debray@sbcs.UUCP (06/04/83)
Without taking sides in the lively debate on the Affirmative Action Program in net.flame (shouldn't we move it to net.politics, where it really belongs?), I'd like to ask a question: Whether or not AAP is good or bad, it is a fact that it requires that criteria other than purely academic/professional qualifications be used to determine one candidate's suitability for a position over another's. In theory, the program will be terminated when its goals have been met. However, from what I've experienced elsewhere (re: my earlier article on an AAP-like program in India), people being helped by such programs can very well become "addicted", and politicians may very well find such programs a convenient way of wooing voters from minority groups (not to mention the fact that terminating such programs might be seen as being politically dangerous!). Clearly, one would have to come up with objective criteria that would be able to demonstrate conclusively, and to everyone concerned, that the goals of AAP had/had not been achieved. My question is: can anyone suggest criteria that might be used? Saumya Debray SUNY at Stony Brook ...philabs!sbcs!debray
smh@mit-eddi.UUCP (Steven M. Haflich) (06/06/83)
Have tried to stay out of this one, but just can't. Re affirmative action: There is some question exactly what affirmative action is all about. Two assumptions can be read between the lines of recent postings. 1) AA says that my organization must/should try for a certain quota of underrepresented groups in HIRING. 2) AA says that my organization must/should make special effort to advertise to members of underrepresented groups, and that special attention be paid to respondents from those groups. Recently I have been in charge of a `unix-wizard' recruitment effort for an employer who shall remain nameless (to everybody who hasn't the intelligence to decipher `From:' fields). Since this employer is a university doing various business with the Federal Government, we are required to satisfy EOE/AA guidelines. My understanding is that we must be able to prove that we made a special effort to make the job search known to women/minorities, and that we were careful to review the applications of all such candidates carefully, making sure (provably sure) that they were not summarily dismissed. After completing and documenting the search, WE ARE TO CHOSE THE MOST QUALIFIED CANDIDATE. To me, this is entirely reasonable. Choosing any but the most qualified candidate would be absurd. Making sure that the advertisements and search are not intentionally or unintentionally biased towards white males, which might force some slight extra expense and effort (ads in publications which are not prime sources for unix-wizards, e.g.), are hardly an overwhelming burden compared to the good they might do: Minorities and women are severly underrepresented in hi-tech, but individuals should not be excluded from hi-tech because they are members of such groups and hirers do not perceive members of those groups as likely candidates. This last is, I think, a real issue. I am old enough that, when I grew up, most girls planned on being nurses or housewives, and boys planned on `careers'. The biases we form so early are almost impossible to eradicate, even when we try. I believe AA (as I have experienced it in this search) is a justified `expense' to assure that unconscious biases and perceptions do not unduly affect an individual's chances for the job. The preceding raises a number of interesting questions, of which I extract explicitly just one for consideration: Programming is still predominantly a male field, rather like auto mechanics. (My auto shop has a very good female mechanic, but several good male mechanics...) Why is this? In the late 60's while a student (at the same university I didn't name above) I worked for IBM, and for a time my two immediate superiors were women. (One of them is indeed well known for her work on certain language design issues.) Yet, when was the last time you saw a woman `system programmer'? After 19 years in programming, I can remember exactly TWO!!! And these individuals were working on languages or something, leaving the real `systems hacking' to the guys. Upon reflection, the only women I can remember seeing using a soldering iron were on hi-tech assembly lines -- assembly line workers rather than hardware wizards. Before flaming a reply, I would like everyone to consider how many women and blacks he (or she?) knows to have built a piece of hardware or written a device driver. My point is that it is sometimes difficult to imagine that with which one is unfamiliar. The net community could long examine why minorities and women are seem so underrepresented in extremely technical positions -- probably `cultural biases' are at fault -- but certainly it is appropriate that laws (if necessary) be used to ensure that the *individual* receive a fair evaluation, free of the unconscious biases of the largely white-male hiring establishment.
geb@cadre.UUCP (02/14/85)
Several "liberal" writers seem to take for a given that affirmative action is going to improve relations between the races. There is certainly reason to doubt that. Especially among the working classes, it increases race bitterness. I doubt if any of these writers have ever had to compete with minorities in the job market. Even so, THEY may be able to get another job when they are discriminated against, but many laborers can't. It isn't just what intellectuals think that makes for good race relations, the common man has to be considered too. It also denigrates the efforts of meritorious members of minority groups. In medical school, the assumption seems to be that if you are black, you only got accepted because of AA, and if you pass, they are just carrying you. This doesn't do a lot for one's self-image, especially if you are trying to overcome a lifetime of being called names because of your race. Sure, the ones that REALLY couldn't get in without AA are "benefitted" but the real standouts never get the respect they are entitled to. In the long run, I think AA will be seen as a pernicious aberration that delayed true equality by patronizing minorities. The hidden message of AA is: if you were really equal, you wouldn't need special help.
don@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA (02/17/85)
A couple of weeks ago, gam@amdahl, replying to a "Young White Male" who was
flaming about alleged "reverse discrimination," offered some quotes from
"The Economics and Politics of Race" by Thomas Sowell. I have no bone to
pick either with Mr Moffitt, or with Mr Sowell. And in any case, this is not
really a flame, but some comments on "affirmative action," as viewed from my
own personal perspective.
Sowell reports the disquieting facts that "affirmative action," while
ostensibly designed to improve the economic position of minorities (read
"blacks") in general, seemed to have resulted in the further separation of
upper- and middle-class blacks from their less-fortunate brothers and sisters.
He draws what I consider to be some unwarranted conclusions from outcomes so
at variance with the professed goals of the program.
To a certain extent at least, Sowell subscribes to the idea of "token" blacks,
who, once on the corporate ladder, are simply pushed on up, since it would be
embarrassing to have to explain why these tokens have failed to reach the
heights of the hierarchy. I, on the other hand, basing my opinions on my own
past experiences, have reached some rather different conclusions.
Businessmen, in general, are concerned with building an organization that will
operate at a profit, providing a living for them, their stockholders, and also
for their employees; because if they don't operate at a profit, there will soon
be no living for any of them, whether businessman, stockholder or employee. To
this end, they seek people who can help them achieve their goal.
In contrast to Sowell's interpretation, I believe that the facts support the
conclusion that businessmen, in general, hold reasonable, rational perceptions
about blacks, which appear to be, in effect, that educated blacks can serve
them as well as educated whites, but that uneducated blacks are not likely
to provide adequate service, as compared to whites (or Orientals). Their
perception is not racist, but purely economic, and probably has been arrived
at empirically, based upon past experience. Business does not have any
responsibility for providing welfare to inadequate workers, of any color; if
you can't hack it, you have got to go!
Based upon my experience with black military and civilian personnel in work
situations during the past 44 years, I judge that the best blacks were, and
continue to be, the equal of the best whites, but that there is a much larger
proportion of marginal and inadequate performers among the general population
of blacks than among whites and Orientals. As a matter of fact, Oriental
workers and students generally outdo both whites and blacks, as far as their
capability, devotion to duty, and overall performance are concerned.
There is a tendency among the black underclass to equate years of attendance
at school with education. This is a misperception which is painfully obvious
to anyone who has to attempt to deal with young blacks who, according to the
available records, are honor high school graduates, but who are, to all in-
tents and purposes, functionally illiterate, and who, in addition, exhibit a
lack of the minimum self-discipline required to successfully hold down even
the most undemanding position.
What is not recognized, or admitted, is that people are not simply interchange-
able parts; each person who enters into the work force brings a personality
molded not only by his schooling, but by the mores of the social microcosm in
which he/she grew up. Many young inner city blacks have had practically no
contact with whites in any but the most casual and meaningless way, and have
had no familial role models which would furnish them guidelines about how to
comport themselves in a work situation. They often find themselves at odds
with a management that expects them (as it also expects its other workers) to
put the needs of the job ahead of their own desires and personal preferences,
and in the absence of intimate observation of how employed fathers (and mothers)
have handled such pressures, they often attribute what is simply a requirement
of the job to malice and oppression on the part of their superiors. Having
grown up in a milieu in which they were frequently unsupervised, they are self-
indulgent about how important their own needs are, in comparison to those of
their organization, with the result frequently being absenteeism, poor job
performance, and a bad work attitude.
It is small wonder, then, that the disparities reported by Sowell occur, and
that the gap between the best and the worst is widening. I will not belabor
the point, but ask yourself, do the role models of young inner-city blacks
offer anything to fit them for an ordinary job? Sports stars, musicians, and
stage and screen personalities, on the one hand (with only a pitifully small
chance of being able to emulate them), and hustlers, pimps and dope dealers
as the most visibly successful of those with whom they come in daily contact,
on the other, are not exactly models for any entry-level job with which I am
acquainted.
In the case of the young man whose flame started all of this, I find it quite
plausible that he was NOT discriminated against, but that one of that small
group of educated blacks actually beat him, fair and square, for the job he
felt was rightly his. At the other end of the scale, young inner city blacks
probably feel that they are discriminated against, when a young white man is
preferred to them, for just exactly the same reasons that the black was pre-
ferred in the former case.
Believe me, the average supervisor is overjoyed to get a well-motivated,
prompt, bright employee, and will fight to keep him, for this sort of person
is a pearl of great price, to be treasured above all! Why? Because this is
a rare individual, and it is this rarity that makes him/her valuable! The
world of work is inhabited by time-servers, by goldbricks, by marginal work-
ers of all stripes; a real self-starter, one who can grab the ball and run
with it, is not a frequent occurrence. In such a situation, race is so far
down on the list of considerations as to be almost without meaning.
The unvarnished fact of the matter is that "affirmative action" is political.
It allows politicians to show that they have "done something about the prob-
lem;" it provides a haven for middle-class whites (and blacks) who make very
good money administering it; and it deludes the unthinking into the belief in
an economic improvement that will never be achieved by such methods.
What conclusion do I draw from all of the foregoing? Primarily, that life is,
in general, a do-it-yourself project. You cannot expect that someone else will
fight your battles for you, get your education for you, protect you from your
own folly and self-indulgence. If you would be thought good and competent,
worthy of employment and preferment, you had better BE good and competent; if
you succeed anyway, ascribe it to luck, and be ready for the fall when you are
found out.
"Dh' aindeoin co theireadh e!"
Don Curry
Computer Facilities & Operations
University of California
Berkeley CA 94720 (415) 642-3043
...ucbvax!ucbtopaz!doncarnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (02/19/85)
Gordon E. Banks writes: > We can't rectify past injustice by introducing more injustice in the > form of discrimination. Injustice occurs only to individuals not to > groups. Racism is the doctrine that people can be judged and dealt > according to what racial group they belong to, rather than as > individuals. Bullshit. By this definition Martin Luther King Jr. was a racist because he devoted himself to seeking social justice for blacks, rather than being completely colorblind in all his doings. Racism is the belief that some ethnic group other than one's own should be "kept in its place" in society because of an alleged moral or intellectual inferiority. > Thus affirmative action is racist. Anyone who seriously believes this should have his head examined. Anatole France neatly skewered this type of reasoning when he wrote (approximately): "The law in its majesty forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges and to steal bread." He might have added: "...and forbids the privileged and the disadvantaged alike to benefit from quotas." The standard objections to affirmative action rest on the dubious principle that individuals should get only what they "deserve," conceived as purely a consequence of their individual character and "merit." Along with libertarianism and other forms of capitalist ideology, it is an example of how an apparently just principle is used to defend an unjust status quo. Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
renner@uiucdcs.UUCP (02/19/85)
> Gordon E. Banks writes: > > We can't rectify past injustice by introducing more injustice in the > > form of discrimination. Injustice occurs only to individuals not to > > groups. Racism is the doctrine that people can [or "should"--SR] > > be judged and dealt according to what racial group they belong to, > > rather than as individuals. > > Bullshit. By this definition Martin Luther King Jr. was a racist > because he devoted himself to seeking social justice for blacks, > rather than being completely colorblind in all his doings. Racism is > the belief that some ethnic group other than one's own should be > "kept in its place" in society because of an alleged moral or > intellectual inferiority. > -- Richard Carnes, (carnes@gargoyle) The only way MLK could be considered a racist under Gordon's definition is if he advocated that people should be treated differently according to the color of their skin. I always thought that MLK was opposed to that sort of thing. You haven't yet shown any problems with Gordon's definition of racism; you have only proposed your own. And yours conveniently excludes affirmative action. After all, racism is bad, and you approve of the stated goals of AA -- therefore, AA can't be racism. Sounds like the "taxation is not theft" argument all over again. Oh well, I don't propose to get caught up in a protracted argument over definitions, and this argument is unlikely to progress past that stage. Scott Renner {ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!renner
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (02/19/85)
In article <731@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA>, Don Curry provides some
thoughtful comments on affirmative action. I would just like to add
some observations to his.
As Curry says, there has been a tendency among minorities to approach
work with a self-centered attitude, with the job taking a decided second
place to the employee's interests and other obligations. This of course
flies in the face of American corporate culture, resulting in bad
corporate impressions of the minority employee.
However, affirmative action was intended to provide opportunities to
minorities who had ALREADY fought and clawed their way through a
biased educational system, an opportunity to compete fairly in the
business arena. Affirmative action was also intended to provide
opportunities to OTHER minorities to obtain education by increasing
access to same.
The latter has been quite successful. There are more minorities with
college level education than before. However, as Curry observes,
this does not guarantee that all minority college graduates will be
quality players in business and corporation. Why should they be?
After all, is every white college grad an overachieving corporate
soldier? Minorities, because of color and because there are so few of them,
tend to stick out. Any failure tends to be attributed to congenital
racial weakness. As pioneer blacks and women in white male culture
have noted again and again, you have to be twice as good to be considered
half as good.
In my experience, that attitude seems to be on a slow but steady wane.
I believe that affirmative action, by increasing the number of minority
members of the corporate community, has hastened this evolution
by exposing managers to the simple truth that humans are humans,
and that performance is not tied to race, but to desire. If affirmative
action has done nothing else, it has done a lot.
Marcel Simoncarnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (02/21/85)
Scott Renner writes: > You haven't yet shown any problems with Gordon's definition of racism; you > have only proposed your own. And yours conveniently excludes affirmative > action. After all, racism is bad, and you approve of the stated goals of > AA -- therefore, AA can't be racism. Sounds like the "taxation is not > theft" argument all over again. Yes, it *is* the taxation/theft dispute all over again -- that's why I'm drawing attention to it. Here's how the game is played: Adopt a tendentious definition of something generally considered to be bad, such as "theft" or "racism." Then demonstrate that efforts to establish a more egalitarian and just society, say through tax policies or AA, fulfill these definitions. Consequently these efforts are wrong because they are examples of theft or racism. Now congratulate yourself on having constructed an argument against changing an unjust status quo. Gordon Banks argues that AA is unjust because it mandates differential treatment of people on the basis of their race or sex. To this I make essentially the same response as I did to the "taxation is theft" argument: Why is it necessarily unjust to discriminate in order to reverse past injustices? Is it not a valid goal to try to find ways to better the lot of previously excluded, oppressed or enslaved groups? Affirmative action was designed to oppose and alleviate the effects of centuries of racism and sexism. The claim that AA is racist or sexist is either merely inflammatory or merely lunatic. If you are calling AA racist simply in order to tar it with the brush of racism and arouse an unthinking emotional response against it, then you're being inflammatory. If you are calling it racist because you think AA is an attempt to keep blacks in a subordinate place in society (the usual meaning of "racism"), then you're just a lunatic. So what's the point of saying that "affirmative action is racist"? Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
mom@sftri.UUCP (Mark Modig) (02/21/85)
Richard Carnes writes: .... > Gordon Banks argues that AA is unjust because it mandates > differential treatment of people on the basis of their race or sex. > To this I make essentially the same response as I did to the > "taxation is theft" argument: Why is it necessarily unjust to > discriminate in order to reverse past injustices? Is it not a valid > goal to try to find ways to better the lot of previously excluded, > oppressed or enslaved groups? Why do you think it is OK to discriminate against one particular group but not against another? You seem to be saying two wrongs make a right, and I don't buy it. If it's wrong to discriminate against any particular group on the basis of race, it's wrong to discriminate against any group. Yes, it is a valid goal to try to better the lot of previously excluded, oppressed, or enslaved groups, but, in my view, the ends do not justify the means in this case. > Affirmative action was designed to oppose and alleviate the effects > of centuries of racism and sexism. The claim that AA is racist or > sexist is either merely inflammatory or merely lunatic. If you are > calling AA racist simply in order to tar it with the brush of racism > and arouse an unthinking emotional response against it, then you're > being inflammatory. If you are calling it racist because you think > AA is an attempt to keep blacks in a subordinate place in society > (the usual meaning of "racism"), then you're just a lunatic. At one company I worked at, (not my current employer), a memo was sent around detailing my department's hiring needs for the upcoming year. This company felt that they were making a strong effort to bring minorities and women in, and prided themselves that their AA program was working well; there were often articles about it in the company paper. The memo said that the department was looking for about 9 new hires, four to be women. Three new hires were to be black, and "ideally..." at least one Hispanic. I felt that such goals or quotas were very strongly racist and sexist and had no part of an ongoing AA program. Now, which am I, a lunatic or merely inflammatory? I see nothing wrong with hiring people on the basis of their talents. Besides, this sort of thing merely perpetuates the problems it tries to correct-- "Whew, we've hired our quota of <a particular group>. Now we can really get down to hiring our kind of people." AA has laudable goals, but people (Americans in particular) are very stubborn-- "once they get an ideer in their 'ead, there's noo shiftin' it." It can be very difficult to force people to do as you want, even by force of law or company regulations (e.g., Prohibition or driving 55). You generally have a much better shot at them by trying to educate them, and get them to think differently, an aspect that many AA programs I feel, ignore almost totally. Mark Modig ihnp4!sftri!mom DISCLAIMER: This article represents my personal opinion alone, and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of anybody else, or my employer. Although my personal opinion may differ from my employers, I will continue to do my work in accordance with company regulations as long as I remain an employee.
josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) (02/22/85)
> ... efforts to > establish a more egalitarian and just society, > Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes An "egalitarian and just society" is a contradiction in terms. Carnes' idea of egalitarianism is to take money from those who deserve it and give it to those who don't (keeping a bit for yourself in the process...). The antithesis of justice. --JoSH
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (02/22/85)
> Richard Carnes writes: > > Gordon Banks argues that AA is unjust because it mandates > > differential treatment of people on the basis of their race or sex. > > Is it not a valid > > goal to try to find ways to better the lot of previously excluded, > > oppressed or enslaved groups? > > Why do you think it is OK to discriminate against one particular > group but not against another? You seem to be saying two wrongs > make a right, and I don't buy it. If it's wrong to discriminate > against any particular group on the basis of race, it's wrong to > discriminate against any group. Yes, it is a valid goal to try to > better the lot of previously excluded, oppressed, or enslaved groups, > but, in my view, the ends do not justify the means in this case. > The objection is valid. However, none of the foes of affirmative action has proposed anything concrete to undo the pervasive effects of discrimination in american society. SImply passing laws that state "henceforth there will be no discrimination" is good and necessary. But if we do nothing else it will take an approximately equal number of centuries to undo that discrimination. I argue that the pump MUST be primed. Affirmative action is an attempt to prime that pump. It is a valid tool in times of economic expansion and low unemployment, when an economy is looking for as many people to be in the labor market as possible. Affirmative action HAS had enormous positive effects. Look around you. How many minorities and women are working in your company and making positive contributions? These blankets statements ("Affirmative action means that the company hires those with inferior qualifications on the basis of sex or race") are silly. Obviously some qualified minorities and women were found, from ELizabeth Dole and Jeane Kirkpatrick down to Jane Doe down the hall from my office. ANd if you don't think these people are the result of affirmative action, ask yourself: would these people have been where they are 20-30 years ago? Marcel Simon
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (02/23/85)
In article <257@mhuxr.UUCP> mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) writes: > However, none of the foes of affirmative action >has proposed anything concrete to undo the pervasive effects of >discrimination in american society. SImply passing laws that state >"henceforth there will be no discrimination" is good and necessary. It is sufficient. See below. >But if we do nothing else it will take an approximately equal number >of centuries to undo that discrimination. I argue that the pump MUST >be primed. Affirmative action is an attempt to prime that pump. The centuries of discrimination *do* *not* accumulate. The people who were wronged long ago, and those who wronged them, are dead. The length of time it would take today's disadvantaged groups to "catch up", given equal treatment, is much shorter than that. Equal treatment would take the form of equally good education, and equal job opportunities for those with equal qualifications. Equal treatment beginning now would allow the young members of disadvantaged groups to catch up within a year or two of graduating from school. Older people would have a harder time; it may make sense to provide them with opportunities for remedial education. On the other hand, reverse discrimination would provide members of disadvantaged groups with secure jobs that they need do nothing to keep. Under such conditions, reality would end up justifying the "lazy nigger" stereotype. > These blankets statements ("Affirmative action >means that the company hires those with inferior qualifications >on the basis of sex or race") are silly. Obviously some qualified >minorities and women were found, from ELizabeth Dole and Jeane >Kirkpatrick down to Jane Doe down the hall from my office. If there are enough qualified women to meet the percentage quotas, then no "reverse discrimination" is implied by meeting the quotas, no quotas are needed, and "fairness in hiring" laws would be sufficient. If there are not enough qualified women to meet the quota, then employers must hire more women than the number of women who are qualified. Do I have to show you a mathematical proof? That "silly" "blanket statement" you ridicule happens to be the truth. > ANd if >you don't think these people are the result of affirmative action, >ask yourself: would these people have been where they are 20-30 >years ago? Affirmative action is not the only thing that has happened in the last 20-30 years. Women's attitudes toward themselves have changed, and that probably has more to do with the productive women you see on the job than affirmative action does. -- David Canzi
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (02/25/85)
> :==> <1013@watdcsu.UUCP> David Canzi >> : Me (Marcel Simon > > >But if we do nothing else it will take an approximately equal number > >of centuries to undo that discrimination. I argue that the pump MUST > >be primed. Affirmative action is an attempt to prime that pump. > > The centuries of discrimination *do* *not* accumulate. The people who > were wronged long ago, and those who wronged them, are dead. The length > of time it would take today's disadvantaged groups to "catch up", given > equal treatment, is much shorter than that. Equal treatment would take > the form of equally good education, and equal job opportunities for those > with equal qualifications. Equal treatment beginning now would allow the > young members of disadvantaged groups to catch up within a year or two of > graduating from school. Older people would have a harder time; it may > make sense to provide them with opportunities for remedial education. > As you notice, it takes a certain amount of education to attain certain levels of employment. Since discrimination *also* very much extended to education, a non-discrimination law does not in and of itself provide equal o employment opportunity. Since education *also* takes significant amounts of $$, the young children of discrimated against poor cannot just pick up an education to reach equal employment qualifications. In the absence of other measures, the process must then be incremental, hence my conclusion about the the time it takes to undo the effects of discrimination. Your counter-argument is invalid. Is it a good idea to take affirmative action to speed the removal of the *effects* of discrimination? Yes, because otherwise a significant portion of the population (a majority in the case of women) is not producing to capacity, which makes for an inefficient economy. > On the other hand, reverse discrimination would provide members of > disadvantaged groups with secure jobs that they need do nothing to keep. > Under such conditions, reality would end up justifying the "lazy nigger" > stereotype. Once again, affirmative action DOES NOT imply that disadvantaged are not expected to be up to the standards of the job. It implies that IF all else is equal, THEN the disadvantaged group will receive preferential treatment. To avoid losing out to a minority, be BETTER than that minority!!! > > > ANd if > >you don't think these people are the result of affirmative action, > >ask yourself: would these people have been where they are 20-30 > >years ago? > > Affirmative action is not the only thing that has happened in the last > 20-30 years. Women's attitudes toward themselves have changed, and that > probably has more to do with the productive women you see on the job > than affirmative action does. But if that pent-up demand created by changes in women's atttudes toward themselves had not been countered by a supply of employment created mainly by an expanding economy, but also by employers actively looking for them under affirmative action, would they be there at all? Marcel Simon
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (03/02/85)
Marcel Simon says: >Once again, affirmative action DOES NOT imply that disadvantaged are not >expected to be up to the standards of the job. It implies that IF all >else is equal, THEN the disadvantaged group will receive preferential >treatment. To avoid losing out to a minority, be BETTER than that minority!!! The term "affirmative action" seems to mean different things to different people. What I have been assuming it to mean is a system of percentage quotas to be met by employers in their hiring. In *that* version of AA, underqualified people would have to be hired, and they would have little incentive to learn on the job and *become* qualified. But what you seem to be talking about is AA as a tie-breaking rule for the personnel department to use instead of the ol' coin toss. I have no good reasons to oppose that version of it. * * * >> >But if we do nothing else it will take an approximately equal number >> >of centuries to undo that discrimination. ... [mfs] >> >> The centuries of discrimination *do* *not* accumulate. The people who >> were wronged long ago, and those who wronged them, are dead. The length >> of time it would take today's disadvantaged groups to "catch up", given >> equal treatment, is much shorter than that. Equal treatment would take >> the form of equally good education, and equal job opportunities for those >> with equal qualifications. ... [dmc] >> >As you notice, it takes a certain amount of education to attain certain >levels of employment. ... Since education *also* takes significant amounts >of $$, the young children of discrimated against poor cannot >just pick up an education to reach equal employment qualifications. In the >absence of other measures, the process must then be incremental, ... [mfs] Your comments above mainly apply to blacks, not to women. Women, for most of the centuries of discrimination, tended to marry men and have children of both sexes. If the parents were poor, then their children of *both* sexes were poor too. On the other hand, interracial marriages have been rare, and two parents of the same race *do* tend to have children of the same race. The passing on of the disadvantages of poverty does not imply that the effects of centuries of discrimination accumulate. In fact, the blacks provide an excellent counterexample. Somebody said that the blacks were slaves for 3 centuries. If the effects of discrimination were cumulative, one would expect the situation of blacks to worsen as long as discrimination existed. Blacks were no worse off after 3 centuries of slavery than they were after one. You can't get poorer when you have nothing. Ever since slavery ended, blacks have faced discrimination. In spite of over a century of discrimination, that continues today, blacks are now better off! It seems that *recent* discrimination has more effect on the present than those centuries of slavery. * * * You are probably overestimating the importance of affirmative action to the number of women who are working. The expanding economy you mentioned is a much stronger factor than affirmative action is. If there aren't enough men to fill all the job openings, employers *have* to hire women. -- David Canzi
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (03/04/85)
> : David Canzi >>: Me (Marcel Simon) > What I have been assuming [AA] to mean is a system of percentage > quotas to be met by employers in their hiring. ... But what you seem > to be talking about is AA as a tie-breaking rule for the personnel > department to use instead of the ol' coin toss. Affirmative Action (read the statute) was never intended to be a system of percentage quotas. It has unfortunately been applied that way, mainly by those who applied it in bad faith, i.e. did not search for qualified job/promotion applicants who happened to be minority/female. > >As you notice, it takes a certain amount of education to attain certain > >levels of employment. ... Since education *also* takes significant amounts > >of $$, the young children of discrimated against poor cannot > >just pick up an education to reach equal employment qualifications. In the > >absence of other measures, the process must then be incremental, ... [mfs] > > Your comments above mainly apply to blacks, not to women. Women, for > most of the centuries of discrimination, tended to marry men and have > children of both sexes. If the parents were poor, then their children > of *both* sexes were poor too. On the other hand, interracial marriages > have been rare, and two parents of the same race *do* tend to have children > of the same race. My posting did concentrate on economic reasons. However, women were often not able to obtain the necessary education because they were barred from the institution and barred from the occupation itself. For example, a woman could not become an apprentice to a master craftsman. You are right that women did not as a group have the ecnonomic disadvantages of minorities. This is one of the reasons why women have made further inroads toward acceptance than blacks in American society in about the same amount of time. > The passing on of the disadvantages of poverty does not imply that the > effects of centuries of discrimination accumulate. In fact, the blacks > provide an excellent counterexample. Somebody said that the blacks were > slaves for 3 centuries. If the effects of discrimination were > cumulative, one would expect the situation of blacks to worsen as long > as discrimination existed. Blacks were no worse off after 3 centuries > of slavery than they were after one. You can't get poorer when you have > nothing. Ever since slavery ended, blacks have faced discrimination. > In spite of over a century of discrimination, that continues today, blacks > are now better off! It seems that *recent* discrimination has more > effect on the present than those centuries of slavery. You are ignoring the psychological effects of discrimation, which are cumulative. What is worse, a law that says blacks slaves are not human or one that says blacks are free citizens, but in a million fine print amendments, says that they are far less equal than whites? It is not enough to allow a group previously denied priviledges. The group must also convince itself that it is worthy of said priviledge, a process which can occur only as members of the group are able to compete on equal terms and expect equal results. For a much more precise reasoning than mine, I recommend reading James Bladwin and especially Malcolm X. > You are probably overestimating the importance of affirmative action to > the number of women who are working. The expanding economy you mentioned > is a much stronger factor than affirmative action is. If there aren't > enough men to fill all the job openings, employers *have* to hire women. Not necessarily or it would have happened in previous expansions. Women entered the workforce in WW2 because there were no other men around. In other expansion periods prior to the late 60s, the salaries for the men-only occupation in question went up, thereby attracting more men from other occupations. Marcel Simon
radford@calgary.UUCP (Radford Neal) (03/06/85)
> Is it not a valid > goal to try to find ways to better the lot of previously excluded, > oppressed or enslaved groups? This says it all. NO! It is NOT a valid goal to better the lot of previously oppressed GROUPS. There is NO MORAL DIFFERENCE between oppressing an individual of a generally priviledged group and oppressing an individual of a generally oppressed group. I'm not about to try to argue in favor of this ethical position here; I just note that there is little point in political arguments on this issue without an ethical basis. Radford Neal The University of Calgary
regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) (05/17/85)
Re the question "Why do _I_ have to pay because of something that happened hundreds of years ago?" Answer:(possibly not a very good one) "Because the government says so." Nobody said that affirmative action guidelines are fair. The claim is that affirmative action guidelines were put in place 'in the interest of fairness.' Which is a different thing. None of the people who were discriminated against for hundreds of years did anything special that deserved discrimination, either. They aren't doing anything right now that is particularly worthy of discrimination, but it's still happening. So, your answer is above. This _isn't_ and equal world yet. Some white males now get the short end of the stick. It isn't personal, ya know. It's never been _personal_. The only real advantage is that affirmative action has the goal of eventually equalizing the workplace by a fait accompli. It's not really working to change attitudes, since laws can't really ever do that. Sorry it upsets you. Sorta.
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (05/21/85)
What's you point?
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (05/22/85)
What's your point?