From: levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine)
Subject: Why I am Not An Egalitarian
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 21:44:58 GMT

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. 

I will admit that I am an elitist. 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. 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. 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. 

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?

Lenore Levine
Newsgroups: alt.feminism