Mr. Ulrich'a comments are even more Landgrebian than his
previous ones.
For those who don't recall, Earl
Landgrebe was a Republican congressman from
Indiana in 1974. A self made man who
ran a trucking company, Landgrebe
sided strongly, if inarticulately, with Richard
Nixon during the Watergate hearings. As the
evidence against Nixon grew stronger, Landgrebe
became more truculent.
Finally, the famous "smoking gun" was found on
the Nixon tapes, and even Barry Goldwater
was advising Nixon to resign. Cornered by
some reporters, Landgrebe was asked if
the latest evidence had changed *his* mind.
"DON'T CONFUSE ME WITH THE FACTS," he
shouted, thus attaining a kind of
immortality.
Mr. Ulrich doesn't want to be confused with the
facts either. Like many administrators, he
(to quote a previous post) wants to "cut the
women a break" and be done with it.
The MIT report, with the dean as a signatory, argued
that unfair differences in salary and resources were
found, but that "salary data were not available."
[That's right. Read it in the report for yourself!]
It argued that the notion there were performance differences
between men and women would be "the last refuge of the bigot."
We found huge differences in performance, and argued that
they refute a substantial contention in the original MIT
report.
In previous posts, Mr. Ulrich tried to excuse Dean
Birgeneau with the claim that data were not totally
important. Now, he goes one step further and declares
any performance irrelevant. What he could possibly
be referring to in his final sentences is a mystery.
As for his oblique, and totally ridiculous comments
about "style," I suggest that all readers take a close
look at the MIT Report, the Kleinfeld Report, and the
Hausman-Steiger Reports, and decide for yourself
about matters of style. Mr. Ulrich is
obviously far too prejudiced to make
any useful judgments in that area.
Jim Steiger
--------------
James H. Steiger, Professor
Dept. of Psychology
University of British Columbia
Vancouver, B.C., V6T 1Z4
-------------
Note: I urge all members of this list to read
the following and inform themselves carefully
of the truth about the MIT Report on the Status
of Women Faculty.
Patricia Hausman and James Steiger Article,
"Confession Without Guilt?" :
http://www.iwf.org/news/mitfinal.pdf
Judith Kleinfeld's Article Critiquing the MIT Report:
http://www.uaf.edu/northern/mitstudy/#note9back
Original MIT Report on the Status of Women Faculty:
http://mindit.netmind.com/proxy/http://web.mit.edu/fnl/
On Tue, 13 Mar 2001 12:14:15 -0500, Rich Ulrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
<snip>
>
>And then, as I later discovered, the arguments and the
>style of the original report make Jim's criticism tenuous.
>Even if you were to illustrate how all the males have
>out-achieved all the females, by one criterion or by several
>criteria, you would not discredit the decision of the dean --
>Wasn't the report was talking more about
>'what all our faculty deserve' instead of what's earned by
>individuals? You guys have skipped that half.
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
