From: hillyard@lynx.msc.cornell.edu.UUCP (Sean Edward Hillyard,F7 Clark,50649,)
Subject: Re: Stigma was Re: Hiring quotas and faculty positions
Originator: hillyard@msc2.msc.cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell-Materials-Science-Center
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 02:03:25 GMT

From article <13SEP199218540241@vtcc1.cc.vt.edu>, by merolajs@vtcc1.cc.vt.edu (JOSEPH S. MEROLA DEPT OF CHEMISTRY VPI&SU):
> 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."
> 
> 
> 
> What this is saying is that the kinds of attitudes which makes
> affirmative action necesarry are still there and when they cannot be
> brought to bear to block a hire, they are still there in force to
> try and scuttle someone's career.  The above clearly shows that
> sexism is rampant in the rating of resumes and gets even worse when
> the term affirmative action is applied.

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.

> 
> This really says that those who say that we should only look at
> cases on their "merit" are espousing some ideXl world that does not
> yet exist.  I would agree with you wholeheartedly that, if we could
> remove all forms of sexism, racism, and any other "isms" that
> make hiring decisions no completely objective, then we can do
> away with things such as affirmative action.  But, until that day
> comes, we need something to help level the playing field and
> also to educate many about the problem.

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.

[...]
> 
> 
> Does the fact that there is a stigma associated with affirmative
> action mean that we should scrap the whole thing.  (This is
> a position that some previous posters have taken.)  Well, the
> next paragraph in this article seems to answer the question
> well.                                                          
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>>Dispite findings, affirmative action programs should not be scrapped,
>>said Heilman.  Instead, she said, managers sould take care to hire and
>>promote only qualified candidates, and should make clear to employees
>>that standards are not compromised.

I didn't comment when I posted the article, but I think this is baloney.
Whenever a non-relevent criteria is used to judge a candidate, it can't
help but lower the standards.

Let me use what would be called a sexist example nowadays, sports; since
sports fans are always making employment judgements about the people on 
their favorite teams ('Simms should be starting, not that idiot Hostedler').

Lets take the draft.  If you could look five years down the line it is
typically perfectly clear who you should have taken.  That player is
likely to be different depending on the teams needs, but there generally
is someone, or maybe one of a couple, that you should have taken.

The GM can't see the future.  All he has are the various players 
qualifications:  ht, wt, 40 yard time, yardage gained in college, 
reputation as a trouble maker or hard worker, etc.  It is very difficult
to make the correct decision, but these are all relevant--you know this
because the players you've rated higher have tended, no guarantees, but they
have tended to make better pros.

Now the owner has told you to favor whites.  It seems that white players 
are underrepresented in the league, and, in addition, the
more white players the more tickets you seem to sell.  Now he only wants
this to make a difference if the two players are equal.  After all, the
main goal is to win games, since this makes the biggest difference in the
bottom line.

Well, the judging process is so complicated that no two candidates are going
to be the same.  Its a real tough decision who is likely to be better, but
there are always differences, and thats your job, anyone can rank the
obviously better/worse candidates.

That being the case, the owner's request is never going to make a difference,
no two players are ever equal.  If you are actually going to bring in more
white players it is going to have to be to the detriment of a more able 
(according to you're rating system) black.  Perhaps not much better, but 
better just the same.

> 
> 
> 
> To me, to scrap these programs because of these problems is to
> say that : "Oh well, racism and sexism are so rampant that we can't
> do anything about them and so let's give up, let the status quo
> operate as is, and write off the potential contributions of
> minorities and females."  I'm sorry, but I'm not willing to make
> that concession.

No, it means this technique is not solving the problem, and might
even be making it worse.  

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

SEH
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers