From: levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine)
Subject: Re: Are special programs sexist/racist? (long)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 18:46:50 GMT

payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:

>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). 

People who have been in a research setting say that being a "fighter"
is just about the most important key to success, almost more important
than talent. (I even had a dream in which someone was telling me
that persistence was the key to successful mathematical research.)

>Note that there is
>no self-discipline necessary to fight, that is, I discgree that the two are
>necessarily connected. 

Say what? You're saying, no self-discipline is necessary to overcome
adversity.

>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.

My interviewee said that this was not the case. (There can't be rule 
sets for everything -- imagine trying to make up a rule set for
writing a successful novel.)

>>>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?

Maybe we have different definitions of AA. (I'll write a long
posting about this later.) 
>   
>>                                    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). 

I know many female graduate students who have *not* had any
history of overcoming disadvantages. I have discussed this
issue on soc.feminism, as a matter of fact.

I *know* there are many younger, upper middle class women who have 
not faced inordinate sexism in their professional life...

More about this later.

Lenore Levine 
Newsgroups: alt.feminism