Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!agate!gazit%ganelon.usc.edu@oberon.USC.EDU
From: gazit%ganelon.usc.edu@oberon.USC.EDU (Salit)
Newsgroups: comp.society.women
Subject: Re: Organizational Structure
Message-ID: <13051@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: 5 Aug 88 19:10:37 GMT
References: <12938@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>
Sender: usenet@agate.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: People's Republic of California
Lines: 23
Approved: skyler@violet.berkeley.edu (Moderator -- Trish Roberts)
Comments-to: comp-women-request@cs.purdue.edu
Submissions-to: comp-women@cs.purdue.edu


In article <12938@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> imp@crayview.msi.umn.edu (Chuck Lukaszewski) writes:

>I have several reasons for this opinion.  First, academics are top-heavy 
>with men, and (though it's outside the scope of this letter I think men in
>power feel threatened by technically-competent women (how's that, Cheryl?))
>they can literally control your success or failure (women or men).  Because
>you need advisors to sign off on this or that, and you need thesis panels,
>and you need PAPERS, 

The most important conferences in theory of computer science are FOCS and STOC.

The committee for STOC 89 is:
Fan Chung, Cynthia Dwork, Faith Fich, Shafi Goldwasser, Debbie Joseph,
Maria Klawe, Nancy Lynch, Christos Papadimitriou, Vijaya Ramachandran,
Eva Tardos, Avi Wigderson and Frances Yao.

Two men and ten women.  
Somehow I'm not so sure that this committee is going to reject PAPERS just
because they were sent by women.  (BTW I'm not so sure that this committee
is going to reject PAPERS just because they were sent by men.  There is 
something which is call "academic integrity".) 

Hillel        gazit%ganelon.usc.edu@oberon.usc.edu