From: schieber@jetson.uh.edu (Schieber, Jay D.)
Subject: Re: Hiring quotas and faculty positions (Repost #2)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Houston
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 21:15:00 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.230019.6635@msc.cornell.edu>, hillyard@lynx.msc.cornell.edu.UUCP (Sean Edward Hillyard,F7 Clark,50649,) writes...
>From article <11SEP199217133005@jetson.uh.edu>, by schieber@jetson.uh.edu (Schieber, Jay D.):
>[...]
>> 
>> There is no leap of faith involved (the deleted sections of the
>> poster imply this).  Being a faculty requires much more than
>> strictly technical skills; to think otherwise is quite naive.
>> In industry it is even more true.  Industry looks for people who
>> fit into the "corporate culture"--clearly not a technical 
>> qualification.  I am mentor to hundreds of students, who ask
>> me questions about many aspects of working and studying, with
>> at least half of the questions having nothing to do about 
>> technical matters.
>[...]
> 
>Yes, but explain to me the difference between these two situations.
> 
>We'd like to hire you, but you're black and the rest of the staff won't
>work with you very well.  So you won't get as much done as the less 
>able white we're hiring.

This is the rationale that many departments have been making for a
very long time.  However, they do not mention explicitly that the
reason the faculty do not get along with the person because they
are black.  AA helps to offset the still-existent, longstanding
practice.  I think that these white faculty members have some real
problems that they need to think about.



> 
>or
> 
>We'd like to hire you, but you're white and won't be as good a mentor to
>the black students as the less able black we're hiring.

Again, you are making very precarious assumptions about judging ability.
There is no objective measure for judging quality, as I've written before.
Since no one has responded to this point, I will assume that it is agreed
upon.  Now your proposed situation is problematic.  However, let me
propose a similar one that you may mean to say.  I am a faculty member
with a vote in the department about to whom we make an offer.  Now I
have a very long list of important criteria for judging candidates:
area of expertise, letters of recommendation, number of publications,
quality of publications, industrial experience, clarity of presentation,
liklihood of being a good instructor, liklihood of generating funding,
liklihood of being easy to work with, honesty, scholarship, ability
to fit needs in the department, etc.  

I have two candidates.  I find both candidates to be satisfactory 
in all areas.  However, say I find the white male candidate to look
somewhat better in most areas.  On the other hand, the black female
candidate would be the first woman and the first black in the 
department.  And, I notice that about one third of my students
are female and that an increasing number of my students are black.
Additionally, a number of them come to my office and mention how
they feel alienated.  In fact, one light-skinned black woman who
can pass for white tells me that she tells no one that she is
black (true story) to avoid ostracism.  Do I hire the black 
woman?  I do not know.  But I will think long about it, because
I find that to be a very important point in her favor, possibly
outweighing the other factors.  Just as I might hire person
x over person y because I feel like I can work with x and not
with y although y just may be technically more competent then
x.  In other words, making those decisions is not as clear cut
as less/more able.  For example, is van Gogh better than Warhol?

> 
>SEH