From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Are special programs sexist/racist? (long)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 04:40:13 GMT

In article <C04yLw.D4n@news.cso.uiuc.edu> levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:
>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:

[I deleted some stuff, this is getting big]
 
>>I write:
>
>>>A trivial point. Occupational inclinations *do* tend to run in families,
>>>even though not everyone follows those of their family. (There's a study
>>>of this in a textbook on mathematical modeling.)
>
>>Then none of the people from the Rural Poverty Culture (RPC) will even
>>be be applying for a position in research mathematics, as they will be
>>following their family occupation. You have invalidated the need for
>>such programs by eliminating any possible applicants.
>
>I just said that this is a statistical tendency, which does not always
>apply.

My point is that none of these people will be involved in research
mathematics, you will see the exceptions who have already broken away
as the rule, if not exclusively. You seem to want to avoid this point 
for some reason.
 
>>>I am a 43-year-old woman, who is currently a graduate student in
>>>mathematics (and doing well, thank you). I am also learning disabled
>>>(which has actually affected my life more than my academic performance).
>>>And I didn't know any mathematics till I was over 30. 
>
>>I am curious, how is it that a learning disability does not get in the
>>way?
>
>"Learning disability" does not necessarily refer to problems involving
>academic performance. For more information, I refer you to the
>technical literature.

Not enough information, dyslexia, for example could make reading mathematical
symbols problematic at best. And it could make learning symbolic math near
impossible.

And it still seems that most learning disibilities must by definition
get in the way of learning. I have heard rumors that, occasionally, against
major beurocratic obstacles, learning still happens at universities.

Does research math involve learning? Or does one just make it up as one
goes along?  :^)
 
>>>I do think my efforts have shown that I do belong in research
>>>mathematics. 

In another post you have contradicted this point. 

>>>             I was never given a free ride, not in any way. But I could
>>>not have made it without people in *some* ways taking my background into
>>>account. 
>>>
>>>Note that the referee of my paper most certainly did *not* take my
>>>background into account (and might not even have known my name). That is
>>>as it should be!
>
>>Except for special programs and hiring quotas and the like.
>
>I was never, to my knowledge, helped by organized special programs. The help
>that I received was individual and temporary.

But you have explicitly stated that giving help in this way is, I recall
the word "right". 
  
>>>>But my point is that you are putting people into classes, then assigning
>>>>attributes to those classes, then acting as if those assumptions were
>>>>true. Sounds kinda like stereotyping to me, and it is completely, absolutely,
>>>>totally unecessary. The actual situation could more realistically be
>>>>determined by questions on the application, and a short interview.
>>>
>>>Yes, I do agree that it is better to make a determination in individual
>>>cases. 
>
>>Let me try again, all you have posted seems to be at odds with this idea,
>>and in favor of class determinations of eligibility.
>
>I am sorry if I gave that impression. Give me a specific policy, and
>I'll be glad to comment on it.

My observation is that if sexism/anyism is wrong, then it must necessarily
be wrong to base programs on these 'isms, no matter who they help.
   
[snip snip]
 
>>Do you support -exclusion- based upon membership of a class which you
>>define as not having obstacles? (and it seems to be assumption based
>>to a great degree) In cases of limited seating, are you in favor of
>>passing over those you deem from the wrong background to give the
>>available seats to those with the 'proper' social background?
>
>I am in favor of graduate school applications committees making
>decisions based on their intuition about the applicant's potential,
                          ---------
Personal likes/dislikes in other words. How can you or anyone else judge
potential? How can you know that you did not turn away the most gifted
mathematician in favor of someone from a background you identify with that
you think shows potential?

>not only on their paper qualifications. I am not in favor of these
>committees *automatically* favoring people because of race or gender.

>>>Let me give you some very extreme examples:
>>>
>>>Suppose someone had after World War II set up a scholarship for
>>>concentration camp survivors, or set up one for Somalians today. Would
>>>you have any objection to this on moral grounds?
>> 
>>Is sexism and racism right, wrong, or conditionally right or wrong in
>>your eyes? Are there any circumstances where you would consider favoritism
>>not in your favor as right?
>
>If it was wrong.

There is no such thing as an absolute right or wrong. So we are again
left at a personal judgement call based upon your personal criteria.
 
[a few K mercifully deleted]

>>No, that was your argument. I question the hypocrisy of such a program now.
>>Sexism ain't dead, it's live and well at Mills College, and all other female
>>colleges as well. And it seems most women support this sexism. They are far
>>less than supportive when they percieve men doing the same thing.
>
>>>But, by your standards, you are also "sexist" and "racist". 
>
>If, that is, you accepted the idea of a special scholarship, in 
>a private university, for Somalians. 

I did not comment in the text above, but I did just 4 paragraphs down. 
As long as a scholarship is privately funded, then they can be directed
as their founder wishes, as a personal decision. But when they draw
upon public funds, then we would have a conflict if said scholarships
were not open to all.
 
>>Excuse me, this does not follow from what I have written. If you think
>>that it does, show me what made you think so. All the text is still here.
 
>(See above.)
(See above.) 

>>>                                                      Or would you
>>>be against the Somalian scholarship described above? What about a
>>>scholarship for Saudi Arabian women? (Do you know the disadvantages
>>>*they* face, even those of royal background?)
>
>>Actually, I am against any programs which give foreign nationals 
>>advantages over U.S. citizens in the U.S., especially when funded by
>>tax dollars.  
>
>I was talking about private programs; and, let us postulate, that
>they are not in the United States.

Then they must follow the legal and moral principles of whatever country
they may be in. 
 
>By the way, how do you feel about scholarships available only to 
>U.S. Citizens? (Like the ARCS Foundation Scholarship.)

I do not feel that the U.S. citizen is morally bound to pay for foreign
nationals to go to school here. I do see a moral obligation to see to
the welfare and ecucation of our own citizens and their children.

[opps]
 
>>>>My point being that -ability- is a better indicator then class segregation.
>>>
>>>I agree with you a thousand times over that ability is what should be
>>>served, and that people have different inherent abilities. But what do
>>>you take as the indicator of ability? Shouldn't the ability to overcome
>>>social obstacles be taken into account?
>
>>Not unless it is related to the subject. What does this ability have
>>to do with mathematics for example? Should we also count juggling
>>ability and the ability to ride a unicycle as mathematics talent?
>
>I am sorry I did not make myself more clear. I meant, the ability
>to overcome obstacles *against one's academic performance.* 

I have repeatedly claimed they have most likely already done so or they 
would not be there in the first place.

[it happened again!]
  
>>>                                              Wouldn't you suspect that
>>>the first person probably has *more* innate ability to perform the tasks
>>>measured by this test? 
>
>>No, why... 
>
>Just women's intuition, I guess. 

Why do I get the feeling that of you -do- end up on a seletion committee,
that you will probably ignore any objective criteria (easily checked
by asking a few questions at the chalkboard) and make a sexist descision
based upon your personal likes/dislikes? I doubt that I would fare well
under such conditions from what you have posted, not in competition against
a young women from a background you would identify with, regardless of
her performance or mine.

>>>>>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 recall that the definition rini gave for a feminist was essentially 
>>>>eglatarian, and Muffy just posted that "feminists came along and said that
>>>>everyone should be free to follow their own interests", not just women.
>>>>(a point which I disagreed with, but still a claim for eglatarianism)
>>>
>>>>That is, the way feminism has been defined here has essentially (if not
>>>>directly) been eglitarian.
>>>
>>>Please do not expect me to defend rini and Muffy's beliefs (although in
>>>many ways mine are similar). I can only defend my own!
>
>>I am not, but you do not match the definition that they have given for
>>a feminist. Do you consider yourself a feminist or not?
>
>Yes. 

But it seems that you (or your intuition) finds pro-female sexism
right and proper. As it has been explained to me, this is not only
not a feminist principle, but this is the kind of thing feminism is
trying to stop.

So I see a collision of definitions. I'm reasonably certain that rini
will step in and let me know that I got it all wrong (again) and probably
misintrepreted everyones posts in the process. <sigh>
  
>>>Specifically, I do believe that in *most* cases people should be legally
>>>and culturally free to do what makes decent common sense with their own
>>>life. (Note I said *decent* common sense; and note I can name extreme
>>>cases in which this right would not apply.)
>
>>I disagee, this is a recipe for disaster across cultural boundaries. 
>>Whatever limits are set in the native culture -are- what is right and proper.
>
>Well, affirmative action seems to be part of the current "native
>culture."

No, it is part of the LEGAL system, -not- the culture. If it was part
of the culture, any such laws would be superflous.
 
>And by trying to eliminate affirmative action, you are trying to 
>change this culture. 

I stated awhile ago that if sexism is the problem, than it cannot also
be the solution. AA is a mirror of what is claimed to be a problem. 
And once again, AA is not a -cultural- phenomena, it is a legal phenomena.
 
>Note I am not saying you are wrong in so doing; or at least not
>wrong because you are trying to change things.

If I do it to you, it's sexist, and a terrible crime against all women
everywhere. If you do it to me, it's OK, legal, and you can go to a
support group and get a big pat on the back. I fail to see how this is
a solution to -anything-. Oh yes, it will obviously make things easier
for you, so perhaps you disagree.
 
>>It seems not to be an issue, you seem to be making your determination of
>>merit purely upon your assessment of the background.
>
>I am sorry I gave the impression I was saying this. I merely said,
>that background should be one factor considered.

I disagree, I think it should not be a factor at all.
 
>>Ability should be the overriding concern, if not the only concern.
>
>That's why I think it's important to help people of ability overcome
>obstacles.
 
Show me a person, any sex, anywhere, who does not face obstacles. You are
essentially giving points for things like breathing. Everyone does it
all the time, but you seem to think that some deserve special merit for
a necessary and common talent.

>>>I am not saying that people from a nonstandard background of less ability
>>>should be favored over those from a standard background of more ability.
>
>>Then what difference does the "nonstandard background" make?
>
>It may be reasonable to take it into consideration, in forming an
>intuitive impression of ability.

Tell me why anyone should share or agree with your intuition? I did not
realize that research mathematics was a social science. Why do you feel
that ability cannot be determined completely by objective means?
 
>>>I am saying that a history of overcoming cultural obstacles, may be
>>>relevant in determining what that ability really is! 
>
>>Aren't we a bit metaphysical here?
>
>No. As I understand it, we are talking about admissions to graduate
>and professional schools. That is, about situations in which the
>person is in training for a career, not in situations in which
>a person's life work can already be judged. In such situations,
>what a person's paper qualifications say about their ability
>may sometimes have to be judged in light of their background. 

You have yet to show the relevance of the background as far as career 
potential goes. 

>>>And I know many
>>>specific cases where such considerations *did* turn out to be relevant,
>>>and will post them if necessary!
>
>>Post one if you please.
>
>Have you ever been a grader for a advanced senior level/very early
>graduate level mathematics class? Where they're just really starting
>to learn how to do proofs?

I have been a physics grader. I would suspect it is similar.
 
>I have; and, if you've looked at all the homework for such a class,
>you will notice two kinds of good students. One is the kind that
>actually has a background appropriate for the class; they tend
>to get everything right. 
>
>The other is the very good student who doesn't have the appropriate
>background. They usually get an A too, but not as high an A, because
>their performance is slightly more uneven; they don't communicate
>as well, and may have gaps in their knowledge.
>
>Well, the performance of the first group of students is certainly
>impressive, and in no way to their discredit. But the performance
>of the second group is even more impressive. And it give more
>positive information about their potential to do research mathematics.

How does it give more positive information about their potential? It
seems to me that the students with a high A has demonstrated a better
understanding, and probably more potential.
 
>(Not that the performance of people in the second group gives 
>any negative information.) 

I do not see any actual information about "potential". I suspect that
this is another 'intuiton' thing. <sigh>
 
>>>I would like to continue this thread too. And I would also like to hear
>>>from Muffy and Rini. I *do* see a requirement for this, because I think
>>>in some of the matters discussed they may represent the mainstream of
>>>net.feminists more than I do. For these reasons, I changed the subject
>>>line back again.
>
>>And I changed it back yet again.
>
>>Rich
>
>I see chivalry is not dead.

The subject line as you changed it was misleading, and had nothing to
do with the thread. I see that netiquette is not alive and well.
 
>Lenore Levine
>
>P.S. I suspect that there are currently many *abuses* of affirmative
>action. If you concentrated on them, you might convince a very
>large audience that does not believe affirmative action is
>inappropriate in all cases.

Huh? It sounds like that "large audience" needs no convincing.
 
>I also note that you tend to assume a very adversarial style. I
>really get the impression that you are disgusted, not only with
>my ideas (which of course, may be mistaken), but with the moral
>quality of the person advocating them.

I cannot shake the impression that you would discriminate against
me based upon non-performance criteria and feel that you had done
the -right- thing. (if I were seeking a job at your university)

>That may indeed be the case, but, once again, I suspect a more
>deadpan style would be a lot more convincing.  

I doubt that anyone here has convinced anyone else of anything that
they did not already believe. It is not as if this makes any real
difference, sexism is alive and well, but living in a new home.

I have a job today, but the future is uncertain.


Rich

payner@netcom.com



Newsgroups: alt.feminism