USA Today attacks boys again

Two stories this past month in USA Today again raise concern over their ongoing denial that there are neurological differences between boys and girls that account for why boys learn differently from girls.

 

1. Kevin Maney Column 2/20

  Columnist Kevin Maney rightly celebrates the first woman to win the most prestigious prize in computing. Then he unbelievably writes that "it's ridiculous to suggest that girls are less predisposed to math and science." Of course all the evidence suggests that indeed is the case. He cites no evidence.

  So I counted the male-female references in Maney's most recent ten columns on technology to see if Maney is engaging in a bit of hypocrisy. Of 29 references to, or quotes of, experts in the ten columns, none were from women. (I discounted his derisive reference to "Pamela Anderson's blog").

 

2. Monica Hortobagyi story 2/27

  The second article is even more worrisome.  It was not only sexist, but maybe even racist implications. Of all the articles written in the rest of the media, Monica Hortobagyi chooses to quote an article featuring sexist, and of course unsupportable, comments against boys by officials at Wichita State University. The basketball coach, obviously referring to African American males, says "boys don't have the work ethic." Since half of all African Americans are boys, and the most underrepresented in higher ed at that, it raises the question whether the boy bashing has racial implications. If he had said half of all African Americans don't have the work ethic, could he keep his job? (and would USA Today have quoted him?- - no)

  All data indicates boys are equally successful in the work place as young women, so once again USA Today writers choose negative stereotypes over facts. Monica Hortobagyi and Kevin Maney join Mary Beth Marklein and Richard Whitmore in this disturbing pattern of frequent boy bashing, ignoring the growing body of research that boys learn differently from girls because of their neurology. USA Today writers (and editorial board given their editorials on the subject) continue this made-up sexist theory unsupported by the evidence.