From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Why I am Not An Egalitarian
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 19:19:15 GMT

In article <Bzu4Ez.D5y@news.cso.uiuc.edu> levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:
>One final word, in connection with the Levine/Payne exchange.
>
>I am not an egalitarian, as I've said, in the sense that I believe
>that the importance of human differences -- either genetic, or 
>determined in early childhood -- has been greatly discounted. 
>
>For these reasons I *do* believe that it is often appropriate, to
>give extra help to people coming from a position of cultural
>disadvantage. The reason for this help is not to establish some quota,
>but to help people get into occupations where they more reasonably
>belong. 

"[W]here they more reasonably -belong-"??????????
 
>I will admit that I am an elitist. 

Having read many of your posts, I am in complete disagreement with
the above claim. You do not claim that the most able should reap the
rewards, but those you define as "disadvantaged", which is just about
the opposite of elitism. (as near as I can tell)

>                                       But I am not a fingerist (a person
>who believes, "I've got mine, you don't got yours, so you know what you
>can do!") I believe that the influence of random factors in society is
>so great that many people do not end up in positions appropriate for
>them. Specifically, I believe that a great many culturally disadvantaged
>people, in menial jobs, have the ability to do far better. 

Huh? Are you saying that they have abilities they do not use? This is
a bit contradictory for my tastes, would you consider using the word
-potential-? (as in -unrealized potential-, although I see no way to
determine what these potentials might be)

>                                                            As a matter
>of fact, *I've* been one of these people (with my biggest cultural
>disadvantage being a learning disability, *not* my gender). I've been in
>many menial jobs in my life, with people assuming I was not fit for
>anything else. I am currently a graduate student in mathematics, and doing 
>just fine! But I could not have gotten to this position, without the help I 
>received along the way.
>
>I also believe that our culture does not necessarily value the right
>qualities. 

So there is some absolute "right", and our society has drifted from the
one true path. Luckily you can guide us back to the "right" values.

>            That is, in an age so influenced by television, we tend to
>value glibness more than depth of character or of thought. For example,
>I do understand that Ronald Reagan overcame some childhood cultural 
>disadvantages. But I do not think the traits he was valued for, the traits
>that enabled him to rise to the top, are traits that should be valued.
>Remember, that cream is not the only thing that rises to the top!
>(Note: Please, please, I am using Reagan only as *one example*. If you
>don't like this one, substitute a liberal Democrat if you wish.) 
>
>For these reasons, too, I do not believe that the fact that people are
>*in* positions of leadership, is ipso facto evidence that they belong
>there. 

But you believe that the fact that you are in research mathametics is
evidence that you belong there. 
 
>Finally, I would like to discuss the subject of quotas. As an elitist, I
>do not believe there is any God-given necessity for any human group, to
>be equally represented in all positions. I think that evidence of
>disproportionate representation should be considered only in a specific
>context, in which by common sense it *does* show some injustice. I think
>that such contexts certainly exist, but one should not automatically
>assume that a disproportionate represenation means they do exist. 
>
>What do I mean, in practice? I guess one specific example, which will
>illuminate what I mean, is conditions in a Silicon Valley company I
>worked for as a programmer in the spring and summer of 1988. I was a
>working there as a temporary (I was eventually offered a permanent
>position, and refused it). Of the hundred or so permanent programmers in my
>section of the company, only two or three were women. (Note one of these
>women was quite "butch"; she seemed to fulfill the cultural role of "one
>of the boys" quite well.)
>
>Now, in all the other companies I worked for, the programming work force
>was more than 10% women; sometimes close to 50%. Therefore, I think the
>extreme disproportion at this particular company, in the context
>it existed in, *was* very strong evidence of either conscious or
>unconscious discrimination. As a matter of fact, there was not in this
>particular place any deliberate effort to exclude women, and women were
>*hired* in much greater proportion. But there was a corporate culture
>that made women feel unwelcome -- *much* more unwelcome than they felt
>in other Silicon Valley companies. And because of this corporate
>culture, women *left* the company in much greater proportion than men. 
>I think in this case, the numbers did tell a story that the company
>should have been listening to (and, I understand, did eventually).
>
>I do not think in every case numbers tell the same story -- but what's
>so wrong about trying to understand a *specific* situation, instead of
>applying ironclad rules?

It seems to me that you spend a great deal of time defining things in
terms of classes, and have shown little interest in dropping the class
distinctions and looking at every case individually.
 
>Lenore Levine


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women