White men still dominating science posts

[peonyu]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/01/16/women.professors.ap/index.html


"""""OKLAHOMA CITY, Oklahoma (AP) -- White men still dominate university professorships at the nation's top science and engineering schools, even where many of the doctoral students are women and minorities, according to the results of a survey released Thursday.

Women hold between 3 percent and 15 percent of full professorships in science and engineering at the schools surveyed, according to the report written by Donna J. Nelson, a University of Oklahoma chemistry professor who has written several studies on women and minorities in science.

As a result, women can earn their degrees without having a woman professor or even having access to a female faculty member, according to the survey.

"Women are less likely to go into and remain in science and engineering when they lack mentors and role models," the survey said. "When female professors are not hired, treated fairly and retained, female students perceive that they will be treated similarly."

In some instances, the percentage of female students far outweighs the proportion of professors of the same gender, the survey showed. For example, 48.2 percent of students earning bachelor's degrees in math were female, but only 8.3 percent of math professors were women.

Black, Hispanic and American Indian women have even fewer professorships than their white counterparts, according to the survey. For instance, it found no black, Hispanic or Indian women who were full professors at any of the top 50 computer science departments."'"""



Apparently racism in America has yet to be tackled in areas of higher learning, this is very discouraging news.

 

[Moonbear]

Okay, things are definitely not equal yet, but I don't necessarily think it's an issue of inequality in hiring practices. First of all, it does take quite a long time to move up from assistant professor to full professor, so it doesn't surprise me those numbers are still very skewed...the full professors are the people who were hired 15 or more years ago, and includes those who are well past retirement age but still insisting on working, so it will just take a while before the younger hires work their way up to those higher ranks. The same with administrative positions. In the past 10 years, I've seen a pretty dramatic shift toward more women as dept chairs, simply because now enough women have started to work their way up to where they are eligible for those positions.

If I had to name one thing that's likely the biggest deterrent for women entering academic research positions, it's that the hours you need to put in at the beginning of your career, when still trying to obtain tenure, are not compatible with also trying to start a family. In most careers, you start out slow and acquire additional responsibilities and work hours as you gain experience and there are pay increases that match it. In academics, the heaviest burden is on the front end, where you need to prove your productivity. You start to think anyone only working 80 hours a week is lazy, and your salary is pretty much a joke. So, a lot of women coming out of graduate programs decide they want to have children and that just doesn't work easily with an academic career, so they choose other careers that allow them to have their families and their sanity too. Some women manage to juggle it all, but it's tough and requires a really good support system...spouse, family, friends, housekeeper...who can help out with the other things you don't have time for.

 

[peonyu]

Then Affirmitve action needs to be applied. Just as AA has to be applied in factories and Government jobs to make sure minorities are given the chance for employment, the same should be applied to Universities and the Professors that they staff.

So the fair thing to do is to Lay off 25% of the White professors, and replace them with Black and Hispanic professors to ensure a diverse and equal oppurtunity environment, just as what is done in all other professions.

 

[adrenaline]

If I had to name one thing that's likely the biggest deterrent for women entering academic research positions, it's that the hours you need to put in at the beginning of your career, when still trying to obtain tenure, are not compatible with also trying to start a family. In most careers, you start out slow and acquire additional responsibilities and work hours as you gain experience and there are pay increases that match it. In academics, the heaviest burden is on the front end, where you need to prove your productivity. You start to think anyone only working 80 hours a week is lazy, and your salary is pretty much a joke. So, a lot of women coming out of graduate programs decide they want to have children and that just doesn't work easily with an academic career, so they choose other careers that allow them to have their families and their sanity too. Some women manage to juggle it all, but it's tough and requires a really good support system...spouse, family, friends, housekeeper...who can help out with the other things you don't have time for.

This is true in part. I don't think there is any prejudicial hiring practices, although some may still exist. However, it is interesting that a lot of women who would otherwise choose science field go into the field of medicine where, with the exception of a few specialities, a minimimum of eighty hour work weeks are required. My work week ranges from 80-100 but I am lucky that I have a husband who is a full time dad and "domestic engineer". I think as women and men's role change and adjust to our modern work day environment, we will see more women in the upper ranks of academia as more and more supportive husbands foregoe "aggressive careers" to shoulder the equally important but for less pay of raising the family.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Originally posted by peonyu
Then Affirmitve action needs to be applied. Just as AA has to be applied in factories and Government jobs to make sure minorities are given the chance for employment, the same should be applied to Universities and the Professors that they staff.

So the fair thing to do is to Lay off 25% of the White professors, and replace them with Black and Hispanic professors to ensure a diverse and equal oppurtunity environment, just as what is done in all other professions.

A modest proposal!

 

[Moonbear]

Originally posted by adrenaline
However, it is interesting that a lot of women who would otherwise choose science field go into the field of medicine where, with the exception of a few specialities, a minimimum of eighty hour work weeks are required.

Yes, a lot of those science majors go into medicine. I wonder if that's because women are still raised to be nurturers, which makes medicine a more appealing field? I don't think academic science is something very many people are cut out for, men or women...not because of what you need to know, but more about the sort of personality traits required to succeed. The distinct advantage of medicine over academics is that in the long run, it is possible to afford either good childcare or having one spouse home to raise the child (though, of course this doesn't start until post-residency). If it is the nurturing side of the field that appeals more to women, though, then it may just be a matter of letting them see the nurturing side of other professions. The thing I like about research is the opportunity to teach. Not just in the classroom, but all day. The whole nature of an academic lab is that we're continually training young scientists, and I find that to be very rewarding (until they decide to go into medicine...nothing wrong with that choice, just sometimes you see someone come through who has a real special talent for research and you wish would keep doing it, and they still don't).

The part about needing role models and mentors is probably partly true too. But I don't think women necessarily need other women as mentors. Men can make great mentors for women too. My mentors have been men, and I'm still in academics. The key is that I've really chosen them carefully (yes, one can choose your mentor as much as your mentor chooses you). Each mentor I've worked with has had a specific area of strength that I have learned from. One was very involved in outreach, getting the message out to the public of what's important about our research (many scientists shun this task because of the way the media tends to twist and exaggerate things), another was an excellent teacher, both in his lab an in the classroom, and really helped me build those skills, and the third had a real knack for administrative resonsibilities and navigating the political atmosphere of universities. Of course I also learned from them the usual stuff...how to do research, how to write grants, how to get papers published, stuff like that. Those who don't consider what they can learn from their mentor other than science really aren't as well prepared to go out and work independently.

I need to go now, but have another area to discuss that I'll need to return to later...that of the proverbial mens room conversations, and how women can make sure they have the same discussions without needing to barge into the mens room (there's some truth to that, but also a lot of myth).

 

[adrenaline]

Originally posted by Moonbear
Yes, a lot of those science majors go into medicine. I wonder if that's because women are still raised to be nurturers, which makes medicine a more appealing field? I don't think academic science is something very many people are cut out for, men or women...not because of what you need to know, but more about the sort of personality traits required to succeed. The distinct advantage of medicine over academics is that in the long run, it is possible to afford either good childcare or having one spouse home to raise the child (though, of course this doesn't start until post-residency). If it is the nurturing side of the field that appeals more to women, though, then it may just be a matter of letting them see the nurturing side of other professions. The thing I like about research is the opportunity to teach. Not just in the classroom, but all day. The whole nature of an academic lab is that we're continually training young scientists, and I find that to be very rewarding (until they decide to go into medicine...nothing wrong with that choice, just sometimes you see someone come through who has a real special talent for research and you wish would keep doing it, and they still don't).

The part about needing role models and mentors is probably partly true too. But I don't think women necessarily need other women as mentors. Men can make great mentors for women too. My mentors have been men, and I'm still in academics. The key is that I've really chosen them carefully (yes, one can choose your mentor as much as your mentor chooses you). Each mentor I've worked with has had a specific area of strength that I have learned from. One was very involved in outreach, getting the message out to the public of what's important about our research (many scientists shun this task because of the way the media tends to twist and exaggerate things), another was an excellent teacher, both in his lab an in the classroom, and really helped me build those skills, and the third had a real knack for administrative resonsibilities and navigating the political atmosphere of universities. Of course I also learned from them the usual stuff...how to do research, how to write grants, how to get papers published, stuff like that. Those who don't consider what they can learn from their mentor other than science really aren't as well prepared to go out and work independently.

I need to go now, but have another area to discuss that I'll need to return to later...that of the proverbial mens room conversations, and how women can make sure they have the same discussions without needing to barge into the mens room (there's some truth to that, but also a lot of myth).

You bring up good points. I especially agree with the fact that women don't necessarily need female role models as long as the male role models are as supportive and empowering and not discriminatory in their treatment of females. In medicine, the surgery specialties are still fraught with this type of attitude but it is changing. Faculty status in any university ,and not just the sciences, are so fraught with politics, many women may have the belief (wether real or not) that the good ole boy network will still be a big impediment. I also think medicine allows for more flexibility for a woman. If academia and research is all you want to do, then one can do this full time.(That's the path most of the MdPhDs) seem to choose. If part time teaching and research as well as private practice appeals to you, then voila the medical institutes usually accommodate. There is also autonomy knowing that if my attending faculty and I don't get along or the research funds dry up, I can go right back to full time private practice. There is some financial independance, but here in Georgia, a faculty academia doctor makes less than most plumbers and chiropractors along with a huge debt burden and increasing malpractice premiums approaching 6 figures. My husband made more than I did per year without a college degree until he gave up his fabrication business to take care of our daughter full time. (But that's another story.)

 

[Beren]

"Women are less likely to go into and remain in science and engineering when they lack mentors and role models,"

I was showing this article to a friend of mine, a female going for a Ph.D, and her reaction rather startled me. She said "So what?" about the point of the article, and the only thing that irked her was that section. Why can't a female scientist look up to a male scientist?

In her words "If Female scientists start *****ing and moaning it's only going to widen the gap that's not even noticable now, anyway"

 

[peonyu]

Can we get back to the topic ?

I have four questions here on how this problem may be solved in the best way :

1-What steps do you think should be taken to lay off 25% of the White Professors and replace them [most importantly] with Black and Hispanic professors of either sex ?

2-Should they be expected to train their new replacements as well [this is the main way of AA hiring right now and it seems to work] ?

3-Should the % of White Professors to get layed off be increased to make way for some strictly female professors ?
Say a increase from 25% to 40%, leaving 15% solely for Minority Females ?

4-Should there be room made for White and Asian Female professors, or just minority Male and Female professors ?



I need some answers since I am doing a minority history/minority opression course in School and would like to include some of the answers.

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

I think its unfair to lay off a percentage of white professors. Just because they are white doesn't mean they got the job because of that. Some probably did but its strange to lay off a percent. Just replace the worse workers with whatever better workers are avaliable. If that makes 75% of the whites gone or if it makes 2% gone. Its about qualifications not race. Removing 25% of whites could also be considered a form of racism really if they happened to be more qualified.

Just what I think.

 

[selfAdjoint]

I need some answers since I am doing a minority history/minority opression course in School and would like to include some of the answers.

Consider that white males are a minority. Wouldn't laying them off in favor of minorities and women (women are an absolute majority) be counted as "minority oppression"?

 

[peonyu]

Well, I learned in the class that we as whites have hisorically opressed all races of humanity, and that we do that to do this very day.

We do that both consciencely and sub-consciencly. We just can't help it because our culture [or maybe race, one of the students said that there may be a 'racism' gene in us] has a deep down belief that we are the superior race, so the only way to remedy this horrible problem is for us to give to minorities what we have stolen through both power, and racism. That is - JOBS. Even the best jobs need to be diverse so that we can get familiar with other races and cultures so that we won't think lowly of them [as has been ingrained into us from our culture] and will raise our children to be race-unaware and diversity loving people. So Professors need to become diverse aswell, a lot of our most respected leaders are Professors and seeing NO diverse black or latino Professors in the top 50 is a alarming situation. It sends a negative message to minority children that they will never make it because they are not white, and so they will buy into the underlying racism against them and begin believing it themselves.

That is the issue here. We have been holding down minorities, specifically latinos and blacks [asians don't count since our culture thinks high of them for some reason] since our very first encounters with them, and we owe them because we are white.


So I am sorry, but those answers won't cut it since they are anti-affirmitve action [anti black?] and don't help minorities.

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

I don't think we owe anyone because we are white. I don't perform racism actions. I don't cheer when people are racist. I don't need to suffer because some person who is white did something to another racial/ethnic background. To say all whites should suffer because of the actions of some could be considered racism.

Blacks for example have bad people like any other race. If we say they are all bad because of one person that's wrong. To say everyone should have to suffer for the faults of a race is wrong. To separate the races from white to black is supporting the fact they are different. To say people shouldn't even thing of other races differently and then say that other races should get jobs because they are that race is contradictory. Most importantly though I don't think its right to refer to whites as *we* in the terms of a character trait such as being prejudice. We are all different people. To stereotype a person in a set category because of actions of others is racism in my mind.

Just my crazy opinion again. Good conversation going here.
BTW don't take any of my comments in offense. There not meant to be offense. Sometimes in discussion mode I can get carried away.

 

[Nereid]

Hmm, last time I was there, the overwhelming majority of professors in Chinese universities seemed to be 'Asian'; there were very few 'whites' and no 'blacks' or 'hispanics' or 'American Indians'. I should imagine it's much the same in India.

Perhaps the AA solution would be to have white male professors in the US go to Asia, Asian female professors to go to South America, and African professors (male and female) to go to the US? And those in Europe could all swap places among themselves, and go to Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, South America, etc.

Seriously, isn't freedom of movement of 'labour' the answer?

 

[Moonbear]

Originally posted by peonyu
Well, I learned in the class that we as whites have hisorically opressed all races of humanity, and that we do that to do this very day.

Then your teacher is a racist. Should any individual be blamed for the misdeeds of their ancestors? Should any individual be blamed for the misdeeds of someone else of their same race? Of course not. Conquering racism is about recognizing individuals for their uniqueness and eliminating generalizations about them due to their skin color. Whether you're making these generalizations about those of African or Latin American or European descent, you're still making generalizations, which is racism.

So Professors need to become diverse aswell, a lot of our most respected leaders are Professors and seeing NO diverse black or latino Professors in the top 50 is a alarming situation. It sends a negative message to minority children that they will never make it because they are not white, and so they will buy into the underlying racism against them and begin believing it themselves.

First, reread your original post. It cited that there were no black, Latina, or Native American WOMEN in the top 50 computer science departments. It didn't refer to ALL science departments, all universities, or men of those races. The point of your original post was about the preponderance of men over women in the sciences.

Second, why should this send a negative message that they can't make it? If someone has the perseverance required to be successful at a university, they will look at this as a challenge to prove they CAN do it.

Third, in the specific example of computer science departments, the problem begins long before the stage of hiring faculty. Undergraduate programs in computer science are overwhelmed with male students. Women just haven't shown as much interest in that major. I think this is slowly changing with more computer science courses at the high school level and more accessibility to computers at younger ages, but even when I was in high school, there may have been one or two girls in the computer science classes, even when there was closer to a 50/50 ratio in the other advanced math and science classes offered. My generation is the current wave of new faculty, so even in this time when universities are hiring plenty of women and minorities, the computer science departments are going to be lagging behind due to a lack of applicants. I would predict it's going to take another 10 years before there is a sufficient pool of women and minorities starting to trickle through to start applying for faculty positions in computer science departments.

So I am sorry, but those answers won't cut it since they are anti-affirmitve action [anti black?] and don't help minorities.

Being anti-affirmative action is not synonymous with being anti-black or anti-minority. Indeed, many minorities consider affirmative action itself to be racist. It implies that they cannot get a job based on their own merits, but need some sort of lowering of standards to qualify. Of course there are also huge variations in how affirmative action is applied. In some cases, such as the recently publicized University of Michigan admissions policy, affirmative action does exactly that, it assumes minorities aren't competitive on their own, so will boost up the rank of an applicant just because of the color of their skin. In other cases, it simply states that if two applicants are in all other respects equally qualified for a position, and there is only one position, then a minority applicant should be offered the position to diversify the program, or, it ensures that someone is overseeing the selection process so that someone who is better qualified and a minority is not turned down because of their minority status.

It's also not the least bit reasonable to consider firing senior faculty to replace them with minorities or women. We're not talking about something where you can just pluck random people off the street to fill these positions, we're talking a lifetime of work and training to reach that level. In case you aren't aware of what it takes to get to a full professor position in the sciences, here's a rough timeline. Four years of college, 2 years for a master's degree, 5 years for a PhD (some can take 7 or more years, 5 is a low estimate), 3-6 years post-doctoral training, 5-7 years as an assistant professor, another 5-10 (or more) years as an associate professor with tenure, then finally full professor, at which time you become eligible for consideration as a department chair. If you slack off at any stage of the process, you don't advance to the next level. So, when you're talking about professors in the top ranks at universities, you're talking about people who were entering college 30 or more years ago, at a time when very few women and minorities were even applying to colleges, let alone science programs. When you see old film clips of college students protesting...anti-war, pro-civil rights, pro-women's rights, whatever...those are the people who are in full professor positions right now, and they are now in the position where they can make those changes happen, and they are doing just that.

It's rather humorous that you ask if they should be training their replacements. In fact, that is exactly how academics works. In a university research lab, the full professors help mentor junior faculty and train graduate students and post-docs who will eventually apply to faculty positions to become professors who will train graduate students and post-docs.

I think another, somewhat separate but related, issue is that of the snobbery in our society. It seems success is equated with what one does to earn a living, and if someone isn't a doctor, lawyer, corporate vice president, or university professor, many members of society look down upon them and what they do, and look down upon them as lesser people. Personally, I have great respect for those people who will get up every morning before the sun rises to collect trash on the hottest days, the coldest days, in rain or snow, just so they can support themselves and their family. And, I certainly appreciate that my trash gets collected. I've also seen this with custodians. Some of the people I've worked with just don't give them the time of day. They are still people and if they didn't do their job, I couldn't do mine, so I give them the same respect I'd give to my department chair (some days more respect...but that's a whole different story). That is how you conquer racism, sexism, classism, etc. You give each individual equal respect for fulfilling a needed role in society.

 

[TENYEARS]

Genral Response

No one dominates anything, what does it take to break fish out of the bowl? Meaningless garble, desire is what creates action. These are meanlingless facts, to spew them reminds me of a someone who is awaiting something in the mail. Is it there yet? It becomes a fixation until one cannot see the forest through the trees. In a small period of time, great movement has been made for all peoples. As for the educational profession, think please. Turn over rate and over all positions? Great equality has been inbeded in the children of today, by the time they reach working class greater and greater proportions will be achieved.

Some changes which I will not go into here on this forum are detrimental, and will cause the accelerated destruction of society as we now know it. It is happening all around you, can you see it's nature? What is it? One tool, that is all that is being used here. Can you see it? Go back into the fog please. Ignorance is bliss, until you run into the wall at full speed becuase you were dreaming and your eyes were closed will you realize it is there and then it will be to late. Just because you did not realize that you partook and caused it does not mean it did not happen. The realization usually comes the resulting action comes full circle, and by then, it is to late. That's ok, pain will awaken you. Is there one among you who understands these words? Or is it dead wood to be stored on the servers.

 

[mark1]

Then Affirmitve action needs to be applied. Just as AA has to be applied in factories and Government jobs to make sure minorities are given the chance for employment, the same should be applied to Universities and the Professors that they staff.

america today is not like the south during the jim crow era. minorities are given equal chances of employment already. it is not right to let underqualified minorities get accepted into programs before qualified non minorities.

So the fair thing to do is to Lay off 25% of the White professors, and replace them with Black and Hispanic professors to ensure a diverse and equal oppurtunity environment, just as what is done in all other professions.

why? those white professors worked very hard for a long time to get to where they are today, and it is wrong to lay them off just because they are white. that is reverse discrimination.

Well, I learned in the class that we as whites have hisorically opressed all races of humanity, and that we do that to do this very day.

We do that both consciencely and sub-consciencly. We just can't help it because our culture [or maybe race, one of the students said that there may be a 'racism' gene in us] has a deep down belief that we are the superior race, so the only way to remedy this horrible problem is for us to give to minorities what we have stolen through both power, and racism. That is - JOBS. Even the best jobs need to be diverse so that we can get familiar with other races and cultures so that we won't think lowly of them [as has been ingrained into us from our culture] and will raise our children to be race-unaware and diversity loving people. So Professors need to become diverse aswell, a lot of our most respected leaders are Professors and seeing NO diverse black or latino Professors in the top 50 is a alarming situation. It sends a negative message to minority children that they will never make it because they are not white, and so they will buy into the underlying racism against them and begin believing it themselves.

That is the issue here. We have been holding down minorities, specifically latinos and blacks [asians don't count since our culture thinks high of them for some reason] since our very first encounters with them, and we owe them because we are white.

So I am sorry, but those answers won't cut it since they are anti-affirmitve action [anti black?] and don't help minorities.

you should write whatever you need to write for that class in order to get a good grade, but you should know that your teacher is a racist, and what s/he is telling you is wrong. there is no discrimination of females and minorities in higher education. if a certain department has few female and/or minority faculty members, it is because either

#1: females and minorities aren't interested in that subject

#2: females are interested in that subject, but they don't enter it because the effort it takes to become a professor takes away from time that is needed to start and raise a family, which they consider a higher priority

therefore, it is not a problem that most science professors are white males, since that group of people is more interested in science and are willing to put more effort into science than other groups. any minority ofr female that has the brains and puts in the effort can become as sucessful as white males in science.

to end off my post let me give a quick example of the unfairness of affermative action. right now, i am majoring in biology and i am hoping to enter into medical school in the next few years. i am a white male. let's say i submit my application to a certain medical school with a 3.8 GPA, 3.6 science GPA, 36 MCAT score, one summers worth of voulenteer work at a hospital, another summers worth of undergraduate research in biology, and an EMT certification. let's say an african american man, who went to the same college as me, submits his application to the same medical school, with a 3.0 GPA, 2.8 science GPA, 28 MCAT score, no research, no voulenteer work, and no EMT certification. let's say for arguments sake that there is one spot left for the new incoming class, and the only two people who applied and were not accepted yet were me and him. is it right for the medical school to choose him over me because he is black and i am white? why should i be punished because of my skin color? just because years ago, blacks were discriminated against and were enslaved by white people, it doesn't mean that today, i should be discriminated against in favor of a black person.

i am not a racist. i respect women and minorities. i just think that they shouldn't get it any easier that white males today because of injustices done to them in the past. the playing field should be equally level for people of all races and genders.

 

[Moonbear]

Originally posted by mark1
i am not a racist. i respect women and minorities. i just think that they shouldn't get it any easier that white males today because of injustices done to them in the past. the playing field should be equally level for people of all races and genders.

Yay! Yes, that is exactly what equality means. I fully agree. We shouldn't be penalizing this generation for the mistakes of the previous generation. Instead, if we just recognize the mistakes of the past and do our best not to repeat them, then we have a chance at truly realizing equality. Shifting discriminatory practices from one group of people to another only continues to widen the divide rather than break down the walls of racism.

 

[Evo]

Originally posted by Moonbear
Yay! Yes, that is exactly what equality means. I fully agree. We shouldn't be penalizing this generation for the mistakes of the previous generation. Instead, if we just recognize the mistakes of the past and do our best not to repeat them, then we have a chance at truly realizing equality. Shifting discriminatory practices from one group of people to another only continues to widen the divide rather than break down the walls of racism.

I completely agree. Years ago at a company I worked for, they were forced to abide by EEOC rules. They had to have a certain percentage of minorities or face stiff penalties. So they stopped hiring caucasians. It got ridiculous. They had so few employees in critical positions that they had trouble running the company, but there was nothing they could do.

I agree that "black" slavery was different than the slavery among "whites" that has gone on since the beginning of time (the number of black people enslaved is a drop in the bucket as opposed to the number of white people that have been enslaved) but it is easier for a freed white slave to merge into regular society than a freed black slave.

However, randomly sticking unqualified people into jobs just because of the color of ther skin was a ridiculous, thoughtless, and harmful way of trying to make ammends.

 

[Tsu]

I, also, completely agree. I'm very tired of seeing good, qualified white men (or women for that matter) discriminated against in favor of minorities and/or women. Back in the mid '80's, one of the colleges in the LA area replaced their science department head with a black woman who had a degree in - PHYSICAL EDUCATION! This was AA in action! Of course, the science professors were stunned. This woman did not have a clue about running a science department, but she got the job because she was a black woman. There were numerous extremely qualified men and women in the science department but they were all overlooked because of AA.

 

[adrenaline]

Opponents of affirmative action need to recognize that "equality of opportunity" is not nearly as simple as it sounds. But supporters of "affirmative action" have to understand its limits.
This limit has to be clearly limited, otherwise, it too can easily end up as precisely the kind of routine labeling and treatment according to race, ethnicity etc. that it was meant to expunge. . The question is where the limits ought to be. Of course, you may ask, why limit, why not eliminate?

Affirmative action has always been understood to be an temporary practice. Considering equality of racial rights has only been legally gauranteed for about 30+ years out of the 208 years of constitutionally ratified legal slavery, it may be too soon according to some. Thus, affirmative action has been tested in less than a full generation.

It hastened desegregation and its purpose was to erase the lingering effects of past discrimination but not to reserve jobs, spots in schools, etc. for one group or another permanently!

It is good to see that the Supreme Court, although, not completely eliminating affirmative action, has begun to stress these limits on its use.



Who doesn't want to live in a color blind society or sex blind society and to base everything on merit? But we don't. Prestigious school admissions still look at alumni standing and donations of the parents, so unless this is eliminated, a more inferior caucasion will be equally admitted under the umbrella of their parents donations and alumni status. etc etc. as the minority admitted under the umbrella of affirmative action. Fortunately for the former, society does not hold it against him or her. I realize this is a small example and using academia once again, but you get the gist.

Affirmative action is an imperfect solution for an imperfect world.

Personally, I think that it is not necessary in the Northeast, Midwest,or west coast. However, as one who lives in the South, I still see blatant racism! I have been on admission committees for our medical school and seen a Black Westing House Science Award winner, varsity swimmer and state champion with A averages as a physics major from Cornell university passed over for a white football player from University of Georgia with B+ average as a economics major! In this case, something must be in place that will allow an equally or superiorly qualified black applicant the opportunity to reach his or her goal!

Don't forget, if it wasn't for affirmative action University of Berkely would be all Asian! (just kidding)

Academia is also different from the real corporate world, Numerous studies show that equally qualified resumes differing only by race, whites were offered jobs anywhere from 20 percent to 45% more.

http://www.metrocouncil.org/doing_business/DBE/dbenterprise/DBEMay02.pdf

http://www.duke.edu/~mh31/RaceEffects11.18.03.pdf


Historically, women make better students than men overall,(behavioral or social? who knows) and academia entry is no longer a problem for women, in fact, women comprise the majority in colleges now. The historical choices of science vs. liberal arts is also narrowing as more women are not discouraged from these fields. http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2000/quarterly/summer/6cross/q6-1.html.

The corporate world is different. True there are less CEOs due to the choice of family over jobs but many women out there are willing to forgoe family, etc. to put in the hours and labor required for the job but are still skimmed over. One of our best female neurosurgeons who perfected the transsphenoidal approach for pituitary tumor removal, Susie Tindell never had kids because she knew that she would never be home to take care of them. Men traditionally don't have to make that type of decision of career over family.


I will never forget Charles Drew, the black scientist and doctor, who literally invented and perfected the science of blood transfusion and saved millions of lives. http://www.princeton.edu/~mcbrown/display/charles_drew.html

He did not get his medical degree from an American Medical school (instead he had to go to Canada) and died in the South due to loss of blood after an auto accident since the hospital would not give white blood to a black man, although he was aggressively treated by surgeons during the operation. Newspaper accounts said that the hospital nearest the accident refused to admit Dr. Drew because of his race, and that precious time was lost in taking him farther down the road to a black hospital. Whichever is true, it is still appalling that this could happen within the last half of 20th century.


Most whites are not working in places under government order to bring in blacks, and most whites aren't in the running for more selective schools where affirmative action is most controversial. Add the fact that people of color are indeed still a minority in the country, and only a sliver of this minority are seeking positions with selective schools and professions, and you can conclude that the fears about affirmative action are irrational at the least.

Abuses of affirmative action exists, but to no greater degree than what privelage, money and status has abused in the past and present...just look at Bush.

 

[hitssquad]

Yes, blacks really do have higher incomes than whites

Originally posted by adrenaline
Academia is also different from the real corporate world, Numerous studies show that equally qualified resumes differing only by race, whites were offered jobs anywhere from 20 percent to 45% more.

Yet, blacks throughout the IQ bell curve make generally three times what whites do, g for g.

http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/e-l/vwp?.dir=/&.src=gr&.dnm=Figure11.2.jpg

---
as seen in Figure 11.2, the black and white group means actually diverge with increasing SES, although IQ increases with SES for both blacks and whites. The specific form of this increasing divergence of the white and black groups is also of some theoretical interest: the black means show a significantly lower rate of increase in IQ as a function of SES than do the white means.
---
The g Factor. p469.
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24373874

Historically, women make better students than men overall,(behavioral or social

Or they take easier classes; develop less of a philosophical, and more of a superficial, understanding of their disciplines; and develop more of a cliqueish rapport with their instructors.

The historical choices of science vs. liberal arts is also narrowing as more women are not discouraged from these fields.

Or academic "science" is becoming less substantive and more superficial, hence making it a better match for females.

there are less CEOs due to the choice of family over jobs

...Or due to the facts that 1. females in the top half of the bell curve have typically lower IQs than males in the top half of the bell curve do; and 2. males are typically biologically differentiated in favor of attainment outside the home.

One of our best female neurosurgeons who perfected the transsphenoidal approach for pituitary tumor removal, Susie Tindell

...Is probably, like most females successful in science or engineering, quite masculine.

Men traditionally don't have to make that type of decision of career over family.

Neither did females traditionally have to make that type of decision of career over family. Do you think we should go back to tradition?

I will never forget Charles Drew, the black scientist and doctor,

Charles Drew was not black.

http://images.google.com/images?q="Charles+Drew"

He did not get his medical degree from an American Medical school (instead he had to go to Canada) and died in the South due to loss of blood after an auto accident

Many people die of loss of blood after accidents. Charles Drew was not the only one.

Whichever is true, it is still appalling that this could happen

42,000 people die in auto accidents every year, and the single best predictor of who will die is IQ. Maybe if Charles Drew had had a higher IQ, he would not have been in involved an auto accident in the first place.



-Chris

 

[adrenaline]

Is probably, like most females successful in science or engineering, quite masculine.

I can't help but laugh but since I know Susie Tindell quite well, she is quite feminine and petite and marrried to a handsome vascular surgeon (If that's what it takes for your kind.)

Charles Drew was not black.

Apparently, Dr. Drew was black enough that only two medical schools were available to him as a black man when he applied, Howard University and Harvard. Howard rejected him and Harvard delayed admissions so he chose McGill. Why don't you tell black history professors Charles Drew was not black. http://sa.rochester.edu/charlesdrew/cdbio.htm

Or they take easier classes; develop less of a philosophical, and more of a superficial, understanding of their disciplines; and develop more of a cliqueish rapport with their instructors.

I am not claiming any superiority of females over males, but look how utterly unscientific your assertion about females opting for easier classes! You, the voice of reason for the male sex! Where is that basis? I can account for the lack of good school preformance in boys vs. girls by offering the fact that learning disabilities are far more prevalent in boys vs.girls ie: ADHD, dyslexia etc. But this does not mean boys are less intelligent. There is no doubt differences in learning between the sexes are there, but for any individual I am not going to say a woman will always make a better linguistic translator than a man or a man a better physicist than a woman.

Eleanor Maccoby and Carol Nagy Jacklin conducted a study in 1974 that suggested no noticeable difference in overall cognitive ability. Girls exhibited very minor superiority in verbal skills, and boys exhibited very minor superiority in visual-spatial skills. Mathematics, however, were more complex.


Girls learn basic language before boys do. They speak their first words about half a month (on average) before boys do. They learn more vocabulary quicker, and they generally pronounce words better than boys. High School girls seem to be superior to boys in spelling, reading comprehension, vocabulary, punctuation and in solving analogies. Many more boys than girls have reading problems throughout all ages of development, ranging from simple problems to severe disabilities. However, boys seem to catch up to girls in language skills at about the age that they go to college.



Mathematics are, as said above, more complex. Contrary to popular belief, males are not better than females at math. Females actually show superiority during elementary school in computational ability. Males do, however, excel in mathematical problem solving ability. The perceived mathematical inferiority of females is often based on the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), which is administered to high school juniors and seniors. The SAT's math section is mostly mathematical problem solving, which accounts for the difference in scores by gender (twice as many boys than girls receive scores of 500 or more).


So, the perceived differences in intelligence between girls and boys are true, but not on the same scale as most people believe. The actual differences are very small, and may largely reflect sociocultural expectations and environmental influences rather than actual biological differences. These differences are getting smaller, and we must remember that there are always exceptions to this "rule." There will always be great women physicists and great men playwrights.


Males apparently excel in visual-spatial abilities. Beginning in adolescence, boys usually outperform girls on tests of spatial ability which assess skills such as mentally rotating figures in space and finding figures embedded within larger designs.

Neither did females traditionally have to make that type of decision of career over family. Do you think we should go back to tradition

That is not the point, not many men are willing to give up their careers and raise the family so the wife's career can forge forward. This is changing, thank goodness. My husband is a classic example, he sold a successful fabrication business so I could pursue academic medicine and senior partnership in my practice. He now concentrates on our daughter and body building and racing mountain bikes ( you can see his profile in a body building forum he belongs to, MeatheadSam http://www.ironmagazineforums.com/member.php?s=&action=getinfo&userid=6829) I suppose he has rendered himself effiminate for doing so.

 

[hitssquad]

Distal length of index finger as a mark of masculinity

Originally posted by adrenaline
I know Susie Tindell quite well, she is quite feminine

Did you compare the distal length of her index finger to the distal length of her ring finger?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,178342,00.html

 

[adrenaline]

Originally posted by hitssquad
Did you compare the distal length of her index finger to the distal length of her ring finger?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,178342,00.html




-Chris

Now I know your'e trolling!

 

[Monique]

Trolling as in fishing

 

[Monique]

Hitssquad, I don't know why you take those replies personal. If you enable your Private Messaging system under user cp we can talk further.

 

[Moonbear]

Adrenaline, you make many good points, and I agree with most of them. The main one I want to address is how temporary should affirmative action be. I do agree there was a time and place for it. To get people in the door years ago, it was necessary. I don't think we are still in that same place. I think that now, if there are still inequalities, then the solution is not at the college admissions or employment level, the solution needs to look toward why some groups of people are not pursuing certain careers, or if they are interested, why are they not competitive. These are issues that need to be dealt with much younger, work on the primary school system, providing role models for these children (for example, if a kid lives in a primarily low income neighborhood, what's the likelihood of finding many parents who are doctors or lawyers or corporate execs to come talk on career day? So, bring someone in other than parents).

In terms of universities admitting legacy students, that's just as discriminatory toward other whites as blacks. That was something I certainly faced as the first in the family to attend college, not to mention competing with students who had their college application essays written by their parents, while mine would look at my homework and tell me they wish they could help but it was way past anything they ever learned in school. The only time I ever felt I had been slapped in the face for being a woman was on one college interview for a particularly "prestigious" university where I was blatantly told the students there don't have a very favorable view of women's ability to succeed, and all of the interview questions revolved around that point. Looking back now, I know I could have requested a second interview and made quite a stink about the blatant discrimination, but I didn't know that then. Bottom line is, it never made a difference. I was just full enough of myself to look at it as their loss.

 

[Paleo-Conservative]

Are you sure some of those "white men" dominating top positions are not Jewish men as well? I have a hard time believing that Whites dominate, esp. since the smartest people I've known were not White, but Asian and Jewish, esp. Hindus who dominated the academics at my high school and college. Generally, the Whites were druggies and thugs, while non-Whites excelled. I guess this is the result of "white dysgenics," hahahahahaha.

 

[ShawnD]

Originally posted by peonyu
Then Affirmitve action needs to be applied. Just as AA has to be applied in factories and Government jobs to make sure minorities are given the chance for employment, the same should be applied to Universities and the Professors that they staff.

So the fair thing to do is to Lay off 25% of the White professors, and replace them with Black and Hispanic professors to ensure a diverse and equal oppurtunity environment, just as what is done in all other professions.

That is possibly the worst idea ever. Last semester I had an east indian professor and although he was very smart and knew what he was doing; it was extremely hard to understand what he was saying. Even when students thought they knew what he was talking about, certain words would get written down wrong because he would pronounce things in a way that made them sound like something else. For example, the word "cork" was pronounce "cock". That error made it difficult to understand a few lab procedures.

That was a really hard class because we had to get together and decode what he said in lecture class. Some guys would have certain words written down wrong and at least one of us would have the correct word. That "cock" one slipped by all of us though.

 

[Monique]

Originally posted by Paleo-Conservative
Are you sure some of those "white men" dominating top positions are not Jewish men as well? I have a hard time believing that Whites dominate, esp. since the smartest people I've known were not White, but Asian and Jewish, esp. Hindus who dominated the academics at my high school and college. Generally, the Whites were druggies and thugs, while non-Whites excelled. I guess this is the result of "white dysgenics," hahahahahaha.

It all depends on where you sample from and how large that sample is, Paleo.

 

[Tsu]

Not to mention that fact the being 'Jewish' is being part of a culture or relgion - not a 'race'. There are PLENTY of non-white Jews in the world.

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by Tsunami
Not to mention that fact the being 'Jewish' is being part of a culture or relgion - not a 'race'. There are PLENTY of non-white Jews in the world.

Except if you're Nachtwolf or Apollo

 

[Tsu]

Originally posted by Nereid
Except if you're Nachtwolf or Apollo

Oh. Yeah. That's true.
Details...

 

[adrenaline]

Moonbear,You bring up very good points. I also am a first genration college student and have felt and experienced what you have described.

As I stated, I don't believe affirmative action is necessary in many parts of the United States with the exception of the South. I still see blatant racism, and once again, Affirmative action has only been tested in less than a generation... and for those down here, not enough time has passed to undo our past atrocities.

My collegue, a black MD PhD in cardiology and chemistry was circling Georgia Tech campus in his beat up Honda civic looking for a parking space so he could go in and teach a class. The campus police thought he was suspicious and hauled him out of the car and beat the crap out of him. They barely apologized when they found out he was a professor. (They did pay for his medical bills) He never sued Georgia Tech since it was his alumni (where he got an chemical engineering degree) and he was now an Assocoate professor. This happened last year. Of course, this is also the state that fought long and hard to keep a confederate flag (designed in the fifties during the height of segregation) as its state flag and trys to stricken evolution from being taught in the science curriculum. So for those who don't believe blatant racism exists anymore, it still does. Affirmative action may still have a place here, for now...

 

[Moonbear]

Adrenaline, I think southern universities also have to deal with the unwillingness of minorities to move to those areas of the country for college. I grew up in the northeast, and besides having plenty of good "local" schools to choose from, I've known a number of people who were very hesitant to attend universities in the south, not because of racism at the university itself, but because of the racism in the community they would have to live in around the school.

There's another way of looking at affirmative action, and it all depends on the sort of program one is considering. We just recently had our recruitment weekend for candidates to our graduate program here, and among the applicants are a few minority applicants. As I went through a long day of interviewing applicants, the minority applicants certainly ranked among the top. With or without affirmative action, they'd be getting offers into our program. However, we have limited funding, so can't take everyone who applies, though we had a wonderful group come through this year and it will be tough to choose the few who we can't accept simply because we can't fund them (graduate students all come in with full tuition, stipends and benefits paid by our program). So, we've submitted applications for fellowships to fund some of our minority applicants. Those fellowships are specifically for minorities, meant as an affirmative action type thing. So, if those applicants get those awards, what it means is not just that we can bring in those minority applicants who would have been accepted either way, but it would also open up some slots to bring in a few more of the non-minority candidates who we'd have had to turn away otherwise. So, in our case, affirmative action is actually helping everyone.

 

[hitssquad]

Credentialisms gone wild

Originally posted by Moonbear
As I went through a long day of interviewing applicants, the minority applicants certainly ranked among the top.

How did you know they were "minorities"?

we've submitted applications for fellowships to fund some of our minority applicants. Those fellowships are specifically for minorities, meant as an affirmative action type thing. So, if those applicants get those awards, what it means is not just that we can bring in those minority applicants who would have been accepted either way, but it would also open up some slots to bring in a few more of the non-minority candidates

Theoretically, you could also fund the "non-minorities" with fellowships, and the result wouldn't be any different.

 

[Njection]

Opponents of affirmative action need to recognize that "equality of opportunity" is not nearly as simple as it sounds.

Proponents of affirmative action need to recognize that it is not incumbent upon anyone to support affirmative action in the first place.

But supporters of "affirmative action" have to understand its limits.

Who is going to force the supporters of affirmative action to recognize its limits? No one.

This limit has to be clearly limited, otherwise, it too can easily end up as precisely the kind of routine labeling and treatment according to race, ethnicity etc. that it was meant to expunge.

What makes you believe that affirmative action was set up to expunge "routine labeling and treatment according to race, ethnicity"?

The question is where the limits ought to be.

That is not the question at all. The question is why it is incumbent upon anyone to support AA in the first place.

Of course, you may ask, why limit, why not eliminate?

What should be eliminated.

Affirmative action has always been understood to be an temporary practice.

This is false. There are no sunset provisions that will eliminate AA at any point in the future.

Considering equality of racial rights has only been legally gauranteed for about 30+ years out

Since when has our legal system guaranteed the equality of the rights of its citizens, racially speaking, for about 30+ years?

. . .of the 208 years of constitutionally ratified legal slavery, it may be too soon according to some.

Explain to me what slavery has to do with the civil rights of Americans living in the 21st century.

Thus, affirmative action has been tested in less than a full generation.

I will return to my original point. It is not incumbent upon anyone to support AA.

It hastened desegregation and its purpose was to erase the lingering effects of past discrimination

Prove to me that the purpose of AA was to "erase the lingering effects of past discrimination."

. . .but not to reserve jobs, spots in schools, etc. for one group or another permanently!

Is that not precisely what happens when we racially gerrymander congressional districts in order to elect black representatives to Congress?

It is good to see that the Supreme Court, although, not completely eliminating affirmative action, has begun to stress these limits on its use.

There is nothing inherently "good" about the decision of the Supreme Court about AA at all. That is merely your interpretation of the decision.

Who doesn't want to live in a color blind society or sex blind society and to base everything on merit?

I am not interested in sex-blindness, colour-blindness, or meritocracies. Why should I want to handicap myself in making decisions?

But we don't. Prestigious school admissions still look at alumni standing

Alumnis can be of any race. It is not a civil rights issue.

and donations of the parents, so unless this is eliminated, a more inferior caucasion will be equally admitted under the umbrella of their parents donations and alumni status. etc etc.

See above.

as the minority admitted under the umbrella of affirmative action. Fortunately for the former, society does not hold it against him or her.

Collectives do not value anything. Collectives are simply aggregates of individuals.

I realize this is a small example and using academia once again, but you get the gist. Affirmative action is an imperfect solution for an imperfect world.

This presupposes there is a problem in the first place, one requiring a solution that is AA. Who decides what is and what is not to be a problem? I don't see a problem requiring AA personally.

Personally, I think that it is not necessary in the Northeast, Midwest,or west coast.

Why is this?

owever, as one who lives in the South, I still see blatant racism!

You obviously seem to be quite ignorant of the South and its people. The most segregated areas of America in the Midwest and Northeast, not the South, places like Livonia, Michigan. Racism occurs throughout the United States as well. It is not a Southern phenomena.

I have been on admission committees for our medical school and seen a Black Westing House Science Award winner, varsity swimmer and state champion with A averages as a physics major from Cornell university passed over for a white football player from University of Georgia with B+ average as a economics major!

So what?

In this case, something must be in place that will allow an equally or superiorly qualified black applicant the opportunity to reach his or her goal!

Actually, this is simply your own personal opinion. It is not incumbunt upon me to treat anyone "equally."

 

[Nereid]

Welcome to Physics Forums Njection!

Njection wrote: Is that not precisely what happens when we racially gerrymander congressional districts in order to elect black representatives to Congress?

Why should gerrymandering on the basis of self-(category)selections in the 2000 Census be worse than gerrymandering on any other basis? Since gerrymandering is a well established political sport in the US (and some other countries), why not make use of it?

 

[Njection]

Why should gerrymandering on the basis of self-(category)selections in the 2000 Census be worse than gerrymandering on any other basis?

If we racially gerrymander congressional districts in order to ensure the elections of Negroes to the U.S. Congress that would increase the political power of Negroes would it not? What if I do not desire to see this happen?

Since gerrymandering is a well established political sport in the US (and some other countries), why not make use of it?

Very simple. I perceive some gerrymandering as being beneficial to my interests and other sorts of gerrymandering as being beneficial to my opponents. I am not out to make the world a better place for blacks. It is not in my interests to give them another pedestal to stand on from which they can attack my culture and slander my people. They have enough of those already.

 

[adrenaline]

You obviously seem to be quite ignorant of the South and its people. The most segregated areas of America in the Midwest and Northeast, not the South, places like Livonia, Michigan. Racism occurs throughout the United States as well. It is not a Southern phenomena.

Living in the south for 11 years and working a rural clinic much of my time does not consitute ignorance of the south. Working in New York City for 2 years gives me a right to speak of New York. What you are right about is my ignorance of the Midwest since I have never lived there. In which case, it only supports the notion that Affirmative action may need to continue to be an imperfect solution for now.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have been on admission committees for our medical school and seen a Black Westing House Science Award winner, varsity swimmer and state champion with A averages as a physics major from Cornell university passed over for a white football player from University of Georgia with B+ average as a economics major!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So what?

Why would anyone put their lives in the hands of an "inferior" white doctor who made was put into the system with less brainpower than the black candidate above?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------In this case, something must be in place that will allow an equally or superiorly qualified black applicant the opportunity to reach his or her goal!---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually, this is simply your own personal opinion.

I think people who make this generalization generally are not in the position of power of making key hiring decisions in business or otherwise and still do not personally see that the old boy network, and or racial preferances influencing those in those key positions. I fight this all the time as senior partner in my business and practice and of course at the medical school. So this is not a personal opinion, this is real life experience from the "boardroom", not some opinion formulated from a distance.

 

[Nereid]

Njection wrote: It is not in my interests to give them another pedestal to stand on from which they can attack my culture and slander my people. They have enough of those already.

What is 'my culture'? Who are 'my people'?

 

[Njection]

What is 'my culture'? Who are 'my people'?

Southern culture. White southerners.

Living in the south for 11 years and working a rural clinic much of my time does not consitute ignorance of the south.

Tell me what part of the 'South' you live in. I would love to know. We have had a problem with Yankees colonizing our cities as of late.

Working in New York City for 2 years gives me a right to speak of New York.

New York City is not New York State just as Atlanta is not the State of Georgia.

What you are right about is my ignorance of the Midwest since I have never lived there. In which case, it only supports the notion that Affirmative action may need to continue to be an imperfect solution for now.

This presupposes there is a problem. Who determines whether or not there is a problem?

Why would anyone put their lives in the hands of an "inferior" white doctor who made was put into the system with less brainpower than the black candidate above?

I am not going to sit here and debate with you your own personal experiences which no one can verify.

I think people who make this generalization generally are not in the position of power of making key hiring decisions in business or otherwise and still do not personally see that the old boy network, and or racial preferances influencing those in those key positions.

Once again, even if an "old boy network" did exist it does not necessarily follow that anything should be done about it. Why should I care if blacks are discriminated against? So what? Why should I be anymore concerned with blacks suffering from discrimination than the migration of penguins on Antartica?

I fight this all the time as senior partner in my business and practice and of course at the medical school.

Why should we fight racial discrimination against blacks? Why not celebrate it instead? :p

So this is not a personal opinion, this is real life experience from the "boardroom", not some opinion formulated from a distance.

The notion that we should fight racial discrimination in order to get rid of the "old boy network" is nothing more than a personal prejudice on your part. It is not incumbent upon anyone to fight racial discrimination against blacks or care about its existence.

 

[Nereid]

Njection wrote: Southern culture. White southerners.

I guess you mean in the US, not Chile or Patagonia? Is racial discrimination or racial prejudice an integral part of 'southern culture'? What role do persons with dark skin play in 'southern culture'? How does one become a 'white southerner'?

 

[adrenaline]

Originally posted by Njection
Southern culture. White southerners...

Why should I care if blacks are discriminated against? So what? Why should I be anymore concerned with blacks suffering from discrimination than the migration of penguins on Antartica?...





Tell me what part of the 'South' you live in. I would love to know. We have had a problem with Yankees colonizing our cities as of late.

I believe you just reaffirmed most people's stereotype of the South.

I practice in two places. One in Covington, Georgia near Jackson, Georgia. (Covington as in the TV show Heat of the Night with Carol O'Conner when it was filmed here) I believe our only claim to fame. Then there's MCG, Medical College of Georgia...but you know where that is.
http://www.iris.mcg.edu/ifl/Queries/viewfac.asp?faculty=qrqppgtxp
(needs a little updating but I'm lazy)

http://www.ngh.org/PressReleases/Internal Medicine.htm

(Our practice is called Internal Medicine of Newton County.


http://www.thedocsoffice.com/index.asp and just type my name

My husband is a born and raised southerner, so you won't be getting rid of this Yankee (although I have lived in Malaysia for most my life ) anytime soon.

Christy Blanchford MD

I guess you mean in the US, not Chile or Patagonia? Is racial discrimination or racial prejudice an integral part of 'southern culture'? What role do persons with dark skin play in 'southern culture'? How does one become a 'white southerner'

It sure seems like it, doesn't it?

 

[peonyu]

Originally posted by adrenaline
Why would anyone put their lives in the hands of an "inferior" white doctor who made was put into the system with less brainpower than the black candidate above?

Could'nt the same argument be made against AA and its tendency to hire lesser educated Blacks & Latinos over White males in order to meet a set quota ?

 

[adrenaline]

Originally posted by peonyu
Could'nt the same argument be made against AA and its tendency to hire lesser educated Blacks & Latinos over White males in order to meet a set quota ?

Your assuming whites haven't been doing this all along.

Let's not forget that inferior whites have been allowed to succeed with their own affirmative action.. but it isn't called "affirmative action" -- it's just called "that's the way it goes." How did GW Bush get into harvard and yale? "Well, that's just the way it goes." How do incompetent whites with social and fraternal connections to their incompetent white superiors continue to rise up the ladder in businesses and corpiorations and government? "Well, y'know -- that's just the way it goes." This country runs on a vast network of prejudices, assumptions, and intentions that benefit white people at the expense of non-whites.



Which is another way affirmative action benefits all of us. A more educated black comunity is a more econmically successful black community that produces better educated black children -- and that creates a cycle that we would all find beneficial... unless we want to keep black people shut out of such an cycle that have benefitted whites all along... and why would anyone want to do that?


This black candidate was clearly superior. Trust me, an economics major at University Of Georgia is no where on par with a physics major from Cornell, especially since he was the only Sub A average candidate accepted.

Affirmative action is the opportunity for a equally qualified black to make it in a society that still does not allow an equally qualified or superior one to make it...

To test whether employers discriminate against black job applicants, Marianne Bertrand of the University of Chicago and Sendhil Mullainathan of M.I.T. conducted an unusual experiment. They selected 1,300 help-wanted ads from newspapers in Boston and Chicago and submitted multiple résumés from phantom job seekers. The researchers randomly assigned the first names on the résumés, choosing from one set that is particularly common among blacks and from another that is common among whites. So Kristen and Tamika, and Brad and Tyrone, applied for jobs from the same pool of want ads and had equivalent résumés. Nine names were selected to represent each category: black women, white women, black men and white men. Last names common to the racial group were also assigned. Four résumés were typically submitted for each job opening, drawn from a reservoir of 160. Nearly 5,000 applications were submitted from mid-2001 to mid-2002. Professors Bertrand and Mullainathan kept track of which candidates were invited for job interviews.
No single employer was sent two identical résumés, and the names on the résumés were randomly assigned, so applicants with black- and white-sounding names applied for the same set of jobs with the same set of résumés.

Apart from their names, applicants had the same experience, education and skills, so employers had no reason to distinguish among them.

The results are disturbing. Applicants with white-sounding names were 50 percent more likely to be called for interviews than were those with black-sounding names. Interviews were requested for 10.1 percent of applicants with white-sounding names and only 6.7 percent of those with black-sounding names.

Within racial groups, applications with men's or women's names were equally likely to result in calls for interviews, providing little evidence of discrimination based on sex in these entry-level jobs.

There were significant differences in interview-request rates among the nine names associated with black women, but not among the names within each of the other groups.

http://econ161.berkeley.edu/movable_type/archives/001253.html

hERE IS ANOTHER STUDY http://www.metrocouncil.org/doing_business/DBE/dbenterprise/DBEMay02.pdf


I am not a proponent of Affirmative action as it stands,( it is an imperfect solution for an imperfect world) but don't assume it's the only social structure around benefitting inferior racial candidates, wether they are white, black, hispanic etc.

In addition, many businesses are not constrained by AA. (I believe only government jobs) As a business owner with over a million dollars in overhead (rent alone is $25,000 a month) I am not going to give a $hit if I have a minority quota despite my liberalism. Hell, I'd hire a office manager or insurance specialist who was a member of the KKK if they had impecable referances and experience. I want the best damn person for the job. My non-physician employees number close to 20... all wanting retirement benefits, medical benefits, raises every year, bonuses, paid vacations etc. However, I probably have about equal amounts of blacks and whites, a Cambodian, (no Latinos because none have applied) and all are very productive and competant. I know I gave the best man, woman the job without consideration for their race or sex or religious preferences because my business's survival depended on it.

 

[Nachtwolf]

Originally posted by adrenaline
I believe you just reaffirmed most people's stereotype of the South.

Hahaha! Here's a question - if a black guy gets the shakes from heroin withdrawal and holds up a liquor store, do you tell him "I believe you just reaffirmed most people's stereotype of blacks," or do you say "The system is to blame! You need Affirmative Action!"

I'm telling you guys, all these problems could be solved quite rapidly and for all time if, rather than blaming whitey for their troubles, the smart black people got together and said, "You know, maybe we should have more kids..."


--Mark

 

[adrenaline]

Originally posted by Nachtwolf
Hahaha! Here's a question - if a black guy gets the shakes from heroin withdrawal and holds up a liquor store, do you tell him "I believe you just reaffirmed most people's stereotype of blacks," or do you say "The system is to blame! You need Affirmative Action!"

I'm telling you guys, all these problems could be solved quite rapidly and for all time if, rather than blaming whitey for their troubles, the smart black people got together and said, "You know, maybe we should have more kids..."


--Mark

It's a stereotype, not the truth. Almost like the comment that all blacks blame whities for their troubles...(Had to laugh since most my friends are black (my fellow mountan bike buddies) as well as collegues and I've never heard such a stereotypical blame game from them.) There are those that do,unfortunately, and they only undercut the others' efforts to rise above that. Similar to the stereotype that all whites blame the Asians and other minorities for "stealing" their jobs. It's especially a joke regarding the Mexicans, who work in jobs and conditions most Amercians, no matter how desperate, would work in anyway.

As he stated, racism is rampant in other parts of the country too. (Midwest according to him) so the South doesn't have the monopoly on that.



As for uncontrolled breeding, it's the lower socioeconomic classes, both white and blacks, that is associated with outbreeding the upper socioeconomic class.

 

[Adam]

Originally posted by peonyu

Apparently racism in America has yet to be tackled in areas of higher learning, this is very discouraging news.

Rot and piffle. Statistics of results do not show causes. After listing all that stuff about the current situation, you assume the cause is racism. Why? Are racial differences the first thing leaping into your mind when you view results? If so, I suggest you examine your own biases.