From: bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor)
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
Subject: Re: Hiring quotas and faculty positions (Repost #2)
Date: 11 Sep 92 21:21:22 GMT
Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization

In article <lb1trkINNn0h@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu> primeaux@wham-o.cs.utk.edu (David Primeaux) writes:
>In article <1992Sep11.162439.26974@tc.cornell.edu>, bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
>|> 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:
>|> >|> In article <1992Sep9.215223.22997@netnews.noc.drexel.edu> David.Koert@CoE.Drexel.EDU (Dave Koert) 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.
>|> 
>|> Why should anybody have to pay for crimes he/she did not commit0000 ? If there is
>|> still discrimination today then punish the people who do it, not the innocents.
>
>Well, it looks like a good point you raise here.  But put the shoe on the other
>foot.  Suppose you were a black female and that some twenty or twenty-five
>you were just beginning your education in the US South (forget the flames, I 
>grew up there).  If you were in the same town I was in, you went to the "colored
>school" and I simply went to school. You had teachers with training inferior 
>to the training of mine, and teachers who were paid less than mine were.  In
>many cases your teachers were subject in their education to the same victimization
>you were subjected to.  You had textbooks that had been discarded from my 
>school in favor of newer ones and your school offered a more limited curriculum
>than my school offered me.  It was assumed that a relatively large percentage of
>my class would continue its education beyond high school.  It was also assumed
>that very, very few of your classmates would make it to college.  As a final
>insult, since you arefemale, you get less attention in the classroom than do 
>the males.

Here you are making the assumption that if one's teachers and 
upbringing were inferior, then this person is cannt become
a scientist. But is this assumption correct ? I dont think so. 

Few months ago there was a report in Scientific American on a study on
Vietamese refugees. The group under study came to the US in the 60's
with literally nothing but their clothes. their parents were uneducated
They settled in the Bronx, NY, and their children studied in the worst 
public schools, with blacks. It turned out that the children were 
ranked very high nationally in math and sciences. No affirmative action
were applied to them.

Remember also that many successful ethnical groups in the US were 
discriminated against (like the Japanese Americans and other Asian groups)
in the past, and they reached high level of achievement without 
any affirmative action benefits. 

>
>Yeah, paying for crimes one did not commit does not seem fair. Life's not fair.
>But so far it's been one hell of a lot fairer to me than it has been to a whole
>slew of other folks.  
>

I disagree. Life is not fair, but that is not enough reason to discriminate
against an innocent person just because he happens to be white male.
It sounds to me like a crazy idea. Just like getting the first blue-eyed 
person on the block and putting him in jail because witnesses said
that the bank rubber was blue-eyed.

Moreover, random discrimination
( I did not choose my genes) like that might allienate many people
and the backlash against affirmative action might harm
exactly the same groups it intends to support. People will see
the _beneficiaries_ of affirmative action as the people who forcefully took
the jobs they were qualified for.

Actually, I dont realize why some senior faculty members are so eager
to impose any social agendas. It is a dangerous game and may
backfire on universities. The political climate may change someday,
and people will realize that tenured physicists, mathematicians,
psychologists etc. were engaged in imposing their societal "cures"
throughout the years with their tax money, and not engaging in  
teaching and research. Why would Joe Shmoe want to pay for a 
job-for-life of someone who have the power to impose agendas he does
not support ?

>Agreed.  And, of course, the contrary should hold true: people who think
>differently from me should not feel free to enforce their moral agenda 
>on those who disagree (I don't believe for a moment that you think they 
>should).  

Agreed.

>Everything we do as a society has some moral ramifications. 
>It seems to me that it is largely those at various levels of power who 
>decide what the direction of our society's moral agenda will be.  I am 
>free to dissent, if I wish, but as an individual I frequently feel 
>powerless.
>

You sometimes feel powerless, but you can still cast your vote
and let some politicians in and out. Politicians dont have 
a guaranteed job for life. Faculty members do.

>|> whenever they have the power. Why should I trust a bunch of senior 
>|> faculty member to correct societal problems ? 
>
>Ahh! Exactly!  *That* is why affirmative action regulations were put in 
>place:  because we *cannot* "trust a bunch of senior faculty member[s]
>to correct societal problems."  But if corrections are not made at 
>their level (or at analogous industry levels) where will they be made?
>And if we, as a society, decide that they don't need to be made, then
>are we not perpetuating the "crimes" of others? 

You should read sometime about the "tenured crazies". There was
an article in the Economist few  weeks ago. 

>david

Dov