regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) (06/29/85)
>From alice/jj > A lot >of individuals from "disadvantaged" backgrounds are indifferent (I DO >NOT SAY predisposed) to criminal acts, because they see the law >as only another power beyond their control that exists to >keep them in their place. Did you know that one of the stronger, more cohesive voting blocks in our populice is that of black females? I wonder why all their indifference takes them to the polls in greater numbers than other identifiable groups? Must be the _double_ disadvantage of their backgrounds that has a reversing effect? >My objections to AA are simple: > 1) The person hired because of a quota, who knows it, is >being reinforced in helpless behavior, NOT in positive behavior. > 2) The person displaced is encouraged NOT to accept, rather >to reject. I'd be interested to know how many people are told that they are hired to fill a quota, and in how many cases that is true. We have a handicapped programmer on our staff, which probably fulfills some sort of quota, but this person was hired because of his skills. We also have *gasp* females who work in this office, but they look the same to me, and work according to their personalities. I'd be hard pressed to figure out which of them were hired just to fill quotas and which were hired because they could do the job -- which probably doesn't matter to the person out of a job because of Them, does it? Yet, would either these women or the handicapped, or the blacks, browns and red with pink spots be working here if AA had never been thought of? I don't know. Presuming they still had been able to acquire the skills, even (which is presuming a lot), I don't know. But I can guess. > The only advantage of AA, as Martin Taylor has pointed out, >is the effect of a better life on the next generation. I can't shrug that >off as of no account, if the next generation learns to be less hopeless, >and more positive in approach, something HAS been gained. I'd agree, if you'd replace "The only" with "An". > I think that such can be accomplished without AA, through >education, counciling, etc. I don't say that it's fast, >but I feel (perhaps incorrectly) that effects that are understood >by those who are benefitted are much more long lasting, and less likely >to be subverted. The ability to fight back on an even basis is >essential to self-confidence. To this also I agree, but it's just one prong of a complex attack. It doesn't serve anyone to put all your strategic eggs in one basket. Multiple approaches speed up the process. So, we implement a quick, short-term process (AA) and a slow, long-term process (education, etc.) and we cover more bases. > AA damages the employees, employers (also important, >since they DO provide the work and product to keep your >standard of living where it is, guys), and the public, in several >important ways. Providing the employer with a healthy, >effective, employee helps everyone, including the employee. No, not true. AA does not damage employers. It forces them to do their work differently. So does enforcement of anti-pollution laws. Please, let's not go into measuring "damage" on the basis of economic viability, since it's elementary to show that any employer would be economically better off if we went back to the slave system, too. Different doesn't mean damage. I don't agree that it damages employees because I've never met ANYONE in the 13 years I've worked who chose to not perform because of AA. I could be wrong in that, and lucky in my work environments. And I see no harm to the public, either. There are some angry people out there, maybe, but there were angry people out there before AA, too; they just happened to be angry people of a different color or sex. About the same number of angry people, too. >How to decide who to help? I don't know. I think it's safe >to say that nobody does. Nobody _knows_ but some people have _tried_. AA is one tool among many. Some work better than others. Sitting on our hands is one of the least effective. Adrienne Regard
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (07/01/85)
>/* regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) / 5:51 pm Jun 28, 1985 */ >I'd be interested to know how many people are told that they are hired to >fill a quota, and in how many cases that is true. We have a handicapped >programmer on our staff, which probably fulfills some sort of quota, but >this person was hired because of his skills. If so, then why have quotas altogether? You can't defend quotas on the grounds that they don't make a difference anyway. Mike Sykora