Have your milk and drink it, too. (Sophie Currier)
Note from the admin: We are now the #2 google hit for 'sophie c. currier' behind the Crimson article.
One of the things I loathe above all the things I loathe is arguments for fabricated equality. The idea that X ought to be treated like and have access to the things of Y, but in actuality X is treated like and has access to (X+C+Y) where C equals those things which are required to put X and Y on equal footing.
It's the paradigm of self-serving, ill-conceived bullshit. It's one of the biggest self-inflicted problems of the human race. And today we have another delightful example of this asinine aspect of ill-defined equality, brought to us by Sophie C. Currier:
A Harvard student must be given extra break time during a medical licensing exam to pump breast milk, a Massachusetts appeals court judge ruled yesterday.
The argument is that, "she risked medical complications if she did not nurse her 4-month-old daughter, Lea, or pump breast milk every two or three hours." So what does the judge rule?
"Judge Gary Katzmann said yesterday that she needed the extra time so she could be on “equal footing” with men and nonlactating women taking the test."
And it gets better.
In the 26-page ruling, Judge Katzmann said refusing to allow additional time meant that Ms. Currier must choose to either “use her break time to incompletely express breast milk and ignore her bodily functions, or abdicate her decision to express breast milk, resulting in significant pain.”
“Under either avenue,” he wrote, Ms. Currier “is placed at significant disadvantage in comparison to her peers.”
Now, combine all of that with one more delightful tidbit from the article:
Ms. Currier has already received some accommodation from the board for dyslexia and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. She can take the test over two days instead of one, for example.
Do I really have to articulate what is wrong with this situation? Does it merit explanation? Sophie C. Currier wants X. 33,000 other people want X. Those 33,000 other people must attempt to obtain X by the standard means of obtaining X. Sophie, on the other hand, receives accomidations for her dyslexia, her attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and her lactating breasts.
Because that's what "equal" means.
Even if we ignore the fact that we don't want people to have medical liscenses if they have ADHD, dyslexia, and a lack of knowledge of birth control is it fair to the 33,000 other students that the rules are bent for Sophie? And more fundamentally, is it far to us? If the test is a means of discerning who is capable of X does it make any sense at all to modify the situation of one person when taking the test? If the test is indicative of an individual's clinical knowledge how can the test be modified and still communicate one's clinical knowledge? Couldn't all students be allowed 2 days, longer breaks, etc.? Why not level the playing field to that of the lowest common denominator, instead of attempting to elevate the lowest common denominator to the level of the 33,000 others? I sure as shit do not desire medical aid from someone who only has their liscense because the testing facility ignored all of the things that would have prevented the person from obtaining their liscense.
And the most fucking absurd part of this can be found in the judge's ruling where it states that Ms. Currier “is placed at significant disadvantage in comparison to her peers.”
Yes! That's the fucking point! If a person has no depth perception they suck at ping pong. You don't change the fucking game to accomodate them. They just fucking suck at ping pong. The same is true of every other god damned situation. If you cannot pass a test in the standard manner of passing a test then you suck at that test. You don't get X if you can't obtain X by the standard fucking means of obtaining X. Welcome to reality.
Because if we continually adapt tests and games and situations to try and level the playing field we are stuck in a perpetual mess of constant retardation of reality. By continually giving head starts we create a situation wherein those who obtain X by means of a head start are in a perpetual state of requring assistance to maintain that X. And eventually? That assistance goes away.
And then they're fucked.
As they should be.
So how about instead of trying to maintain this faux equality, instead of pretending that everyone can or ought to be able to do everything, instead of helping dipshits, we just create standards. And people who don't meet those standards can go fuck themselves.
Or just sit in their apartment milking themselves.
Edit: I'm going to add this point of clarification since people are actually reading this post. My point is that if Sophie C. Currier has additional time to take the test then everyone ought to have additional time to take the test. If Sophie C. Currier gets longer breaks then everyone ought to have longer breaks. Because that would be fair. And that would provide a universal means of assessing ability with regard to this test. Also? This is a blog post and not a nuanced, structured, proofread academic work. Treat it as such.
48 comments:
Did you ever see Brock Henry play Ping Pong?
Yes, the Currier situation is asinine; however, you did a terrible job arguing your case.
You don't see a difference between ping pong and medical care? Really?
This piece reeks of misogynism starting with the unnecessary and unfounded "lack of knowledge about birth control" comment. I am unclear why you think the context of her pregnancy is relevant.
No, I don't like this woman. I supported her until the aside that she has been previously accommodated twice for other things. Clearly this is somebody who sees being an "exception to the rule" as more of the rule than an exception. But you just hated her for being an exception at all. And maybe not knowing how to play ping pong.
She's an MD/PhD student at Harvard, who's finished the first 6 years of her program. She's not a moron just looking for unfair advantage.
"I am unclear why you think the context of her pregnancy is relevant."
I'm unclear as to why the school thinks the context of her breast feeding is relevant to her test taking.
"She's not a moron just looking for unfair advantage."
Hence the numerous exceptions she has amassed during her tenure.
ive met some ivy league morons.
But i also know an amazing Ping Ponger with one eye.
I can see the breast feeding thing. i think maybe she should have just waited to take the test, but thats just me.
But the getting an extra day thing i dont quite get. If she can't focus long enough to take the test how is she going to practice medicine effectivley?
Well, she's dyslexic, has ADHD, and now has a child to raise.
So the assumption is that the world will revolve around her and she'll be a gosh-darn perfect at whatever she tries, given that any conflict she confronts will bend to her needs.
Is it safe to assume a patient with cancer will slow their cancer down to give her an extra day because she has ADHD, dislexia, or is breast feeding?
No, that won't happen, which is why the test should be difficult with the added pressure element of time. That is how the real world operates, and I would like to think a mighty Ivy league school would understand the same.
No special treatment should be offered on a test as important as this one, regardless of case, because no special treatment will be offered in a true working environment.
I'd be willing to grant some kind of concession for her lactating; it may affect her testing, but probably not her actual job since it's not a permanent condition.
I can understand where you're coming from about granting exceptions for a very challenging professional examination... but I'm going to agree with ma17 on this one -- she's not permanently breast feeding. It won't impact her ability to be a doctor at all (in fact, it will likely make her a better/more empathetic one).
But needing to pump or feed every 2-3 hours is a reality of early breastfeeding -- engorged breast can lead to mastitis, a very real and painful medical condition.
I don't know enough about the ADHD exception to comment, but I commend the decision to give her time to pump before returning to the test. And the comment about "lack of knowledge about birth control" is just obnoxious (and poor logic to boot).
I disagree with concessions for lactating the most. Either j is correct and she doesn't know enough about birth control or she made a damned conscious decision to have a child while she was undergoing the most rigorous years of her education.
This means that she knowingly (assuming she actually learned the subject matter of her current educational path) decided to have a child when she would have the least amount of time to care for it.
She made a decision to make her life more difficult knowing full well she would have days of testing as she is now, and fully expected the world to bend to her needs. The worst part is the fantasy world that is college facilitated this.
Now (since she is most likely now going to be a doctor) she will believe that the world revolves around her, and when she can't properly adapt to a situation, as she should have learned to do earlier on in life, people who depend on her, for example her patients, or her newborn child, could possibly suffer.
I find this to be unsettling at best.
She expects challenges to conform to her schedule, her needs. She has dyslexia? Change the testing situation. She has ADHD? Change the testing situation. She needs to breastfeed? Change the testing situation.
At some point you say, "You know what? You just can't do this." And in my opinion that ought to have occured at step one. Given that her field of study is medical care and, you know, lives depend on it.
Like Kyle said, if she chose to have a child during this important part of her educational life then she's shown that her desire is to not obtain her medical liscense, but to obtain her medical liscense and raise a child. Which means that once she has obtained her medical liscense she will continue to half-ass both raising her child and persuing her medical career.
And if she didn't choose to have a child at this point in her education? Well, then she doesn't know about birth control.
So either she can't make unselfish decisions or she doesn't know about birth control.
Pick one.
Wow, the ignorance regarding breastfeeding that is being shown here is staggering. Wow. How dare a woman be lactating AND want to become a doctor! Doesn't she realize she can't do it all??? It's a man's profession, anyway. Geeze.
By the way, "in the real world," concessions for special circumstances are made ALL THE TIME.
Wow. How dare a woman be lactating AND want to become a doctor! Doesn't she realize she can't do it all??? It's a man's profession, anyway. Geeze.
I can't think of a way to more incorrectly restate my position.
The problem is not her lactating. The problem is her requiring special assistance to accomodate for her lactating. Her "anything you can do I can do better, except not right now because it's inconvenient for me" attitude. The notion that the world must bend for her needs so that she is capable of doing the job.
By the way, "in the real world," concessions for special circumstances are made ALL THE TIME.
Right. But they shouldn't be.
That's the point of the argument. Saying "Currently the situation is X." is not an argument against "The situation ought not to be X."
Anonymous, I'm afriad you have just missed the point.
We are not talking about breastfeeding so much as we are talking about making choices.
And we arn't talking about denying women access to medical professions. We are rejecting the sense of entitlement that is evident in situations like this one.
To opine that one is not to be held to the same regulations to which others are held is a habit common to individuals mired in the micro-weltansicht of their junior highschool.
There are adults who feel immediately deserving of each thing which they desire. And, while it would be hyperoble to classify Currier stricly as one such individual, it is not inappropriate to point to her case as an example of an influential entity of our society validating a problematic sense of entitlement.
J, Kyle, answer me this:
There are steps in front of a school building which must be climbed in order to enter the building. A prospective student in a wheelchair requests that a ramp be installed near the stairs to provide an alternate route for people who find negotiating stairs difficult. Do you:
A) Install the ramp.
B) Tell her "if you knew how to walk, you wouldn't be a fucking cripple".
::EDIT::
I agree with Caleb.
There are steps in front of a school building which must be climbed in order to enter the building. A prospective student in a wheelchair requests that a ramp be installed near the stairs to provide an alternate route for people who find negotiating stairs difficult. Do you:
A) Install the ramp.
B) Tell her "if you knew how to walk, you wouldn't be a fucking cripple".
Stairs are not a means of assessing one's ability to perform a task. Stairs are a means by which elevation is changed. A ramp can replace stairs to allow Wheelie Mc DeadLegs elevation changing abilities.
Tests to obtain medical liscenses are a means by which medical knowledge and abilities are assessed. If we allow people to deviate from the standard means of assessment then what the hell is the test doing?
If 33,000 students have to take the test in one day, and this woman can take the test in two days...why can't the 33,000 other students take the test in two days? If 33,000 students get X amount of time for breaks why does this woman get X+Y minutes?
Why is it that the standard must apply to 33,000 students, but this one woman gets exceptions?
Why not change the test for everyone so that there is actual equality and universal assessment of ability? Why not let everyone have two days, longer breaks? Wouldn't that allow us to fully assess all of these students against one another? Wouldn't that provide a more accurate representation of their abilities?
Why not amass the totality of handicaps of the group, define one universal testing situation which accomidates all of these, and then administer the test?
Have none of you read Harrison Bergeron?
That's what this situation is. The 33,000 students who do not get special treatment are under the burder of the standard means of assessment. Sophie is given longer breaks and more time to take the test. That does not behoove society.
Instead of giving Sophie more time and longer breaks than the 33,000 other students we ought to define a standard means of assessment which encompases all disabilities. So that everyone is assessed in the same way.
But wait, won't that make the tests easier? Won't that allow unqualified people to pass a test they would otherwise failed?
EXACTLY!!!!!
Ok, so you don't think ALL allowances are wrong. Just wanted to make sure.
Ok, so you don't think ALL allowances are wrong. Just wanted to make sure.
I think we ought to make allowances whenever we see fit. But I think those allowances ought to be available to everyone.
Exactly as J said, the wheelchair ramp to school doesn't apply because it isn't a means of assessment of one's ability to be educated.
If the person in the wheelchair were to however want to try out for the school's basketball team, would it be fair to require the rest of the kids trying out for the team to sit in wheelchairs themselves and bring themselves to the person in the wheel chair's level? Or the other way around, would it be fair to the rest of the team to keep the wheel chair kid on the team because he did "really well for being a kid in a wheel chair", when the rest of the team is there hoping to win a conference championship?
No, the child in the wheel chair had to learn to accept that he doesn't stack up as well to someone with operable legs in competitive basketball. This does not mean that the person in the wheel chair is less than the kids with legs, it just means that the kids with legs have an advantage in this particular case, and thusly should be allowed to use their advantage.
Um, I do get what you all are saying... if you aren't "like me" then you are undeserving. One must conform to "the rules" or be excluded from participating - and there are no exceptions to the rule(s). It is a good thing there are handicap folks who have fought for their rights to access to an education - people like you are the ones who fought to stop them. People like you are the ones who fought to stop black people from voting. I understand perfectly where you all are coming from, and I disagree with your POV. However, I'm sure you would discount my opinions based on the fact that I am a woman/mother/and lactating. I don't fit into your little club of reality.
I had my first child during my clinical rotations in medical school, and she breastfed for about 13 months. My second was born in the middle of second year of residency, and he's breastfed since (now 10 months old). I have pumped in every imaginable place in hospitals and clinics, including (horror of horrors according to some of the above comments) between surgeries in the surgery locker room. Attendings, residents, nurses, and, above all, patients have been supremely supportive of my simultaneously being a breastfeeding mom and a doctor. I'm not sure on whose behalf these people are offended. Clearly they have not had any recent contact with breastfeeding themselves (a cultural problem), or they would know what a selfless gift it is to choose to breastfeed, and that being allowed time to do so should in no way be considered "special treatment". Since breastfeeding has so many health benefits, you would think people would choose a doctor who makes a decision for her family that prevents disease and saves lives.
One must conform to "the rules" or be excluded from participating.
There's no excluding. I'm all for people taking tests. But I don't think the test ought to be modified to allow one person out of 33,000 special circumstances of testing.
If she gets 2 days everyone gets two days. If she gets longer breaks everyone gets longer breaks.
Why would that be bad?
I'm not sure on whose behalf these people are offended.
I'm offended on behalf of the 33,000 students who had to take breaks of standard length.
If she gets longer breaks why not let everyone have longer breaks?
I applaud you for undertaking both your Doctoral education and career, and also being a mother, under one condition. That condition being that you expected no special treatment as a result of deciding to take on more tasks than most people can responsibly handle.
I abhor people who try to do more than they can possibly handle, and then expect everyone around them to make their life easier because of this decision they made.
If I were a foreman at a factory and one of my workers was working another job on the side because he DECIDED to buy a house/car/whatever he couldn't afford on his full time salary, would I be expected to let him slide when he comes into work late, or his job performance falls, because he bit off more than he can chew, and I should feel sorry for him?
And not a one of us mentioned anything about being excluded from testing.
She has earned her right to take the tests, but she should take the tests under the previously decided guidelines established by the school, which includes a time limit and a specific duration for breaks, in which every other student in her class was forced to conform.
kyle, i get what you are saying. however, has it ever occurred to you that those rules were made by men who established the school for men? perhaps if the medical field was established by the women who were being oppressed back in the day, the rules would be more accommodating for a wider variety of people. also, trust me when i say, getting an extra break to pump milk DOES NOT put a woman at an advantage. the thing is, people ask for special concessions all the time and get them, as they more often than not should. of-course, when a WOMAN who is breastfeeding - which in the world of politics is a big issue for formula companies (Nestle) - it makes the news. Another woman made out to look "weak", like she shouldn't be "taking on so much" and should just stay at home where she belongs. our culture is not a breastfeeding friendly/supportive culture and this blog is just another example of that misogyny.
ack, i'm done now.
I'm not being misogynistic. I'm talking about fairness. While the breast-pumping itself is not advantageous, the extra break time and extra time to take the test is extremely advantageous.
The current guidelines that exist for taking this test are most likely created by a board comprised of both men and women, so don't give me that age old complaint that the rules were designed by old men, just to bring women down.
I would like to once again mention that having this child was a conscious choice knowing full well the workload coming up. Studying to be a doctor, she should have known the complications that would arise from having a child.
It should also be noted that thousands if not tens or hundreds of thousands of women have successfully passed these tests. Applying the law of large numbers it should be noted that at least a portion of the women were in the same situation and *gasp* passed without special favors.
I never said she shouldn't take on so much directly. I applauded the woman previous who did do so. What sickens me are the people who do take on more than they can responsibly handle, and then expect everyone around them to bend over backwards to accommodate their every need, because they can't handle it.
the thing is, people ask for special concessions all the time and get them, as they more often than not should.
But the point is that they oughtn't get the special concessions.
We aren't irritated by this particular woman in this particular instance. This situation is just an example of the larger problem of accomodating special needs in a manner that does not afford everyone access to those accomodations.
What if everyone had to use the stairs and someone else paid someone else to carry them up the stairs? Just because someone had the money and the means?
If you look closely at the story, Currier graduated from MIT in part because students were paid to give her class notes and read textbooks out loud to her.
Disability or no disability, there's also the issue of the father of this woman's children being an MIT professor. Surely that had to do something with all of the extra considerations.
Hardly a level playing field at all.
"those rules were made by men who established the school for men? perhaps if the medical field was established by the women who were being oppressed back in the day, the rules would be more accommodating for a wider variety of people."
If this is recognized to be the case, then would it not aptly rectify the situation for the conventions of the test to be revised so that all might be fairly examined?
Also,
I find the number of comments referring to lack of knowledge of breast feeding to be bizzare.
Breast feeding is not a point of contention here. What we are talking about is sanctioning exceptions to established proceedures.
What if everyone had to use the stairs and someone else paid someone else to carry them up the stairs? Just because someone had the money and the means?
If you look closely at the story, Currier graduated from MIT in part because students were paid to give her class notes and read textbooks out loud to her.
Disability or no disability, there's also the issue of the father of this woman's children being an MIT professor. Surely that had to do something with all of the extra considerations.
There is no relevance in these comments.
Previously, women who had infants and toddlers were more likely to formula feed their children, so some of these analogies really do not apply very well. However, the analogy of the wheelchair ramp does. The ramp allows someone to get to the education, but does not help them with it. I would argue that the few (and they are few) extra minutes she is allowed to pump over the course of the test to prevent the engorgement simply allows her to "get to" (or back to) the test. The time does not benefit her in regards to the amount of time she is allowed for taking the test.
However, I do wonder about extending the amount of time for the test for her disabilities given that in a real world situation there will be no such extension, and the disability will remain. Let me make myself clear: If she has the disability, but can with treatment then meet the requirements as others do, then I see no problem. I am writing specifically in regards to the test for her license for her intended profession, not a test in another subject she will not be practicing, but that is required to obtain a degree. So, I suppose the unanswered question might be "What is her intended specialty?" Is such a time constraint of such importance for her specialty?
At a point it does matter. I am a woman. I am very small. I think women should be allowed to serve as firefighters, but there is no way a woman of my size could carry out most adult men or many women. It's not because I am a woman, but because I am small. It just so happens that women are more likely to be smaller than men, although not always. To say that a small woman is denied a job as a firefighter because she is a woman would be inaccurate and frankly insulting to women who seek equality based on just that - equality. For what it's worth, I am for affirmative action, but not quotas.
Regarding the comments about not knowing how to use birth control and such. How old are you? Birth control does not always work. Also, do you realize that women bear the burden of perpetuating the species and then are constantly demeaned for it? We don't exactly get a lot of support. What would you have us do? Stop procreating? The time one would be finishing this type of education would coincide with the time one should be having a child if they want to do so before it becomes very risky. It's just a few minutes to pump. It won't affect her career permanently in a negative way and might affect it in a positive one if she enters the field of pediatrics. I find this, yes, misogyny, masked in some pseudo-logical argument about "choices" and "birth control" unsettling at best. Obviously, those posters don't know as much about the real world as they purport to know.
Wanted to add to my September 28, 2007 3:38 PM post:
Maybe she has had other unfair advantages. I'm not sure of those. However, it could be that it took someone who has the "luxury" of those advantages who could take the time to argue for this right for lactating women. Even if she might have coasted through with other privileges (I don't know) that does not mean that this issue is not important. Every day people deal with unfair issues, but can not address them because of other burdens. Good for her that she did this no matter what the reasons. The issue is valid in itself.
Continuing the stair analogy: If someone else paid someone else to carry them up the stairs while everyone walked, but then that person who was carried then had the energy to hold open a heavy door for everyone else, don't you think that in the end that that's a good thing?
"Also, do you realize that women bear the burden of perpetuating the species and then are constantly demeaned for it? We don't exactly get a lot of support. What would you have us do? Stop procreating? "
Don't put yourself on a pedestal. What burden are you talking about. I assure you that if every woman who considered having children "a burden" were to not have any, the species would continue to perpetuate at an exponential rate.
Women should have children if they desire to, not for some sort of guilty task.
Secondly, yes a little less procreation could be a very good thing for our species. The US is slowly becoming too crowded for my tastes, I couldn't even imagine trying to live in a country where overpopulation is a real issue such as Bangladesh, China, El Salvador, etc. Unfortunately, due to the limited fertile, stable land in the world, only so much food can be created, to feed a constantly growing population. So, yes, only if a woman decides she is up to the challenge of having a child, and feels she is aptly supported to do so, should she procreate.
"The time one would be finishing this type of education would coincide with the time one should be having a child if they want to do so before it becomes very risky."
First of all, I never once said that a person should not have children while they are in school. I'm trying to say that having children is no small decision, and should not be made spontaneously. A person knowing they are coming up on some very rigorous years of school should take that into account, and prepare for the upcoming challenges, rather than expect the challenges to be reduced because of their situation.
Secondly, last I knew there were no significant increases in chance of birth defects until the age of 35. Unless this girl started her 6 years of college at age 29, or took 15 years to complete a 6 year program, she would most likely still have 10 good years to have children with minor risk of birth defects.
I hope she fails the test again. She's already failed once. I'm a woman and I come from a family of doctors. Believe me, this IDIOT doesn't speak for all women. She was offered to postpone her test and she chose not to on the grounds that "men wouldn't have to". Well men also don't have babies and have to expel breast milk, do they? What a complainer!
I don't in any way assume that Sophie C Currier speaks for all women, or in any way is indicative of how another woman would act in this situation.
I do, however, think that all students should have the same amount of time to take the test that she has.
After reading through this ridiculously long stream of comments, I would just like to say that before someone decides to argue with the points being made, they should probably read everything that has been said, so that they actually have a conception of what's going on.
This is not about her being a woman. Education women is a good thing. I know this and so do these guys. It's about taking responsibility for your actions and not imposing upon others.
Why couldn't she just wait and take the test later if breast pumping was such a big deal?
And one more time...this is not about women being incapable, so please can we not try that argument again?
I see some of you anonymous out there seem to think that this woman deserves to have more time because of the mere fact that she is lactating. I know there has been discussion on this point, but why should we feel sorry for her.
Med School = schooling, tests, residency, and many other time consuming tasks.
Pregnancy/motherhood = lactating, morning sickness and other inconveniencing things of the sort. Also children demand alot of time as well.
She had to have known full well that sex, even with condoms and birth control pills, can lead to babies. So why have sex at all 9 months before your important medical exams!!! It just doesn't make sense.
If I really want to sit through the latest blockbuster film and not miss a second....should I really get that big gulp? HELL FUCKING NO!!! And if I have to get up to pee...its' my own fucking fault.
Now replace blockbuster film with Medical school exam and big gulp with sex!... If you don't get the comparison please join Miss Currier in with all the other idiots in this world!
Do you really want someone with that amount of common sense to examine you later?
Later
Jolly = amazing
Blog ≠ Polished Academic Discourse.
three cheers for Christina.
Thanks, Andrew! I miss you!
Oh teh Jolly you make the head supporting apparatus swell with laughter.
horray for christina.
Christina must be one of those women-hating women.
Does anyone know if Sophie C. Currier passed her test???
I have no idea.
I hope she failed. Not because I hate her, but because I think that would be the best way for the story to end.
"Mother gets extension on exam; still fails."
It's just good writing.
Post a Comment