I would like to post my reaction to some recent sentiments
expressed in this newsgroup which I paraphrase...
One poster (Dean Lee) trotted out the old arguments supporting
hiring quotas. To wit, it's been so unequitable for so long that
placing sex or race above achievement is justified, and
anyway, we need some role models to attract under-represented
classes to the sciences.
Another poster (Rae Nishi) wonders whether women should be held
to the same level of scrutiny in tenure decisions because of their
child-bearing/rearing responsibilities.
I find these thoughts disturbing, and especially so when
viewed in tandem. They could easily lead to hiring the less
qualified, followed by promotion with lowered expected levels
of achievement. I find this most disturbing because of my love
for science. For me, wonderful and elegant science is like a
beautiful symphony, with many different accomplished musicians
working together to produce the ultimate work of art. In my view,
this musical metaphor is particularly germaine here. Many
symphonies place their auditioning musicians behind a curtain
so that only the quality of their music is at issue. Because,
after all, if you hear a botched presentation of Mozart's Requiem
Mass, will you really be assuaged if the orchestra is racially
and sexually balanced? And how can a poor violinist be a
quality mentor?
However, I don't want to overstate my case. I would very much
like to be part of the generation of scientists that makes
science more accessible to truly capable individuals who seek
to contribute. But I think this must be done very carefully,
with an eye constantly cast toward the effects on the capability
of the scientific community as a whole. Rae Nishi, in her posting,
broached the idea of work quality vs. quantity. I agree with
her that this is an idea of immense potential value which should
be explored further.
Your thoughts please,
J. David McDonald, Ph.D., Assistant Professor
The Wichita State University
Department of Biological Sciences
