"Female Students" "May See Their Grades Raised One Level or Two"

That was the plan of a University of Akron professor, because of "the national movement to encourage women students to go into information sciences"; fortunately, the University blocked this.

|The Volokh Conspiracy |

Fox 8 Cleveland (Adrienne DiPiazza) has the story, with some more details at Campus Reform (Grace Gottschling); here's the e-mail, as quoted by Fox 8:

Rex Ramsier, the Provost of the university put out a statement in response:

The University has verified that there were no adjustments to grades based upon the gender of individuals in the class. While the professor's stated intention of encouraging female students to go into the information sciences field may be laudable, his approach as described in his email was clearly unacceptable. The University of Akron follows both the law and its policies and does not discriminate on the basis of sex. The professor in question has been advised accordingly, and he has reaffirmed his commitment to adhering to these strict standards.

Thanks to InstaPundit for the pointer.

NEXT: Trump Purportedly Planning Grant Ban for Groups That Don't Disavow Abortion: Reason Roundup

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. That college should have it accreditation reviewed and the Dept of Ed should sue for illegal preferential treatment based on sex.

    1. Is that you Prof. Bernstein?!?

      As I told you in a previous blog, not everything needs to rise to a federal case.

    2. To be fair, the university came down heavily on this and I doubt this prof will pull this stunt again.

      1. This professor opened the school up to civil discrimination action and possible federal intervention.

        People have been fired for less.

        1. Another meeting of Libertarians For Big Right-Wing Government is called to order . . .

          Has this faux libertarian advocated accreditation reviews for schools that teach nonsense and engage in viewpoint-based discrimination with respect to every facet of school and campus operations?

          1. Duke doesn’t do this in every respect, but yes, he just did.

          2. You’re right, the Dept. of Education should be abolished.

    3. Last I checked, DoE didn’t accredit anything.

    4. Because a professor had a stupid idea that was never implemented?

    5. The ‘professor’ should be fired for incompetence: How can a test performance show higher performance than the calculated one? The professor clearly doesnt understand grading, tests, or statistics….but does understand gender and identity politics..

      1. “Calculated” grades may include other factors besides exams (it is implied by the third point that attendance is part of the grading scheme). It is within reason to vary that weight when a student shows mastery despite missing classes, or not to, as long as it’s stated up front.

        1. Sorry, no. If it had been stated up front, that would have made it part of the “calculated” grade. Alternative algorithms are still algorithms. The wording makes clear that this was merely an excuse to change the grade just because. It’s a policy ripe for abuse.

  2. So all students in the class declared as female, one expects. After all, who would dare deny them their choice?

    1. You remind me of a story I heard some years ago. Someone decided at Harvard to mandate sensitivity training to incoming freshmen, which included requiring them to “come out” as homosexuals, whether they were or not.

      So one young man reacted, and said during his statement: “I admit it. I am a male lesbian.”

      1. Many years ago I had a major crush on a very cute (known) lesbian. I told her ‘I love to eat pussy’. Her calm response?

        Yeah, you guessed it. ‘So do I.’

      2. LMAO. Heard that a while ago. “It’s a good day to be a lesbian trapped in a male body!”

  3. Has this improved Liping’s dating score by one level or two?

    1. If you call students who see professors for an increased grade, “dating”, then yes, his dating score may have improved.

  4. Yup, dumbness is politically neutral.

    But we already knew that so I’m not sure what the point of this blog is.

  5. He should have been terminated, not reprimanded.

    Next time he just will not announce it.

    1. Every grade he gives should now be suspect. Call it the “Trump effect”.

    2. Ooh, I love threads like this.

      Fire him, raze the school to the ground, salt the earth!

      Hanging’s too good for him. Burning’s too good for him! He should be torn into little bitsy pieces and buried alive!

      1. Your side’s rules.

        1. ‘the other side has and will do worse if I don’t do this’ is ever the excuse of partisans overplaying their hand.

          1. Rules for Radicals, rule 4 – “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”

            I don’t view liberals as the “enemies” per se (usually) but the Right has finally come to realize that the Left does to them.

            1. Alinsky! Weird his legacy these days consists largely of conservatives invoking him.

              That rule works even better if you are an Internet commenter pulling the rules out of your hat to excuse your calls for radical action.

              1. To be fair, I did have to do an internet search to remember which one it was, but I have to warn you that “making the left play by their own rules” is all the rage in the righty blogosphere these days. I would like a detente, but that ain’t happening unless one side stands down first. Why don’t you suggest it on a progressive chatroom and report back as to what they say.

                As for the sudden popularity of Alinsky, I believe it started with Glenn Beck (before he went off the deep end and at the peak of his popularity) in 2008(ish) when showed that Rules for Radicals were perfect for explaining Obama’s actions/behavior.

                1. One side’s logic must stand down to the other side’s logic? Come again?

              2. Its not Alinsky I am talking about.

                Your side hounds anyone even remotely conservative. Firing, boycotts etc. without mercy or restraint.

                Only way to put the break on your side’s excessive behavior is to be at least as brutal. Otherwise your side will continue to ramp it up.

                Mutual assured destruction ain’t just for nukes.

                1. Alinksy wasn’t smart enough to come up with the rule on his own, it is a much older idea he merely reframed with others to create his rules.

                2. No. Movement conservatives are far more likely to hound traditional conservatives?Burkeans, for instance, or Eisenhower Republicans?than anyone on the left is.

                  Movement conservatives get hounded because, by and large, they are radicals, not conservatives. And they mostly don’t have any politics to critique?just animus toward the left?and a lot of the time, toward minority groups. Quite often, bristling animus, with thinly veiled suggestions of violence to come, presently. Once you’re on record as a proponent of that stuff, yeah, nobody wants you around.

                  Hold tight to those pseudonyms, that’s my advice, Bob.

                  1. Why do movement conservatives hound traditional conservatives…you know, Goldwater types going after Rockefeller Republicans (and I use those terms to show you how old the problem is)?

                    Because the Rockefeller Republicans surrender when the going gets tough in the culture war. For conservatism to survive at all as a viable political philosophy, it needs the work of the Goldwater conservatives to man the ramparts when the Rockefeller Republicans retreat to the inner keep keep. Later, the Rockefeller Republicans emerge and resume their role of keeping the Goldwater conservatives from going to far to the right and losing to many elections, pinky fingers extended while they drink their cognac.

                    Don’t make it out like the centrists of the Democratic Party don’t get pulled to the left by the Netroots crowd, only to be pulled back into the center when they lose. You’ll see it happen if (when) Trump wins re-election in 2020.

                3. Your side hounds anyone even remotely conservative.

                  Quit whimpering, you bigoted goober.

      2. Don’t worry… I got a plan.

        [absolutely love the reference].

        1. It’s been a while, but isn’t it “an angle”?

      3. “Hanging’s too good for him. Burning’s too good for him! He should be torn into little bitsy pieces and buried alive!”

        Maybe; how many moving violations did he commit?

  6. IfInstead he should have wrote

    “While surveying you guys final grades, I really wish I could raise the ladies grades a level or two, because I don’t want to be responsible for killing their dreams”

    1. “Sure, maybe their grades already killed their dreams, but let’s pretend otherwise…”

  7. “The University of Akron follows both the law and its policies and does not discriminate on the basis of sex.”

    Which is modern university-speak for ‘it discriminated agains the transgendered.’ Female is such a limiting category.

  8. Looks like a Kinsley gaffe. He can give female students a boost in grades, he just can’t say he’s doing it.

  9. Also unfair to the women with honest As. It would be more fair to lower the men’s scores instead.

  10. Category 2 is also weird… an information science professor disregarding their “calculated” grades?

    1. I think he means, someone who did poorly or mediocre on assignments during the term, but then aced the final exam. In that case, although on average the great might be middling, he would then boost it in light of the final.

      1. grade might be middling

        not great

    2. The second category sounds like an “improvement grade,” where students that did poorly initially and put in a lot of work and were doing well by the end will have some kind of bonus applied. I doubt that it’s good practice in a 300 level course but it might be warranted in lower level courses.

      It also could be due to individual circumstance. For example, I had a class where we had to work in pairs on projects. Both people would work on the project and one would work it up. My partner was crap at writing and I was good but the rules bound my hands. It was evidently apparent to the professor that the other student was hurting my grade and I was bumped up from 89.something% to 90%. But in that case it wouldn’t be communicated to the entire class.

      1. Professors used to list something like “10% class participation” i.e., a fudge factor, but at least one disclosed on the syllabus.

        Standards are probably more lax now, but I’m still surprised to such off-syllabus shenanigans in the information science department (vs other departments); my stereotype is that the IS profs would try to get the algorithm right in the first place.

        1. One professor I worked with as a grad student said, and I am only paraphrasing a bit due to memory; “I just pass them through and let the market decide the value of a bachelors degree from XXXX.” This right pissed me off, as his actions watered down the worth of mine. Granted, this was a mid-2nd tier state school in a social sciences department, but it was still a sad statement of the value tenured professors give to teaching. They mostly care about getting publications.

          They stick to standards with graduate students though, I believe because they view them more as potential peers than students.

  11. I can’t think of anything more encouraging to women than treating them as inferiors who need a leg up to compete.

    1. Not only that, in his response he called it an experiment in how to motivate them and acknowledged that he only has a couple women in each class and they’re all doing poorly. Way to single out these women for negative attention they didn’t deserve.

  12. lol. Will he now continue to raise the grade levels of females, but ostensibly according to the other malleable criteria?

  13. My law school did this more subtly. For example, there was a constitutional law class that was always heavily African-American, due to the professor who taught it. The law school gave that professor permission to award over 50% As each semester, while requiring all other professors to curve their grades to around 10 to 13% As.

    The admonishment the Akron professor is getting now is probably not so much “How could you do this?” as “How could you be so unsophisticated in how you did this?”

      1. The key is to always be paranoid and resentful that somewhere, somehow, libs are screwing you.

        1. What an insightful, relevant comment.

        2. Not always – just when they openly announce it in an email to the class.

          1. Did you read the comment you replied ‘Bingo’ to?

            Requires a bit more motivated deduction than the OP.

    1. This violates ABA accreditation guidelines. You should have reported it if it was an ABA accredited school.

      1. The point is plausible deniability

        FWIW, even schools with mandatory curves have exceptions for seminar classes. It’s an insider trick to getting a high class rank.

  14. This could all be avoided if they had sex segregated classrooms.

  15. But granting minority potential students as much as a full point on the 0-4.0 scale in order to accept them in the first place is perfectly reasonable.

  16. If the sex had been reversed he would have been fired and the school would be falling down on its knees begging for mercy as the story exploded on every channel and front page with jimmuh kimmel and activists and the whole social media sphere would be exploding in rage online and .

    But for this he gets a firm pat on the butt and an admonition to be a little more sly about this and everybody yawns and moves on to the next story.

    1. You’re starting to sound like an Incel.

      1. I learned about these about three wo weeks ago.

        Maybe the internet was a mistake.

        1. I think you knew about them when you were in high school, you just have a way to label them now.

          1. If we all had a worldwide community validating our virgin angst…one shudders to imagine.

            1. HA!

              That women are attracted in their youth to Harley McBadBoy more than Steddie Eddie is one of those things you either learn to accommodate and adapt yourself too, or rage against. The first is better for your mental health than the latter.

        2. You’re starting to sound like an Incel.

          Maybe the internet was a mistake.

          Or maybe a lack of reproduction among disaffected, anti-social, insular losers might not be so bad?

          1. Kirkland, have you ever heard of the Pareto Principle? In short, it is that 80% of the gains go to the top 20%. Sometimes, this is called the Matthew Effect. You might have heard it expressed one time as “the rich get rich, the poor get poorer, and the rest of us just get along.” Well, it applies to the sexual marketplace as much as the economic sphere.

            At one time these Incel guys got a girl (maybe not the cheerleader, but a girl who didn’t have too much baggage) and he got a job at the local factory if he wasn’t smart and didn’t have social capital, or if he was smart and had social capital he eventually made his way into the upper class. Either way, these men you disparage, in 2018 are Incels, but in the not so remote past, they had 2.5 kids and contributed meaningfully to society.

            I’m not saying we return to the 1950s…which is the first thing you likely thought I was advocating for. I’m not. What made things work then is gone and is NEVER coming back. What I AM saying, is, like it or not, there are consequences to the social changes that have occurred via birth control, the sexual revolution, and feminism.

            1. “What made things work then is gone and is NEVER coming back.”

              Things didn’t work back then. A bunch of mean-spirited, horrible people secured social benefits they didn’t deserve. The just result is the one we’re living, where the insufferable morons suffer, rather than (in the past) their children, wives, etc.

              1. Boy, you sure took a vague reference to social and economic stability brought about by a myriad of forces and spun it into social justice victimhood gold. Bravo!

      2. Okay since you hurled a juvenile insult about sexuality to me can I hurl one at you (if you are female) or another woman who’s arguments I don’t like that they need to get banged by a man to stop being so angry? Would that offend you if I did that to a woman? Why?

    2. It’s certainly hard to disprove the fantasy situation that you imagined!

  17. We know you’re stupid, but we want to force you into this path of failure. Good luck.

    1. Is this an “admitted into Akron” joke?

  18. Better than equal pay for less work

  19. Pictures are needed, otherwise it cannot be determined if the University acted correctly.

  20. Affirmative Action in STEM and US Navy Nuclear Power gets to clean up that mess – on a couple of levels.

  21. Affirmative Action in STEM and US Navy Nuclear Power gets to clean up that mess – on a couple of levels.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.