The allegation was that the Asian students were cheating more than the
Canadian students!
A reasonable defence to such a charge would be to argue that the bias came
through the production of the statistics on disciplinary proceedings. But
in order to sustain such a defence it would be necessary to examine the
statistics in detail. It must always be reasonable to question the
evidence first. [We must assume innocence until proved guilty. The onus is
on the accuser to justify the charge.] And only after that to question the
subject, or, as in this case, the subjects.
Getting *independent* statistical evidence would probably involve a social
survey that would enable comparison between the Asian and Canadian students
covering such matters as pressures to succeed and attitudes to exams. A big
undertaking.
The point can be generalised. If we investigate a problem as seen by an
organisation on the basis of that organisations statistics (as in this case)
then the first step should be to appraise those statistics.
IF the statistics stand up to critical examination then the next stage might
be to investigate the real world situation that might explain the
organisational statistics. But investigation of the complexities of the
real world takes much more resources than thorough examination of the
organisational statistics, and vastly more resources than the production of
those organisational statistics.
Ray Thomas, Social Sciences, Open University
Email: [log in to unmask]
Tel: 44-1908-679081 Fax: 44-1908-550401
Post: 35 Passmore, Tinkers Bridge,
Milton Keynes MK6 3DY, England
**********************************
Okay, but are we open to the possibility that in some cases, the frequency
of certain behaviors simply varies from group to group? Do we reject any
line of inquiry that might lead to such a conclusion? Consider the
following: At the University of Toronto, a few years ago, an investigation
was launched into possible systematic discrimination against "Asian"
students in the enforcement of regulations against cheating. The evidence
for such discrimination, we were told, was that Asians were
disproportionately involved in disciplinary procedings for academic
dishonesty. The possibility that factors other than discrimination might
account for this state of affairs had apparently been ruled out a priori -
although I can easily think of two: that more Asian students cheat, or that
they aren't as good at it.*
If more Asian students cheat, this could be due to enormous familial
pressures put upon them, or that they put upon themselves, for which
appropriate interventions could be designed. Perhaps there is some
relationship between this phenomenon and their elevated suicide rate.
Something helpful could be done. But this bloody pee-cee mentality makes it
impossible to rationally examine the question.
We must be open to a recognition that groups behave differently if we are
to do anything constructive about many of the problems experienced by those
groups. We cannot eliminate a possible finding of group behavior
differences out-of-hand; it is neither good science nor, in the long run,
helpful to dogmatically blame the host society for all troubles experienced
by minority groups members.
David Klein
*The second alternative implies that they be offered lessons in effective
cheating.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|