HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
From: me@csri.toronto.edu (Daniel R. Simon)
Subject: Re: Asian-American success (was Re: Hiring quotas and faculty positions)
Organization: CSRI, University of Toronto
Date: 14 Sep 92 19:04:45 GMT

In article <1992Sep12.145305.21269@news.acns.nwu.edu> len@schur.math.nwu.edu (Len Evens) writes:
>It should be pointed out that almost all private colleges and universities
>do in fact give preference to children of alumni and to athletes.
>It has been repeatedly pointed out, but generally ignored, that preference
>for children of alumni is in effect a powerful long term kind of
>`affirmative action' which has much more significant effects that
>the usual kind of affirmative action reserved for African-Americans
>and other minority groups.  However, critics of the latter form of
>affirmative action seldom deal with this point.   There are also other
>kinds of selective admissions procedures which have adverse effects on
>particular groups, but it is usually only those involving race that
>get much discussion.
>
>Leonard Evens      len@math.nwu.edu      708-491-5537
>Dept. of Mathematics, Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL 60208

The Washington Monthly published a fascinating article last year on
the subject of alumni preference policies.  Apparently, not only do
they amount to de facto discrimination against certain minority
groups, but they were actually so intended when they were first
implemented earlier this century.  Moreover, the excuse commonly used
today by schools who give preference to the children of alumni (alumni
donations would plummet if the practice were ended) was also used
decades ago by those who opposed admitting women and minority
students.  (These same schools also use a specious argument frequently
used by defenders of "affirmative action"--that bias in favour of
children of alumni only comes into play if two candidates are
"otherwise equal".  Does anyone out there believe *that* one?)

There is no excuse for the alumni legacy preference system.  One of
the many terrible effects of "affirmative action" is that it dampens
the outrage that should rightly be directed at alumni preference, by
"buying off" those with both the motivation and the political power to
fight it, at the expense of those with the former but not the latter.


"There *is* confusion worse than death"		Daniel R. Simon
			     -Tennyson		(me@theory.toronto.edu)
Organization: TECHNION - Israel Institute of Technology.
Date: Tuesday, 15 Sep 1992 12:16:00 IST
From: <CERLPDR@TECHNION.BITNET>
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
Subject: Re: comment on AA and faculties

>bechtler@asdg.enet.dec.com (Laurie Bechtler) writes:

>The main problem, as another poster has pointed out, is the limited
>job market.

  Exactly, whenever there are too many candidates chasing too few positions
a lot of people are going to be disappointed in their job search. It's
natural in such a situation to look for scapegoats. A more constructive
debate than the merits of AA would, in my opinion, be how to match the
number of qualified applicants to the number of available positions.

                                John Tolman, PhD
From: ljhr@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
Subject: RE: A suggestion for a new news group on "Fabrikant"
Date: 8 Sep 92 16:45:52 -0500

I agree!  Get this Fabrikant crapola out of this group and into its own forum. 
Perhaps alt.justifiable.homicide or rec.murder.for.promotion.
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
Subject: Fabrikant: What to do?
From: ghiselli@vax1.umkc.edu
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 12:10:33 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri - Kansas City

	In some of the postings on Fabrikant the question has been raised what,
if anything, should have been done as the result of his E-mail postings. We
have a case that may serve as an example.

	In the social sciences most research necessitates direct contact with
human subjects.  As a result what can and cannot be done in the way of research
is affected by Constitutional law and by state "patients' rights" laws.  
Additionally there are ethical considerations on the use of human subjects.  To
handle all these factors the Federal government has mandated that any 
organization receiving Federal funding and engaged in research with human
subjects set up Institutional Review Boards to screen all proposed research.
This includes not only faculty research, but also student research.  The
researcher presents their proposal and it is accepted or modified by the
board to comply with ethical and legal guidlines.  This is perceived as a
contract with which the researcher must comply completely.

	Recently a student violated the "contract" in the context of doing
a masters thesis project.  As a result the faculty comprising the student's
thesis committee resigned, and the student had to cancel the research project.
This student subsequently made threats against former committee members through
E-mail.

	Our response was to make sure all E-mail was saved in an archive and
not destroyed.  Then the campus police were notified and they interviewed
both the faculty receiving the threats and the purpotrator.  In interviewing
the purpotrator, the police assured the person that they empathized with the
persons' frustration, but that the E-mail presented evidence of premeditated
action.  Basically, they warned the student that the threats had been taken
seriously and that if any aggression were to take place the evidence was there
confirming premeditation (with resultant increase in penalty).

	In the U.S. law enforcement cannot act on threats, only on behavior.
Thus, when we had something like the Fabrikant situation we did the above.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Ghiselli                          |"We don't want to increase class
Department of Psychology               | enrollments, because every student
University of Missouri at Kansas City  | costs us money."
(816) 235-1090                         |          
                                       |   UMKC Chancellor George Russell
INTERNET: Ghiselli@VAX1.UMKC.EDU       |  (now President of U. of Missouri)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers,soc.culture.canada
From: bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor)
Subject: Names of killed and injured in the Fabrikant affair
Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 13:12:03 GMT


Could someone please send me the names of the persons who have
been killed or injured in the Fabrikant affair ? I have been
contacted by a person from a different country who does not
have an access to the net. Some colleages from his university 
were at Concordia at the time of the shootings and he would like
to know if they are among the killed/injured.

Thanks,

Dov
From: andersmh@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (ANDERSON  MIKE HOWARD)
Subject: Re: Hiring quotas and faculty positions
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 21:15:51 GMT

In article <10SEP199219162666@jetson.uh.edu> schieber@jetson.uh.edu (Schieber, Jay D.) writes:
>you were hired "fairly and squarely" regarding all other standards
>of "fairness and squareness".  A cynic might say that if you were hired,
>chances are great that you were not the "best" candidate, because the
>selection process is so flawed from a scholar's point of view.  Why pick
>this criterion as being the worst?  Most positions of "power" are 
>achieved by hook or by crook.  Why dismiss criterion for hiring under-
>represented individuals, which IMO has plausible arguments in its
>favor?   
>
>You are unfairly comparing affirmative action with some ideal, non-
>existent perfect system of "fairness and squareness".  I would find
>it more instructive to compare it with what currently exists.
>
>
>> 
>>C.A.Hollmann ;-)
>> 
>> 

 I agree.  But one important difference is that affirmative action
is institutionalized.  All of the other parts of the underground
methods of the selection process are "not supposed to work that way".
Nonetheless, it is true that anyone that gets a science job in this
market probably had an "in" and didn't really ever compete fair and
square.  In fact, this is an abstract idealism.  There are too many
applicants for even the most conciencious to try to evaluate them
all, and I certainly don't believe recommendations, publications and previous
experience really tell one that much anyhow.  Getting hired is a 
crap shoot.  Hell, look who gets to be president of this country.
Do you think THEY are the best the USA has to offer???

Regardless, affirmative action has reason to be debated.  If person
A looses out to person B, becouse B is a member of an underrepresented
class, then A has been dealt an injustice, pure and simple.  But that
does't mean that affirmative action is all wrong, just debatable.

Mike
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
From: drraymon@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca (Darrell Raymond)
Subject: Re: Stigma was Re: Hiring quotas and faculty positions
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 11:53:56 GMT

In article <14SEP199221034456@jetson.uh.edu>, schieber@jetson.uh.edu (Schieber, Jay D.) writes:
> > 
> >  1. You say above that some studies show that AA has problems and others 
> >     do not.  I think it important to determine what factors result in 
> >     (in)effectiveness.  It may be that AA is only a minor component in
> >     some comprehensive plan, the total impact of which is effective 
> >     (AA may either help or impede the overall impact); or it may be that 
> >     intense personal involvement of exceptional individuals makes the 
>       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> I am not sure exactly what you are getting at here, but it may not
> be essential to your basic point...

  I am suggesting that when you have top people involved, sometimes it
doesn't matter what your overt plan is - top people find a way to make
bad kludges work, while mediocre people can screw up even the best-laid 
plans.

> Be careful, though.  There are many who
> would claim that grade schools are no place for social agendas. (-8

  Yes.  There are some people who claim that society is no place for
social agendas  :-).

> A question arises for me, however.  Will your second point be
> sufficient?  What if, say Native American Indians are told repeatedly
> that they can be whatever they want, but they get to the university
> and see only white males of european descent, say.  Would that be
> too powerful of a message that would overcome the mere words of grade
> and high schools?  

  I don't know.  However, if you actually get them to universities in
large numbers (which I suspect is not happening now) then they will
at least see each other there.  One or two people can be discouraged
simply by virtue of their isolation.  But twenty or thirty or a hundred
people - some of them are going to be stubborn.

> One piece of evidence that the perception of 
> real opportunity has a tremendous difference is given by the following
> anecdotal occurrence:  

  A good example, and note who this "mentoring" appealed to! Not university 
undergrads.  To me, it's more productive if businessmen mentor students
than if celebrity basketball players do so.

-Darrell.
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
From: bwallet@apssgi.nswc.navy.mil (Brad Wallet)
Subject: Re: Hiring quotas and faculty positions
Organization: Naval Surface Warfare Center
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 14:34:14 GMT

IMHO, one major problem with hiring and promotion goals are that they
usually try to represent the composition of the population at large
rather than the composition of the qualified population.  In trying
to get the number of technical employees and technical management 
women and minorities to properly represent the overall population,
you are fighting the fact that the vast majority of graduates with
degrees and the vast majority of people interested in pursueing 
technical degrees are white males.  Until that changes, you can't
hope to maintain good quality and get better diversity than the
qualified population.

I think the sad part of affirmative action is that it causes people
to question the deservedness of some very good minorities and women.
Undoubtably, some unqualified people get promoted to met goals, and
since you can't be sure who they are, some people draw unfair assumptions.

I think hiring and promotion decisions based upon sex or race in any
fashion is completely unfair, irreprehensable, and unexcuseable by
any justification.

Brad
This are certainly my own opinions.
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
From: schieber@jetson.uh.edu (Schieber, Jay D.)
Subject: Re: Hiring quotas and faculty positions (Repost #2)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Houston
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 20:17:00 GMT

In article <1992Sep13.131845.20030@tc.cornell.edu>, bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes...
>In article <12SEP199219100161@vtcc1.cc.vt.edu> merolajs@vtcc1.cc.vt.edu (JOSEPH S. MEROLA DEPT OF CHEMISTRY VPI&SU) writes:
>>
>>Perhaps we now come to the crux of the discussion.  What 
>>exactly do you see as the function of the university professor?
> 
>Teacher, researcher, various professional committees at the 
>department.
> 
>>If the only thing I had to do in my position
>>were to supervise research and teach a few classes, then my
>>job would be a snap. 
> 
>You must be kidding here. Teachers at community colleges teach
>almost 100% of their time. Researchers at national laboratories
>and various research professors at universities do research close
>to 100% of their time and many of them would tell you they wish
>the day would be 30 hours so they finish their projects. Why
>do you say that the above duties are a snap to do ? 

YOU must be kidding.  Most research professor only have about
30% of their time to devote to research.  The rest is writing
grant proposals, sitting on committees, supervising students, teaching,
refereeing publications, etc. Professors often wax poetic about how
nice it would be to spend the first 40 hours in the week doing 
research instead of the remaining 20.  I pine for the days
of a postdoc or late graduate student just teaching and doing
research.


> 
>>But I have a lot of other responsibilities
>>with respect to committee duties, student advising, 
>>college and university service duties.  
> 
>All of the above have nothing to do with social agendas.

But many are inherently political.

> 
>>Am I interested in promoting my own political convictions?
>>Frankly, no.  
> 
>But you do, if you choose applicants on the basis of their genes.

Read the deleted bit of the post.


> 
>>I have also been involved in hirings where female candidates
>>were interviewed and were NOT hired because when all things
>>were considered, we found a male would be best for the 
>>department.  
> 
>See? the genes of the candidate has nothing to do with the
>job. Why do you bother telling us the gender of the candidate.
>You could equally well tell us the parity of her social security
>number.
> 
>>Joseph S. Merola
>>Department of Chemistry
>>Virginia Tech (aka VPI&SU) 
>>
> 
>Dov
> 
>
From: lseltzer@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Linda A. Seltzer)
Subject: Re: Hiring quotas and faculty positions
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 17:49:51 GMT

>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

Retention is as important than recruitment.  I think that we white
people really don't understand what blacks go through.  When I worked
at Bell Labs I served on the executive director's affirmative action
committee.  My eyes were opened for the first time to what blacks
experience in the workplace.  The management did everything possible
to provide a positive work environment, but unfortunately in a big
organization, incidents can happen.  For example, a black man had
on his wall a photograph of himself and his wife at the beach.  He
came in one morning and found that it had been slashed with a knife.
When he replaced the photograph, the incident was repeated.  He came
to the committee requesting a lock on his office door.  Another black man
had a lab which was not to be contaminated with a particular chemical.
There were all sorts of air filters to prevent it.  Someone broke into
the lab and spread that chemicall all over the place.  Another black
man was receiving sanitary napkins, douche materials, and other feminine
hygiene objects in the company mail.  Some people once rigged up a
black student's harware project so that it would one day emit smoke
in his face.  The perpetrators thought that this was funny.  

We really don't understand what's like to be "on the other side".
The grass may look greener, but it's not.
From: aspasia@usability.Eng.Sun.COM (Lisa Louise Davis)
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
Subject: Re: Affirmative action does not mean quotas
Date: 14 Sep 1992 22:44:45 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: usability

In article <92256.205550CERLPDR@TECHNION.BITNET> CERLPDR@TECHNION.BITNET writes:

>    The intention is that all other things being equal, race or gender may
>be a factor in a hiring decision. In other words, given two equally qualified
>candidates, race or gender may be used to make a final selection. It certainly
>doesn't mean that an unqualified applicant should be hired.

>                                 John Tolman


My understanding of affirmative action is very slightly different:  If two
candidates both meet the minimum requirements for the job, then the minority
candidate should be selected.  (This is the definition presented a few years 
ago in a sociology seminar.)

The distinction is subtle, but significant.  In effect, the best candidate
for the job isn't always selected, but no unqualified candidate is selected.

Lisa Davis
From: bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor)
Subject: Re: Hiring quotas and faculty positions (Repost #2)
Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 16:24:39 GMT

In article <lb1cbgINNelp@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu> primeaux@wham-o.cs.utk.edu (David Primeaux) writes:
>In article <1992Sep10.233803.17047@mailhost.ocs.mq.edu.au>, wskelly@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au (William Skelly) writes:
>|> In article <1992Sep9.215223.22997@netnews.noc.drexel.edu> David.Koert@CoE.Drexel.EDU (Dave Koert) writes:
>|> I too *feel* that I have just run into this sort of thing.  I am also
>|> a little confused as to how one is *supposed* to feel.  This is an
>|> excellent topic for discussion in this group, and perhaps instructive
>|> as to the general backlash that this bit of political correctness is
>|> having within the general workforce (I can't prove this it just seems
>|> to be case with friends employed particularly within the public service).
>|> 
>|> The only arguements against this practice I can think of (and maybe 
>|> they alone are sufficient) are:
>|> 
>|> 1. Why and how long do *we* pay for the mistakes of past generations
>
>*We* have to pay for the mistakes of past generations because the 
>results of those past mistakes still pervade society today.  And withour
>affirmative action laws, IMHO, the mistakes of yesterday would be repeated
>today, leaving *our* children and grandchildren wondering why *they* had to
>pay for our mistakes.

Why should anybody have to pay for crimes he/she did not commit ? If there is
still discrimination today then punish the people who do it, not the innocents.

>
>|> 
>|> Cheers,
>|> Chris
>|> 
>
>
>A final note.  As a white, male, USA citizen of European heritage,
>I support affirmative action.  I have been engaged in an as-yet-unsuc-
>cessful job search (PhD in CS -- any offers?) and have probably been
>"victimized" by "reverse discrimination."  While I would prefer to have
>job offers pouring in than to be still looking, I would prefer that 
>the playing field be leveled now, letting past injustices become exactly
>that -- *past* injustices.

Fine. The real problem is that some people who think like you do feel
free to enforce their social agenda on others who dont agree with them,
whenever they have the power. Why should I trust a bunch of senior 
faculty member to correct societal problems ? I did not vote them
into office nor do I have the power to vote them out - they have a job
for life.

>
>My opinions.  
>
>david
>primeaux@cs.utk.edu

Dov
From: David.Koert@CoE.Drexel.EDU (Dave Koert)
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
Subject: Re: Hiring quotas and faculty positions
Date: 11 Sep 92 23:18:07 GMT
Organization: Drexel University
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A6D6A3B95E0114E2@n1-20-226-hess-lab.coe.drexel.edu>
X-Xxdate: Fri, 11 Sep 92 19:27:53 GMT
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d9

I want to make some additional comments on one particular thread
several people have brought out.  I am referring to complications
in the hiring process that move the entire procedure in a direction
other than simply picking the "best" candidate, including the
possibility that people doing the hiring may make use of the
"underrepresented" argument to execute a political maneuver.

In an excerpt from a private e-mail response to me -k writes:

>...remember that you do not know the whole story -- maybe you
>wouldn't have gotten the job anyway -- maybe people from the area
>of the hired person used the "underrepresented" argument to shift
>the position into their area instead, making it more a fight
>between the different areas than an "equal representation" issue
>-- maybe the person hired was actually more qualified (but in the
>wrong area) and they used the "underrepresented" argument to get
>out of hiring in the area they were originally interested in
>without arguing? ... 

and the comments in the article <10SEP199219073072@jetson.uh.edu>,
schieber@jetson.uh.edu (Schieber, Jay D.):

>First of all, candidates are chosen on a large number of complex
>criteria, which are weighted differently by different faculty,
>and by different departments and committees.
>Some of these criteria are made public and explicit; for example,
>when search committees claim to be looking for bright applicants
>with a track record of several publications in prestigious journals,
>they are serious.  There are other criteria which are not public,
>but are still explicit. ...[more good stuff]

and those in <1992Sep9.210952.22790@netnews.noc.drexel.edu>,
merolajs@vtcc1.cc.vt.edu (JOSEPH S. MEROLA:

>A previous poster also touched on a very important point:  the concept
>of "the best person" is not a valid one since there are dozens of 
>parameters that define best. ...[more good stuff]

I believe are most enlightening.

I want to use this thread to emphasize my belief that the vast majority
(maybe all) of the women who have made it to the point of being hired
for a tenure track faculty position should be thought of as well qualified.
I believe those who have teed off on my article or the subsequent
commentaries and stated that poorly qualified women get hired over well
qualified men is sadly mistaken.


dave koert, research assist. prof.       | "You can't excuse your own abuse
combustion & fuels group, hess labs      |  because someone caused you pain."
Mechanical Eng. Dept. (MEM), Drexel Univ.|   from the play, AND I STILL RISE
David.Koert@CoE.Drexel.EDU               |         by Mya Angelo