From: schieber@jetson.uh.edu (Schieber, Jay D.)
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
Subject: Re: Hiring quotas and faculty positions
Date: 11 Sep 92 21:58:00 GMT
Organization: University of Houston
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Sep11.033147.22239@cs.sfu.ca>, mcdonald@cs.sfu.ca (Ken Mcdonald) writes...

[some deletions of my points]

>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.
><<<
> 
>The difference between affirmative action and previous hiring systems
>is that, in theory at least, previous systems (the ones that AA seeks
>to overturn), are at least BASED on the principle of hiring the
>most competent individual.  We all know that they seldom worked
>this way, but the principle was there which, among other things, meant
>the the grossest violations of the idea of fair hiring could be 
>justifiably castigated.

There are many reasons that it did not work this way.  The most important
one, of course, is that there is no definition of "most competent
individual".  This is not a mere pedantic point, but rather a fatal
flaw leaving the entire system open to abuse in the name of "competence"
(see my original posting).


> 
>AA, however, legitimizes hiring on the basis of qualities other than
>the ability to do the job.  

I disagree.  What you call "the job" is not so narrowly defined
that it excludes many factors involving things like representation,
role models, mentors, empowering, etc; at least, not so defined
by me.  If you wish to define the job description for faculty
member very narrowly, then I would say that you are not going
to get a very good department.


>This will cause extreme feelings of 
>resentment, anger, and frustration among the people adversely affected
>by the practice (as well it should), as well as among many people who
>only imagine AA has affected them.

If they do not understand the complexities of academic life, such
individuals may feel resentment.  We should educate them about all
of the different ways they may be wrongly turned down, as well as
the ways they may be correctly turned down.  They can almost
certainly find more heinous sins in the system than AA.


>More importantly, over the long term AA will cause a serious erosion
>of belief in general societal principles of fairness.  

Only if we let "fairness" be defined in narrow, out-of-context,
ways without considering all of the impacts of that decision-
making.  Or, on the other hand, it may lead some people to open
their minds to a much broader discussion of how we determine
what "fair" really is.



>The result is
>almost invariably that "anything I can get by any means I can get"
>syndrome to which people revert under pressure.  (Surely if follows
>that if people are treated unfairly by others, they aren't going to
>bother trying to be fair in turn?)  Unfortunately, societies tend
>to suffer greatly from the increase of such attitudes, because of
>the resources that are devoted to defense instead of production.
>(i.e. individual defense against the society they live in.)

I agree.  In fact, I would say that the system is already extremely
unfair, and many individuals already go by your motto--including 
those people who are succeeding under the current system.  IF AA
is unfair (which I am not willing to concede), it may be unfortunate
for some individuals.  Even these individuals are treated far less
"fairly" by other methods of the system.  Why not be upset at the
rampant corruption?  The overwhelming amount of reward for 
unscholarly work?  The commodification of education, knowledge
and students?  The exploitation of postdocs?

> 
>Acutually, I could write a thesis on this.  I'd better stop before I
>get started . . .

Yeah, me too, so I had better stop as well.


> 
>I really do wonder, though, how anyone in their right mind could
>possibly think that past injustice can be corrected by current
>injustice.  These people haven't taken much basic philosophy or history,
>I think . . .

Note that I have not even begun to mention past injustice here.
I will refrain from that discussion as you so wisely have done.



> 
>Ken McDonald
>mcdonald@cs.sfu.ca
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers