From: schieber@jetson.uh.edu (Schieber, Jay D.)
Subject: Re: Stigma was Re: Hiring quotas and faculty positions
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Houston
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 23:00:00 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.020325.710@msc.cornell.edu>, hillyard@lynx.msc.cornell.edu.UUCP (Sean Edward Hillyard,F7 Clark,50649,) writes...
>From article <13SEP199218540241@vtcc1.cc.vt.edu>, by merolajs@vtcc1.cc.vt.edu (JOSEPH S. MEROLA DEPT OF CHEMISTRY VPI&SU):
>> In article <1992Sep13.215754.28594@msc.cornell.edu>, hillyard@lynx.msc.cornell.edu.UUCP (Sean Edward Hillyard,F7 Clark,50649,) writes...
>>>From the _Ithaca Journal_ sep 1, 92 without permission
>[...]
>>> 
>>>"In situations where women typically are discriminated against," said
>>>Heilman, "being associated with affirmative action makes it worse.  And
>>>in situations where the women wouldn't be discriminated against, it
>>>creates a problem."
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> What this is saying is that the kinds of attitudes which makes
>> affirmative action necesarry are still there and when they cannot be
>> brought to bear to block a hire, they are still there in force to
>> try and scuttle someone's career.  The above clearly shows that
>> sexism is rampant in the rating of resumes and gets even worse when
>> the term affirmative action is applied.
> 
>No, its shows that AA fosters the attitudes its trying to compensate for,
>even in places where attitudes otherwise would have been good.  So if you're
>place of work would have been non-sexist, its not anymore if AA programs
>begin.

=================================
I disagree with your conclusion.  Since it is based on speculation,
I will speculate as well.  I would say that it uncovered more subtle
forms of misconceptions, misunderstandings and racism/sexism/homophobia/
etc.
=================================

> 
>> 
>> This really says that those who say that we should only look at
>> cases on their "merit" are espousing some ideXl world that does not
>> yet exist.  I would agree with you wholeheartedly that, if we could
>> remove all forms of sexism, racism, and any other "isms" that
>> make hiring decisions no completely objective, then we can do
>> away with things such as affirmative action.  But, until that day
>> comes, we need something to help level the playing field and
>> also to educate many about the problem.
> 
>AA may be leveling the hiring field of some jobs (apparently it is 
>already level in some, as in the first example job given).  However, 
>it is also helping to tilt the field against in actual job performance.

===========================
Evidence please?

I disagree.  I haven't even seen a single example, let alone 
evidence of a significant degree of "helping to tilt the field
against an actual job performance."
================================

> 
>[...]
>> 
>> 
>> Does the fact that there is a stigma associated with affirmative
>> action mean that we should scrap the whole thing.  (This is
>> a position that some previous posters have taken.)  Well, the
>> next paragraph in this article seems to answer the question
>> well.                                                          
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>>Dispite findings, affirmative action programs should not be scrapped,
>>>said Heilman.  Instead, she said, managers sould take care to hire and
>>>promote only qualified candidates, and should make clear to employees
>>>that standards are not compromised.
> 
>I didn't comment when I posted the article, but I think this is baloney.
>Whenever a non-relevent criteria is used to judge a candidate, it can't
>help but lower the standards.

======================================
Please, please, please read all of the previous posts with regard
to relevant criteria.  I do not feel like repeating them again.
=======================================

> 
>Let me use what would be called a sexist example nowadays, sports; since
>sports fans are always making employment judgements about the people on 
>their favorite teams ('Simms should be starting, not that idiot Hostedler').
> 
>Lets take the draft.  If you could look five years down the line it is
>typically perfectly clear who you should have taken.  That player is
>likely to be different depending on the teams needs, but there generally
>is someone, or maybe one of a couple, that you should have taken.
> 
>The GM can't see the future.  All he has are the various players 
>qualifications:  ht, wt, 40 yard time, yardage gained in college, 
>reputation as a trouble maker or hard worker, etc.  It is very difficult
>to make the correct decision, but these are all relevant--you know this
>because the players you've rated higher have tended, no guarantees, but they
>have tended to make better pros.
> 
>Now the owner has told you to favor whites.  It seems that white players 
>are underrepresented in the league, and, in addition, the
>more white players the more tickets you seem to sell.  Now he only wants
>this to make a difference if the two players are equal.  After all, the
>main goal is to win games, since this makes the biggest difference in the
>bottom line.
> 
>Well, the judging process is so complicated that no two candidates are going
>to be the same.  Its a real tough decision who is likely to be better, but
>there are always differences, and thats your job, anyone can rank the
>obviously better/worse candidates.
> 
>That being the case, the owner's request is never going to make a difference,
>no two players are ever equal.  If you are actually going to bring in more
>white players it is going to have to be to the detriment of a more able 
>(according to you're rating system) black.  Perhaps not much better, but 
>better just the same.

Again, please read the previous posts.  Anyone who has rated candidates
can tell you what is wrong with your "jock" analogy.


> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> To me, to scrap these programs because of these problems is to
>> say that : "Oh well, racism and sexism are so rampant that we can't
>> do anything about them and so let's give up, let the status quo
>> operate as is, and write off the potential contributions of
>> minorities and females."  I'm sorry, but I'm not willing to make
>> that concession.
> 
>No, it means this technique is not solving the problem, and might
>even be making it worse.  

Please offer something better.  I believe that history clearly shows
that doing nothing has been unacceptable.



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

> 
>SEH