From: primeaux@wham-o.cs.utk.edu (David Primeaux)
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
Subject: Re: Hiring quotas and faculty positions (Repost #2)
Date: 11 Sep 92 14:47:12 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee, Knoxville - Department of Computer Science
Distribution: world
Reply-To: primeaux@wham-o.cs.utk.edu (David Primeaux)
NNTP-Posting-Host: wham-o.cs.utk.edu

In article <1992Sep10.233803.17047@mailhost.ocs.mq.edu.au>, wskelly@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au (William Skelly) writes:
|> In article <1992Sep9.215223.22997@netnews.noc.drexel.edu> David.Koert@CoE.Drexel.EDU (Dave Koert) writes:
|> >[intro. deleted...]
|> >
|> >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.
|> >
|> 
|> I too *feel* that I have just run into this sort of thing.  I am also
|> a little confused as to how one is *supposed* to feel.  This is an
|> excellent topic for discussion in this group, and perhaps instructive
|> as to the general backlash that this bit of political correctness is
|> having within the general workforce (I can't prove this it just seems
|> to be case with friends employed particularly within the public service).
|> 
|> The only arguements against this practice I can think of (and maybe 
|> they alone are sufficient) are:
|> 
|> 1. Why and how long do *we* pay for the mistakes of past generations

*We* have to pay for the mistakes of past generations because the 
results of those past mistakes still pervade society today.  And withour
affirmative action laws, IMHO, the mistakes of yesterday would be repeated
today, leaving *our* children and grandchildren wondering why *they* had to
pay for our mistakes.



|> 2. Being that it is the *polictically correct* attitude is reason 
|>    enough to challenge it.

I don't see any smileys here, so I assume that this comment is meant 
to be taken seriously.  I don't believe that the fact that a position
has been anointed "politically correct" (PC) is a reason in itself
to embrace that position -- whatever the group who did the anointing.
On the other hand, such an anointing should not be a reason to eschew
such a position either.  Suppose Dan Rather declared, "Such and such
an organization is now espousing the position that it is PC to be 
opposed to the murder of innocent children"?

I know the above is rather far afield of the original topic.  However,
it seems to me that opposition to the PC "movement" or "label" was
probably initially the result of persons objecting to being told how
to think.  But a person who discards a position simply *because* it is 
PC is allowing others to think for himself or herself.

|> 
|> Cheers,
|> Chris
|> 


A final note.  As a white, male, USA citizen of European heritage,
I support affirmative action.  I have been engaged in an as-yet-unsuc-
cessful job search (PhD in CS -- any offers?) and have probably been
"victimized" by "reverse discrimination."  While I would prefer to have
job offers pouring in than to be still looking, I would prefer that 
the playing field be leveled now, letting past injustices become exactly
that -- *past* injustices.

My opinions.  

david
primeaux@cs.utk.edu