Melinda, On 4/12/2013 3:11 PM, Melinda Shore wrote: > On 4/12/2013 11:04 AM, Lou Berger wrote: >> While I've been very reluctant to jump on this topic, I have to ask >> what's the basis for this assertion? > > I think the numbers are pretty compelling, which is why > I think they would deserve scrutiny if there's the > possibility of remediation if a problem is identified. > > However, it's pretty clear from the tone of the discussion > so far that no remediation would be possible, and so I > actually think it's probably a bad idea to attack the > question.
> That does not mean, however, that the question > does not exist. No argument from me, I'm just asking that a comment/position/question that I don't understand be substantiated. I'm not sure if you missed my point that you cut from my mail: > A willingness to do/volunteer for a job says nothing about one's > qualifications for a job. I guess from your response that you disagree with the statement (which I thought was pretty noncontroversial). > And I don't know if you intended to or not, but what you > communicated is "The best candidates are nearly always > western white guys," since that's who's being selected. > That's a problematic suggestion. I certainly, in no way, shape, or form intended such an implication. I have not idea how one could read it that way, but clearly we all have our own biases that lead to what we imply and infer. You may have also missed that I suggested that it would be interesting to get a better understanding of the issue by comparing 'qualified' nominees vs selected. I just don't have any idea how to ascertain this number. We could ask the nomcom folks for such statistics but, of course, one would need to (a) trust the nomcom -- and I'm not implying that any do not, and (b) ensure that the information could not be related back to any particular nominee -- which I think is an issue that makes this thought and question impractical given the size of the sample pool. Lou > > Melinda >
