From: wskelly@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au (William Skelly)
Subject: Re: Hiring quotas and faculty positions (Repost #2)
Organization: Macquarie University, Australia.
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 22:46:10 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:
>|> 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.

My question was somewhat retorical.  However, how long must white males
(in particular) face an "unlevel" playing field?  I think that this is
a fair question.  When the number of faculty from each racial group is
represented according to their population within the community?  How
long will this be?  Wouldn't it be more efficient in terms of achieving
the same goals for us white males to face the situation at university
entrance time rather than after completing our education in a field 
where society wants to equal out the racial/ethnic composition?

>|> 2. Being that it is the *polictically correct* attitude is reason 
>|>    enough to challenge it.
>
>I don't see any smileys here, so I assume that this comment is meant 
>to be taken seriously.  I don't believe that the fact that a position
>has been anointed "politically correct" (PC) is a reason in itself
>to embrace that position -- whatever the group who did the anointing.
>On the other hand, such an anointing should not be a reason to eschew
>such a position either.  Suppose Dan Rather declared, "Such and such
>an organization is now espousing the position that it is PC to be 
>opposed to the murder of innocent children"?
>
>I know the above is rather far afield of the original topic.  However,
>it seems to me that opposition to the PC "movement" or "label" was
>probably initially the result of persons objecting to being told how
>to think.  But a person who discards a position simply *because* it is 
>PC is allowing others to think for himself or herself.
>

I *did* say "challenge" it, not "discard" it.  Change in society
only occurs when the politically correctness of the day is 
challenged, e.g. the civil rights movement.  The government
and beauracracy in particular live for the status quo, they are
generally monuments to "inertia."  No smiles intended.  I firmly
believe that the best students in my class are the ones sitting
out in the lecture theater thinking..."this guy is full of shit!"
These students "challenge" intellectually what their lecturers
spew forth they tend to read more than the average student, and
sometimes they jump on a stupid "off the cuff" remark that 
lecturers often make...I really hate when that happens! :-)

>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.
>

Well dave, I'd of rather never had anyone screw up the "playing field"
in the first place!  But thats life, eh? ;-)

I have not said that I am opposed to the spending of public money to
encourage underrepresented minority groups to get represented.  What
I have said is that I'm a little confused as to how I should "feel"
(being a Sensitive New Age Guy, SNAG) at the end of the day when I
believe (perhaps incorrectly) that I lost the job competition to 
someone on some basis other than qualifications.

Another poster mentioned that the real idea was to encourage minorities
to get into these fields, i.e. get the education and apply for the
jobs.  Its not supposed to be a quota system, involved in filling slots.
But this is not a perfect world, that, I think, we all except.  However,
yet another poster suggested that "minority" status was of _equal_
importance to _qualifications_, or any other consideration.  This I
disagree with.

Cheers,
Chris