clarke@csri.toronto.edu (Jim Clarke) (03/23/89)
So: are you going to fill in question 3 on the U of T "Employment Equity
Survey"?
If you're a university employee, you're going to get this survey next week.
Its question 3 asks you to "check the box beside the wording that best
describes the group with which you identify." The choices are "Aboriginal
Person", "Black" and so on. (Why not "Black Person", I wonder? -- but
that's a stylistic quibble that I shouldn't bring up here.)
I've always refused to answer this kind of question, or answered "North
American", though I've never attained the level of articulateness displayed
by Les Earnest in the February Communications of the Association for
Computing Machinery. (Nor, fortunately, do I have his extensive experience
with the problem.)
One of Earnest's comments seems especially relevant: "... the fuzzy old
concept of racial classification that had been a tool of racists for so
long came to be embraced by their former victims and those who believed
you had to classify everyone and compile statistics to combat discrimination."
Just because question 3 refers to "visible minority groups" doesn't mean it
isn't talking about race. I certainly won't answer.
--
Jim Clarke -- Dept. of Computer Science, Univ. of Toronto, Canada M5S 1A4
(416) 978-4058
clarke@csri.toronto.edu or clarke@csri.utoronto.ca
or ...!{uunet, pyramid, watmath, ubc-cs}!utai!utcsri!clarkehenry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (03/25/89)
In article <8903232049.AA29714@yorkmills.csri.toronto.edu> clarke@csri.toronto.edu (Jim Clarke) writes: >Just because question 3 refers to "visible minority groups" doesn't mean it >isn't talking about race. I certainly won't answer. In fairness, compared to Les Earnest's experiences, this questionnaire has a couple of mitigating factors. First, it does have an "Other" box. Second, it quite carefully explains that it's not asking who you are descended from, but who you "identify with". I haven't quite decided what I'm going to do about that question yet. I concur that it's disagreeable. I suspect that ticking "Other" and filling in the blank with "human" (or "Martian" -- they *are* asking who you identify with, not who you are descended from...) will give them more trouble than just refusing to answer. -- Welcome to Mars! Your | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology passport and visa, comrade? | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (03/25/89)
In article <1989Mar24.223458.17560@utzoo.uucp> I wrote: >... I suspect that ticking "Other" and >filling in the blank with "human" (or "Martian" -- they *are* asking who >you identify with, not who you are descended from...) will give them >more trouble than just refusing to answer. Latest thought: tick "Other" and fill in the blank with "people who object to such questions". -- Welcome to Mars! Your | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology passport and visa, comrade? | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
dooley@helios.toronto.edu (Kevin Dooley) (03/26/89)
In article <1989Mar24.223458.17560@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > [about a silly questionnaire with objectionable questions from UofT] >Second, it quite carefully explains that it's not asking who you are >descended from, but who you "identify with". Hmm, this raises some interesting questions. I am a middle class white male, BUT, I strongly identify with the feminist cause. I also identify with native Canadians in their struggle to have ancient treaties finally recognized by the government which signed them. I identify with the rights of handicapped people to be permitted to carry on in society like everybody else without being dismissed because of some superficial physical flaw. So, if we may extend the "identify with" wording just a little bit, I am a handicapped native woman. Am I elligible for a special grant? ;-) Just wondering... Kevin Dooley -- Kevin Dooley UUCP - {uunet,pyramid}!utai!helios.physics!dooley Physics Dept. BITNET - dooley@utorphys U. of Toronto INTERNET - dooley@helios.physics.utoronto.ca
vassos@db.toronto.edu (Vassos Hadzilacos) (03/30/89)
In article <8903232049.AA29714@yorkmills.csri.toronto.edu> clarke@csri.toronto.edu (Jim Clarke) writes: > >So: are you going to fill in question 3 on the U of T "Employment Equity >Survey"? > >If you're a university employee, you're going to get this survey next week. >Its question 3 asks you to "check the box beside the wording that best >describes the group with which you identify." The choices are "Aboriginal >Person", "Black" and so on. (Why not "Black Person", I wonder? -- but >that's a stylistic quibble that I shouldn't bring up here.) > >I've always refused to answer this kind of question, or answered "North >American", though I've never attained the level of articulateness displayed >by Les Earnest in the February Communications of the Association for >Computing Machinery. (Nor, fortunately, do I have his extensive experience >with the problem.) > >One of Earnest's comments seems especially relevant: "... the fuzzy old >concept of racial classification that had been a tool of racists for so >long came to be embraced by their former victims and those who believed >you had to classify everyone and compile statistics to combat discrimination." > >Just because question 3 refers to "visible minority groups" doesn't mean it >isn't talking about race. I certainly won't answer. >-- >Jim Clarke -- Dept. of Computer Science, Univ. of Toronto, Canada M5S 1A4 > (416) 978-4058 >clarke@csri.toronto.edu or clarke@csri.utoronto.ca > or ...!{uunet, pyramid, watmath, ubc-cs}!utai!utcsri!clarke > Though I agree with the sentiment that I think underlies Jim's position, I have followed the opposite course: I have answered all questions of the survey. The ideal world should be colour- and sex-blind when it comes to employment. Our world is not. The idea behind Employment Equity is that (a) this is bad and (b) can only be changed through active intervention. I agree with both of these statements. The idea behind the Employment Equity Survey is that an important prerequisite to doing something to change the status quo in this respect is to take stock of the present situation. I think that this, too, is correct. Surely the survey should not be the end of the story; but it is a necessary step. Just because statistics have been (and are being) used as a tool of racists does not mean that *every* use of statistics can only serve racist goals, Les Earnest's comment notwithstanding. -- Vassos Hadzilacos vassos@csri.toronto.edu
clarke@csri.toronto.edu (Jim Clarke) (03/30/89)
In article <89Mar30.123150est.8725@ois.db.toronto.edu> vassos@db.toronto.edu (Vassos Hadzilacos) writes: >In article <8903232049.AA29714@yorkmills.csri.toronto.edu> clarke@csri.toronto.edu (Jim Clarke) writes: >>[I said that I would not answer the Employment Equity Survey's question >>about group identification.] >Just because statistics have been (and are being) used as a tool of racists >does not mean that *every* use of statistics can only serve racist goals.... I have no doubt that the survey will be used only to serve the best goals. Nor do I object in principle to the collection of social data, or to the statistical analysis of those data. But the question being asked is meaningless. Asking people to classify themselves into racial groups in order to serve beneficial social purposes is not more defensible intellectually than classifying them by decree in order to serve evil purposes. If a question is meaningless, you shouldn't ask it, much less take action on the basis of any answers. Now if you want to ask where I was born, that's different. -- Jim Clarke -- Dept. of Computer Science, Univ. of Toronto, Canada M5S 1A4 (416) 978-4058 clarke@csri.toronto.edu or clarke@csri.utoronto.ca or ...!{uunet, pyramid, watmath, ubc-cs}!utai!utcsri!clarke
vassos@db.toronto.edu (Vassos Hadzilacos) (03/31/89)
In article <8903301755.AA07836@russell.csri.toronto.edu> clarke@csri.toronto.edu (Jim Clarke) writes: >But the question being asked [which "racial" group do you identify >yourself as a member of -- VH] is meaningless. Asking people to classify >themselves into racial groups in order to serve beneficial social purposes >is not more defensible intellectually than classifying them by decree in >order to serve evil purposes. If a question is meaningless, you shouldn't >ask it, much less take action on the basis of any answers. People of colour, native Americans and other groups of people generally referred to as "visible minorities" in this country have been and are the subject of discrimination. Though "racial" classification is both morally objectionable and scientifically questionable, society is not oblivious to it. In effect the survey is asking: "Are you a member of a group that is disadvantaged because of social prejudices?" This, unfortunately, is not a meaningless question. I refuse to answer this question when I feel that doing so will serve evil purposes but I will gladly answer it when I feel that doing so will serve beneficial social purposes. The distinction between the two cases appears perfectly intellectually defensible to me. -- Vassos Hadzilacos vassos@csri.toronto.edu
clarke@csri.toronto.edu (Jim Clarke) (03/31/89)
In article <89Mar30.165735est.8725@ois.db.toronto.edu> vassos@db.toronto.edu (Vassos Hadzilacos) writes: >In article <8903301755.AA07836@russell.csri.toronto.edu> clarke@csri.toronto.edu (Jim Clarke -- that's me) writes: > >>But the question being asked [which "racial" group do you identify >>yourself as a member of -- VH] is meaningless. Asking people to classify >>themselves into racial groups in order to serve beneficial social purposes >>is not more defensible intellectually than classifying them by decree in >>order to serve evil purposes. If a question is meaningless, you shouldn't >>ask it, much less take action on the basis of any answers. > > [true stuff about racial discrimination omitted] > >In effect the survey is asking: "Are you a member of a group that is >disadvantaged because of social prejudices?" This, unfortunately, is not >a meaningless question. I refuse to answer this question when I feel that >doing so will serve evil purposes but I will gladly answer it when I feel >that doing so will serve beneficial social purposes. The distinction >between the two cases appears perfectly intellectually defensible to me. If Philippe Rushton attempts "racial" classification in order to find out about the abilities of different "races", is that OK? No, because the classification is meaningless and the conclusions will be invalid, and may even be used for pernicious purposes. If the U of T Administration attempts "racial" classification in order to improve employment equity, is that OK? Of course, because the administrators in their beneficent wisdom will act only in our best interest. Really? If we use bad arguments to support good purposes, we're going to have a hard time preventing their use for evil purposes. Now if you want to ask me Vassos's proposed question, "Are you a member of a group that is disadvantaged because of social prejudices?" then I'll be happy to answer. You might even want to specify the *sort* of group you mean, by mentioning real or imagined physical characteristics such as skin colour but not height or eye colour, but as long as the real point is whether I think people like me are disadvantaged for invalid reasons, I see no reason to object to the question. The bottom line for me (-- a fine phrase; where's it gone these days?) is that you should say and ask what you really mean, instead of dressing it up in pseudo-scholarly, quasi-legal mumbo-jumbo. Saying "visible minority" for "race" is another example. -- Jim Clarke -- Dept. of Computer Science, Univ. of Toronto, Canada M5S 1A4 (416) 978-4058 clarke@csri.toronto.edu or clarke@csri.utoronto.ca or ...!{uunet, pyramid, watmath, ubc-cs}!utai!utcsri!clarke