Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!ucsd!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!ora!daemon
From: geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu (Gordon E. Banks)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: AA, continued
Message-ID: <1989Nov9.182513.10539@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu>
Date: 9 Nov 89 18:25:13 GMT
References: <6561@columbia.edu> <8910300440.AA23901@uunet.uu.net> <2883@cbnewsd.ATT.COM> <7152@cs.utexas.edu>
Sender: ambar@ora.ora.com
Reply-To: geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu (Gordon E. Banks)
Organization: Decision Systems Laboratory, Univ. of Pittsburgh, PA.
Lines: 18
Approved: ambar@ora.com

In article <7152@cs.utexas.edu> turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) writes:

>Conspicuously absent from Ms Anderson's list is: (g) applying
>weaker admission/employment/entrance standards to minority
>candidates.  While (a) through (f) might not hurt white males,
>(g) can hurt everyone who is judged by the normal standards. 

>While affirmative action includes all the things Ms Anderson
>lists, it also includes (g), and it is (g) which has generated
>all the furor over reverse discrimination. 

Perhaps it was omitted because while minority applicants have poor
preadmission credentials, women usually don't.  In fact their grades
(the best correlate of college & med school performance) usually are
better than those of the boys.  In the academic world, it is not until
you get to the phase of your career where the number of papers
published matters that you would have to start making exceptions for
women's qualifications.