WoW Blog (Woman of the Week)

I personally know two professors who left the school because of her policies.

(BTW it's alumnus.)

She is clearly a member of the NWO/ Evil Empire.

I see she was on a lot of committees and worked for some impressive organizations, and won a lot of awards for being a black female engineer with strong political ties. Hoowever, I see no substantive accomplishments to her name. What did she actually do to win accolades that should impress other scientists and engineers, besides play her cards right and use what nature gave her to get recognition. At least with the nobel laureates in Physics and Chemistry you know exactly what substantive research they have accomplished. An award from a make-up manufacturer for being a woman is just a fluff promotion thing. I am guessing the author forgot to do their research and really look into her back ground, maybe she was the technical leader (not the project manager) of some important society changing projects and accomplished something, or maybe she just knows the politcal ropes and how to get awards for nothing. You should not place a 2 part series on someone like this when you have other more accomplished women like emily roeblingor maxine singer in 1-part series Who have at least some degree of actual accomplishments to their name. WHAT DID SHE EVER DO? Not who has ever given her a award for her ethnicity, or sex, plus being an engineer.

>>WHAT DID SHE EVER DO?

From the OP:

"Shirley Jackson decided to stay at MIT for her doctorate work even though she was also accepted at Brown, Harvard, and the University of Chicago. Her Ph.D. focused on elementary particle theory. When she completed it in 1973, she became the first African-American woman to earn a doctorate from MIT in any subject."

Surely that must count for something? (pun intended)

I detect some jealousy.

Do you think in 1973 she had these strong ties? Do you think she just waltzed up to MIT and they were like "oh a black woman, lets give her free stuff!". I'm sure she had to overcome much to get where she is today. At this point she might waltz into some free award, but to think everything she has ever gotten was handed to her cause she is just black and a woman is pretty much ridiculous.

Actually no it doesn't count for something being the first black women to receive a doctorate from some place is like being the first 5'2" irish/native american with painted fingernails to do something. She is not the first, just the first under a extremely narrow set of parameters. Real Scientific or Engineering accomplishments is what I mean by doing something. Recently this blog has been showing some real accomplished women whose acomplishments crossed those limited parameters to provide and modify human society as a whole, lasting accomplishments, that were based on scientific or engineering works. Just being african american and a woman is not an accomplishment of hers, it is actually an accomplishment of her parents. There is no jealousy, I just dislike comparing political hacks to accomplished women. It down plays the important roles that some woemn have actually played in history, and makes them seem more like the pretty faces than truly talented. The real accomplishments of women get lost amongst the clutter and noise of feigned accomplishments. The truth is there are some extremely scientifically accomplished women, who are frequently overlooked in favor of some fluff piece. What I wanted to know here was what was her actual scientific or engineering accomplishments, not her parents sexual accomplishments. you should be able to asked the question without using any special criteria about race, sex, ethnicity, physical appearance, wealth, etc.. and see if it was a real accomplishment or just political fluff. If you have to use these special qualifying criteria, well it is probably political fluff. The only basis should be that it is a scientific or engineering works. Otherwise you could just as easily have porn stars listed as they also receive a lot of awards and many happen to be women.

Well I'd suggest that this also has nothing to do with a scientific or engineering accomplishment. Keep in mind politics is perceived diffferently as time passes. Abraham Lincoln was a fairly unpopular president during his term in office, but matyrdom and some time made him very popular. Andrew Jackson was a fairly popular president during his term, now we perceive him and his actions in office in a different light. Political image is tenuous, scientific and engineering accomplishments tend to be more enduring. We should be able to separate the two, fact from fiction (all politics is fiction with a little fact here and there).

Do you think the first women to vote didn't accomplish anything? What about Jackie Robinson? Rosa Parks? Susan B. Anthony? Barack Obama?

In the years that she went to school blacks weren't allowed to attend the same schools as whites, women weren't expected to be physicists, etc. Yet she graduated she graduated high school in 1964 as valedictorian (the same year the civil rights act was passed). Even today only 2 african american women have earned a doctorate in physics.

Did having a father that worked a post office and a social worker mother get her into MIT? Possibly the strong ties which she has today are a result of such accomplisments? I think there are plenty of african american women out there today that don't have these accomplishments under their belts. If these things just get handed out for being black and a women why aren't they all like Shirley?

Comparing all black women to "the first 5'2" irish/native american with painted fingernails" is not even close to equal as far as a "extremely narrow set of parameters". I really think your comparison is seriously flawed.

While being able to discretely say "Shirley Ann Jackson discovered plutonium" might not be such a clear cut solution, her early work in subatomic particles and at CERN could certainly be attributed to what it is today.

How about her work at AT&T Bell labs?

from wikipedia:

"Dr. Jackson has made contributions to the knowledge of charged density waves in layered compounds, polaronic aspects of electrons in the surface of liquid helium films, and optical and electronic properties of semiconductor strained-layer superlattices. On these topics and others she has prepared or collaborated on over 100 scientific articles."

What about the advances she contributed to in semiconductor theory?

Was she able to only do any of these things because she was a black woman?

What about the fact that she directly improved the safety of over 110 nuclear power plants in the US?

Like I said before, at this point in her career some of her honorary degress, some of the boards she serves on, etc. might be helped along because she is an african american women. However, this is not to say that if she were a white male and put in the same amount of effort she has in her life would make her a nothing.

For you to say that overcoming racism, sexism and segregation does not count as any accomplishment is incomprehensible to me. You are either coming off as extremely bitter, racist, or sexist to me, I can't really figure out which or why.

Do you know that even today women make 75 cents for every dollar men make? Or should they be at home barefoot in the kitchen makin your babies?

I do not think any of those examples accomplished anything of scientific or engineering relevance. Actually most of them were far less accomplished than say Malcom X or Martin Luther King in accomplishing change in american politics. Barrack Obama, actually has accomplished very little as the groundwork was already set for him by predeccessor like Jesse Jackson. Obama's accomplishment was being more acceptable to the non-african american voters than Jackson was, and running in a time when the public was looking for an extreme alternative to the status quo that the 3 previous unaccomplished presidents had represented. From a scientific and Engineering stand point, George Washington Carver was vastly more accomplished than any of the examples and did so in a time and environment that was extremely contrary to his accomplishment (Though Robinson did such in the same kind of time frame, he was in the leading edge of change that was occurring that allowed his accomplishment).

"I do not think any of those examples accomplished anything of scientific or engineering relevance. "

Of course not, Jackie Robinson wasn't an engineer?? thanks.. i guess you missed the point.

The logic here is that if you acknowledge Jackie Robinson being the first african american pro baseball player as an accomplishment (which it seems you do), then it would follow that Shirley Ann Jackson being the first african american woman to obtain a PHD in Physics would also be.

Then again, you don't even think becoming the first african american president is an accomplishment, because someone else helped pave the way for him. That is like saying if someone cured cancer today, then they would have not accomplished anything because some one before them researched it.

Yes George Washington Carver is very accomplished, possibly more than Shirley Ann, but last i checked this was the woman of the week blog. And again, you are acknowledging Carver as being the first african american to accomplish things, yet won't allow that for the first african american woman? Well he might as well have been the first irish native american 5 foot 2 with blue shoes on to discover peanut butter!! Once again you come off as very sexist.

Further, you can say "and he did so in a time and environment that was extremely contrary to his accomplishment", but not be able to agree that the years Shirley Ann was a high school / college student was a contrary environment??

I know I won't change your point of view, some people's bigotry is so deeply rooted in them they don't even know about it, and I am done trying, but you are contradicting yourself left and right.

If I can just impart one piece of knowledge on you it would be this: if you hit the enter key on your keyboard it makes a new paragraph.

No, it is not sexist. Your perspective would actually be more sexist than mine, since your perspective is that women's accomplishment only have value when view with consideration for the qualifier to exclude men. This would be tantamount to indicating women can not have accomplishments stand on the merit of the accomplishment alone, and could be somehow lesser than men, which is incorrect because there are a great many women who have accomplishments that do stand on the merit of the accomplishments without qualifying them to exclude men or to exclude all but one ethnic group without one very small region (This brings up the question of whether she is the first woman of african ethnicity to receive such a degree anywhere, thus indicating an even narrower qualification basis on just within the US). Consider the the first samoan american woman born in compton to receive a degree in physics, would that be significant just on that basis alone? how does her ethnicity make her accomplishment more significant than say a chinese american, a japanese american, an american jew, a mexican american (a population group that alone represents many times more of the US population), Samoan americans, native americans, Puerto Ricans, Irish americans, Polish americans, etc. all of which represent highly oppressed ethnic groups in the US at one time who have evolved above the oppression (in some cases, obviously native americans are still highly oppressed and segregated from american society, more so than any other ethnic group was even 30 years ago).

Besides, just graduating with a physics degree alone is not a significant accomplishment when compared to all the accomplishments women have completed. That alone does nothing signifcant to advance humanity forward, except provide some awareness that it is possible. Awareness is good if there was a substantial belief that it was not possible, however, I do not think this has been the case for a very long time, considering how many accomplished fmele scientists and african american scientist there have been in the entire history of the US.

My example of George Washinton Carver was not because he was african american, it was because he has merit that extends beyond his ethnicity. George Washington Carver's accomplishments stand on their own merit without the qualifiers, e.g. being african american. You are indicating that her she has only acomplished something important when we view it from the perspective of many qualifiers that exclude the vast majority of the community. There are others like Norbert Rilleux or Percy Julian, who stand on their scientific merit alone, no matter ethnicity or sex. I know there are equally acomplished women, and even equally accomplished african american women who can stand on the merits of their scientific/engineering accomplishments without qualifying them into such a narrowly limited set. BTW, you never here scientific accomplishments in terms of the first african american women to discover ______.

With regarding to being an engineer, this is a site for engineers and scientists correct. Now that would be a reasonable qualifier to expect, plus scientific and engineering accomplishments have a more lasting and substantive impact on societies.

So the question still stands, What were her significant accomplishments. It is not that she isn't accomplished, she may well be, but she has been portrayed as having not lasting significant accomplishments. I really want to know if this portrait is correct or may be she part of the technical team that discovered a new device of great importance, or theory, or something.

I can understand your view point that there is reverse discrimination in some of these cases she could have been appointed to certain positions because of being an african american woman. I have already agreed with you on that in previous posts. However if you go that route, you might as well call the entire Woman of the Week sexist, why isn't there a Man of the Week?

In your orginal post you questioned "WHAT DID SHE EVER DO?" besides being a african american woman, implying that this was an advantage to her since she was born, and to say that this is the only reason that she has been awarded anything. My reply is that it has not always benefited her, and her education and career must be also considered as a factor, which is strengthened by the fact that it was much more diffucult to obtain in her circumstances.

In 1964 and the years surrounding it must have been very difficult for her to be able to enter the field she did as a woman, on top of being african american, and then to became the first african american women to obtain any PHD from MIT is impressive. I also consider a PHD from MIT a bit more worthy than "just graduating with a physics degree". You are making it sound like a community college.

Point is, being african american and a women is not the only thing that is getting her awards and appointments, if she had no qualifications then she would not.

So when you asked "WHAT DID SHE EVER DO?" I am saying that one example is this, you don't feel this is an accomplishment. I personally do.

As for other accomplishments, I consider a career conducting research and publishing over 100 scientific articles in the areas of theoretical physics, solid state and quantum physics, and optical physics to have merit.

Further, she has always been an activist in attracting more minorities and women to pursue careers in science, technology, math and engineering. Which might not be a big deal to you, but over 75% of people in these fields are male and over 82% are white. This isn't because women/minorites don't want to be in these fields, but because they have been traditionally shunned from such carreers or don't have access to such education. Therefore, if people were on an even playing field the reverse discrimination argument would hold more weight with me, but I still think today that women and minorities start off with a disadvantage.

I can see how you might want something more clear cut, but no one ever said to be women of the week you have to be able to indicate a clear "this women invented this, or built this". Her cumulative career and research amounts to plenty of reason for her to be looked upon as a successful woman in engineering.

You seem to think that 100% of her accomplishments are from being african american and a woman, and I just don't feel that is the case and that her education, research, and career must be considered as well.

Oh I am not implying any favoritism for her sex or ethnicity. What I am saying is that from a non-sexist, non-racist perspective it would have no meaning, since race and sex would not be a consideration for defining merit, only the merit of their scientific or engineering acomplishments. Graduating from MIT in physics is impressive for anybody, but is says nothing about any accomplishment in science or engineering which advanced humanity and thus distinguishes her in these fields. Many people graduate from MIT in Physics, or Stanford, Berkeley, Cal Tech, University of Chicago, Princeton, etc., and if we looked at all of them individually we could classify them all as being the first within some narrow set of limitations. This is a 2-part series on this woman, compared with some of the others listed, it would imply she is by some emans more important and accomplished than say Marie Curie, which i think we both can agree is by no mean even close to true. Marie Curie's work could stand alone without any consideration of her Sex, and it was accomplished in a time period when the society and environment were highly unfavorable to women accomplishing such great things. It might just be me, but multiple Noble Laureate versus Lorreal prize winner who knows the right politicians. I think Woman of the Week is not necessarily sexist, it is informational. however, I would suggest that intermixing of unaccomplished amongst highly accomplished women, and portraying the less accomplished in greater detail while brushing over the highly accomplished downplays the true importances of those who actually have accomplished great things. Again to Marie Curie, I dont think anyone would really consider her only agreat scientist for a woman, but rather solely on her scientific merit great amongst all of humanity (without consideration for ethnicity or sex). I think it is good to inform people of the great accomplishments of women, or persons fromselect ethnic groups, but try to select those that have substantially important accomplishments, not those that can only be considered to have any importance under vary narrow limiting parameters (non-scientific/engineering based).

"Oh I am not implying any favoritism for her sex or ethnicity."

From you previous posts i think you definitely have:

1. won a lot of awards for being a black female engineer with strong political ties
2. An award from a make-up manufacturer for being a woman is just a fluff promotion thing
3. Not who has ever given her a award for her ethnicity, or sex, plus being an engineer
4. Just being african american and a woman is not an accomplishment of hers, it is actually an accomplishment of her parents.
5. Otherwise you could just as easily have porn stars listed as they also receive a lot of awards and many happen to be women.

"What I am saying is that from a non-sexist, non-racist perspective it would have no meaning, since race and sex would not be a consideration for defining merit"

This would be 100% valid if everyone was on the same playing field. Which you are correct she might not compare to some of the other women on the WoW blog. You also maybe correct she didn't deserve a 2 part over some other women.

However, due to society at the time, considering the playing field she started with was not level, it does make her pretty accomplished because she started at a disadvantage compared to most of the other men in her field, and being the first to do something does count, and also why her being the first african american woman to graduate with PHD from MIT, is an accomplisment to say the least. You said it was not an accomplishment at all and counts for nothing.

"Many people graduate from MIT in Physics, or Stanford, Berkeley, Cal Tech,..."

There are also many people that climbed Mount Everest. But it doesn't mean that each one didn't accomplish something great. I would also not think it wild to point out the first man to do so, woman to do so, or maybe the first blind person (which did happen), or other subsets.

Clearly a blind person doing it does make it more impressive because he is at a disadvantage. Of course we should be able to look at him in the same respect as a human that we have for everyone else, but the fact that they started "behind" makes their achievements more impressive.

Are you implying that there is some inherent disadvantage to being a woman or african american comparable to being blind and attempting to climb mount everest?

I would contend that african americans and women both are fully as capable as any other group. Neither of these have ever really been much of a limitation for higher education, as both groups have received college educations going back to nearly the beginning of the US, as long as they could pay for it somehow. Poverty on the other hand is a different story, that has always been a severe limitation on education. If her family was poor, then she had something to overcome.

Bear in mind there is a substantial difference between receiving awards for being a talented black female engineer,and being a talented engineer in general without consideration of ethnicity or sex. Also I do think most people would question the validity of an award from Lorreal versus say a Noble prize in physic, especially when there is no indication of the research for which the award is based (unlike the noble prize that shows you exactly what the winner accomplishment was that they are receiving the award for). Additionally, context of statements is important, taking portions of statements out of contexxt can be done anywhere to try and substantiate your case. However, it is never appropriate, and it does not truly substantiate a case, it just diverts the attentions of onlookers with short attention spans.