From: paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson)
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
Subject: Re: Hiring quotas and faculty positions
Date: 14 Sep 92 10:14:25 GMT
Reply-To: paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson)
Organization: GEC-Marconi Research Centre, Great Baddow, UK

In article <1992Sep11.045923.22479@cs.cornell.edu> karr@cs.cornell.edu (David Karr) writes:
>In article <1950@snap> paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep9.215223.22997@netnews.noc.drexel.edu> David.Koert@CoE.Drexel.EDU (Dave Koert) writes:
>>>This summer, I was one of four finalists to interview for [...]

>>[A woman was hired in preferance, more because of her sex than her
>>abilities, although she was well qualified]

>You seem to think that the woman was somehow less qualified than Dave.
>(See your other quote below.)  In his post I saw only evidence that
>she had a different specialty than the one they were originally
>looking for.

No, that is not what I meant.  I gathered from Dave's article that her
sex played a large part in the decision to hire her and that her
qualifications (although they may have been perfectly adequate) were
not important.

>Since insisting on a particular specialty is likely to reject more
>able individuals in favor of less able on (, at least if you believe
>that it is at all possible to rank all candidates on an objective
>scale, it cannot be defended by considerations of "fairness."  It must
>further some academic goal of the University.  The Dean evidently felt
>there was a more important academic goal (i.e., a diverse faculty).

I conceed that the objectively fair assesment of candidates is a
platonic ideal rather than something we can really acheive.  But this
is no excuse for deliberately muddying the waters with irrelevant
details like the candidates gender or race.

Your point about a diverse faculty would be a fair one in some
circumstances.  For example I would be concerned about the quality of
a social sciences department staffed exclusively by one sex (or one
race or one anything).  But engineering is not a field where cultural
values count.  A bridge stands or it doesn't, and the race or gender
of the designer has nothing to do with this.

>>I do not think it is chauvinistic to object when someone less well
>>qualified than you gets a job, [...]

>I'd like to know your basis for the assumption that this happened.

Even if it did not happen in this particular case, the whole point of
AA/PD is to make sure that it does happen occasionally.  I am making a
general point about such programs.

>>o It is bad for the fight against racism and sexism because it
>>  produces disgruntled people who feel that they have been passed over
>>  because of their sex or colour (and note that if one ethnic woman is
>>  hired under such a program then all the other candidates will blame
>>  the program for their failure).  Such people are ripe for
>>  recruitment by white supremacists.

>>o And it is bad for the people who get hired because whatever their
>>  abilities may actually be the whole office knows "she only got her
>>  job because...."

>These are the only valid arguments against "affirmative action," but
>note how they are predicated on rampant, widespread racism and sexism,
>which would indicate that affirmative action really is needed.

But my point is that AA/PD tend to encourage racism and sexism rather
than discourage it.  Hence no matter how bad the situation gets, AA/PD
programs simply make it worse.

What about my other arguments?  You cannot refute them simply by
asserting that they are invalid.  In case you have forgotten, they
are:

o It is bad for the employer, as they get less qualified individuals.

o It is bad for all the candidates as they are effectively told that
  what they are is more important than who they are, and that hence
  hard work and excellence will not be rewarded.

>Seriously, isn't this like arguing that you can't balance an object
>subjected to a destabilizing force by applying a force in the opposite
>direction?

You assume that racism and sexism are one-dimensional.  Applying
racial predjudice plus an AA/PD program will not produce the same
result as having no predjudice there in the first place.

Paul.

-- 
Paul Johnson (paj@gec-mrc.co.uk).	    | Tel: +44 245 73331 ext 3245
--------------------------------------------+----------------------------------
These ideas and others like them can be had | GEC-Marconi Research is not
for $0.02 each from any reputable idealist. | responsible for my opinions