From: hillyard@lynx.msc.cornell.edu.UUCP (Sean Edward Hillyard,F7 Clark,50649,)
Subject: Re: Stigma was Re: Hiring quotas and faculty positions
Originator: hillyard@msc2.msc.cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell-Materials-Science-Center
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 20:15:11 GMT

From article <15SEP199211243453@jetson.uh.edu>, by schieber@jetson.uh.edu (Schi\
eber, Jay D.):
> In article <1992Sep15.014629.15323@msc.cornell.edu>, hillyard@lynx.msc.cornel\
l.edu.UUCP (Sean Edward Hillyard,F7 Clark,50649,) writes...

[...]
>
> My point is that reaching this conclusion requires much more than
> just observing the empirical evidence.  One requires a model as
> well.  For example, the statement that "attitudes would
> otherwise have been good" requires a definition for "good
> attitudes".  I may have a very different definition, which would
> lead me to the conclusion that the attitudes were far from
> "good".

Then you don't have a problem with my interpretation of the article, which
was quite explicit and the same as the authors--AA causes minority and female
applicants to be treated worse (which in this case basically means with less
respect).  You have a problem with their interpretation of the data.  Thats
fine, give me your reasons.  What is your definition of worse?  How is it
different from the articles?  I explained my disagreements with the authors.
Explain yours.  I'm not averse to looking up a reference.

[...]
>>
>>   The stigma of affirmative action, said Roosevelt Thomas, president of
>>   the American Institute for Managing Diversity, is devastating not just
>>   to the individuals, but to corporations struggling to stay competitive.
>>
>>   "When you place a stigma on somebody, you're saying you believe this
>>   individual has limited ability," said Thomas.  And that, he said, often
>>   becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy."
>
> Again, this fellow is offering more of a personal opinion than stating
> the empirical evidence resulting from some study.  Other individuals
> may have completely different conclusions based on the same
> evidence.

Then tell us why their interpretation is wrong.  Are these people known
for making outrageous claims?  Is their methodology incorrect?  Have other
studies gotten different results?

[...]
>>
>>You don't think not being taken seriously would hurt your
>>work?
>
> If the conclusion is correct, you are right, there may be a
> significant problem.  I am still skeptical of the conclusion,
> however.  I would like to know if these people would *ever*
> be taken seriously, independent of AA.

The articles conclusions were that they are taken _less_ seriously
with AA around.  They, and I, are not claiming that somehow without
AA there would be no problem.  But I think there is a case for it
doing more harm than good.

[...]
>
> The problem with just the anti-discrimination laws is that proving
> discrimination is next to impossible without additional AA policies
> standing next to them.  Since hiring candidates is a very complex
> process, one can always compare the candidates and weight the myriad
> factors in such a way to justify hiring *any* of the applicants.
> This has been a cocurrent struggle in the courts that persists to
> this day.  Just recently the supreme court swung the other direction
> making it more difficult to press anti-discrimination cases.

But there has certainly been improvement in the last 20-30 years.

From the sep 8, 92 Wall Street Journal.
  The percentage of women officers in Fortune 50 companies climbed to
  5.1% from 2.2% between 1990 and 1992, say Roy Adler, Pepperdine University
  business professor and Rebecca Yates, University of Dayton associate
  dean.  The researchers showed that the number of women officers climbed
  to 71 from 21 over the two-year period.

  Women are emerging from the 25 to 30 year climb from MBA graduate to top
  corporate positions, the analysts believe.  They predict that 20% of top
  executives may be women by the year 2000.  Despite concerns about "glass
  ceiling" barriers to women's advancement, the study shows that women`s
  "penetration to officer level is much higher than previously reported,"
  says Mr. Adler.

    About half of big companies don't have any women on their boards, though,
    and female directors have increased only 3% in number in the past five
    years, says Catalyst, a women's research group.

Yes, that's their, plus that of Catalyst, interpretation of the data, but 
I'm inclined to believe the problem in not so much with company 
discrimination, as it is with career choices being made.  AA is attacking 
the wrong problem, and perhaps doing more harm than good.

SEH