[238] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Re: What can we do?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Shamik Das)
Fri Apr 27 12:28:03 2001
Message-Id: <200104271626.MAA07605@super-colon-blow.mit.edu>
To: rjones@pobox.com
Cc: mit-talk@MIT.EDU, ifc-talk@MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 27 Apr 2001 10:52:15 EDT."
<200104271452.KAA27764@starbase.mit.edu>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 12:26:51 -0400
From: Shamik Das <shamikd@MIT.EDU>
Richard> ... From illegally stealing mailing addresses...
Ray> Not true, from what I was able to find out from tech archives.
Ray> They were given the mailing addresses by people at some FSILG(s).
FSILGs aren't permitted to release the list to third parties. Whether
the Extropians innocently asked FSILG friends for copies or pulled
strings with FSILG friends who didn't care so much about rules is an
open question as far as I know.
Richard> Recognizing subtle racism and sexism requires considering the
Richard> intent of such words. Engineers and scientists dislike
Richard> evaluating intent; instead they focus on the straight "facts"
Richard> of what was said and give the offenders the benefit of doubt.
Richard> Thus they easily play into the hands of those who manufacture
Richard> the "facts" to sound less biased.
Ray> There's a good reason for taking this approach. Intent is a
Ray> fuzzy concept, hard to evaluate without becoming emotionally
Ray> attached to a particular view. Observing actions is a better
Ray> indicator of philosophy, usually, since it filters out those that
Ray> are just talk.
Nevertheless, scientific judgments are the only judgments based solely
on facts and well-defined concepts. "Hard to evaluate" isn't sufficient
grounds for ignoring this particular data.
In addition, actions and results aren't sufficient grounds to make
judgments in instances of racism or sexism. If an individual or
corporation exhibits statistically-measurable bias in, say, hiring, does
that imply racism or sexism? No. Clearly any racism or sexism will
become evident in what is done with the new data; this is tantamount to
knowing the intent of the individual or corporation to begin with.
As for the mailing, imagine you find yourself having just told your
minority or female MIT classmate that you believe some portion of the
minority/female MIT population didn't deserve to have been admitted
since they hadn't been held to the same standard as white males. Perhaps
you might then imagine yourself telling this person, "Of course I didn't
mean you personally." The question is, why should that person have been
offended? And why are you apologetic? From a factual standpoint, clearly
either the person has the merit to be here or doesn't. Moreover, if this
person is a good friend of yours, he or she probably won't take
offense. But the point is that I doubt that sort of reaction would be
based on some time-weighted statistical analysis of your past offenses.
All but the most self-assured incoming freshmen question the validity of
their admission. The Extropian mailing *to these freshmen* stating that
(a) they seek membership from the intellectual elite and (b) they
believe that minorities and women at MIT disproportionately do not
qualify for this category is inherently racist and sexist. It is one
thing to believe that MIT employs lower standards for admissions for
minorities and women. It is another to combat the administration with
data, if it exists, supporting this belief. It is a third thing entirely
to target members of that minority with the message that they are more
likely than others not to belong. This is racist and sexist, and it is
about as subtle as this very sentence.
Shamik
