From: levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine)
Subject: Re: Are special programs sexist/racist? (long)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 18:13:07 GMT

payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:

>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.

>>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.

>>I do think my efforts have shown that I do belong in research
>>mathematics. 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 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.
  
>>>It is not a way to tell what obstacles people have faced at all. Why is it
>>>that stereotyping is an abomination in some cases, but required in others?
>>>And by the same socially conscious (tm) groups.
>>
>>There are some cases, in which membership in a certain category makes it
>>almost certain that a person has faced inordinate obstacles; and in
>>these cases, it is IMHO morally acceptable to, for example, provide
>>scholarships and awards specifically targeted to members of that
>>category. 

>Specifically, as long as they are not white males. So you support
>sexism and racism when they meet your political ideals. What about the
>rest of the time, what say you then?

>>                 There are other cases in which membership in a certain
>>category does *not* show that a person has faced such obstacles, or may
>>even indicate that a person has faced less obstacles.

>|Yes, I do agree that it is better to make a determination in individual
>|cases.

>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,
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.

>And what do you say? (re Norton Award for female SF writers)

There is a reasonable case for the award not continuing. To find
out more details about this award, post to rec.arts.sf.misc.

>>Obviously, the issue of the Mills College summer program for female
>>undergraduates is much less clear-cut. My intuition is that it *is*
>>justified; 

>I know this is badly overused, but Hitler justified putting jews in the
>gas chamber. I could care less for whatever personal justifications you
>may have, and -all- justifications are personal (IMHO). 

>>             but I think we should devote a specific, future posting to 
>>discussing this particular issue.
>>
>>>By the stereotypes discussed in other threads, these women should have been
>>>so brainwashed (c) that they would not even consider doing mathematics, after 
>>>all, "math is hard"! I suspect that for the women in these programs, you are
>>>making assumptions.
>>
>>I cannot speak for all women. 

>Don't have to, the subject was these omnipowerful cultural stereotypes 
>which are killing women right and left, and doing other horrible things.

>>                                      I know *I* was brainwashed by the
>>stereotypes, and did not overcome such brainwashing till I was over 30.

>And now you know the right way to brainwash others, is that it?

>>And, as a over-30 graduate student who had to support herself, I
>>*definitely* had some disadvantages to overcome.

>It seems that you have not overcome sexism and racism. 
> 
>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. 

>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.)

>>                                                      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.

By the way, how do you feel about scholarships available only to 
U.S. Citizens? (Like the ARCS Foundation Scholarship.)

>>I am not saying that American women are in such an extreme situation. I
>>am saying that the issue is how reasonable a *specific* program is. 

>It seems you see nothing wrong with being sexist or racist, at least 
>insofar as it is to your advantage, or to the advantage of those causes
>you would champion (with others funds I might add).

>>>I just feel that the solution should -solve- the problem, not mirror it.
>> 
>>Then what *is* your solution? Be specific!!!

>I am not even sure we see the same problem. If sexism and racism are
>problems, then we need to support only non-sexist/racist programs, and
>put an end to all institutionalized sexism/racism. This is the solution
>to this problem. What is being done is selectively supporting/REQUIRING 
>certain forms of sexism/racism, and then everyone wonders why it has not gone
>away. 
> 
>>>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.* 
 
>>Doesn't it mean more (I credit this example to William Raspberry) when a
>>young person from Cabrini-Green gets 700 on their math SAT than when a
>>person from a New England prep school does? 

>Perhaps to the young persons involved, but it should make no difference
>in admission of selection for programs.

>>                                              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. 

>>>>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. 
 
>>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."

And by trying to eliminate affirmative action, you are trying to 
change this culture. 

Note I am not saying you are wrong in so doing; or at least not
wrong because you are trying to change things.

>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.

>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.

>>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.

>>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. 

>>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; 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.

(Not that the performance of people in the second group gives 
any negative information.) 

>>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.

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.

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.

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