Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!ll-xn!cit-vax!amdahl!rtech!jeff
From: jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman)
Newsgroups: net.women,net.sci
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Why are there so few [female|black] physicists?
Message-ID: <320@rtech.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 8-Jul-86 15:13:04 EDT
Article-I.D.: rtech.320
Posted: Tue Jul  8 15:13:04 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 10-Jul-86 00:40:30 EDT
References: <1970@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Organization: Relational Technology Inc, Alameda CA
Lines: 79
Xref: watmath net.women:11191 net.sci:1202

> 
>>...  Or maybe you're just saying that you care
>>only about the quality of the people in technical fields,
> 
> Quite right.
> 
>>and not about the lack of representation of women and certain minorities, ...
> 
> Yes; I believe one shouldn't categorize individuals on the basis on
> such inessentials (in the context of intellectual pursuits; these
> characteristics may of course be important in other contexts).

The problem is that women and minorities *are* categorized on the basis of
such "inessentials".  If there were no discrimination, I wouldn't have anything
to complain about.

>>...  I would find this attitude reprehensible..., for it contains the
>>hidden assumption that fairness doesn't matter,
> 
> If you think you're being fair to people by placing primary emphasis
> on their sex or race rather than on things they have had a choice in
> determining, that's just as sexist or racist as those you condemn
> for having done so (in the opposite direction) in the past.

I don't want to place primary emphasis on sex or race.  The problem is that
many people in positions of power do exactly that.  As I said above, if there
were no discrimination against women and minorities, I would have nothing to
complain about.

I think Doug is complaining about affirmative action here.  So far, the main
point of discussion has simply been the existence of discrimination in
technical fields, which is a separate issue from how one should solve the
problem.  I respect the position that affirmative action is another form of
unfairness that can't lead to any good, although I don't agree with it.  What
I don't respect is the attitude that we shouldn't try to do something about
the problem, because the sex and race of the people who get most of the
technical jobs shouldn't matter.  Of course it shouldn't!  That's the whole
point!

> 
>>or that fairness would condemn these fields to mediocrity. ...
> 
> Not what I said or implied.  The trouble with reverse sexists and
> racists is that they have trouble evaluating a discussion without
> judging it in sexist/racist terms.  It sometimes seems that they're
> on a massive guilt trip and want the innocent to share their guilt.

Nobody mentioned "reverse sexism or racism" (Doug's name for affirmative
action, I guess).  I was responding to the implication that attempting to
do something about discrimination in technical fields would be bad for
science and technology.  One reason for such a belief might be the belief
that injection of more women and minorities into technical fields would
lower the quality of people in those fields.  I apologize for implying that
Doug is sexist or racist.  I shouldn't have speculated about his motives.

> 
> Certainly, we should do our best to evaluate individuals as such and
> not as members of ethnic or other accidental groups, and we have the
> right to demand such treatment from our employers and peers.
> 
> There are much worse problems with American education and the
> professions than a historical imbalance in the distribution of
> ethnic classes among the professions.  By concentrating on the
> equally inequitable attempt to adjust these distributions, people
> are distracting attention from issues that are more important in
> the long term.  Emphasis on the individual rather than political
> pressure groups would ultimately benefit everyone.

This is pie in the sky.  It would be great if we could ensure emphasis
on the individual.  How will this happen?  There are plenty of racists
and sexists out there, and to simply say that people should judge each
other as individuals does not make it happen.  How about some proposals
for positive action?
-- 
Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.)
"Saints should always be judged guilty until they are proved innocent..."

{amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff
{ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff