Academic 'Rigor' in Engineering is Just White Male Heterosexual Privilege

[Yazata]

"A Purdue University engineering professor recently lamented the emphasis on academic "rigor," calling it a “dirty deed” that upholds “white male heterosexual privilege.”

Donna Riley calls for doing away with the notion of academic rigor entirely, suggesting that higher education pursue "other ways of knowing" in order to "build a community for inclusive and holistic engineering education."

https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10257

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1...17.1408631

[Syne]

Sure, let us know how long a bridge engineered on "other ways of knowing" and "holistic engineering" holds up.

“One of rigor’s purposes is, to put it bluntly, a thinly veiled assertion of white male (hetero)sexuality,” she writes, explaining that rigor “has a historical lineage of being about hardness, stiffness, and erectness; its sexual connotations—and links to masculinity in particular—are undeniable.”

LOL! Maths is too "hard" for women.

[Yazata]

Sure, let us know how long a bridge engineered on "other ways of knowing" and "holistic engineering" holds up.

Exactly. This woman might not be bright enough to see that she's playing into the hands of her opponents. The natural conclusion to draw is that if you want a competent engineer who knows what he's doing and is capable of meeting the academic standards of the profession, hire a white (or Asian) male.  

“One of rigor’s purposes is, to put it bluntly, a thinly veiled assertion of white male (hetero)sexuality,” she writes, explaining that rigor “has a historical lineage of being about hardness, stiffness, and erectness; its sexual connotations—and links to masculinity in particular—are undeniable.”

That reads like pseudo-poetic stream of consciousness. A word ('rigor') creates an image in her mind that reminds her of something else (an erect penis) , and that association becomes an alternative to logic and somehow magically turns into an argument against academic standards in engineering.

What's most appalling is that this individual is the head of Purdue's School of Engineeering Education. She has won awards from the National Science Foundation for her work in what she calls "pedagogies of liberation" in engineering (translation: the politicization of engineering classrooms.)

It's examples like this that make me increasingly skeptical about anything that university professors say. There's no way that I'm willing to accept something that seems wrong in my estimation, merely on authority, just because a "professor" or a "scientist" says it. I'm proudly and defiantly, if not a "denier" certainly a skeptic.

[Syne]

Yeah, this literally sounds like she wants to lower the bar for women because they can't handle the same degree of precision a man can. Now that may be necessary if we're willing to sacrifice a few lives in the name of equality for female soldiers or firefighters, because women are physically weaker. But this really sounds like it's saying women are also cognitively weaker than men.

Is this how self-defeating modern feminism has become?

[confused2]

Could this be fake news? I've done what I can to check the woman out and it looks plausible but it is still hard to believe anyone, even a woman, could be that stupid.

[confused2]

LGBTI

[Syne]

Is the "I" for "inferiority complex"?