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 20:40:00 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.212122.3354@tc.cornell.edu>, bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes...
>In article <lb1trkINNn0h@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu> primeaux@wham-o.cs.utk.edu (David Primeaux) writes:

[the original stuff deleted to save bandwidth]

>>|> Why should anybody have to pay for crimes he/she did not commit0000 ? If there is
>>|> still discrimination today then punish the people who do it, not the innocents.
>>
>>Well, it looks like a good point you raise here.  But put the shoe on the other
>>foot.  Suppose you were a black female and that some twenty or twenty-five
>>you were just beginning your education in the US South (forget the flames, I 
>>grew up there).  If you were in the same town I was in, you went to the "colored
>>school" and I simply went to school. You had teachers with training inferior 
>>to the training of mine, and teachers who were paid less than mine were.  In
>>many cases your teachers were subject in their education to the same victimization
>>you were subjected to.  You had textbooks that had been discarded from my 
>>school in favor of newer ones and your school offered a more limited curriculum
>>than my school offered me.  It was assumed that a relatively large percentage of
>>my class would continue its education beyond high school.  It was also assumed
>>that very, very few of your classmates would make it to college.  As a final
>>insult, since you arefemale, you get less attention in the classroom than do 
>>the males.
> 
>Here you are making the assumption that if one's teachers and 
>upbringing were inferior, then this person is cannt become
>a scientist. But is this assumption correct ? I dont think so. 
> 
>Few months ago there was a report in Scientific American on a study on
>Vietamese refugees. The group under study came to the US in the 60's
>with literally nothing but their clothes. their parents were uneducated
>They settled in the Bronx, NY, and their children studied in the worst 
>public schools, with blacks. It turned out that the children were 
>ranked very high nationally in math and sciences. No affirmative action
>were applied to them.

No, the point is that it is not so simple.  There are many important
factors.  Some of the Vietnamese groups that you mention went
through some very hard times, but seemed to make very admirable
gains.  However, Vietnamese and Blacks (for example) have very
different histories in the US, which have impacted on their
respective cultures in different ways.  At the same time, 
different groups have benefitted disproportionately from that
history.  For example, as a white male in the US, I have 
inherited many advantages simply because I am a white male in the US:
my parents were never the victims of apartheid or discrimination,
the economy of the country was booming during my childhood
for reasons that were out of my control, I had an endless supply
of positive role models and positive images telling me how
important white males in the US were, I was never discriminated
against, etc.


> 
>Remember also that many successful ethnical groups in the US were 
>discriminated against (like the Japanese Americans and other Asian groups)
>in the past, and they reached high level of achievement without 
>any affirmative action benefits. 

Yes, and some have not reached high levels of achievement.  Why
not?  Is this important?  It is to me.  What is 
your theory as to why different groups succeed
to different degrees?  I propose historical differences 
which have seen widely varying differences
in the amount of violence visited upon each group.
If this theory is true, then we need to rethink how we
equalize society.

> 
>>
>>Yeah, paying for crimes one did not commit does not seem fair. Life's not fair.
>>But so far it's been one hell of a lot fairer to me than it has been to a whole
>>slew of other folks.  
>>
> 
>I disagree. Life is not fair, but that is not enough reason to discriminate
>against an innocent person just because he happens to be white male.

This assumes that white males are being discriminated against.  I
do not agree with that assumption.  The evidence is yours to provide.
(See earlier posts).

[some stuff deleted]
> 
>Actually, I dont realize why some senior faculty members are so eager
>to impose any social agendas. It is a dangerous game and may
>backfire on universities. The political climate may change someday,
>and people will realize that tenured physicists, mathematicians,
>psychologists etc. were engaged in imposing their societal "cures"
>throughout the years with their tax money, and not engaging in  
>teaching and research. Why would Joe Shmoe want to pay for a 
>job-for-life of someone who have the power to impose agendas he does
>not support ?

THis assumes that a political agenda outside of teaching and research
does not already exist or has not existed since universities started.
Such an assumption is extremely naive and simply does not jive with
history.



> 
>>Agreed.  And, of course, the contrary should hold true: people who think
>>differently from me should not feel free to enforce their moral agenda 
>>on those who disagree (I don't believe for a moment that you think they 
>>should).  
> 
>Agreed.
> 
>>Everything we do as a society has some moral ramifications. 
>>It seems to me that it is largely those at various levels of power who 
>>decide what the direction of our society's moral agenda will be.  I am 
>>free to dissent, if I wish, but as an individual I frequently feel 
>>powerless.
>>
> 
>You sometimes feel powerless, but you can still cast your vote
>and let some politicians in and out. Politicians dont have 
>a guaranteed job for life. Faculty members do.

Actually, faculty do not have a guaranteed job for life.  I expect
in the next few years you will see an increase in the number of
tenured faculty losing their jobs.  However, the number is quite
small, so it is still an important point.

The tenure system is not perfect.  Propose something better.  I
do not wish to further politicize academics by allowing politicians
to endanger faculty careers.  Where would dissidents be allowed to
survive?

> 
>>|> whenever they have the power. Why should I trust a bunch of senior 
>>|> faculty member to correct societal problems ? 
>>
>>Ahh! Exactly!  *That* is why affirmative action regulations were put in 
>>place:  because we *cannot* "trust a bunch of senior faculty member[s]
>>to correct societal problems."  But if corrections are not made at 
>>their level (or at analogous industry levels) where will they be made?
>>And if we, as a society, decide that they don't need to be made, then
>>are we not perpetuating the "crimes" of others? 
> 
>You should read sometime about the "tenured crazies". There was
>an article in the Economist few  weeks ago. 
> 
>>david
> 
>Dov