From: drraymon@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca (Darrell Raymond)
Subject: Re: Hiring quotas and faculty positions
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 13:12:13 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.045923.22479@cs.cornell.edu>, karr@cs.cornell.edu (David Karr) writes:
> 
> >o It is bad for the fight against racism and sexism because it
> >  produces disgruntled people who feel that they have been passed over
> >  because of their sex or colour (and note that if one ethnic woman is
> >  hired under such a program then all the other candidates will blame
> >  the program for their failure).  Such people are ripe for
> >  recruitment by white supremacists.
> >
> >o And it is bad for the people who get hired because whatever their
> >  abilities may actually be the whole office knows "she only got her
> >  job because...."
> 
> These are the only valid arguments against "affirmative action," but
> note how they are predicated on rampant, widespread racism and sexism,
> which would indicate that affirmative action really is needed.

  I agree with Dave that these arguments smack too much of the spectre
of racism and sexism (i.e., don't do this or we'll really get mad), but
I think they have been stated (and rebutted) too simplistically.  One
need not postulate rampant widespread racism in order to realize that
simple human psychology is going to lead people to be disgruntled when
they lose out for a reason that may have little to do with them
personally.  Similarly, the urge to feel that "she only got her job
because" is nearly inescapable, especially when the official policy is
that she's should get the job more often than not.  When people know
that the secretary is sleeping with the boss, the natural assumption is
that it's for mercenary reasons, even if it's not.

  More importantly, these are not the only valid (or even the best)
arguments against affirmative action.  A better argument would be
empirical evidence that affirmative action doesn't achieve its goals.
I am willing to be corrected on this (by people who have some facts),
but I believe there is some research coming out now that shows that
existing affirmative action programs in the US have not made a
significant difference in the general social position of the black
community; the people being helped by affirmative action were largely
those that would have succeeded anyway, and those that might have been
helped were simply not in a position to be helped by the system.  I
also remember hearing a report to the effect that affirmative action in
admissions to an Ivy League college (Princeton?) was resulting in
higher dropout and failure rates of exactly those candidates that had
received preferential treatment.  The reason was simple: if you allow
candidates who have less ability, they'll find it harder to succeed at
the work.  Thus extra preferential treatment is necessary to get them
to graduate, and then to get jobs, and so the process perpetuates
itself.  I don't have the references to these reports at hand, and I 
would be pleased if someone could provide better evidence (pro or con).

> Seriously, isn't this like arguing that you can't balance an object
> subjected to a destabilizing force by applying a force in the opposite
> direction?

  To carry your analogy through, the point is that the force you apply 
will necessarily destabilize some other object.  

-Darrell.
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers