eklhad@ihnet.UUCP (K. A. Dahlke) (07/11/85)
I have been working for AT&T (a very progressive company in terms of AA)
for three years, and I have participated in some of the AA programs here.
I perceive three separate (reasonable) goals for AA:
1. Make the work environment more productive and pleasant.
2. Satisfy the government's absurd quotas.
3. Improve society as a whole, in the long run.
Since AA programs are primarily established and implemented at the department
level, they very considerably in emphasis and efficacy.
Goal #1 is often attacked via AA meetings, where awareness is raised
(i.e. white males are given a guilt trip).
There are some benefits, but I believe such meetings are counterproductive.
It turns many away from AA, reducing participation in worthwhile programs.
It draws attention to the very groups you are trying to integrate.
Nobody's attitudes will change because of meetings.
Instead, I would like to see quick decisive action taken when discrimination
(or reverse discrimination, they both exist) occurs.
By action, I don't mean "you discriminated!!! shame on you".
Rather, I would approach it "that is not an acceptable way to treat
a co-worker." Many become so defensive when accused of discrimination,
that nothing can be accomplished after the accusation.
You may look for discrimination, but when you find an inappropriate action,
treat the action itself. Ignoring the technical contributions of a woman
is wrong; not because she is a woman, it is just wrong.
Besides, discrimination is so hard to prove, you wouldn't
get anywhere anyways.
For the one in a thousand that rigidly opposes company policy, fire him/her.
I suppose this is more EEO enforcement than AA, but I just don't believe
attitudes change very easily. Sometimes, forcing certain behavior patterns
actually works, while other programs *rarely* change adult minds.
The second goal does more harm than good, and ideally, should be eliminated
at the source. In the meantime, it forces companies to
spend extra resources finding qualified minorities, or hire tokens
(which may be cheaper in some cases).
AT&T *cannot* be blamed for the distribution of the students
entering engineering, and eventually applying for engineering positions.
Despite this, AT&T makes a substantial effort to recruit qualified minorities,
and I have been pleased with the company's success.
It works for AT&T, because minority engineers are not *extremely* rare.
Other companies are not so lucky.
Of course quotas, like many government programs, distort the
value of jobs and employees inappropriately. The gap between educated and
uneducated minorities is increased, since demand for educated minorities
has been artificially increased.
It is so common to treat the symptom, rather than the cause.
And it is so easy to blame the "big bad companies".
The third goal, like the first, is laudable, and is also difficult to achieve.
I believe education is, by far, the most important factor restricting
equal opportunity. For this reason, many programs address education.
Groups teach courses in computers and engineering, provide tutors,
present minority roll models to show students that success *is* possible,
judge science fairs, etc.
Of course, we concentrate on schools where the need is greatest.
I believe these programs have positive effects,
although the long-term nature of these benefits makes assessment difficult.
In short, saying yes or no to AA seems too general.
Some aspects of it disgust me, while others seem valuable.
Perhaps, by AA, some opponents mean the rigid AA policies outlined by our
government. Any comments?
--
main(){ printf("I believe I have free will, therefore I must."); }
Karl Dahlke ihnp4!ihnet!eklhad