From: levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine)
Subject:  Muffy and Rini, where are you? was Re: Are special programs sexist? 
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 21:18:18 GMT

payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:

>In article <BzoCHF.GC@news.cso.uiuc.edu> levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:
>>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>
>>>levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:
>>
>>>>>>For these reasons, I am in favor of institutions like Mills College's
>>>>>>summer research program in mathematics, for talented female
>>>>>>undergraduates. I just wish more such programs were available, and
>>>>>>available to other individuals of nonstandard backgrounds.
>>
>>Rich:
>>>>>It's only sexism if it's to the advantage of white males, I keep forgetting.
>>>>>Do you imagine that a "summer research program in mathematics, for talented"
>>>>>male "undergraduates" would be well recieved or precieved as non-sexist?
>>>>>I suspect women everywhere would be in an uproar.
>>
>>Lenore:
>>>>The only reason I am in favor of programs like the Mills College
>>>>program, is because in the current culture, *many* women have obstacles
>>>>to overcome in entering mathematics. If this were not the case, I
>>>>would not be in favor of such a program. 
>>
>>Rich:
>>>There is a distinct difference between removing the barriers and
>>>-allowing- women the option and the present system of offering aid
>>>and condoning differential treatment based upon sex.
>>
>>Lenore: 
>>>>You have a point, though, that these programs should be geared more
>>>>towards helping *individuals* who have a history of cultural obstacles,
>>>>not members of specific *groups*.
>>
>>Rich:
>>>How about -any- individual who shows talent and desire? I do not believe 
>>>that you can seperate "cultural obstacles" and "members of specific *groups*".

>>Of course, any individual who shows talent and desire to do research
>>mathematics should be encouraged and supported. I do think it is
>>particularly important to support individuals whose background shows
>>a history of overcoming obstacles. For example, it would be much
>>harder for an individual coming from the rural poverty culture
>>overromanticized in the Ma and Pa Kettle movies, to become a research
>>mathematician, than an individual whose father is a professor at
>>Stanford. Think of all the obstacles the first person would have to
>>face: in not getting a very good high school education, in assumptions
>>about them because of their background, 

>You yourself are making assumptions about their backgrounds. I do not think
>that it follows that someone from "the rural poverty culture" must be
>disadvantaged or that one "whose father is a professor at Stanford" is
>necessarily at some advantage as far as mathematics goes. This may be
>the case, and it may not.

It is likely to be the case.

>>                                           in having to work their way
>>through college, etc. I think, for these reasons, that it would be
>>appropriate to throw some extra support the way of the first person.

>Because of assumptions made about their backgrounds? I do not see how
>you distinguish between an -individual- from a disadvantaged background,
>and a class upon which is labeled as disadvantaged. It looks to me like
>only class distinctions are made and acted upon, and anyone suffering 
>the same disadvantage from the wrong class is outta luck. 

It is not possible to tell precisely what obstacles people have
faced. There will always be some unfairness. But it is certainly
possible to obtain some rough approximation of the truth.
 
>>Since women do, in our culture (for the most part), face some extra 
>>obstacles, I do think the Mills College program is ethical and appropriate. 
>>You are right that it may not be so at some future time. 

>Do you really think that these programs will ever go away? Or that they
>are not a flashing neon banner proclaiming that it is OK to discriminate
>-for- women, in fact, almost a requirement. And of course it is completely 
>morally bankrupt to  discriminate -for- men <shudder>. (they have -all- 
>the advantages anyway, right?) Note also that you are making assumptions 
>about these womens backgrounds. 

I am *not* making assumptions about the women. I said, "For the most part!"

Are you against spaying domestic cats, because at some future time they
may be an endangered species?

It is a rare social policy that will *always* be useful, forever. 
And one of the reasons I am writing on the net, one of the keys to my
personal philosophy of social justice, is the idea that situations
change, that a policy which may have been useful in the past may not be
useful in the present.

I hope that all the social institutions I advocate now, all the ones
that work now, will go away when they are no longer useful or
appropriate. I don't see how we can have any sort of social justice
without feedback!

(This is something I feel *very* strongly about.)

>>I only wish that there was a *similar* program, available for *all*
>>individuals whose personal history shows that they have overcome
>>obstacles. (It is certainly true, that Joe Kettle may have faced
>>more obstacles than Wendy Rockefeller...)

>Why is it that we do not support lame olympic runners? They are at a
>disadvantage, should they not be supported? 

Of course not. But lame mathematics professors should; that is one of 
the reasons there is an elevator in the University of Illinois' mathematics
building. 

>Heck, come to think of it, I come from a poor rural background, why is
>it that this disadvantage has never gained me access to special programs?

You can make a good case that it should have. As a matter of fact, I
suspect it did to a certain extent; at least, I suspect you obtained a
student loan.

>Perhaps almost -everyone- is at a disadvantage in some way, and there
>are not resources enough to cover basic expenses in our spendthrift
>government, much less to give every SIG special funding. I really think
>the only reason why these programs might be needed is because of excess
>taxation on every conceivable thing. And I do not recall any constitutional 
>provisions for aid to the "disadvantaged" or amendments in the BOR. Rather
>than taking from everyone and giving to some selected few, we need to
>take less from everyone and allow for personal choice (and ability) to
>be the deciding factors. This program makes personal choice (or do they
>canvass?) and sex the deciding factors. What I see again and again is
>body count determinations of where favoritism is required and allowed. 

>It is also interesting that, arguing -for- eglatarianism, in a forum
>where it has been claimed that eglatanarism is a goal, I hear resoponses 
>like, "maybe at some future time" (this will be desirable)... I had heard
>that feminists wanted eglatanarism NOW. (half a pun) 

>Rich

>payner@netcom.com

I think you are making a reasonable assumption, but one that is
incorrect. Many of the feminists writing on this net, would call
themselves "egalitarians." I would not.

I am not an egalitarian for two reasons:

1) First of all, I see myself as being, all my life, a fighter for 
social justice and for good. I am not always sure what these concepts
imply; but I would not be presumptuous enough to sum them up in one
single word.

2) I think the importance of *individual* human differences has
been strongly underrated. And if it is cruel to push a talentless person
to attempt skills not appropriate for them, it is equally cruel to
not develop the skills of a talented person. For this reason, I am
all in favor of programs which attempt to identify talented people of
nonstandard backgrounds, and train them. The reason for such programs is
not just to help the individuals, but to help the society that then
benefits from such talent.

I am aware that this is not the answer a typical feminist poster would
give you. I would really like to hear the response of others -- e.g.,
Muffy and Rini -- to your questions.

Lenore Levine
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:6521 soc.men:21776 soc.women:21892