Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19970615034051.007149b0@email.rci.rutgers.edu>
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 03:40:51 -0400
To: socgrad@csf.colorado.edu
From: wayne brekhus <brekhus@rci.rutgers.edu>
Subject: Re: ratings
In-Reply-To: <970615010220_-1930483025@emout11.mail.aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Ivy,

	Thanks for providing actual research data on this issue.  I'm curious if
you've looked at new hires in the "unmarked" category (white men) as well
as the marked categories? Are white men more likely or less likely to be
hired in some situations than other groups?  If you had to make a
conclusion about the effects of "white male priviledge" and/or "minority
status" on being hired and getting promoted which of the following would
you say is most accurate:

1) White male priviledge endows new Ph.D's with significant unearned
advantages just as it did with the "Old Guard."  All other things being
equal it's best to be white and male when you start looking for a job out
of grad school.

2) The playing field has leveled at the lower levels of the academic
hierarchy, but white, male priviledge increases the higher one goes up the
hierarchy so the old boys network still rules at the top.  All other things
being equal, if you want a job out of grad school your chances are about
equally good or bad regardless of your sex and race.  It helps to have
white male priviledge if you want promotions later on, though.

3) In order not to give up their "own" white, male, priviledge while still
painting a more democratic and multicultural face on the university, hiring
committees overrepresented by "white men with tenure" are inclined to hire
new qualified women and minorities, even in some instances where the "most
qualified" applicant might be a white male.  All other things being equal,
it's best to be something other than a white male if you're fresh out of
grad school and looking for a new job.  

4) At the top the advantages go to white males.  At the bottom the
advantages go to minorities and women.  If you're an Old Guard white male
you have it made.  If you're a woman or minority the doors are open at the
bottom but the second story door is only open to a few.  If you're an
incoming white, male the bottom door is only open to a few because there
are already too many white men and not enough other folks in the building.
If you're lucky enough to get in the bottom door, though, there's an
elevator waiting to take you to the top.     
	 
	
I'd be curious to hear more about you're interesting study.  Incidentally,
do you think it contradicts the anecdotal evidence you mention, or does it
provide a bigger picture that is still consistent with the anecdotal
evidence? The conclusions seem to me to still be consistent with new
(white) male Ph.D's concerns (whether real or imagined) about being
shortchanged because of their not filling a minority criterion.  After all,
it's of no apparent benefit to them that the enduring priviledge of old
guard tenured white men means that "white men" are still faring well as an
aggregate.

Wayne Brekhus
Rutgers
brekhus@rci.rutgers.edu 


At 01:02 AM 6/15/97 -0400, you wrote:
>I can't find the original posting for this "ratings" series, but considering
>the tone of some of the postings about minority women, minority men, and
>white women, I would like to share some research with you.  My colleagues
>Joya Misra, Marina Karides and I have just sent out a paper on hiring in
>academic sociology.  We used borrowed data that did not allow us to answer
>all the questions we would have liked, but we did find some interesting
>things, including:
>
>(1)  minority women and men tend to be hired in positions *newly* created by
>the university or college -- suggesting that affirmative action has worked to
>increase minority representation among faculty *without* displacing the old
>guard; and 
>
>(2)  white women are more likely than other groups to be hired in positions
>created when someone has been denied tenure, supporting the old "revolving
>door" thesis.
>
>As sociologists, I would hope we would strive to look beyond anecdotal
>evidence about how many minority hires we've seen (and the accompanying
>speculation about their poor qualifications) and how many white men we know
>on the job market who feel they have been ripped off.  There is much more to
>the story, and it is our job to look at the story systematically and
>scientifically.
>
>Thanks, and sorry if I'm getting the "ratings" series off on a tangent, but
>in light of the postings I read, I felt I needed to balance the story.
>
>Ivy Kennelly
>University of Georgia
>
>