Data on Minority Doctorates Suppressed
| AR Articles on Race and Universities |
|---|
| More news stories on Race and Universities |
If you are conducting a faculty search, or trying to diversify the professoriate, or want to see whether various programs to do so have succeeded, the Survey of Earned Doctorates has always been a key source of information. They survey will tell you, for example, how many Latinos earned doctorates in chemistry (23 for the last year available), or how many black people earned doctorates in political science (34). If you watch the trends from year to year, and also pay attention to the total number of doctorates awarded (1,170 in chemistry to U.S. citizens, and 506 in political science), you have an instant sense of the changing or stagnant demographics of your pool.
Or at least you used to.
Citing privacy concerns, the National Science Foundation—which sponsors the survey—has ordered that data on subgroups beneath a certain size be blocked from release. So subgroups for which the numbers are small will no longer be available. So while we know that in 2005, six black people earned doctorates in earth, atmospheric and marine sciences, the NSF won’t reveal how many earned the degrees in 2006 (covered by the most recent report). Information about the number of Latinos earning degrees in some engineering fields is gone, as are data about a number of categories for black Ph.D.’s. For Native Americans, where the base is smaller, the impact of the new policy is especially dramatic. The report was stripped of information on how many doctorates were awarded to all but 6 of the 35 subfields for which data were collected.
Because most people who focus on the study are drawn to the overall trends, where data about various minority groups is preserved because of the larger sample sizes, the issue of the missing information is only now starting to receive attention. But advocates for increased diversity in graduate education and the professoriate are frustrated by the changes. They note that educational experts of many political perspectives agree that it’s hard to know how to tackle educational challenges without information about the performance of subgroups—that’s even one of the principles underpinning President Bush’s favorite education law, No Child Left Behind. So removing this information, advocates say, makes no sense. They add that debates about public policy would be informed by seeing these numbers in detail—and that the fact that the numbers are small is part of why they are important to consider.
“This hides information. It removes information,” said Andreen Neukranz-Butler, human rights compliance officer for the University of Idaho and a member of the board of the American Association for Affirmative Action. If a subgroup goes from two to four doctorates a year (or falls similarly), that’s important information, she said, and those working on these issues need to know it.
{snip}
Neukranz-Butler and several others familiar with the survey said that they were surprised by the concerns about confidentiality. While the survey has contained small numbers in some cells up until now, it has never named the individuals or institutions. So there has never been information on a particular person covered by any of the categories.
“The report never told you who the people were,” said Neukranz-Butler. “Why are we being hampered on getting very important information?”
(Posted on April 28, 2008)
Comments
Talk about conspiracy theories. This one is actually out in the open! This is how liberal institutions avoid lawsuits by the Jessie Jacksons of this world. By limiting the liability, IE: the TRUE statistics. They probably will have to institute a “no college student left behind” program anyway.
Posted by at 7:11 PM on April 28
Data on the incredibly large numbers of illegals wandering the country at will is suppressed.
Posted by Unemployed WASP at 7:19 PM on April 28
Diversity programs are of course a failure, but at best they can only provide opportunity, not success. As we notice they keep saying “earned doctorates”. Not to worry ere long whites will be in the minority everywhere, and diversity will take on a whole new meaning but, whites will still get the dirty end of the stick.
Posted by The Old Sage at 11:06 PM on April 28
This is a sign that they perceive that there won’t be further increases in the number of minority Ph.D.’s.
They are trying to hide embarrassing information because they ran out of ways to exploit it to push their liberal agenda.
Posted by Reader-1 at 1:21 AM on April 29
Always the same Marxistic perversion: Support the untalented and discriminate the talented. No wonder why Marxism ruined so many countries.
Posted by at 3:14 AM on April 29
A few years ago I was looking at the data regarding the number of Black Ph.Ds awarded nationally in certain fields. The numbers were illuminating — electrical engineering = 0, computer engineering = 1, etc. The vast majority of doctorates given to Blacks was in the field of education. Education is the ghetto of doctorates. At UCLA a doctorate in education is beningly looked upon as advanced as a masters degree in another field. This information has become too embarassing to explain away so must be kept from view. We must protect sensitive feelings.
Posted by bigsteve at 8:10 AM on April 29