Sensitivity Seminar Was Insensitive

To the Editors of The Crimson:

In early March I received an invitation to attend a day-long conference titled "Difficult Dialogues: Race and Gender in the Classroom and Residences," sponsored by the Derek Bok Center, Radcliffe College and the Office of Race Relations. The conference format and seminar topics promised to offer open and constructive discussions of some provocative and controversial issues in higher education.

As a teaching fellow interested in classroom is issues, I decided to attend. To my disappointment, instead of fostering open discussion and providing insight into some serious problems, the seminars I attended were anti-intellectual and consistently steered the discussion toward the moderators' own foregone conclusions.

The advertised morning session "Freedom of Speech" was changed to "Freedom of Speech and Unintentional Discrimination," an alteration which prejudiced the discussion and shifted the focus away from the important issue of freedom of speech in the classroom. In fact, only one question about freedom of speech in the classroom was raised. But it was pointedly ignored by the moderators.

Instead, they steered the discussion toward English as a racist language and encouraged the audience to provide testimonials about unintentional discrimination. One example: Rosa Shinagel, Assistant Dean of Radcliffe College, confessed to the sin of politely offering refreshments that morning to a student who, unbeknownst to her, was fasting for Ramadan. (The "sensitivity" I found particularly ironic, as my office-mate was excluded from even attending the conference because he was observing the Jewish Sabbath.)

The lesson seemed to be that the accusation of unintentional discrimination can be used as a weapon to dampen free speech and impugn the motives of innocent people.

The afternoon seminar "How to Open the Sciences to Everyone" interested me because as a scientist I think it is important to foster participation in mathematics and the sciences. The primary goal of the seminar was to "develop strategies to make the classroom safe and welcoming for all students, particularly those who have not, historically, pursued the sciences."

The moderators stated that three failures of science education are that "it substitutes memorization of vocabulary for understanding," "it is too abstract," and "it is an elitist field." These statements are misleading and false.

Science instruction at Harvard certainly emphasizes understanding over rote learning as evidenced by the importance of problem sets and the prevalence of open book examinations. Science at the college level is abstract by nature rather than design because the goal of science is to explain concrete observations by universal principles. Science is elitist only in that it rewards results. Furthermore, the ugly corollary is that increased participation by historically under-represented groups can only be achieved by watering down science education.

Instead of creating false expectations about the nature of science, we should encourage people to persevere in fields that are demanding but also rewarding.

I felt cheated as I walked home from the conference. I did not encounter any constructive proposals to the problems that were addressed. Many serious issues such as actual accounts of sexism and racism were trivialized by those who sought to find these offenses everywhere. Other issues that the moderators did not wish to address, such as free speech or the true nature of science, were quickly dismissed.

If invited to a conference like this again, I will not attend unless I can be convinced that the conference organizers are dedicated to seeking the truth instead of preaching to the converted. Steven T. Smith