third section, 62 Marc third section, 62 Marc

Men are more violent. Are women more intolerant?

The economist Tyler Cowen is very interested in the feminisation of society as women gain more positions of power. It’s a trend Cowen sees as strongly net positive for men and women, although he is open to the downsides that inevitably come with it.

One of those unexpected downsides is raised in a controversial new Substack essay from Noah Carl, suggesting that the increase of women in academia has made the problem of wokeism worse.

To put the dilemma crudely: we know men are, on average, more violent; are women, on average, more intolerant?

Carl got drummed out of Cambridge for his interest in questions like these, although he received plenty of mainstream support in the wake of his sacking, including from The Times. That doesn’t mean any of his actual conclusions are right, of course.

Here, Carl draws on a number of sources to support his case that there is a particular gender divide in academia, with female academics more likely to support imposing diversity quotas and the cancellation of threatening viewpoints, as against academic rigour and freedom of thought. Carl’s sources include a report by Eric Kauffman. Having checked out the original, Carl seems to over-egg Kauffman’s more nuanced conclusions. Still, it’s not the only piece of evidence he presents.

As it happens, I came across an astonishing data point recently in my own researches. The University of California’s Higher Education Research Institute regularly surveys American college teachers. In 2007-8, for the first time they asked full-time undergraduate faculty members how many thought it was very important or essential for undergraduates to be “encouraged to become agents of social change”. Male faculty were split, with 49% in favour (just 44.6% among full professors, with junior staff more sympathetic). However, a remarkable 75% of female faculty supported politicised teaching (71.6% even among full professors).

Whether we need to explain that difference by summoning “Just-So” stories of evolutionary biology as Carl would is another matter. Women, especially in the more radical corners of academia (where they are over-represented), see their status as under threat from discrimination and ally with other victim groups to fight back. It would be surprising (sexist?) to expect women not to make common cause and further their own interests. Arguably, the real problem is that no one has been maintaining the guard-rails set up to prevent the politicisation of education.

In any case, surveys like Kauffman’s show that age is a huge and salient predictor of attitudes among academics, male and female. Wokeism is going to gain ground on campus as the younger generation rises in seniority. What to do about that is a far harder question.

The economist Tyler Cowen is very interested in the feminisation of society as women gain more positions of power. It’s a trend Cowen sees as strongly net positive for men and women, although he is open to the downsides that inevitably come with it.

One of those unexpected downsides is raised in a controversial new Substack essay from Noah Carl, suggesting that the increase of women in academia has made the problem of wokeism worse.

To put the dilemma crudely: we know men are, on average, more violent; are women, on average, more intolerant?

Carl got drummed out of Cambridge for his interest in questions like these, although he received plenty of mainstream support in the wake of his sacking, including from The Times. That doesn’t mean any of his actual conclusions are right, of course.

Here, Carl draws on a number of sources to support his case that there is a particular gender divide in academia, with female academics more likely to support imposing diversity quotas and the cancellation of threatening viewpoints, as against academic rigour and freedom of thought. Carl’s sources include a report by Eric Kauffman. Having checked out the original, Carl seems to over-egg Kauffman’s more nuanced conclusions. Still, it’s not the only piece of evidence he presents.

As it happens, I came across an astonishing data point recently in my own researches. The University of California’s Higher Education Research Institute regularly surveys American college teachers. In 2007-8, for the first time they asked full-time undergraduate faculty members how many thought it was very important or essential for undergraduates to be “encouraged to become agents of social change”. Male faculty were split, with 49% in favour (just 44.6% among full professors, with junior staff more sympathetic). However, a remarkable 75% of female faculty supported politicised teaching (71.6% even among full professors).

Whether we need to explain that difference by summoning “Just-So” stories of evolutionary biology as Carl would is another matter. Women, especially in the more radical corners of academia (where they are over-represented), see their status as under threat from discrimination and ally with other victim groups to fight back. It would be surprising (sexist?) to expect women not to make common cause and further their own interests. Arguably, the real problem is that no one has been maintaining the guard-rails set up to prevent the politicisation of education.

In any case, surveys like Kauffman’s show that age is a huge and salient predictor of attitudes among academics, male and female. Wokeism is going to gain ground on campus as the younger generation rises in seniority. What to do about that is a far harder question.

Read More