A Business School memo that grouped women and African-Americans with low risk takers and persons with a low capacity for concrete thinking became a subject of controversy at the school following its accidental release on October 21.

The memo, originally intended for an organizational behavior class, was distributed by mistake after the chair of the organizational behavior department vetoed its usage due to the possibility of "misinterpretation."

Many students objected strongly both to the findings of the study summarized in the memo and to the professors' initial decision to use the findings.

"[The study] was structurally flawed," said James W. Ragsdale, co-chair of the school's representation committee. "It was based on outdated research, and that research was questionable anyway," said the second-year Business School student.

The two-page memo was a synopsis of The Social Psychology of Bargaining and Negotiation, a book written in 1975 by Professors Jeffrey Z. Rubin of Tufts University and Bert R. Brown of Rutgers University. Among the statements made in the memo was "Women tend to be more trusting of the opponent when negotiations begin, but more unforgiving of any violations of that trust."

The memo also classified various groups by their Interpersonal Orientations, or IOs. High-IO groups were whites, males and concrete thinkers as well as "persons with high need for achievement." Persons with low IOs were females, African-Americans, low risk-takers, abstract thinkers and "persons with high need for affiliation and power."

The memo was drafted by Assistant Professor Raymond A. Friedman as the subject of a three-day negotiation module.

But Professor John P. Kotter, head of the school's organizational behavior department, decided not to use the memo in the negotiation model because, he said, it was "too short...[It] left too many unanswered questions."

"I felt it could lead to too much misinterpretation," Kotter said.

Due to an administrative mix-up, the memo was distributed anyway. "This was supposed to be locked up in the file cabinet of history," said ProfessorRobert J. Robinson.

For many Business School students, the memoraised serious issues regardless of the fact thatits distribution was unintentional.

"I don't care whether it was an accident ornot," said second-year student Shannon Ferguson.

"The fact that this book was summarized in thefirst place is indicative of the way thatprofessors think around here," she said.

A number of students questioned the validity ofthe study's conclusions. "It's a summary that isnot qualified," said Dennis T. Tillman, anothersecond-year student.

"How they got their information wasn't clear."

But professors at the Business School said theysee no reason to reject Rubin and Brown'sfindings.

Kotter said, "The material on which it isbased--and I'm not a social psychologist--issupposed to be respected research...To myknowledge, there's nothing inaccurate in those twopages [of the memo]."

"I have no reason not to believe the data,"said Friedman.

Students Appreciative

All disputes about the accuracy of the memoaside, students said they appreciate the risk thedepartment has taken in openly addressing thisissue.

Among other moves, the department held anemergency meeting the day after the memo's releaseto discuss responses to the situation.

"The administration is very sensitive to theseissues," said Ragsdale