Received: from copland.udel.edu (copland.udel.edu [128.175.13.92]) by csf.Colorado.EDU (8.7.6/8.7.3/CNS-4.0p) with ESMTP id PAA05439 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 1997 15:35:44 -0600 (MDT) Received: from localhost (jmccorke@localhost) by copland.udel.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA06154 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 1997 17:35:44 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 17:35:44 -0400 (EDT) From: Jill Ann McCorkel To: Sociology Graduate Students -- International Subject: Re: You're In Serious Denial -Reply In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 24 Jun 1997, Jonathon E. Mote wrote: > of the ways we might try to find "objective" evidence might be to identify > the following according to gender/race: differentials in pay, frequency (or > lack thereof) of publications and presentations, distribution of editorial > boards, distribution of faculty (particularly at "prestigious" universities), > et al. I would think it is possible to come up with any number of similar > variables. But Thomas' argument would still persist--revealing the existence of differential pay structure and specialty/job segregation would not demonstrate whether an individual was tracked into or "chose" the lower pay job. This is why I am inquiring as to what constitutes the substance of "objective" data. This thread on tracking is remarkably similar to the present Supreme Court's unwillingness to use the existence of race/gender differentials as evidence of discrimination. I'm sure we're all aware of the consequences of this--the failure of traditionally marginalized groups to show their present status is the result of discrimination (or social structure for us sociologists) results in another legitimation of the status quo--a status quo which benefits and entrenches the interests of dominant groups. Jill McCorkel Univ. Delaware