Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!topaz!ll-xn!nike!ucbcad!ucbvax!brahms!weemba
From: weemba@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Wimpy Math Grad Student)
Newsgroups: net.women,net.sci
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Why are there so few [female|black] physicists?
Message-ID: <14838@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Sun, 13-Jul-86 02:43:16 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.14838
Posted: Sun Jul 13 02:43:16 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 14-Jul-86 00:59:24 EDT
References: <1970@brl-smoke.ARPA> <320@rtech.UUCP> <2064@brl-smoke.ARPA> <14816@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <2164@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: weemba@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Wimpy Math Grad Student)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 30
Xref: watmath net.women:11262 net.sci:1228

Generic spelling flame: I don't know who started it, but several other
people and myself have been spelling harassment with two r's.

In article <2164@brl-smoke.ARPA> gwyn@brl.arpa (famous net.police.dog.awardee) writes:
>In article <14816@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> weemba@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Wimpy Math Grad Student) writes:
>>This is amusing, Doug, highly amusing.  So you realize AA as being unfair
>>in sense X and thus ought to be rejected, while telling the potential ben-
>>ificiaries to put up with harassment and other unfairnesses in sense Y?
>
>That is an attempt to put words in my mouth that I never said nor implied.
>I have NOT told anybody I think they should put up with harassment and
>other unfairness.  I even suggested some specific actions that might be
>appropriate to counter them.

Yes, such great recommendations like transfer to another school?  Sorry,
Doug, but that's the same as putting up with the status quo in my book.

Or how about *complain* about not getting a chance, as opposed to actu-
ally getting a chance?  There's a wide enough middle group and gray area
of talent that it really doesn't matter *who* gets selected from it, from
the point of view, say, of university admissions and resulting overall
quality.  There's a myth that everyone can be ranked by SAT scores or the
like, and one just takes the top XXX, and that way one is "fair".  Frank-
ly, considering that SAT scores have a +/- 50(?) accuracy attached, and a
strong positive correlation to family income , there is no basis for even
choosing among the middle by *any* objective "fair" means.  So what's wrong
with being generous to minorities in the process?  It's not as if quality
is going to drop or anything, Ayn Rand notwithstanding.

ucbvax!brahms!weemba	Wimpy Grad Student/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720