HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
From: me@csri.toronto.edu (Daniel R. Simon)
Subject: Re: Hiring quotas and faculty positions
Organization: CSRI, University of Toronto
Date: 12 Sep 92 20:57:35 GMT

In article <10SEP199219073072@jetson.uh.edu> schieber@jetson.uh.edu (Schieber, Jay D.) writes:
>Finally, given the dubious criteria that are often used to 
>hire candidates, and the very large number of complicated
>criteria that are valid (filling "holes" in research area
>or "teaching", exciting new collaborations, etc), using the
>two above-mentioned criteria in addition to the others seems
>perfectly valid to me.  In fact, I would say if you wish to
>minimize criteria which you feel are "poor", I would 
>suggest looking at all of them first.  I suspect that by
>the time you do away with those which are worse, this last
>one will pretty much take care of itself.
>
>Note that I have not even referred to the help such a criterion
>has in reducing the power of the "old boys network".

Naturally.  After all, if the hiring process is such a messy, fuzzy
business, full of "poor" and "dubious criteria", then why should
favoritism towards members of the "old boys network" be of any
particular concern?  Perhaps some women and minorities might get
shortchanged--but, then, isn't it all, as one poster put it, just a
"crap shoot", anyway?  True, the "old boys network" might occasionally
prefer a well-connected white male or two--but if the alternative
selection process is so full of "complicated" and "dubious" criteria
that a bit of extra racism and sexism isn't even worth complaining
about, then it's hard to see why the criteria used by the Guardians of
the White Male Power Structure (ability to fraternize with "the boys",
and so on) are any less "valid".  So why not just let them *keep*
their "power", instead of going to such infernal trouble to "reduce"
it?


Thus does the logic of "remedial" preferential treatment defeat
itself.


"There *is* confusion worse than death"		Daniel R. Simon
			     -Tennyson		(me@theory.toronto.edu)
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
From: stgprao@st.unocal.COM (Richard Ottolini)
Subject: Re: question of interview
Organization: Unocal Corporation
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 14:41:19 GMT

In article <guox-100992204712@pgl6.chem.nyu.edu> guox@mcclb0.med.nyu.edu (Xuan-Hui Guo) writes:
>When I had interviews, people like to ask me if I have any other offer.
>I wonder whether they want to hear I said yes or not. Why do they want to
>know
>that? how does that contribute to the hiring decision?  Any insight is
>appreciated.

They can use that information both ways.
If they really want you, then they might make a more attractive offer if
they know there is competition.
On the other hand, they may do bother to compete, or feel guilty dropping
you if they know you have an offer.
From: ah690549@mbcr.bcm.tmc.edu (Annette C. Hollmann)
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
Subject: Re: Hiring quotas and faculty positions
Date: 12 Sep 1992 04:47:51 GMT
Organization: Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Tx

Even if I could not get a "fair and square" chance of being hired without
resorting to affirmative action quotas, I would never take advantage of
such a slot. I would get fired very quickly because if I would hear "*she*
only got hired because of the XX priviledge" more than three times I would
punch the guy who said it. I don't condone violence but I know what sexual
harrassment does to my temper. I would prefer to forgo a quick chance at
employment if a lousy work environment came with it.

Annette Hollmann

P.S. Don't worry, I'm not very big so the people I punch usually don't even
bruise - and I am currently in a favorable work environment so I should be
able to make it to 1997 without punching anyone.
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
From: bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor)
Subject: Re: Hiring quotas and faculty positions (Repost #2)
Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 23:06:22 GMT

In article <11SEP199217133005@jetson.uh.edu> schieber@jetson.uh.edu (Schieber, Jay D.) writes:

>
>Moustache colour is currently not considered to be an important 
>criterion in judging faculty qualifications.  If society suddenly
>started categorizing people wholesale on moustache colour, frequently
>made derogatory remarks about certain colours of moustaches, told
>off colour jokes about them, etc. so that the students came into
>my class feeling stigmatized by them, then I would consider making
>even moustache colour an important criterion.

If society "thinks" that teaching evolution is wrong and contradict the
community standards would you hire a faculty in a biology department 
who insists teaching evolution ?

If society "thinks" that blacks are not proper human being, and students
would make derogatory remarks at black professors. Would you refuse to
hire a black faculty member ?


Dov

Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
From: schieber@jetson.uh.edu (Schieber, Jay D.)
Subject: Re: Hiring quotas and faculty positions (Repost #2)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Houston
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 20:56:00 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.230622.5844@tc.cornell.edu>, bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes...
>In article <11SEP199217133005@jetson.uh.edu> schieber@jetson.uh.edu (Schieber, Jay D.) writes:
> 
>>
>>Moustache colour is currently not considered to be an important 
>>criterion in judging faculty qualifications.  If society suddenly
>>started categorizing people wholesale on moustache colour, frequently
>>made derogatory remarks about certain colours of moustaches, told
>>off colour jokes about them, etc. so that the students came into
>>my class feeling stigmatized by them, then I would consider making
>>even moustache colour an important criterion.
> 
>If society "thinks" that teaching evolution is wrong and contradict the
>community standards would you hire a faculty in a biology department 
>who insists teaching evolution ?

I am not a biologist, so I cannot speak definitively here.  Actually,
this is an interesting question, since technical skills are then
linked with societal pressures.  In the other examples, that was not
the case and the perspective is clearer.  I will refrain from answering
this question because I believe that it pulls in other questions
which cloud the original discussion.  If you can explain what
point you are making, we can discuss it.


> 
>If society "thinks" that blacks are not proper human being, and students
>would make derogatory remarks at black professors. Would you refuse to
>hire a black faculty member ?

This is exactly my point; I would respond just the opposite--I would 
consider that in the black candidate's favor *if* we had no other
black faculty.  Again, this would be part of a very complex formula
in the decision, but it would now be important.  Precisely because
(presumably) white students would make derogatory remarks to other
black students I would want that professor there to send several
important messages: we at the university consider blacks to be
competent, intelligent human beings; to provide a mentor for dis-
enchanted students who might otherwise feel alienated; to have
an advocate in the department to protect the interests of our
black students; etc.


> 
> 
>Dov
> 
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
From: bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor)
Subject: Re: Stigma was Re: Hiring quotas and faculty positions
Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 03:13:22 GMT

In article <13SEP199218540241@vtcc1.cc.vt.edu> merolajs@vtcc1.cc.vt.edu (JOSEPH S. MEROLA DEPT OF CHEMISTRY VPI&SU) writes:
>
>To me, to scrap these programs because of these problems is to
>say that : "Oh well, racism and sexism are so rampant that we can't
>do anything about them and so let's give up, let the status quo
>operate as is, and write off the potential contributions of
>minorities and females."  I'm sorry, but I'm not willing to make
>that concession.

Let me give you a pratical advise: avoid the temptation to solve 
problems by force. In this context I don't mean firearms: I mean 
using your position or your institution to solve problems. 
It may seem to be working in the short term, but it usually backfires 
in the longer term. It is a common trap that many people, including 
very intelligent ones, fall into too easily. People dont like to be 
controlled by you, and when you need their help they will do things 
against you. And dont try to use excuses like: "we only do it if
two candidates are equally competent". Every intelligent person
knows what it really means. 

>Joseph S. Merola
>Department of Chemistry
>Virginia Tech (aka VPI&SU)           
>
From: debray@cs.arizona.edu (Saumya K. Debray)
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
Subject: Re: Hiring quotas and faculty positions
Date: 12 Sep 92 20:26:51 GMT
Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson

andersmh@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (ANDERSON  MIKE HOWARD) writes:

> Nonetheless, it is true that anyone that gets a science job in this
> market probably had an "in" and didn't really ever compete fair and
> square.  

Without supporting evidence, this statement is silly.

-- 
Saumya Debray
Dept. of Computer Science, University of Arizona, Tucson
debray@cs.arizona.edu
From: hillyard@lynx.msc.cornell.edu.UUCP (Sean Edward Hillyard,F7 Clark,50649,)
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
Subject: Re: Hiring quotas and faculty positions (Repost #2)
Date: 11 Sep 92 21:45:07 GMT
Organization: Cornell-Materials-Science-Center
Originator: hillyard@msc2.msc.cornell.edu

From article <lb1trkINNn0h@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu>, by primeaux@wham-o.cs.utk.edu (David Primeaux):
[...]
> 
> Sure, the injustices of the "separate but equal" school system are not as
> prevalent today as they were twenty-five years ago.  But where are the 
> -- to use your word -- "innocents" who were victimized by it?  They are 
> the ones competing with me for a job.  Assume for a moment that I am 
> innocent of the "crimes" (your word, again) perpetrated by generations of
> my forebearers.  Surely, as you said, I should not then have to pay for
> those crimes.  But why should the innocent *victim* of those crimes have
> to continue to pay for crimes *against* her?  I submit that so-called "strong"
> affirmative action is an attempt not so much an attempt to force you or me to 
> "pay for crimes [we] did not commit" as it is an attempt to halt the continued
> victimization of persons today.

An attempt that nevertheless--penalizes the 'innocent' discriminated against,
penalizes the employee who has to hire the less able person (if the AA hiree
was just as qualified, equal oppurtunity laws were all that were needed), and
is likely to help someone of the favored group who didn't experience what you
were trying to compensate for.  For example, an immigrant who didn't even attend
the 'separate but equal' school.  A bad deal all the way round in my opinion.

SEH
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
From: mparanan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Muralidhar Paranandi)
Subject: A suggestion for a new news group on "Fabricant" 
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 20:34:10 GMT

I guess we might as well start a news group for Dr. Fabricant so
that sci.research.careers can have something more pertinent.

-- 
-Murali Paranandi                   |   Office: 292-2148:Home:  292-5691
Computer Aided Architectural Design |   mparanan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
The Ohio State Universiy            |   paranand@cis.ohio-state.edu
Columbus, Ohio 43210.               |   1372 Jones 101 Curl Dr Columbus Oh43210
From: gilligan@bldrdoc.gov (Jonathan M. Gilligan)
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
Subject: Re: Hiring quotas and faculty positions
Date: 11 Sep 92 00:28:57 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology

It seems clear from what quantitative information I have that there is
no statistically significant preferential hiring of women in physics.
I don't have statistics for other fields or for racial minorities. In
the US, women make up about 6 percent of the PhD physicists and 3
percent of university faculty (compared to over 30 percent of physics
faculty in Hungary, the Philippines, and the former-USSR and over 20
percent in France, Italy, and Turkey). The US ranks nineteenth of
twenty countries in a recent study entitled ``Gender distribution in
the world's physics departments.'' (results quoted in the August 1992
Physics Today). Over half the PhD granting institutions in the US have
no women on their faculty.

Moreover, in response to the suggestion that the problem is just that
the population of women physicists is growing and that many young
women physicists are still ``in the pipeline,'' I called the local
physics department (University of Colorado) and found that out of the
last ten junior faculty hired, one was a woman: statistically
consistent with hiring women in direct proportion to their
representation in the ranks of recent PhDs with no prejudice for or
against.

Approximately similar statistics hold for other departments with which
I am acquainted, but I don't have hard numbers (When I was at Yale,
they hired about a dozen junior faculty, of whom one was a woman).
They had no tenured women on the faculty.

Wondering why so many men seem to think that there is prejudice in
favor of women, an acquaintance of mine asked about half a dozen
faculty members at CU and was told that they do not favor women in
making appointments.  She asked a number of graduate students why they
believed that there was preferential treatment for women.  They said
that the reason that they thought this happened was because of the
statement in advertisements, ``Women and minorities are encouraged to
apply.'' (Note that there is nothing saying that they will receive
special treatment if they do apply). They also just hired their first
tenured woman, so there are two women in their department.

It would be interesting to see if anyone else on this group has hard
numbers with which to address the issue.

---Jon

-- 

Disclaimer --- The government probably disagrees with my opinions.
From: David.Koert@CoE.Drexel.EDU (Dave Koert)
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
Subject: Hiring quotas and faculty positions (Repost #2)
Date: 9 Sep 92 21:52:23 GMT
Organization: Drexel University
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A6D3EC9F5F0114E2@n1-20-226-hess-lab.coe.drexel.edu>
X-Xxdate: Wed, 9 Sep 92 18:02:07 GMT
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d9

Please forgive the two previous (idiotic) miscues.

This summer, I was one of four finalists to interview for a tenure-track,
faculty position at a land-grant university in New England.  There was enough
feedback that I felt 99% certain of an offer.  I didn't get an offer.  Oh,
well.

I asked a colleague to find out what had happened (he had a friend on the
search committee at the university in New England).  The reason I was not
given the offer (so the story goes) is that the Dean and/or Department Head
insisted that an applicant who was a member of an under represented gender
be given the offer even though this applicant did not fit the slot (area
of expertise) they sought to fill.

I know, I know... who ever told me life was always fair.  I always *thought*
that it was reasonable that members of underprivileged groups be given
advantages so that past and present discrimination could be balanced.  I
find that since I was the victim of an instance of this balancing act I
*feel* less prone to be to be the humanitarian.

In speaking with two colleagues who are search committee members at a
university that is very local to me and shall rename nameless ;-) I was
told that they made two lists of final candidates for a recent opening:
list A for women and minorities, and list B for the rest.  The position
was filled by a well qualified female.

As I read what I have just written I realize it may look like whining from
a chauvinist, but I'll risk it to ask for a reasonable discussion of the
subject.  Even though I *feel* I was somehow cheated, I am forced to
reason by the compelling argument that past and present discrimination
should to be compensated for by institutional policies of preference for
under represented groups.  However, I would like to come up with a list
of reasonable arguments against this practice also.

dave koert, research assist. prof.        | (disgruntler)
combustion & fuels group, hess labs       |  "Nuke the unborn, gay whale"
Mechanical Eng. Dept. (MEM), Drexel Univ. |          bumper sticker
David.Koert@CoE.Drexel.EDU                |          seen in RI, 1983
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
From: mcdonald@cs.sfu.ca (Ken Mcdonald)
Subject: Re: Hiring quotas and faculty positions
Organization: CSS, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 03:44:16 GMT


[previous poster wondering why so many men perceive systematic
reverse discrimination]

The answer is pretty simple; because it happens, and in spite of a
growing backlash, the political forces driving reverse discrimination
are still on the increase.

As an example, I know of a faculty search committee (this is NOT a
hearsay story--I am intimately acquainted with what went on) who
were very willing to hire a woman for a position, even if the candidate
was significantly less good than other male candidates.  As it turned
out, the few women who applied were so far below the top men who
applied that only the most vociferous "politically correct" of the
committee still favoured hiring a woman.  But if the standards of
one of the female applicants had been only somewhat higher, the
dept. would now have a professor with a significantly less impressive
record than those of some of the male applicants.

At least one department at a major Canadian university (U. of Alberta)
has stated that it will higher only females, until such time as it
feels the gender ratio is "correct".  (And when will that be?)

The Canadian government offers a number of major science and engineering
scholarships to females only.

A dept. at my university was recently informed that it had a much
greater chance of receiving funding for a new position if the person
selected to fill it was female.  Quality of applicants was a
secondary consideration.

The list goes on . . .

Ken McDonald
mcdonald@cs.sfu.ca
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
From: bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor)
Subject: Re: Stigma was Re: Hiring quotas and faculty positions
Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 17:00:38 GMT

In article <14SEP199211150085@vtcc1.cc.vt.edu> merolajs@vtcc1.cc.vt.edu (JOSEPH S. MEROLA DEPT OF CHEMISTRY VPI&SU) writes:
>In article <1992Sep14.134227.22187@tc.cornell.edu>, bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes...
>>In article <14SEP199206453361@vtcc1.cc.vt.edu> merolajs@vtcc1.cc.vt.edu (JOSEPH S. MEROLA DEPT OF CHEMISTRY VPI&SU) writes:

>>to evade it. You would not want to cure one person's failing kidney
>>by forcing a healty person to a hospital and taking away his kidney.
>>would you ?
>> 
>Your medical analogy is an interesting one, but perhaps not 
>totally appropriate (as is the case with most analogies).  Your
>assumption here is that in the absence of affirmative action, 
>that there is some applicant out there who "deserved" to
>get that job and that affirmative action is taking it away
>from him.  

Your objection to my analogy holds only if you assume that the
person with the healthy kidney is the one who "deserve" it. Why
do you assume that if a person was born with an healthy kidney 
he owns it ? Perhaps anyone has a valid claim to it. The first 
needy person who did force the healthy person is then justified in 
keeping the kidney.

>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.

>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 ?

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


Dov
From: josh@cqs.washington.edu (Josh Hayes)
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
Subject: Re: Hiring quotas and faculty positions
Date: 10 Sep 92 16:09:05 GMT
Article-I.D.: mowgli.josh.716141345
Organization: University of Washington

Well, I'll stick an oar in (ANYTHING to drown out the damn Fabrikant
posts!).

I'm girding up for my annual assault on academia, so this is an issue
of some interest; and I have to admit that when I get those little
affirmative action forms I feel like I'm ticking three boxes, not two:

	x  White

	x  Male

	x  Please don't hire me

But I'll tell ya, in my field (community/ecosystem ecology) there are
about three zillion well-qualified people, and a sizable fraction of
these people are women. If some department wants to hire a woman, they
sure don't have to settle for a half-qualified candidate--they can hire
a truly top-notch person. And I suppose that bodes well for the field
as a whole.

The point of these programs is that it is a manifestly Good Thing to
have both men and women participating in any particular field of academic
endeavor. Departments that consist entirely of men are likely to discourage
women from entering the field - not necessarily intentionally, of course,
but the fact that there are NO women in the, say, Zoology department, may
make a woman who is interested in the field think twice.

Bear in mind, too, that I am by no means immune to prejudice. I'm a field
biologist, but for some reason I'm doing a post-doc in this statistics
and biomathematics program (go figure), and I was surprised to find that
of the about fifteen grad students, MORE than half are female. Why did
that surprise me? Because "girls can't do math"? That's a whole different
thread, of course.

The upshot is, if I am up for some job and a woman is up for the same
job, and we're equally qualified, I have no problem when she is offered
the position. I know that when one applies for positions along with 200
other WELL-qualified applicants, it's a crap shoot. I'm not going to get
a job because I'm such a great candidate; I'm going to get one because
I'm a great candidate who gets really lucky.

Cheers,

Josh


--
Josh Hayes, Quantitative Sciences HR-20 U of Washington
josh@mowgli.cqs.washington.edu             206 685-2793
Exclaimer: Hey!           Plan: Birth School Work Death