From: hillyard@lynx.msc.cornell.edu.UUCP (Sean Edward Hillyard,F7 Clark,50649,)
Subject: Re: Hiring quotas and faculty positions (Repost #2)
Originator: hillyard@msc2.msc.cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell-Materials-Science-Center
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 06:49:09 GMT

From article <11SEP199219435574@vtcc1.cc.vt.edu>, by merolajs@vtcc1.cc.vt.edu (JOSEPH S. MEROLA DEPT OF CHEMISTRY VPI&SU):
[...]
> 
> Some of the previous posts actually showed that people are willing
> to accept some amount of discrimination on non-technical factors,
> even in they are against affirmative action.  For example, one
> poster suggested that action that would help a "poor" person
> might be acceptable.  But why should I suffer because I happened
> to be born "rich"?  I know this is an oversimplification, but it
> clearly applies to any argument.  How many of you who read this
> group have every received financial aid based on NEED and not on
> ABILITY?  Why should I (through taxes, etc) pay for your tuition
> just because your family is poor?  Personally, I think that there
> are a lot of societal benefits that could acrue from this.  And
> so, there are societal benefits that come from affirmative 
> action.

I mentioned that AA for the poor would probably be more acceptable
to the public, but this doesn't mean I would personally agree.  AA
which, as being discussed, occurs at hiring, is wrong for anybody.
Coming in at the end of the game and saying sorry, you have the wrong
genes (or too much money), minus points, is just wrong.  Financial aid for 
someone who got into college but can't afford it is fine.  Head Start 
programs are fine.  In general, programs that help people learn to do the work
is to me much different than going to the end of the line and normalizing
results based on sex or race; no matter what the motives.

[...]
> 
> Not the same thing as institutionalized affirmative action you
> say?  I would agree with that.  I am just trying to emphasize
> that the "best person" does not always get the job for a lot of
> reasons.  Are there  reasons why the gender or race of
> someone may be a valid consideration?  If you could go back over some of my
> earlier posts I tried to make that case.  
> The need for mentors for women and minorities in science is
> evident (at least to me.)  Without them, there will never
> be a flat playing field for all concerned.  To get to that
> point, the system needs a little push.

The best person doesn't always get the job so we add another way
for this to happen?  Because its in a good cause of course.  This type
of thinking is very prevalent in Washington and I don't like it one
bit (Hey, the deficit is 400billion, a few million in pork is no big
deal.  After all, its for a good cause, the people of my district, and
everyone else does it for their districts.)

Should race/sex ever be a consideration?  There are probably a few jobs,
but I don't think scientist or professor are among them.  It may sound
a little harsh, but if someone if too sexist/racist to have a mentor of
a different sex/race then that's their problem.

> 
> Joseph S. Merola
> Department of Chemistry
> Virginia Tech (aka VPI&SU)
> 

SEH
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers