News you can abuse!

Mike,

>Your comment about CNN"s inclusivity is perceptive and correct. CNN's news
>reporting staff does look more like the population than ABC's. Maybe that's
>because CNN's 24-hour, Headline format permits a more diverse and
representative
>staff.

I'm sure the format has quite a bit to do with it, but had he wanted to, Ted
could've put anyone he wanted to into the correspondant and newsreader
positions---there are plenty of pretty boys and girls out there. That it
appears these folks were selected for their knowledge and journalistic
abilities speaks volumes. Whereas the big 3 networks are basically
chickenshit---no faith in their abilities to ferret out news and therefore
have to rely on image and shock value. Edward R. Murrow spins in his grave
to see what has become of his beloved CBS and profession.

> I don't regularly watch CNN news, so I can't comment knowledgeably on
>whether CNN's *news coverage* is consistently "fair" in presenting issues.

_Headline News_ seems pretty balanced; it's a whirlwind half hour, so there
isn't much time for editorializing---or depth, unfortunately. But they still
do better than the big three. I've seen a couple news features on CNN way
back, and they seemed to be OK. But it's almost impossible to be totally
objective. Think about it: just using an _adjective_ puts a spin on a
sentence! Now add facial and voice inflection, body language....

The only news-type person I've ever seen who could not be "read" is Brian
Lamb of C-Span. Not only can you not tell his political leanings, you cannot
tell if he is breathing! :-)

And so it goes, as Linda Ellerbe once said...

I've always maintained the burden is on the CONSUMER to establish the
balance. Getting your info from just one source is a sure fired way to only
get part of the story. It takes a bit of courage to look into the viewpoints
of those you know are gonna get you really P.O.'d, but somewhere in all the
strident rhetorical tactics (#1 example is Bill Buckley in a Firing Line
debate) is the real stuff that matters.

>I am happy to hear that "they" - Ball State's female undergraduate student
>population in architecture - make up about 33% of your student body. That's
>average. But if the women are "typically among the very top of the class"
>where
>are the equal numbers of mediocre female students? That's probably the
>difference between 33% and 50%.

Could be. There are a number of mediocre female students, and I do think
there are fewer of those than mediocre guys. I've the feeling there's an
interesting dynamic here: a combination of force of will (the stronger women
do well no matter what), shifting attitudes (old school guidance counselors
going away) and sheer numbers (the College accepts a certain number of
students from the applicant pool). I think things will improve.

>The more serious problem, IMO, is in teaching. The numbers of tenured women do
>not favorably compare with the numbers of women in the profession. (I've
already
>given the numbers.)

I just looked at my copy of the Carnegie Foundation report (Tables 14 &15,
pp98-99, borrowed from NAAB). You're right; it looks like somewhere between
a  40-60% gap for females and minorities. I've been talking to my boss (a
senior faculty member/practitioner) about this. He acknowledges the gap,
feels AIA is trying to improve the situation, but we seem to agree that
we're just looking at the beginning of a trend. Look at the
training/work/educator cycle: 4-5 years of undergrad school, 1-2 years grad
school, a few years of professional work, get the license, decide you want
to teach. Get hired as contract faculty (and hope they like you), apply for
the tenure-track position, and then wait 7 more years to get tenure. That's
15 years---a long cycle! I haven't seen the numbers, but what were the
percentages of fem/min in arch. programs and tenured faculty back in 1980?

Looking at Tables 14 and 15 again, it looks like there was ~1-2% improvement
since 1990 for both groups. So just extrapolating (poor method, as I'll bet
it's accelerated), that's 3-6%, and I'll bet it was actually quite a bit
more. Do you have the numbers for the early '80s?

Here's an interesting sidebar: The College of Archietcure and Planning
Building here at BSU is made up of two parts: the first part was built in
the early '70s. The studios were on the top two floors, and there was only
one restroom on each floor---both male. The nearest women's room was two
floors below. I think male TRs outnumbered female 3:1.

Of course, they're still that way, and around 3AM right before a project
deadline they become unisex (knock before you enter!) :-)

> The problem, it seems, is that hiring, promotion and tenure decisions are
generally >(although by no means *always*) left in the hands of white males.

We've had a number of really great women teach here as contract faculty, and
I think we currently have two or three in the department on tenure track,
one of whom has only three years to go. I'll tell you what---if _this_ woman
doesn't get tenure, it will be concrete evidence of a problem here at ol' BSU.

>Are we prejudiced? Could be.

Sure, we could be. But I feel we need to act from the positive viewpoint;
that the system is non-biased until it proves otherwise (innocent until
proven guilty, so to speak). My beef with Dr. Sutton and those like here is
that she seems to act from the negative; that is, because BSU appears
lilly-white, it _must_ be biased, its recruiting and hiring _must_ be
exclusionary, etc.

More divisive than the division itself...

Thanks for writing back,

Mark