From: schieber@jetson.uh.edu (Schieber, Jay D.)
Subject: Re: Stigma was Re: Hiring quotas and faculty positions
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Houston
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 16:24:00 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.014629.15323@msc.cornell.edu>, hillyard@lynx.msc.cornell.edu.UUCP (Sean Edward Hillyard,F7 Clark,50649,) writes...
>From article <14SEP199218003353@jetson.uh.edu>, by schieber@jetson.uh.edu (Schieber, Jay D.):
>> In article <1992Sep14.020325.710@msc.cornell.edu>, hillyard@lynx.msc.cornell.edu.UUCP (Sean Edward Hillyard,F7 Clark,50649,) writes...
>>>> In article <1992Sep13.215754.28594@msc.cornell.edu>, hillyard@lynx.msc.cornell.edu.UUCP (Sean Edward Hillyard,F7 Clark,50649,) writes...
>>>>>From the _Ithaca Journal_ sep 1, 92 without permission
>>>[...]
>>>>> 
>>>>>"In situations where women typically are discriminated against," said
>>>>>Heilman, "being associated with affirmative action makes it worse.  And
>>>>>in situations where the women wouldn't be discriminated against, it
>>>>>creates a problem."
>[...]
>>>No, its shows that AA fosters the attitudes its trying to compensate for,
>>>even in places where attitudes otherwise would have been good.  So if you're
>>>place of work would have been non-sexist, its not anymore if AA programs
>>>begin.
>> 
>> =================================
>> I disagree with your conclusion.  Since it is based on speculation,
>> I will speculate as well.  I would say that it uncovered more subtle
>> forms of misconceptions, misunderstandings and racism/sexism/homophobia/
>> etc.
>> =================================
> 
>Lets see.  '...And in situations where the women wouldn't be discriminated
>against, it creates a problem.'
> 
>Seems clear to me, and not very speculative.

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".


> 
>[...]
>>> 
>>>AA may be leveling the hiring field of some jobs (apparently it is 
>>>already level in some, as in the first example job given).  However, 
>>>it is also helping to tilt the field against in actual job performance.
>> 
>> ===========================
>> Evidence please?
> 
>from the newspaper article:
> 
>   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.

> 
>From the acticle I followed up on.
> 
>  From article <1992Sep12.040621.19970@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, by
>  rsanders@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (RRobert M Sanders):
>  [...]
>  > been male).  I was hired by a department as the token minority, to 
>  > serve as the "role model for american students."  My experience 
>  > was very depressing, as no one took me seriously as a scholar 
>  > (since no non-native could ever know as much as a native), and hence 
>  > trivialized my scholarly contributions to the department.  Most of 
>  > my colleagues were very patronizing to me on the scholarly
>  > level, while at the same time praising me as a role model for American
>  > students.  When push came to shove the department decided to let me 
>  > go early  because in their judgement my work was insignificant (since 
>  > this decision was reached before my sixth year they were under no 
>  > obligation to send my work out for peer review).  Thus when i see 
> 
>> 
>> I disagree.  I haven't even seen a single example, let alone 
>> evidence of a significant degree of "helping to tilt the field
>> against an actual job performance."
>> ================================
> 
>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.


> 
>[...]
>>> 
>>>No, it means this technique is not solving the problem, and might
>>>even be making it worse.  
>> 
>> Please offer something better.  I believe that history clearly shows
>> that doing nothing has been unacceptable.
> 
>Please explain to me how dumping AA equates to doing nothing.  There
>are numerous anti-discrimation laws on the books that have nothing to
>do with AA, and as lawsuits have become more frequent most companies
>have become quite wary of them.  This is a big difference from 30
>years ago, when AA was first instituted and when you may have had an
>arguement that no AA means 'nothing'.

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. 

> 
>SEH
>