Do we really want FUHSD teaching and measuring unconscious bias?

Fallbrook High is hiring a person to help the school and staff with their unconscious bias.

During the last board meeting they gave examples of how it would be good if people thought of the certificated employees the same as the classified employees. They also mentioned the fact that not as many girls are in STEM fields as boys.

So those things are admirable, but one thing we know for sure is programs and policies grow and change over time and what implicit or unconscious bias across North America in the U.S. and Canada right now is far more than those basic noteworthy goals.

By the way, why aren’t there more girls in the STEM fields and computer science?

Why would we jump straight to implicit or unconscious bias?

I faced this at age 20. I worked at the Los Angeles Times in the Electronics department. It was a great company to work for then. I worked with all the technicians and managed the parts department and did clerical work for the supervisors. I really enjoyed my job.

It was 1980 and the LA Times had embraced Affirmative Action. They called me in and offered to put me through electronics school to become a technician in order to help meet the quota they had for women technicians. I agreed and followed that path for about a year and excelled in the classes earning As. But, when I really considered whether I wanted to be working all day behind computers by myself, it didn’t appeal to me as much as working with people.

While my experience is not everyone’s, I believe that is partly why women dominate in teaching 91% (U.S. Census), nursing 91% (U.S. Census), and psychology 75% (apa.org) and why men dominate 73% in the STEM fields, automotive repair and computer science.

I believe women have unique abilities and interests to care for, communicate with and nurture and help people. That may be why we gravitate toward those fields, rather than toward “things.”

Just because sectors of our society aren’t equal with men and women doesn’t automatically mean that anyone or any field is corrupt and oppressive. I believe it’s a false equivalency and a false narrative and again, it divides and assumes the worst in people.

Because of women’s ability for stamina, problem-solving and emotional intelligence, we often also do well in business. There’s a reason that law firms start to lose highly intelligent and successful women in their 30s. If they have a family, they are typically more concerned with their family and aren’t willing to put in the 70 or 80 hours a week to keep those highly competitive jobs, especially if they have husbands that make enough to support the family. They care about the quality of their children’s lives and they have priorities that are more important to them.

Scandinavian countries have worked hard to make themselves one of the most egalitarian societies in the world, yet women still have naturally gravitated toward the care fields. Despite those efforts, in Scandinavia there are 20 women to 1 male in nursing and in the STEM fields there are 20 men to 1 woman.

The problems and concerns with unconscious or implicit bias training, testing, etc. is that it is ideologically driven and where it exists it can make things worse. Turns out people do not really appreciate being told they are subconsciously racist even if they know they are not and have their employer be their thought police and attempt to re-educate them so that their thoughts and involuntary perceptions fall into accordance with their company’s demands and ideologies.

The term implicit bias was first coined by social psychologists Mahzarin Banaji and Tony Greenwald in 1995. Well-known clinical psychologist and author Jordan Peterson says that the Implicit Association Test reliability and validity is not only suspect, it is nonexistent.

Peterson says, “If you take it twice you don’t get the same result. It’s not valid. In any test or instrument there’s a rule for diagnostic tests. It’s not technically valid and doesn’t meet that criteria.”

He goes on to say, “Even if it does say you are unconsciously biased, it doesn’t predict behavior.” He points out that people may have negative thoughts but they don’t act them out. That happens all the time.”

There are other psychologists who believe the tool is scandalous and it has politicized the psychology discipline.

Peterson also says, “There’s no evidence that the training programs have been effective.”

It is a way for companies to come into schools and businesses and make money and politicize.

“Say the test is psychologically validated, which it’s not,” Peterson says. “Say you do have unconscious bias and you could measure it – which you can't!”

“There is some evidence that they have the reverse effect.”

“Maybe that’s because people don’t really like being marched off to re-education by their employers after they’ve been diagnosed as racist, even if there’s no evidence that they in fact are. So it’s an absolute misuse of psychology,” Peterson said. “It’s politically motivated. It’s an assault on freedom. Anyways, you don’t have the right to invade the subconscious minds of your employees and alter their political perspective, as if you could. You don’t have the right to do that.”

Peterson then asks, “Do you really want that? Do you want your employers to figure out, independent of your behavior whether you are a racist, or a classist, or a misogynist, or whatever and you really think that bureaucrats are capable and qualified? They can do more damage.”

Right now Fallbrook High School is substandard in math proficiencies, probably exacerbated by the lockdowns. The number of students who are proficient in math is abysmal.

Rather than focusing on unconscious bias, wouldn’t it be better to concentrate on helping the students to be proficient in core competencies, like math, which will help them make it into those STEM fields and computer science?