[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 35 (Tuesday, March 18, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E503-E505]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              MAKING A CASE FOR DIVERSITY IN THE SCIENCES

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. LOUIS STOKES

                                of ohio

                    in the house of representatives

                        Tuesday, March 18, 1997

  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, on February 21, 1997, I was honored to have 
Dr. Walter E. Massey visit my congressional district. Dr. Massey is the 
president of Morehouse College in Atlanta, GA. Morehouse is one of our 
Nation's most distinguished institutions of higher learning. Dr. 
Massey, a Morehouse alumni, is the former Director of the National 
Science Foundation. He has also held a range of administrative and 
academic positions, including provost and senior vice president of 
affairs of the University of California.
  When he visited my congressional district, Dr. Massey utilized the 
occasion to address an issue of critical importance to this Nation and 
its people. In his remarks at the City Club of Cleveland, he spoke from 
the topic, ``Making a Case for Diversity in the Sciences.''
  Mr. Speaker, Dr. Massey delivered a speech which was insightful and 
thorough. I want to take this opportunity to share a copy of Dr. 
Massey's remarks with my colleagues and others throughout the Nation. 
It is certainly worthwhile reading.

              Making a Case for Diversity in the Sciences

            (Walter E. Massey, President, Morehouse College)

       I will be speaking with you this morning about diversity, 
     and making a case for diversity in the field about which I am 
     most knowledgeable, the sciences. I will focus on the ends 
     and goals of diversity--a society that is enriched by the 
     contributions of all its members--and on what, for now, I see 
     as one of the best ways of achieving those goals--affirmative 
     action.
       Indeed, affirmative action is one of the most highly 
     debated issues in the United States today. The recent vote on 
     Proposition 209 in California, and the decision of the Board 
     of Regents at the University of California to abolish many of 
     its affirmative action programs during a time I was at the 
     University, are among the most visible examples of a 
     retrenchment from the support of affirmative action in the 
     nation. Legal cases challenging affirmative action in Texas 
     and Virginia, and recent Supreme Court decisions on hiring 
     policies and set-asides, have made this issue one in which 
     the nation has become deeply involved.
       It is not my intention this morning to speak in detail 
     about affirmative action, in general, in the United States. 
     What I would like to do, however, is make the case that the 
     ends toward which affirmative action programs have been 
     aimed--that is diversity and inclusion in all aspects of 
     American society--are ends that are worth the struggle, 
     conflicts and controversy that affirmative action programs 
     now generate. By focusing on the long-term benefits that will 
     result from such programs, I would hope that we might 
     somewhat diffuse the emotionalism and confrontation 
     surrounding current programs. Although I have few doubts that 
     those arguments will go away.
       I would like to make the case today that, at least in the 
     sciences, the area in which I have spent my life, the end 
     results of having a more diverse representation will more 
     than pay for the nation and the world, and because of that, 
     justifies our having affirmative action programs at present.
       If it is not clear, I should go on record by saying I am a 
     supporter of affirmative action. I am convinced that 
     affirmative action--which I define as providing equal access 
     to opportunities to all people--is not only a necessary 
     corrective action to address past injustices that have 
     limited the access of minorities and women to opportunities 
     in education, employment, politics, the sciences and other 
     areas, but a necessary positive action for the long-term 
     benefit of our nation.
       Having said that, I should also say that I do not believe 
     that all affirmative action programs, as they are currently 
     cast and operated today, should be embedded in perpetuity. I 
     see affirmative action as an access tool, not an entitlement 
     benefit. As President Clinton has said, some programs need at 
     this point to be mended, not ended. Our goals should be, at 
     some point in the future, to be able to end affirmative 
     action programs.
       But, until we live in a much more perfect world than we 
     live in now, a world where the playing field is level for 
     everyone regardless of their race or sex, we will need 
     affirmative action programs, or their equivalent, to obtain 
     goals that are in the best interest of society as a whole.
       For, despite some significant gains in the past 30 years, 
     the reality is that in too many places, including our board 
     rooms, court rooms, laboratories, legislatures, and in the 
     hall of higher education, women and other minority groups 
     remain much underrepresented in proportion to their numbers 
     in society, and, more important, with respect to their 
     potential contribution to society.
       We must do something to correct these imbalances. Not only 
     is it our moral responsibility as a nation, but, I believe--
     and this is the crux of my message to you today--providing 
     equal access to opportunity for all people is the key to our 
     ability to prosper and thrive in the global metropolis that 
     our world is fast becoming.
       As a supporter of affirmative action, in general, with the 
     particular goals I have elucidated, I am particularly 
     supportive of any programs that will increase the number of 
     previously underrepresented groups in the sciences. I am 
     convinced that, perhaps among all areas of human endeavor, 
     the sciences are likely to produce the kind of broad, 
     enduring, societal benefits that accrue from the involvement 
     of diverse participants.
       And affirmative action programs--to the extent they are 
     designed to encourage more diversity by attracting and 
     retaining to the practice of science individuals from varied 
     backgrounds--will ultimately benefit all humankind.
       I would also assert that the arguments I will make for 
     diversity in the sciences can be made for business and 
     commerce, higher education in general, the legal and health 
     professions, government occupations, and in fact, all other 
     fields. But let me make the case this morning for the 
     sciences.
       It perhaps goes without saying that the era that we now 
     live in is justifiably labeled the era of science and 
     technology. Never before in the history of the civilized 
     world has science and technology so pervaded every aspect of 
     our lives. And, never before has the

[[Page E504]]

     pace of scientific innovation and discovery been as rapid as 
     it is today. And, it cuts across every field within science 
     (and technology) from physics to biology, materials to 
     astronomy and the applications of science: medicine, 
     microelectronics, energy production, environmental research, 
     and the like.
       Science plays a critical role in solving the problems of 
     our world. Some futurists have even suggested that the 
     prosperity of the human race depends on scientists' ability 
     to make sense out of the mysteries that confront and baffle 
     mankind. That may be overstated, somewhat. I would say that 
     scientists, along with philosophers, theologians, and others, 
     are needed to make sense of and solve the mysteries of the 
     universe. Science will not do it alone, but it can not be 
     done without science.
       The study and practice of science also can have other 
     associated benefits, not the least significant of which are 
     the kinds of attitudes and abilities that can be gained from 
     studying science.
       The world over, nations are realizing more than ever that 
     there most valuable resource is there people--in all their 
     diversity. No nation can now afford to squander its human 
     resources and to not take advantage of all the potential 
     talent it has within its citizenry. ``Developed'' and 
     ``developing nations'' alike are also recognizing that their 
     citizens must not only have technical skills, but certain 
     values, character traits, habits of mind, and principles that 
     will allow them to function effectively in this rapidly 
     changing world.
       Some of those characteristics and traits are: a confidence 
     in one's ability to learn and to continue learning after 
     formal schooling; adaptability; flexibility; a willingness to 
     tackle hard problems; curiosity; and a healthy sense of 
     skepticism that causes one to examine every situation with 
     ``fresh eyes.'' Studying science enhances these 
     characteristics and traits, and I would also argue that these 
     are just the traits necessary for an ``Innovative Society,'' 
     a society that harnesses science for economic and social 
     development.
       Given the scope and importance of science in solving 
     problems, probing the deep mysteries of life, and 
     contributing to economic and social development, I believe 
     that to fail to educate and apply the skills of people of all 
     backgrounds to the field of scientific endeavor is equivalent 
     to operating a high-performance race car on four cylinders 
     rather than eight.
       But operating at less than our full capacity is, in effect, 
     what we have been doing--given the fact that minorities and 
     women are still grossly underrepresented in the sciences.
       There has been progress, and the makeup of American science 
     has changed considerably over the past few decades. The 
     people who do science in America are no longer mostly white 
     Anglo-Saxon Protestants, and they certainly do not come from 
     an exclusively upper-class stratum, as they were and did in 
     the 19th century.
       Thankfully, we have begun to recognize that ideas and 
     insights come to individuals, not groups or communities. 
     Scientists in the United States now include men and women 
     from all ethnic groups: Jews, eastern Europeans, increasingly 
     Asian Americans, Hispanics, and African Americans. In fact, 
     the first three groups, Jews, eastern Europeans and Asians, 
     have perhaps done more than any other ethnic groups to make 
     American science as preeminent in the world as it is today. 
     And African Americans and others have made, and continue to 
     make, important contributions in many scientific fields, 
     including chemistry, physics, biology, mathematics and 
     engineering.
       Yet, according to the National Science Foundation, ethnic 
     minorities, who comprise approximately 21 percent of the 
     population, account for less than 5 percent of all scientists 
     in the United States.
       Underrepresented groups--groups that have not in the past 
     been exposed, allowed, or encouraged to study science--have 
     to be brought into the mainstream, not only out of a sense of 
     fairness and equity, but out of a sense of national and 
     global need. And that's where affirmative action comes in. As 
     a tool to more effectively tap the talents of women and 
     minorities, affirmative action not only helps right the 
     wrongs of the past, but ensures equal access to opportunity 
     in the future.
       The fact that many people see affirmative action as a win-
     lose proposition is the result of a narrow view of the issue, 
     a focus on the means of affirmative action--the goals, 
     quotas, and set-asides--rather than the ultimate goal of 
     affirmative action--a society that is enriched by the 
     contributions of the talents and energies of all its people.
       The job of helping to ensure diversity in the sciences, of 
     attracting people from different backgrounds to the field and 
     preparing them to make meaningful contributions, falls 
     largely to our nation's educational institutions. For it is 
     often in classrooms that students' eyes are first opened to 
     the reality of who they are and to the possibility of who 
     they might become. According to the National Science 
     Foundation, only about 5 to 6 percent of people surveyed each 
     year are ``scientifically and technically literate.'' And 
     these are adults! Somehow, despite our best efforts, our 
     schools are failing us in this important area.
       We understand some of the reasons for those embarrassing 
     statistics. Many youngsters (and adults), quite often fear 
     science, or fear being able to understand it. That fear leads 
     to a distrust of things scientific and technical. This is one 
     of the major attitudes that must be addressed early in life, 
     before youngsters develop a lack of confidence and fear. This 
     fear is learned; it is not natural. ``All children are born 
     scientists.'' Youngsters have a healthy curiosity about the 
     world, and a confidence in their ability to understand things 
     around them. This confidence and curiosity is too often 
     allowed to lapse or be destroyed by poor teaching.
       We need more diversity in science for the benefit of the 
     nation and the world, and for the benefit of individuals in 
     those groups that have been underrepresented for various 
     reasons.
       But this morning, I also want to make another argument for 
     such diversity--that it is good for science, that science 
     itself is enhanced by being practiced in a multiethnic 
     environment, that the practice of science is enriched and 
     enlivened by the participation of individuals from a broad 
     spectrum of ethnic and cultural backgrounds, and that the 
     presence of minorities in the sciences makes a tremendous, 
     positive impact on the field, and by extension, on the people 
     it serves--all of us.
       Science is more than just a utilitarian undertaking or 
     endeavor that contributes to economic development and 
     enhances our standard of living, although it is certainly 
     that, Science is also an intellectual and humanistic 
     endeavor. It is an expression of humanity's curiosity about 
     the universe we live in and an expression of an innate, 
     embedded desire in us to understand and make sense of our 
     surroundings and ourselves. Questions such as what is the 
     origin and fate of the universe? How did the world begin? Why 
     is there life and what is its meaning? These are deep 
     philosophical and religious questions. But at bottom, they 
     are also fundamental questions of science.
       Since the beginnings of history, every culture and every 
     ethnic group has puzzled over these and similar questions, 
     and has devised some sort of system to explore answers and 
     construct explanations to these mysteries. The explanations 
     have often been crude and primitive, and have varied by 
     culture and geography. But, they have been aimed basically at 
     the same end--to understand the world and our place in it.
       Every society throughout history, no matter what its social 
     or ethnic makeup, has contributed to our understanding of the 
     universe and has helped to build the edifice we now call 
     modern science.
       Science and technology are cultural phenomena in the 
     broadest sense. Although the laws of science and rules of 
     technology do not apply differently to different groups, 
     science and technology are enriched by including more 
     individuals from different backgrounds and different 
     perspectives--because they have a different lens through 
     which phenomena are viewed. People from different backgrounds 
     can bring different and unusual insights to the study of 
     science and applications of technology--not necessarily 
     because of their racial or cultural heritage--but because of 
     their complete life experiences among which their racial and 
     cultural heritage is a part.
       Making a case for diversity in science and technology, or 
     in any other field for that matter, can be boiled down to 
     mathematical logic: When we are inclusive rather than 
     exclusive, we have more people, more creative power at our 
     disposal. Gerald Holton, a physicist, historican of science, 
     and colleague of mine at Harvard University, put it this way:
       ``I would conclude that it is not only possible, but almost 
     inevitable, that we might capture novel or unusual insight 
     into the understanding of the universe from people who have 
     different life experiences or come from different cultures--
     simply because the larger the pool of well-trained and hard-
     working people, the larger the probability of novel and 
     unusual insights. In this sense, excluding potential 
     scientists is a crime against the ethos of science itself.''
       The fact of the matter is that brilliance and genius are 
     not confined to particular ethnic and racial groups. Science 
     and technology profits and prospers--and everyone benefits--
     when the best and brightest are part of its activities.
       I submit that a similar argument can be made for almost any 
     field, profession or human endeavor. All will be enriched and 
     enhanced by diversity. The goal of affirmative action--as I 
     see it--is to help us as a nation evolve into a society where 
     we judge people as individuals--regardless of their skin 
     color or ethnic heritage, and where such diversity occurs 
     naturally. Unfortunately, we have not reached that point. We 
     are not yet where Martin Luther King Jr. wanted us to be, 
     where people ``will not be judged by the color of their skin, 
     but by the content of their character.''
       Where are we along this path? Let me close by saying a few 
     words about the sciences in that regard.
       Fortunately, progress is being made on several fronts. High 
     school and elementary school reform efforts throughout the 
     country have been started and are addressing, in very 
     fundamental and exciting ways, the problems of improving the 
     quality of science education at the K-12 level. Colleges and 
     universities are also responding to the challenge as well, by 
     improving the quality of undergraduate and graduate science 
     teaching.
       Historically black colleges and universities, which grant 
     bachelor's degrees to 30 percent of the African Americans who 
     pursue majors in science and engineering, continue to play a 
     critical role in this regard. Since

[[Page E505]]

     the 1989-90 academic year, the number of degrees awarded by 
     the member institutions of The College Fund/UNCF have 
     increased 64 percent in biology, 39 percent ion mathematics, 
     and 31 percent in physics and chemistry.
       At Morehouse College, more than \1/3\ of our graduates are 
     in science and engineering. And, last year at Morehouse, we 
     received federal support to establish a Center of Excellence 
     in Science, Mathematics and Engineering Education. The 
     Center's mission is to increase the number of 
     underrepresented groups pursuing careers in science, 
     mathematics and engineering by providing scholarships and 
     recruiting male and female high school students to 
     participate in intensive summer programs, and by providing 
     professional development activities and research experiences 
     for public high school teachers.
       I do not single out this program because it is unique, but 
     because it is an example of the kind of initiatives we need 
     more of to ensure diversity in the sciences, and to ensure 
     that our world will not be cheated out of the best we--that 
     is all of us--can offer.
       As I indicated earlier, the arguments I have made for 
     diversity in the sciences are equally compelling when applied 
     to business and other fields. In fact, American businesses 
     particularly those that are becoming more and more multi-
     national and global in their operations, are making these 
     arguments. No major American company has renounced its 
     commitment to diversity. In fact, if anything, these 
     companies are enhancing their commitment.
       It is ironic that when it comes to affirmative action, the 
     most potentially retrogressive sector of American society is 
     not the business and commercial world, but higher education--
     an area we would hope and expect to lead the nation in 
     setting a positive example for inclusion and diversity.
       The University of California, a multi-billion dollar 
     operation, is the only major institution in the nation that 
     has formally withdrawn its commitment to such programs. Only 
     one board of directors or regents of any institution in the 
     nation has voluntarily changed its course, and that is a 
     major university. There is a message in this for those of us 
     in higher education.
       This development is particularly sobering when we reflect 
     on the fact that the birthplace of the Civil Rights Movement, 
     and in many ways, the birthplace of the feminist movement for 
     equal rights for women, grew out of the protest activities 
     and the scholarly writings and research of individuals in the 
     university and college community.
       Indeed how ironic--and how unfortunate--it would be if we 
     allowed higher education institutions, which have paved the 
     way for so much progress in the area of diversity, to be the 
     vanguard leading us back into the past.
       I do not think this will happen, for I know the vast 
     majority of my colleagues in higher education are committed 
     to a vision of an inclusive, diverse society. But, it is 
     incumbent on us in higher education, and indeed all of 
     education, to continue to make the case, present the 
     arguments, and marshal the evidence that the struggles and 
     challenges of present-day affirmative action programs will 
     ultimately benefit us all.

                          ____________________