I have a confession to make. It’s a secret, so don’t tell anyone. Engineers are people, too. Yes, I realize that may be shocking to some of you, but it’s true.

Regular readers (well, you can’t blame me for being a little optimistic) may wonder what’s wrong. After all, engineers are far more often the subject of gentle mockery in these columns than anything else. So why the sudden change of heart?

Well firstly, it’s not a change of heart. I don’t actually hate engineers. I don’t even dislike them, I just think that they’re often a little awkward (as are we all) and mildly amusing in their ability to fulfill a stereotype. Plus, the way they get annoyed at the occasional insult is awfully cute.

In their defense, though, you too would probably get a little miffed if you had to face the barrage of prejudice that our technically-minded friends have to.

I was recently in a discussion about the hopeless social situation among the graduate student community here at Stanford when my companion made the assertion that perhaps things would work better if we segregated the population.

Of course, she didn’t put it quite like that (and she recanted rather swiftly), but the basic point was that everyone else would get on much better if the engineers just kept to their own and the rest of us (presumably minus the blacks, Asians and Jews) stuck together.

Needless to say, it is a spurious comparison to suggest that not wanting to associate with a particular group of people because of their choice of academic discipline is somehow equivalent to refusing to hang out with someone because of his or her race.

On the other hand, while one bias is considerably more pernicious than the other, both are equally absurd. Also, while Stanford is relatively free of racism, that doesn’t appear to be the case with engineerism.

The mildly ironic thing with charges of interaction inadequacy is that they are often used as an excuse by humanists and the like to completely disconnect from the Stanford social scene (such as it is) and thus ensure that practically every gathering in Rains turns into a EE-infested awkward zone (and awkward solely by virtue of homogeneity).

It’s not just social disdain that is turned upon the inhabitants of Packard and Terman. They also have to deal with envy. And somewhat inappropriate envy at that.

There is a myth that engineers get paid more than the rest of Stanford’s grads. And it’s a myth that seems to have a great deal of currency among whining humanities folk.

I cannot claim to have serious data on this, but my brief collection of anecdotal evidence suggests that most graduate students earn approximately the same amount during the bulk of the year (summers work out a little differently).

What’s more, even if engineers do get paid more, it’s worth remembering that this University was built and nurtured with engineering money. Without it, there is no way the Cardinal would be competing on the world stage.

Speaking of world stages brings me to my final point and, I suppose, a minor mea culpa. While social prowess is the most obvious source of condescension, there is also a more invidious kind of discrimination. Academic snobbery.

There is a tendency of more abstract thinkers — and sadly, I have done this myself — to look down on the intellectual abilities of people who actually make things. For some reason, directly contributing to society seems to be the antithesis of “proper” scholarly behavior.

It’s unclear exactly why this is, though in my case I know it stems from a deep insecurity. What I do has little in the way of tangible worth, so devaluing the notion of concreteness helps me feel a little better about myself.

Anyway, from now on I’m going to try to ignore that little voice that tells me to be superior, and instead show a little love. Perhaps you could do the same and we could all live in blissful, idyllic harmony. Or something like that.

In case you were wondering, none of this means I’m going to stop mocking you people. If that bothers anyone, e-mail navins@stanford.edu with your hate mail.