From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Are special programs sexist/racist? (long)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 06:49:20 GMT

In article <C0noH4.7r5@news.cso.uiuc.edu> levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:
>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>
>(I wrote about how selection committees choose graduate students.)
>
>>>See the reasons why it's considered, above.
>
>>You are not talking about academic background, but background as
>>related to sex and home life. These above text does not seem to
>>support your argument, despite the use of the same word ("background")
>>in different contexts.
>
>Evidence of overcoming adversity would certainly be one indicator of
>that self-discipline and determination, that committees are looking for. The
>mere fact that an individual belongs to an often underprivileged
>group would not be such an indicator; but I am not saying it should be. 

Evidence of overcoming adversity may indicate only that one is a fighter
(not necessarily of any benefit in a research setting). Note that there is
no self-discipline necessary to fight, that is, I discgree that the two are
necessarily connected. 
   
>>>>Tell me why anyone should share or agree with your intuition? I did not
>>>>realize that research mathematics was a social science. Why do you feel
>>>>that ability cannot be determined completely by objective means?
>>>
>>>The quality of a *paper* can be judged by means which are very close to
>>>objective. Judgments as to whether a person who is not yet at the
>>>research level, has the potential to get to that level, involve a great
>>>deal of intuition. And there are some people who have almost uncanny
>>>intuitions for this!
>
>>You mean that they know what to look for and which questions to ask I
>>think. If they can consistantly do it, then I would suspect that rules
>>could be spelled out. And people change and grow (or not), no assessment
>>can take into account future events.
>
>My interviewee specifically said that there was not, and could not be,
>a way to spell out exact rules for making such decisions. And of course,
>no amount of expertise at "what to look for and what questions to ask"
>is going to bat 1000! 

So, I bet that no interviewer has ever batted 1000. As I said, the future
is not predictable. But a good rule set would give a higher average than
random talent.

>                       Just that a person practiced at these decisions
>will have a much higher "batting average" than one who's not. 

Can you tell me anything, anything at all, to which this does not apply?
 
>>I have a problem with the use of AA, not the overt abuses. AA is mandated
>>discrimination, because discrimination is wrong. It is an abomination.
>>There was not even an -attempt- at simply enforcing existing laws.
>
>What kinds of AA? I think you are referring to the policy of giving
>members of often underprivileged groups an *automatic* edge, where
>there is no previous recent history of institutional discrimination.
>I am not comfortable with that kind of policy, either. 

Which kind of AA does not, in some fashion, generate this "edge"? Is that
not absolutely what AA is all about?
   
>>>>>I also note that you tend to assume a very adversarial style. I
>>>>>really get the impression that you are disgusted, not only with
>>>>>my ideas (which of course, may be mistaken), but with the moral
>>>>>quality of the person advocating them.
>>>
>>>>I cannot shake the impression that you would discriminate against
>>>>me based upon non-performance criteria and feel that you had done
>>>>the -right- thing. (if I were seeking a job at your university)
>>>
>>>I think that if you knew me you would find this suspicion quite
>>>unrealistic.
>
>>I note that the discrimination you favor just happens to include the
>>group to which you seem to belong. It seems a sound conclusion.
>
>Then, you do not know me very well. 

I only know what you have written. But it seems enough to make some
provisional guesses. How could you ignore things you feel so strongly
about?

>                                    If you want to know more
>about my tastes, preferences and history, please email me
>privately. Let me just say that I think they're based much
>more on my intuitions about individuals, then on membership
>in any particular groups. And in so far as I do think of
>myself as a member of a group, I don't see myself as having
>much in common with many of the other female graduate
>students here, because my age and life experiences are quite
>different. I tend to think of myself much more as being an
>*older* graduate student than being a *female* graduate student. 

But you see their potential, and the fact that they have overcome
disadvantages (almost by definition, as far as I can see). 
 
>(Not that discrimination because of age is any more ethical than
>discrimination because of gender. It's just that if I did discriminate
>unconsciously, I suspect it would be more on such a basis.)
> 
>(Story about the abuses of affirmative action.) 
>>>Now, why am I (Lenore) telling this story? And not you? 
>
>>I just told a similar story. And I do not understand what your question
>>means.
>
>I meant that there are some very convincing arguments against the
>abuses of affirmative action, that the people who are against it
>are not presenting. 

The very concept of AA is an abuse, a point which you deleted from my
previous post. 
  
>>>If you are posting to the net because you want to have anyone, at all,
>>>read you, take you seriously, and respect you -- and maybe even
>>>be convinced by you -- a more deadpan style, less willingness to assume
>>>an adversarial relationship, and more specific examples -- might make
>>>you succeed in your purposes a lot better!
>
>>What do you think my purpose -is-?
>> 
>>>Just out of curiosity, then: What is the purpose of your postings?
>
>>I will respond after you respond to the above question if you don't mind.
>
>Purpose:
>
>1) To practice writing; to practice presenting my views articulately.
>2) To convince other people of -- whatever I'm posting about.

You are stating why -you- are posting, it seems you did not get my question.
Why do you think that -I- am posting?

>3) Posting is a good way to take a 5-minute break from writing my thesis,
>   which is on the computer...
  
Posting is a vice for me (at least while at work), I need to finish the
second version of an online information system. 

>Lenore Levine


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism,alt.abortion.inequity