From: merolajs@vtcc1.cc.vt.edu (JOSEPH S. MEROLA DEPT OF CHEMISTRY VPI&SU)
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
Subject: Re: Stigma was Re: Hiring quotas and faculty positions
Date: 14 Sep 92 19:40:00 GMT
Organization: Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Sep14.170038.27791@tc.cornell.edu>, bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes...
>In article <14SEP199211150085@vtcc1.cc.vt.edu> merolajs@vtcc1.cc.vt.edu (JOSEPH S. MEROLA DEPT OF CHEMISTRY VPI&SU) writes:
> 
>>I don't have the final answer to this and my thoughts are not
>>so much an attempt to go out and change the rest of the world
>>as they are an attempt to open up a free exchange of ideas
>>that will lead us further down the path to eliminating some
>>of these problems.  
> 
>Wrong. You support the "right" of university professors to 
>administer doses of "social engineering" on their own. So long as you
>support such a position I cannt consider you as an equal contributor
>to this discussion. I dont trust you to control my life.


I guess this pretty much closes down the discussion if no matter
what I say you are going to dismiss it.  Part of the mission of
a university professor is to teach.  If large segments of the
population are not receiving the full  benefit of that mission because
of certain hiring practices, then those practices need to reexamined.
Conversely, if we can do a better job of our teaching mission by
adding someone of an underrepresented race or sex to our faculty, 
then I think we should do so.  You may call this social engineering,
but I call it trying to carry out one of our most important
functions.  You may disagree with my premise that we will do a 
better job at teaching under these circumstances, but I think it
is justified to have some of these issues as input into the
process.  You may not believe this, but I would never advocate 
hiring of an unqualified individual for a job.  However, when we 
make the top cut and have a list of 5 or 6 equally "qualified"
people, then all sorts of other factors enter into the equation and
the above criteria are no less valid than any others.  

> 
>>The only trouble I have is the belief that
>>in the absence of affirmative action the hiring will be made on
>>some noble, pure, scientific basis.  Nothing is further from
>>the truth.  
> 
>Really ? The only way to cure sexism & racism is to understand
>first what leads to it. the only way to make progress
>in people lives is to observe how successful ones survived under
>adverse conditions. This is a perfectly appropriate topic for
>scientific observation. Now, if studies show that AA actually
>harms minorities and women, is not it a good reason to stop it ? 
>Shall we keep it just because it fits in a political philosophy
>of certain university professors ?
> 

The term "affirmative action" was first used by John F. Kennedy
in an executive order in 1961.  Much of the civil rights legislation
on which current law is based was first passed in the mid 1960's.
Discrimination on the basis of sex and race was rampant long 
before.  So we have many decades of knowledge of discriminatory
practices and 30 years of studying the application of affirmative
action.  True, there are some studies which show that there are
some problems with affirmative action, but I also have seen
information on some that have not had any real problems.  The
problem with the studies that talk about the "harmful" effect of
affirmative action is the same problem that I see on this net:
there is an automatic assumption that if the person is part
of an affirmative action process, then that person by definition
is less qualified.  Why is that?  Why do you and many others
assume that if the person was female or black where an AA
policy is in place that they are unqualified?  

There is no major university in the U.S. that does not now have
an affirmative action program.  US law pretty much dictates that
an AA policy be implemented at every institution which receives
federal funding.  So, are you willing to make the statement that 
all females and blacks hired in the US in the last 10 years are
less qualified than the white males hired at the same time?  I
certainly don't believe this is the case.

Ohio State published a pamphlet on Myths and Realities of
affirmative action which has received distribution beyond just
their university.  In it is an excellent discussion of what
affirmative action is and what it isn't.  I have tried to share
that view with the net.  You have said that you don't believe
that view, and there is little I can do about that.  But, I
will ask again, in the hopes of turning this into a positive
discussion.  I submit that we have had a lot of years studying
discrimination and affirmative action.  You claim that AA is
harmful and should be stopped.  However, I keep asking for
someone to come up with something better.  If you think there
is nothing better, I would like to at least ask for a rational
explanation of why it is OK to allow the status quo to
continue without affirmative action and by what mechanism we 
will ultimately get to utopia where there is no bias at all
in these decisions.

Joseph S. Merola
Department of Chemistry
Virginia Tech (aka VPI&SU)