In other words, it is OK to evaluate candidates in a verbal cloud, but using a quantitative aid, separating different characteristics and giving them scores, runs the risk of being found invalid.

I agree with decision No. 1 that racial diversity is a compelling interest, and agree with the amicus curiae briefs by General Motors and others that a diverse graduating class helps companies fulfill their goals for diversified talent.

Given that, it is hard to understand decision No. 2. In my opinion this decision is based on the ill-informed prejudice against clear logical thinking and numerical methods, and the lack of understanding that good numerical methods are basically quantified common sense. It also reflects the prejudice that numerical scores are "mechanical" or "automatic," while a mishmash is "holistic."

Chief Justice Rehnquist, writing the majority opinion against the point system, noted "the importance of considering each particular applicant as an individual," saying that the right admissions process would not "contemplate that any single characteristic automatically ensured a specific and identifiable contribution to a university's diversity" and "(the point system) does not provide individualized consideration."

Justice Souter, writing the dissenting opinion, understood quantitative methods better in my view. He wrote: "The very nature of a college's permissible practice of awarding value to racial diversity means that race must be considered in a way that increases some applicant's chances for admission. Since college admission is not left entirely to inarticulate intuition, it is hard to see what is inappropriate in assigning some stated value to a relevant characteristic, whether it be reasoning ability, writing style, running speed or minority race... The college simply does by a numbered scale what the law school accomplishes in its 'holistic review'; the distinction does not imply that applicants to the undergraduate college are denied individualized consideration or a fair chance to compete on the basis of all the various merits their applications may disclose."

A sub-issue was raised as to whether the points given to blacks guaranteed their admission. Rehnquist said it did for "minimally qualified" blacks. Souter said it didn't. Justice Ginsburg pointed out that a big boost for a minority (blacks) does not significantly diminish chances for a member of the great majority. A look at aptitude scores suggests that the law school has accomplished exactly the same thing as the undergraduate school, perhaps more so, without a record providing evidence that it was consciously done.

It is hard to imagine how an admissions department that receives 25,000 undergraduate applicants a year, such the University of Michigan, can achieve a uniformly applied evaluation process by its admissions' staff without a method to break things into logical components.

The impact of the decision, according to the Wall Street Journal, is that the majority Supreme Court ruling "will force state schools that use similar numerical methods to revise them, and it could cause companies to rethink their reliance on quantitative evaluations of job applicants and employees."

It seems that we still have a job to do in educating judges (and the public) about logical quantitative methods.

While we are on the subject of the Supreme Court's impact on INFORMS' values, we ought to consider the upcoming issue of freedom of belief. Fourteen percent of Americans are agnostic, atheistic or non-religious, essentially looking for evidence in matters of the Almighty, and not finding it persuasive. This according to the impressively well-done, impartial and representative American Religious Identification Survey. Surveys find that such proportions are much higher among the scientifically trained and better educated, so it is fairly likely that this percentage is much higher in INFORMS.

But children in public schools are led in reciting the pledge that they are "under God," a phrase inserted during the McCarthy era, with the express purpose of teaching our children to believe in the Almighty.

A judicial panel of the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals found it unconstitutional. Attorney General Ashcroft reacted by appealing to the full Ninth Circuit. It decided that the panel was correct and needed no review. Ashcroft then appealed to the Supreme Court, which is now receiving preliminary briefs. Wouldn't it be better if the Pledge of Allegiance were for all Americans, not just 86 percent of Americans?

INFORMS itself requires no oath or pledge from its members, with good reason. We stand for the values of free inquiry, new information, evidence and open debate, with the concurrent freedom to change our minds. We should consider standing up for our membership and publicly agree with Thomas Jefferson, who said government has a rightful role in preventing bad deeds, but never in controlling belief.



Cary Shaw, trained at MIT and Harvard, and currently technical leader of management science at a major corporation, has served INFORMS in capacities ranging from lecturer and chapter treasurer to program chair for Practice.

Table of Contents

OR/MS Today Home Page


OR/MS Today copyright © 2003 by the Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences. All rights reserved.


Lionheart Publishing, Inc.
506 Roswell Rd., Suite 220, Marietta, GA 30060 USA
Phone: 770-431-0867 | Fax: 770-432-6969
E-mail: lpi@lionhrtpub.com
URL: http://www.lionhrtpub.com


Web Site © Copyright 2003 by Lionheart Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved.