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