Professor Athene Donald (and other female academics at Cambridge University) seek to re-define merit

A piece on BBC online:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-26259644

Historically academics have advanced through the excellence of their research work. That’s no longer good enough. We need to make it ‘easier for women to advance’, apparently; given the limited number of senior paces – financed by long-suffering taxpayers – this would equate in practise to making it ‘harder for men to advance’, needless to say. From the article:

“A broader, more inclusive approach to success and promotion, where other academic contributions, including teaching, administration and outreach work are valued, would make it easier for women to advance,” the academics argue.

Professor Athene Donald, gender equality champion at the university, says: “Our experience at Cambridge, where we have recently surveyed 126 female academics and administrators on this subject, suggests that this is indeed the case.

“Women seem to value a broader spectrum of work-based competencies that do not flourish easily under the current system,” she said.

Women appear to have no shame when it comes to self-advancement. Nonetheless, I shall be emailing Professor Donald amd3@cam.ac.uk to point her to this piece, and saying she and her female colleagues should be utterly ashamed of themselves. Her ‘Equality and Diversity Activities’ are here:

http://www.bss.phy.cam.ac.uk/~amd3/E+D.html

About Mike Buchanan

I'm a men's human rights advocate, writer, and publisher. My primary focus is leading the political party I launched in 2013, Justice for Men & Boys (and the women who love them). I still work actively on two campaigns I launched in early 2012, Campaign for Merit in Business and the Anti-Feminism League. In 2014 I launched The Alternative Sexism Project, aiming to raise public understanding that the sexism faced by men and boys has far more grievous consequences than the sexism faced by women and girls.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
  • “teaching, outreach and departmental support should be taken into consideration”

    And that makes them a professor of what exactly?

  • Maybe you could ask what the three all-female colleges at Cambrdige contribute to helping close the growing gender education gap?

  • herbkr

    I checked the link to her profile: twelve paragraphs; ten of them starting with “I”. It’s “Look at me! Look at what I am doing for Equality and Diversity. Look at what important work I’m doing, working for women’s rights!” I think a psychologist would have rich pickings with that one, frankly. How does this woman square off her conscience, I wonder? (You know that thing? The guide to a moral sense of right and wrong?) How does she honestly believe she is working for equality and diversity, whilst flagrantly engaging in activity that is its antithesis? (= anti + thesis – against the proposition). The reality is, of course, that equality is no longer about equality of opportunity, or about people gravitating into professions that suit them; or even about one finding one’s own level in any given sphere of endeavour through sheer skill and ability. In the unreal world of academe, where feminist academics (who should know better – a LOT better), are sold out on the intellectual deception of equality meaning parity, it is no longer any of that is it? The bottom line here is that these women academics don’t want to compete on a level playing field: what they really want is preference. They want fast, easy passage to the highest that men can achieve, and they know that in the current “Equality and diversity” milieu, they can get it. It is really just as simple as that. They are riding on the back of the well-sown belief that women are inherently disadvantaged in our modern society (when they are not – at least not the elite women like Professor Donald), and they are surfing that wave for all it is worth: trying to get the longest gravy train they can that favours nobody but themselves. It is so sickly selfish, and so full of sheer tongue-in-cheek deviousness it is sickening. Anyone with half an eye can see it. And, what is more, I am sure the likes of Professor Donald seriously believe people can’t see what they are up to. It is amazing that she can be so brazen, frankly. Here we have a woman who presumably has more than the average couple of grey cells at her disposal, nakedly promulgating what is the most obvious attempt at gaining unfair advantage one could imagine; yet she carries on in all seriousness. Well, Prof Donald, your cover is blown. Let me spell it out for you: numerical parity is not equality OK? It is utterly divorced from the concept in every way possible. True equality is what leads to, guess what? D_I_V_E_R_S_I_T_Y: that idea that says each individual is unique and that our individual differences lend richness to whatever groups we belong; that means men will predominate in some social quarters, and women will do the same in others. It was ever thus; we are not all the same, see? We do not even have to be the same. Does it matter that more men are professors? Does it matter that more women are doctors, or nurses, or primary school teachers? For God’s sake, does any of it matter? Equality is not what you are promulgating. Is this the ethical/moral level to which you, as a member of our intelligentsia, have sunk? Is this the degree of intellectual absurdity you are seriously peddling in academia today? Are you, and your colleagues who espouse this dishonesty, the sort of people to whom parents are entrusting their children’s education? Selfish, narrow, foot stamping, “me too” manipulators?