gazit@cs.duke.EDU (Hillel Gazit) (04/24/91)
In article <1991Apr15.145023.7239@psych.toronto.edu> chris@psych.toronto.edu (Christine Hitchcock) writes: >or the way in which women's earnings remain around 64% of men's, When I hear such "data", I suggest affirmative action by income level. Instead of giving priority by sex, give priority to the applicant with the lowest income. *If* the above data is correct then it will be a non-sexist AA program. The very same women who "believed" in the above "data" rejected this idea time and again. Do you reject it too? >discriminated against in issues regarding child custody. Most of us agree >that it would be better if both sexes were no longer victims of sexism. That's very nice of you, but would you mind doing something to show it? Will you (Chris) give up your affirmative action (or the Canadian equivalent) as a way to prevent sexism against men? >Chris Hitchcock, Dept. of Psychology chris@psych.toronto.edu Hillel gazit@cs.duke.edu "The continuation of earnings gap between men and women, the decimation of affirmative action in order to protect white men from `reverse discrimination', the rise of male victories in child custody cases - all of these attest to the need for a way to galvanize women's opposition and women's power in the 1980s." -- ("Caught Looking", Kate Ellis, Barbara O'Dair & Abby Tallmer)
gannon@MDI.COM (Alden Gannon) (04/24/91)
In article <672079231@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.EDU (Hillel Gazit) writes: >When I hear such "data", I suggest affirmative action by income level. >Instead of giving priority by sex, give priority to the applicant with >the lowest income. *If* the above data is correct then it will be a >non-sexist AA program. This is interesting, Hillel. I must have missed your previous posts that elaborate on this proposal. Would you mind, for the purpose of debate, presenting this system in detail? It sounds like the basis of a much fairer system than AA. In particular, could you address the following questions. 1. How do you propose to verify income level? 2. What system of appeal do you propose? 3. Assuming preference is only to be given to equally qualified candidates, how do you propose to measure qualifications? Thanks for your novel approach to this problem. -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alden B. Gannon, a.k.a. Zarathustra. INTERNET: gannon%mdi.com@uunet.uu.net "Gotta find a woman be good to me, USENET: ..uunet!mdi.com!gannon Won't hide my liquor, try to serve me tea." --Grateful Dead.
gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) (04/25/91)
#When I hear such "data", I suggest affirmative action by income level. #Instead of giving priority by sex, give priority to the applicant with #the lowest income. *If* the above data is correct then it will be a #non-sexist AA program. In article <1991Apr24.003022.11330@MDI.COM> (Alden Gannon) writes: >1. How do you propose to verify income level? An IRS confirmation of the gross income. >2. What system of appeal do you propose? >3. Assuming preference is only to be given to equally qualified > candidates, how do you propose to measure qualifications? In exactly the same way that it is done with current affirmative action. BTW have you *ever* asked these questions the supporters of the current affirmative action? Have you ever tried to check the difference between an Hispanic and a white?
rivero@dev8a.mdcbbs.com (04/25/91)
In article <672079231@lear.cs.duke.edu>, gazit@cs.duke.EDU (Hillel Gazit) writes: > In article <1991Apr15.145023.7239@psych.toronto.edu> > chris@psych.toronto.edu (Christine Hitchcock) writes: > >>or the way in which women's earnings remain around 64% of men's, > > When I hear such "data", I suggest affirmative action by income level. > Instead of giving priority by sex, give priority to the applicant with > the lowest income. *If* the above data is correct then it will be a > non-sexist AA program. True, but it will remove the last vestige of meritocracy from our system of work incentives. After all, why should I work my way through college, and put in overtime at the office if the underpaid party animal high school dropout sitting next to me gets priority in hiring? Michael
dgross@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Dave Gross) (04/26/91)
Hillel's idea of affirmative action by income level rather than race seems to be picking up steam. Dinesh D'Souza has just released a very good book called "Illiberal Education: The Politics of Race and Sex on Campus" which spends a lot of time analyzing how affirmative action has been used in university admission policies, and how this has led to a number of problems (one of the most critical of which is that people admitted with less academic preparation because their race was considered more important than their college prep GPA often fail academically when competing with peers who are more prepared). Anyway, in his brief conclusion, D'Souza proposes basically that we eliminate affirmative action on the basis of race and sex, and institute it where it makes more sense. Specifically, for university admissions, recognize that getting an 'X' on the SAT verbal means one thing if the student went to a school in a wealthy district and had enough $$ to take "How to whiz the SAT" courses; and means another if the student had to work full time in high school, and went to an inner-city school in a poorer district. In any case, the book is a good read and has some fine critiques and ideas. -- ******** INTERNET: dgross@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU ******* GEnie: D.GROSS10 ******** "The only government that I recognize -- and it matters not how few are at the head of it, or how small its army -- is that power that establishes justice in the land, never that which establishes injustice." -- H.D. Thoreau
tato@midway.uchicago.EDU (Hector Ruben Cordero-Guzman) (04/26/91)
dgross@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Dave Gross) writes: >Hillel's idea of affirmative action by income level rather than race >seems to be picking up steam. This is appealing but too simplistic. There is no doubt that socio-economic class background determines (in the loose sense) access to opportunities in the educational system and rewards in the labor market. However, there is also substantial evidence that race and gender have an effect, independent of that of socio-economic class alone, in shaping the structure of individual opportunities. To be poor is one thing; to be poor and a woman is another; to be poor and to be a woman and [sic] to be black is altogether different. I trust you recognize the differences. >Dinesh D'Souza has just released a very >good book called "Illiberal Education: The Politics of Race and Sex on >Campus" I did not like the book. It was badly researched, unneccesarily rhetorical, and excessively anecdotal. >which spends a lot of time analyzing how affirmative action >has been used in university admission policies, and how this has led >to a number of problems (one of the most critical of which is that >people admitted with less academic preparation because their race was >considered more important than their college prep GPA often fail >academically when competing with peers who are more prepared). I disagree. He does not analyze the admissions standards of all of the colleges in the US, or a representative sample thereof, nor does he analyze their affirmative action policies. He does interview one or another administrator at one or another school. That is very weak evidence. It is, at best, a collection of plausible scenarios that are, and should be, more closely examined and debated. This book, though, is crude. For example, D'Souza relates that in an interview with `two women activists' from the university of Michigan he asked if either one knew about Mill. Neither did. D'Souza infers that the fact that this women took `Feminist Theory' instead of, say, `Brittish Political Philosophy' and therefore were unaware of Mill, is evidence that they are taking easier courses... On the question of `failure' he offers no evidence. He does not show that people admitted under `affirmative action programs' fail at a rate higher than those who were not (partly because he does not have any evidence on who was admitted under an `affirmative action program' see above); nor does he prove that minorities and women who finish college are `less prepared' (define that losely) than the comparison group (white males?). BTW, do you know if students in IVY schools are given preferential treatment if they are sons and daughters of alumni? What D'Souza shows throughout the book is considerable disdain and condecension towards blacks, latinos, homosexuals and women. Again, I do recognize that socio-economic class is not only important but central in determining who goes and who does not go to college and I agree with those who suggest that we have to be vigorous in ensuring that *everyone* has access to college. However it is also important to keep in mind that women experience the gendered nature of the academy and confront it in ways different than those of males. the same thing can be said abot the experiances of different racial groups. what is important is the need to drecognize that each of this factors has a particular effect which has to be taken into account and debated in its own terms. Pursuing a vigorous policy against racism in no way precludes pursuing a vigorous policy against harrasment. D'Souza ignores both by shifting the debate to whether `these people' are qualified to be in the academy in the first place. Its a nice trick but I'm afraid it will not work. > >Anyway, in his brief conclusion, D'Souza proposes basically that we >eliminate affirmative action on the basis of race and sex, and >institute it where it makes more sense. Specifically, for university >admissions, recognize that getting an 'X' on the SAT verbal means one >thing if the student went to a school in a wealthy district and had >enough $$ to take "How to whiz the SAT" courses; and means another if >the student had to work full time in high school, and went to an >inner-city school in a poorer district. > This could be an argument for eliminating SAT's altogether. If the best thing we learn from the SAT is the school that one went to, or whether ones parents had money to buy one a computer, or whether one goes to segregated inner-city schools; why bother with the test? Why don't we just go ahead, make the rich (disproportionately white and disproportionately male) pay more taxes to hire more teachers, improve the buildings, provide bilingual education, provide financial aid for college, and make them points of light shine? or do `we' need another excuse to keep excluding black, latinos, women, and the disproportionate number of poor among them from access to equal opportunity?--after all if the test say `they' are not qualified to be in college it has to be true...`they' must not be... We have a fairly good idea of what the predictors of college attainment are. Again, I agree that economic class is central but how is that an argument or a policy to eliminate gender and racial exclusion? Are you saying that SAT's are biased in terms of social class (and by bias I mean that a given score does not predict the performace of one group as well as that of another not that the probability of getting one score versus another differs by group) but not in terms of gender and race? Does D'Souza present any kind of evidence to this effect? I might have missed it. D'souza's argument is that women and latinos are not qualified and their continued visibility in the campuses is evidence of the deterioration of admissions standards. This is inane. His inferences do not come from carefull research and they do not reflect the available data. He trivializes what is a very complex problem (viz. the interaction between gender, economic and racial stratification and demographic changes in the composition of the student population) and makes the sweeping suggestion that the observed inequality in outcomes is more a function of what women, and persons of color, don't posses (SAT's) rather than a function of a long standing and well entrenched practice of subordination and exclusion of minorities and women from `high places'. Affirmative Action, which is a policy about ensuring access, not bending relvant standards, is attacked under the argument that any possible way on actively ensuring access- by neccessity- `bends standards'. One can either question the capacity of blacks, latinos, and women to fill a proportional number of positions in the academy or, in the absence of proportionality, one can question whether it is the criteria used to allocate people into positions in the labor market that is itself suspect and should be more carefully examined. C'mon, just look around: University presidents, deans, tenured professors, graduate students. Do you see the pattern, notice the predominance of a certain color and a certain gender and a certain `class background'? is this pattern due to the fact that blacks, latinos, and women are less qualified??? D'Souza answer is yes. I think otherwise. >In any case, the book is a good read and has some fine critiques and >ideas. > I disagree. The book a racist and sexist attack on the increasing presence of women and minorities in the academy. Netters should read for themselves. Another one in the long history of apologetic books put out by professional ideologues that confuse the interaction between individual and society and end up blaming the victim while attempting to appear victimized. "don't believe the hype"... tato@ellis.uchicago.edu The Gems of Western Thought I (Aristotle teaches on power hierarchies with the aid of convoluted logic): " Also, as regards male and female, the former is superior, the latter is inferior; the male is ruler, the female is subject. " - Bk. I, ch. 4 1254b, lines 10-15 Aristotle's Poetics
gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) (04/27/91)
# When I hear such "data", I suggest affirmative action by income level. # Instead of giving priority by sex, give priority to the applicant with # non-sexist AA program. In article <1991Apr25.131335.1@dev8a.mdcbbs.com> rivero@dev8a.mdcbbs.com writes: >True, but it will remove the last vestige of meritocracy from our >system of work incentives. After all, why should I work my way through >college, and put in overtime at the office if the underpaid party animal >high school dropout sitting next to me gets priority in hiring? 1) If after all of that he is as qualified as you, then what's wrong in that? 2) Think what affirmative action does now for women and minorities who know that they don't have to work as hard as an asian male to get the job.
robert@ncar.UCAR.EDU (robert coleman) (04/27/91)
In article <1991Apr25.131335.1@dev8a.mdcbbs.com> rivero@dev8a.mdcbbs.com writes: > >In article <672079231@lear.cs.duke.edu>, gazit@cs.duke.EDU (Hillel Gazit) writes: >> In article <1991Apr15.145023.7239@psych.toronto.edu> >> chris@psych.toronto.edu (Christine Hitchcock) writes: -> ->>or the way in which women's earnings remain around 64% of men's, -> -> When I hear such "data", I suggest affirmative action by income level. -> Instead of giving priority by sex, give priority to the applicant with -> the lowest income. *If* the above data is correct then it will be a -> non-sexist AA program. - -True, but it will remove the last vestige of meritocracy from our -system of work incentives. After all, why should I work my way through -college, and put in overtime at the office if the underpaid party animal -high school dropout sitting next to me gets priority in hiring? - -Michael Hillel did not explain his idea as clearly here as he has in the past. The idea was that when two people are *equally* qualified, choose the one with the lower salary. The high school dropout party-animal is unlikely to have the same qualifications as you if you've been to college and work lots of extra hours. If woman and blacks have been prejudiced against in the past, however, even if they have the same qualifications, they would likely have a lower salary. This system would then have the same general affect as a race-or-gender-quota-system, except that people of the "oppressed" classes who haven't been "oppressed" wouldn't benefit, and people of the "oppressor" class who haven't benefitted from being an "oppressor" wouldn't be automatically excluded. Wait, that means that this would be a non-sexist, non-racist system, by any definition! It also means that it would re-introduce meritocracy back into the system, where currently race-or-gender-quota-systems are open to the abuse of accepting the lower qualified person because they have the right doodads. Robert C. -- ---------------------------------------------- Disclaimer: My company has not yet seen fit to elect me as spokesperson. Hmmpf.
gannon@MDI.COM (Alden Gannon) (05/02/91)
In article <1991Apr27.005737.22242@informix.com> uunet!infmx!robert@ncar.UCAR.EDU (robert coleman) writes: > Hillel did not explain his idea as clearly here as he has in >the past. The idea was that when two people are *equally* qualified, >choose the one with the lower salary. The high school dropout >party-animal is unlikely to have the same qualifications as you if >you've been to college and work lots of extra hours. > If woman and blacks have been prejudiced against in the past, >however, even if they have the same qualifications, they would likely >have a lower salary. This system would then have the same general >affect as a race-or-gender-quota-system, except that people of the >"oppressed" classes who haven't been "oppressed" wouldn't benefit, and >people of the "oppressor" class who haven't benefitted from being an >"oppressor" wouldn't be automatically excluded. Wait, that means that >this would be a non-sexist, non-racist system, by any definition! > It also means that it would re-introduce meritocracy back into >the system, where currently race-or-gender-quota-systems are open to >the abuse of accepting the lower qualified person because they have >the right doodads. I have an argument against Hillel's "AA by Income" program. Let me present a hypothetical situation likely to occur under AAI. Let A be a recent college graduate in field X, whose income during college was lower than B's (also graduating in field X). A and B were both successful students, and apply for a relatively high-paying (for an entry level position) job requiring skill level 1. Since they both have skill level 1, A gets the job at salary $30K. The mean skill level 1 starting salary in field X is $25K. A should feel pretty good about himself/herself, right? Wrong. Let's take this further. At some point down the road, A acquires skill level 2 in field X, which commands a mean $30K in the industry (A is already getting $30K), and finds himself/herself looking for a job again (the company had financial troubles, A had to move, A was unsatisfied, etc.). A will quickly find that A's $30K salary is a detriment. A can't get skill level 2 jobs, because applicants with skill level 2 who got $25K jobs right out of college will be favored. Further, A can't get skill level 3 jobs, because A will be screened on qualifications, not salary. Even worse, A can't even step back and take a skill level 1 job, because qualified entry-level candidates surely have had a lower income than $30K. By this system, A couldn't even get a job flipping burgers at Burger King (a skill level 0 job). I call this blatant discrimination against people skilled enough to get a high-paying position in their field. The reason this breaks down is that Hillel suggested varifying income level through the IRS, which only has *last year's* data. A would have to go through an entire year of unemployment before IRS data would make A competitive with skill level 2 applicants. What's worse, in the year spent without work, A's skills have slipped back to skill level 1 (albeit a highly competitive skill level 1). Now simply re-run the scenario ad infinitum. A, the best in his/her field, has to retire in a skill level 1 position, spending half of his/her working life without a job. Pretty bleak, huh? -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alden B. Gannon, a.k.a. Zarathustra. INTERNET: gannon%mdi.com@uunet.uu.net "Gotta find a woman be good to me, USENET: ..uunet!mdi.com!gannon Won't hide my liquor, try to serve me tea." --Grateful Dead.
hans@ncar.ucar.EDU (Hans Johnsen) (05/03/91)
In article <1991May1.165702.21235@MDI.COM> gannon@MDI.COM (Alden Gannon) writes: >I have an argument against Hillel's "AA by Income" program. [complicated situatiopn deleted] The situation you propose made me think of a simpler one which would probably occur more often (in the US at least). Two University graduates graduate with the same degree and the same GPA. Student A's parents paid for their education, except that the parents were well connected and the student got good summer jobs. Student B on the other hand had to work part-time all through college, as well as taking summer jobs. Student A's experience is slightly higher quality, but student B has more experience (most of it unrelated). Their experience levels are judged to be roughly equal. Student A (from the rich family) would get the job because student B earned more money. Now in this situation, student B should get the job for two reasons: 1) To achieve the same GPA while working part time means that s/he is probably more talented. 2) S/he had the lower 'real' income when the gift of tuition by the parents is considered. That being said, I think that AA by income *background* is a very good idea. But, like all good ideas it has some bugs to be ironed out. p.s. this probably doesn't belong in soc.feminism anymore. If someone could suggest an appropriate place to move it to it would probably be appreciated. [talk.politics, perhaps. But it isn't *completely* inappropriate, not yet. --CTM] -- ------------------ Hans Johnsen (hans@Software.Mitel.Com) ------------------- In Dr. Johnson's famous dictionary, patriotism is defined as the last resort of the scoundrel. With all due respect I submit that it is the first. - Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
gazit@cs.duke.EDU (Hillel Gazit) (05/08/91)
In article <1991May1.165702.21235@MDI.COM> COM (Alden Gannon) writes:
#At some point down the road, A acquires skill level 2 in field X,
#which commands a mean $30K in the industry (A is already getting
#$30K), and finds himself/herself looking for a job again (the company
#had financial troubles, A had to move, A was unsatisfied, etc.). A
#will quickly find that A's $30K salary is a detriment. A can't get
#skill level 2 jobs, because applicants with skill level 2 who got $25K
#jobs right out of college will be favored. Further, A can't get skill
#level 3 jobs, because A will be screened on qualifications, not
#salary. Even worse, A can't even step back and take a skill level 1
#job, because qualified entry-level candidates surely have had a lower
#income than $30K.
You assume that A's extra education/experience has no influence
on his qualification, an assumption that I don't accept.gannon@MDI.COM (Alden Gannon) (05/08/91)
In article <673368117@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.EDU (Hillel Gazit) writes: >In article <1991May1.165702.21235@MDI.COM> COM (Alden Gannon) writes: >#At some point down the road, A acquires skill level 2 in field X, >#which commands a mean $30K in the industry (A is already getting >#$30K), and finds himself/herself looking for a job again (the company >#had financial troubles, A had to move, A was unsatisfied, etc.). A >#will quickly find that A's $30K salary is a detriment. A can't get >#skill level 2 jobs, because applicants with skill level 2 who got $25K >#jobs right out of college will be favored. Further, A can't get skill >#level 3 jobs, because A will be screened on qualifications, not >#salary. Even worse, A can't even step back and take a skill level 1 >#job, because qualified entry-level candidates surely have had a lower >#income than $30K. > >You assume that A's extra education/experience has no influence >on his qualification, an assumption that I don't accept. I understand you to mean that A can compete for skill level 3 jobs. Good point, Hillel, and you win half of the argument with it. However, what about blind luck? A gets the $30K job right out of college for no reason besides there being no outstanding applicants. Now, A is unfairly disadvantaged. A is average, but has a "less than average" chance of getting the next job. Also, there was another post proposing differences in affluent and indigent college students, which I thought was a pretty good argument. How do you answer that one? [Note to moderators: Although this thread has adopted an abstract example ('A' instead of Black/Woman/etc.), I believe any debate on AA fits squarely in the realm of feminist issues.] -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alden B. Gannon, a.k.a. Zarathustra. INTERNET: gannon%mdi.com@uunet.uu.net "Gotta find a woman be good to me, USENET: ..uunet!mdi.com!gannon Won't hide my liquor, try to serve me tea." --Grateful Dead.
gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) (05/08/91)
In article <1991May7.205934.3343@MDI.COM> gannon@MDI.COM (Alden Gannon) writes: >I understand you to mean that A can compete for skill level 3 jobs. >Good point, Hillel, and you win half of the argument with it. >However, what about blind luck? A gets the $30K job right out of >college for no reason besides there being no outstanding applicants. >Now, A is unfairly disadvantaged. A is average, but has a "less than >average" chance of getting the next job. 1) For some reason, the "Old Boys" (and women in AA professions...) tend to have more "blind" luck than most other people... 2) A can always ask for a lower salary, and be in the same situation as B. It is his *choice* to take the extra payment, and the extra risk. (It may surprise you, but *most* employers will be quite happy to reduce your salary. You just have to ask...)