Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!att!rutgers!mit-eddie!snorkelwacker!apple!usc!henry.jpl.nasa.gov!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!aero!travis@douglass.cs.columbia.edu From: travis@douglass.cs.columbia.edu (Travis Lee Winfrey) Newsgroups: soc.feminism Subject: Re: AA, continued Message-ID: <6634@columbia.edu> Date: 15 Nov 89 22:10:59 GMT References: <16042@duke.cs.duke.edu> <6625@columbia.edu> <190@ora.ora.com> Sender: nadel@aerospace.aero.org Reply-To: travis@douglass.cs.columbia.edu (Travis Lee Winfrey) Followup-To: soc.feminism Organization: Columbia University Lines: 136 Approved: nadel@aerospace.aero.org Status: R >[Note: followups are set to soc.men, as per Hillel's request -- AMBAR] I don't know what to do -- I don't like soc.men, it's way too busy, flame-filled, is very blaming, and has interminable discussions about guns, vans, war, etc. I unsubscribed a long time ago, and I just checked to make sure the same small clique of yahoos are posting there. [As long as the discussion is relevant, there's no problem with attempting to keep it here. Hillel is under no obligation, of course, to respond in any particular newsgroup and if two posters really want a discussion between themselves, not with the general public, I suggest e-mail as being more appropriate. Cross-posting, however, is against the charter. - MHN] I'm posting this in soc.feminism primarily because I just wanted to check on the difference between Hillel's and my view of the problem. In any case, I doubt that I'll continue this thread much longer. In article <190@ora.ora.com> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes: >In article <6625@columbia.edu> (Travis Lee Winfrey) writes: > >>Hillel, do you claim that there is discrimination based on >>race/gender, that this discrimination is wrong, but that any solution >>seeking to redress these wrongs should not ask about race or gender? > >Exactly. > [...] >I say "fine with me, write and *publish* your requirements and we will >check them using *small* random samples". Every AA program that I've >heard about asks about the race/sex of every applicant. IMO they ask about >race/sex because the decisions are based on race/sex and not on >that ideal non-sexist set, and this is discrimination. Ok, that's fine. This means that we're not ever going to see eye to eye on this problem. I will restate what you said means to me, what I think your beliefs might be: Discrimination exists in our society, gender- and race-discrimination, to name two. This discrimination has existed in most of recorded history, and is undeniably present in our culture today. We have further decided that the abilities of the individual are paramount, and that any discrimination based on any attributes other than ability are wrong. Although this wrongful discrimination may appear at any time between any two (or more) individuals, any legal examination of a particular case of alleged discrimination will *always* be wrong because it will necessarily take note of the race, gender, etc., of the two participants. The same is true of any program that actively seeks to eliminate discrimination. Therefore, any laws against discrimination must themselves always be wrong in the same sense that discrimination is wrong, because these laws will need to use the information that is itself invalid to use, namely, the precise status of the participants. The intent of the laws is irrelevant, because they will discriminate themselves, and this is always wrong. Is this what you believe? >It was repeatedly claimed that the Verbal test discriminate against women >because there are questions which are based on technical knowledge. >Let's assume that the claim is true. No, this is an incorrect recounting of the facts, if you're referring to the more recent battle in the courts. Verbal tests against women are alleged to be discriminatory because they determine scholarships and admittance into college. This is based on the invalid assumption that standardized testing is an accurate predicter of academic ability. Men do better on standardized tests in high schools, but women go on to make better grades in college, as they did in high school. The discrimination lies in the fact that rewards are based on a metric that men will excell, but the metric does not correlate to later performance in college, the intended basis of giving scholarships and admitting people to the more elite schools. What you have recalled are really claims against *minority* performance on standardized tests, where cultural and class differences are said to explain a portion of the difference between minority and non-minority scoring patterns, e.g., vocabulary tests that really measure class usage. For the most part, men and women will share the same cultural and class backgrounds, so gender will not correlate to the decline in test scores. >There are two ways to fix it: >1) Add some points to the score of women. >2) Ask more about "feminine" subjects. Gee, I don't know. If you started asking about tampons on the SAT at the high school I went to, there'd be a riot. Actually, Hillel, this are solutions irrelevant to the types of problems that have been uncovered with test scores. If one's college grades correlate well to high school grades, and SAT scores don't, then grades should be made a primary factor instead of SATs. SATs don't need to ask about "feminine" subjects, whatever those might be. >>Although this thread seems to veer off into the wings, I do want to >>correct your mistaken impression that the 1929 Depression was caused >>by insider trading, > >That's not what I had said. You claimed that people like Boesky were the problem before the 1929 Depression. Since Boesky was brought up on charges of insider trading, I don't know what else you could mean. >>or that insider trading is a failure of Capitalism per se. > >The basic axiom of capitalism is that if everyone works for his/her >benefit the society in large benefits from it. > >The inside traders worked for their benefit, and the society in large >was harmed by it. Since the old capitalist system had permitted it, it >had been a failure of the old system. Again, this is very interesting (although entirely misguided about the nature of capitalism). You've made an unsubstantiated claim of societal harm by insider trading, one phrased so strongly that you view laws against insider trading as perfectly natural. The lack of any laws against it was a "failure of the old system," so this area must be regulated. But, as any trader not too coked out to grab you by the lapels will tell you, this is government interference with the capitalist system, this is not right, this is socialism! You're telling one person who knows about a upcoming, unannounced trade or merger that he or she can't make money off it. I don't want to make the hypothetical trader's point any more (particularly since I don't agree with it), but instead point out the contrast between your active solution in one case of societal harm and your indifference in another. That is, there are substantial harms claimed of a society that discriminates based on gender, but you're always been totally opposed to any interference with this normal process as being morally wrong -- even though you have admitted the claims of discrimination are just. Why is government interference ok in insider trading, but not in hiring or college admittance policies? You've claimed ``society at large'' is harmed, but I doubt very much you can prove this with any more rigor than harms caused by gender discrimination. You seem to be permanently outraged by the alleged injustices of Affirmative Action laws and programs, but other types of socialist interference by the Government pass by you without any comment. You didn't even blink: "insider trading is wrong, it should have been banned." t Arpa: travis@cs.columbia.edu Usenet: rutgers!columbia!travis