From: merolajs@vtcc1.cc.vt.edu (JOSEPH S. MEROLA DEPT OF CHEMISTRY VPI&SU)
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
Subject: Re: Stigma was Re: Hiring quotas and faculty positions
Date: 15 Sep 92 11:06:00 GMT
Organization: Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <14SEP199221034456@jetson.uh.edu>, schieber@jetson.uh.edu (Schieber, Jay D.) writes...
>In article <BuLCMD.1GE@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca>, drraymon@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca (Darrell Raymond) writes...
>>In article <14SEP199215404508@vtcc1.cc.vt.edu>, merolajs@vtcc1.cc.vt.edu (JOSEPH S. MEROLA DEPT OF CHEMISTRY VPI&SU) writes:
>>> 
>>> However, I keep asking for
>>> someone to come up with something better.  
>> 
>>  I think this is a valid request, if we who find problems with affirmative
>>action are not to be dismissed as whiners.  Here is a two-part suggestion, 
>>offered not as a panacea, but for your comments:
>> 
>>  1. You say above that some studies show that AA has problems and others 
>>     do not.  I think it important to determine what factors result in 
>>     (in)effectiveness.  It may be that AA is only a minor component in
>>     some comprehensive plan, the total impact of which is effective 
>>     (AA may either help or impede the overall impact); or it may be that 
>>     intense personal involvement of exceptional individuals makes the 
>      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
>I am not sure exactly what you are getting at here, but it may not
>be essential to your basic point...
> 
> 
> 
>>     difference between success and failure. Or it may simply be that 
>>     studies of AA are lousy pieces of science.  I don't know which of 
>>     these is true, but it would be a step beyond simply arguing the 
>>     philosophy of AA to look at the empirical evidence. 
>> 
>>     Proposal #1: let's evaluate current programs and find out what
>>  		  causes beneficial effects, and how.
> 
>I agree.  Some studies have been done.  Since I am not a sociologist,
>I cannot accurately judge those results.  However, we have seen how
>the results of one study posted on the net already evoked quite 
>different interpretations.  Some of the conclusions of the study
>sited seemed to me to go much further than straightforward conclusions
>from empirical observations (even points that I agreed with).  
>Typically, people pick out parts to
>justify their own biases.  Since many people have stakes in the
>ideology supported or refuted, it is sometimes difficult to use
>the results of such studies fairly.  However, as honest, intelligent
>people, we can probably come to some agreement on what is working.



Darrel, 
    Thanks for trying to take this along a more positive direction.  I
am trying to pull together some studies now that address the question
about the harmfulness of AA programs.  Part of this began with some
quotations from an Ithaca Journal article.  It is interesting to note
even in that posting that the author concluded that the problems that
may exist do NOT lead one to the conclusion that AA should be 
scrapped, but rather that better education about the process will
dispel the myths surrounding the hires.  I think this is critical to
the success of any hiring process with or without AA.  Initially,
AA was mixed up with the concept of quotas and some still feel that
there are quotas involved.  That is not the case.  You can look
back through numerous posts by myself and Jay Schieber to see the
definition of AA.  (These are not my personal opinions of AA, but
come from university publications both from my university and
others. )

     One report from Ohio State pointed out that there can indeed be
problems with AA hires if all involved are not completely informed
about the process.  Then, there is a lot of behind-the-back 
snickering and innuendo about the person's qualifications.  When
people were more involved and informed about the hiring process
and AA, then there were no problems.  Let me try and explain my
view on some of this with examples from my own department and
university.  Maybe we are not the norm, but I think we are
pretty typical.

     When we decide that we are going to advertise for a new
faculty member, the entire faculty must first agree as to the
general area of expertise.  Once that is done, then a search
committee is constituted.  The committee then drafts an ad for
the position which is reviewed by our EO/AA office.  They check
for discriminatory language  and also ask for the phrase
"qualified women and minorities are encouraged to apply." The
ad is then submitted to appropriate places (in our case this
is Chemical and Engineering News).  Now, we don't sit back and
wait for the applications to roll in.  All faculty are encouraged
to contact their friends at other places who may have 
knowledge of appropriate candidates.  Letters are also sent
to the chairs of other chemistry departments in the country.
Special efforts are made in this process to see if we can
identify any minority applicants.
    Then, as people begin to apply, they are sent an acknowledgment
letter as well as a reply card from the EO/AA office which asks
them to voluntarily supply information about their gender and
ethnic background.  This card does not come back to the department,
but goes to the EO/AA office.  After the cutoff date, the search
committee begins the process of evaluating applications based on
dozens of criteria (background, publications, interest, letters
of recommendation, etc, etc.)  All dossiers are available to the
full chemistry faculty for review and most take the time to
inspect them and give their feedback to the search committee.  
The search committee then formulates a short list and begins
inviting some candidates in for interviews.  When the person is
on campus, they must present a seminar for the entire department
as well as have meetings with the faculty in small group
sessions.  We may invite in 3 or 4 candidates.  
     A full faculty meeting is then held to discuss the merits
of each candidate and then to take a vote on who will be made
an offer.  Again, the full faculty agrees on this step and
a simple majority vote is NOT sufficient. 
     I give all this detail (and perhaps have strayed a little
from the original post) to show that if a hiring process is done
with the full cooperation and involvement of th faculty, then
there is no way that someone who is not qualified is going to
get hired.  There is also no way that there is going to be a lot
of grumbling about why a person got the job:  all of the
deliberations were on the table.  If this does not take place, I
can understand how rumors get started.
     You can also see from the above that any one faculty
member has only one vote. In my department, my vote is diluted
by 29 other faculty members.  So, the idea that I can solely
push any social agenda doesn't hold up.  I can assure you
that with this process, no one who is less than qualified 
stands a chance. 

    Well, I've rambled long enough, but let me add one thing
concerning fears and perceptions.  There is an underlying tone
to many posts that AA will prevent them from getting a job, 
especially in a tight job market.  To begin with, if AA meant
that all jobs went to women and minorities, then we would
see that already.  In chemistry, very few offers are still 
made even with AA.  In my department over the last five years,
eight positions were filled, 6 male and 2 female.  All searches
had female applicants, most qualified.  In the 6 searches where
males were hired, it was just deemed that for our needs the
male candidate was the best fit.  This was with AA in action:  AA
does not mandate our hire, it just makes us think more
carefully about it.

     With respect to your idea about hitting at the elementary
school level, I will come back to that in a separate post since
I have some experience with our local school system that 
says that you are right to want to target this area.

Joseph S. Merola
Department of Chemistry
Virginia Tech (aka VPI&SU)

Newsgroups: sci.research.careers