Obama May Impose New Title IX Quota on Math and Science Students
Townhall: President Obama recently signaled that he will take action to create ‘equality’ for women in the STEM fields (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics). The Obama administration’s decision to push for more female representation in STEM coincides with the 40th anniversary of Title IX.
Indications are that the Obama administration will implement a new Title IX quota through the Department of Education. Via the Competitive Enterprise Institute:
Quotas limiting the number of male students in science may be imposed by the Education Department in 2013. The White House has promised that “new guidelines will also be issued to grant-receiving universities and colleges” spelling out “Title IX rules in the science, technology, engineering and math fields.” These guidelines will likely echo existing Title IX guidelines that restrict men’s percentage of intercollegiate athletes to their percentage in overall student bodies, thus reducing the overall number of intercollegiate athletes.
Creating a new quota for STEM fields would do little do address the equality of result sought by Obama. In contrast to college athletics, college academics are co-ed. This new Title IX quota wouldn’t create any new opportunities for women, because they already have access to STEM courses. The quota would instead cap the number of males in these fields of study, and lead to fewer overall STEM graduates.
Not surprisingly, Obama is preparing to solve a problem that doesn’t exist with excessive federal intervention that we don’t need. We will wind up with fewer math and science graduates, and Obama will get one more misleading talking point to use on the campaign trail.
Sounds like Skippy is waging a war on men now.
Women that are interested in the STEM field now can’t access it? I’ve never heard of that problem – quite the opposite. I’ve been in the engineering field for 16 years and finding/hiring good women engineers is always a problem as they have less interest in the field. Yet that doesn’t make a good campaign talking point now does it?