From: levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine)
Subject: Re: Are special programs sexist/racist? (long)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 20:48:39 GMT

payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:

(I wrote about how selection committees choose graduate students.)

>>See the reasons why it's considered, above.

>You are not talking about academic background, but background as
>related to sex and home life. These above text does not seem to
>support your argument, despite the use of the same word ("background")
>in different contexts.

Evidence of overcoming adversity would certainly be one indicator of
that self-discipline and determination, that committees are looking for. The
mere fact that an individual belongs to an often underprivileged
group would not be such an indicator; but I am not saying it should be. 
  
>>>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?
>>
>>The quality of a *paper* can be judged by means which are very close to
>>objective. Judgments as to whether a person who is not yet at the
>>research level, has the potential to get to that level, involve a great
>>deal of intuition. And there are some people who have almost uncanny
>>intuitions for this!

>You mean that they know what to look for and which questions to ask I
>think. If they can consistantly do it, then I would suspect that rules
>could be spelled out. And people change and grow (or not), no assessment
>can take into account future events.

My interviewee specifically said that there was not, and could not be,
a way to spell out exact rules for making such decisions. And of course,
no amount of expertise at "what to look for and what questions to ask"
is going to bat 1000! Just that a person practiced at these decisions
will have a much higher "batting average" than one who's not. 

>I have a problem with the use of AA, not the overt abuses. AA is mandated
>discrimination, because discrimination is wrong. It is an abomination.
>There was not even an -attempt- at simply enforcing existing laws.

What kinds of AA? I think you are referring to the policy of giving
members of often underprivileged groups an *automatic* edge, where
there is no previous recent history of institutional discrimination.
I am not comfortable with that kind of policy, either. 
  
>>>>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)
>>
>>I think that if you knew me you would find this suspicion quite
>>unrealistic.

>I note that the discrimination you favor just happens to include the
>group to which you seem to belong. It seems a sound conclusion.

Then, you do not know me very well. If you want to know more
about my tastes, preferences and history, please email me
privately. Let me just say that I think they're based much
more on my intuitions about individuals, then on membership
in any particular groups. And in so far as I do think of
myself as a member of a group, I don't see myself as having
much in common with many of the other female graduate
students here, because my age and life experiences are quite
different. I tend to think of myself much more as being an
*older* graduate student than being a *female* graduate student. 

(Not that discrimination because of age is any more ethical than
discrimination because of gender. It's just that if I did discriminate
unconsciously, I suspect it would be more on such a basis.)
 
(Story about the abuses of affirmative action.) 
>>Now, why am I (Lenore) telling this story? And not you? 

>I just told a similar story. And I do not understand what your question
>means.

I meant that there are some very convincing arguments against the
abuses of affirmative action, that the people who are against it
are not presenting. 
 
>>If you are posting to the net because you want to have anyone, at all,
>>read you, take you seriously, and respect you -- and maybe even
>>be convinced by you -- a more deadpan style, less willingness to assume
>>an adversarial relationship, and more specific examples -- might make
>>you succeed in your purposes a lot better!

>What do you think my purpose -is-?
> 
>>Just out of curiosity, then: What is the purpose of your postings?

>I will respond after you respond to the above question if you don't mind.

Purpose:

1) To practice writing; to practice presenting my views articulately.
2) To convince other people of -- whatever I'm posting about.
3) Posting is a good way to take a 5-minute break from writing my thesis,
   which is on the computer...
 
Lenore Levine