearly demonstrates (“Arizona governor now targets ethnic studies,” Page 1, Thursday).
Following on the heels of challenges to ethnic studies programs are challenges to women’s studies programs. For decades women’s studies programs have thrived based on a host of purported “victimization” and gender gap claims. Both government data and sound social science research now have exposed many of these claims as myths. Today it is clear that “gender gaps” predominantly favor females and disfavor males. Specific examples would include strikingly higher rates of male unemployment, strikingly lower rates of male educational attainment, blatant gender bias in family and divorce law and, even when women and men initiate domestic violence at equal rates, the government’s providing of services to women but not to men (as seen in the Violence Against Women Act).
Finally, and contrary to President Obama’s public statements, in early 2009, the U.S. Labor Department issued an extensive review of the literature and concluded that there was no gender gap in wages.
Indeed, as a consequence of women’s studies, a new field of male studies already has emerged.
GORDON E. FINLEY
Professor of psychology, Florida International University
Miami, Fla.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.