orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (03/13/85)
Periodically peeking in on the debate about Affirmative Action
it seems to me that both sides have distorted the basic purpose
of Affirmative Action and its justification.
The basic purpose of Affirmative Action is *not* to promote
blacks or women at the expense of white males. The purpose of
Affirmative Action is to insure that these groups get a fair shake.
It is not just that blacks were slaves 100 years ago or that
women did not get even the right to vote until 1919. The
unfortunate fact is that these groups are discriminated against
*right now*. Of course we know that statistical studies demonstrate
that women and blacks are under-represented in almost all high-paying
professions. We also know that even when in the same profession
women for instance get paid less than their male counterparts.
But does this represent discrimination or simply the superior talents
and experience of white males?
There have been studies which demonstrate that, at least in terms of
job applications, that part of these effects are definitely due to
discrimination.
Various social scientists have done the following experiment as a
test of discrimination: they have sent the exact same resumes
for a job except for one difference: in one resume the applicant
was given a male name, in the other resume the applicant was given a
female name. They have consistently found that even with the *exact
same resume* the male was picked over the female for interviews
two to one. There can be no possible explanation of this difference
except: discrimination.
This sort of controlled experiment is much harder to do for blacks and
whites. Race is usually not requested on resumes, and there is not
such a straightforward method of knowing which race someone is from
by their name. But I would be willing to bet that such an effect
would be even stronger for blacks vs whites.
*THIS* is the reason for Affirmative Action: to counter people's
natural prejudices about blacks and women so that they begin to think:
am I choosing this person because they are the best qualified or simply
because they happen to fit my preconceived notions of the abilities of
certain social groups. When left to themselves people will remain
stuck in their stereotypes and they *will* continue to discriminate
as they have been for decades and as they continue to do even after
the Civil Rights and Women's Rights movements.
tim sevener whuxl!orbwetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) (03/14/85)
All that Sevener says in his article are quite true and are hoped for goals for affirmative action, however, the goals he enumerates are not complete. The other side of the coin in the affirmative action debate is the thorn that pricks most people. That goal is quota setting. The idea that an organization MUST attain a certain goal in minority employment, disregarding ability, is the repugnant side of affirmative action. We have all seen the stories concerning fire companies, police departments, and other government entities which have been ordered to conform. The case of Western Electric Corporation several years ago was another instance in which quotas were mandated to the detrement of the company. Affirmative action would not be such an issue if the underlying threat of quotas were not held up as the penalty for not complying. There has to be a better way, quotas are not the answer. T. C. Wheeler
mom@sftri.UUCP (Mark Modig) (03/15/85)
> Periodically peeking in on the debate about Affirmative Action > it seems to me that both sides have distorted the basic purpose > of Affirmative Action and its justification. > The basic purpose of Affirmative Action is *not* to promote > blacks or women at the expense of white males. The purpose of > Affirmative Action is to insure that these groups get a fair shake. Unfortunately, a "fair shake" is a phrase that means different things to different people. > *THIS* is the reason for Affirmative Action: to counter people's > natural prejudices about blacks and women so that they begin to think: > am I choosing this person because they are the best qualified or simply > because they happen to fit my preconceived notions of the abilities of > certain social groups. However, this terrific idea is too often translated into repressive and destructive measures, like quotas. I personally feel you can make a great deal more progress and cause a lot less damage if you try to educate people rather than force them to do something. Mark Modig ihnp4!sftri!mom
gam@amdahl.UUCP (G A Moffett) (03/17/85)
I heard this the other day, attributed to an airline pilot:
"Remember, next time you're flying at 30,000 feet,
that the guy piloting that 747 may not necessarily
be the best person qualified to fly the plane, but
got hired to fulfill a quota requirement."
--
Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,sun}!amdahl!gamrossiter@cornell.UUCP (David G. Rossiter) (03/18/85)
In article <1295@amdahl.UUCP> gam@amdahl.UUCP (G A Moffett) writes: >I heard this the other day, attributed to an airline pilot: > > "Remember, next time you're flying at 30,000 feet, > that the guy piloting that 747 may not necessarily > be the best person qualified to fly the plane, but > got hired to fulfill a quota requirement." >-- >Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,sun}!amdahl!gam That's right... for the first 50 or so years of aviation, he was hired because he was a white male, thereby fufilling a very simple quota system: all us, no them. Grow up. David Rossiter / CS Dep't / Cornell University / Ithaca / NY / 14850 / USA {uw-beaver,ihnp4,decvax,vax135}!cornell!rossiter (UUCP) rossiter@Cornell.ARPA (ARPAnet) ; rossiter@CRNLCS (BITNET)
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (03/19/85)
> All that Sevener says in his article are quite true and > are hoped for goals for affirmative action, however, the > goals he enumerates are not complete. The other side of the > coin in the affirmative action debate is the thorn that > pricks most people. That goal is quota setting. The idea > that an organization MUST attain a certain goal in minority > employment, disregarding ability, is the repugnant side > of affirmative action. We have all seen the stories concerning > fire companies, police departments, and other government > entities which have been ordered to conform. The case of > Western Electric Corporation several years ago was > another instance in which quotas were mandated to the > detrement of the company. Affirmative action would not > be such an issue if the underlying threat of quotas > were not held up as the penalty for not complying. > There has to be a better way, quotas are not the > answer. > T. C. Wheeler No quotas are absolutely mandated by any affirmative action program. But if I see that a company or organization has 1% blacks for instance when it is surrounded by an area with 15% blacks, then am I to conclude that the company is being fair in considering blacks for jobs? The point of affirmative action is not to say "this job must be filled by a minority or woman", the point is to create a more generalized pressure for those hiring to seriously consider and promote those who have been discriminated against in the past. There are many myths that get perpetrated about affirmative action. My own dept had an affirmative action meeting and several people complained that "blacks were getting promoted to supervisory positions just to meet quotas". People on the affirmative action committee went and got the data_ it was horrendously depressing. Not only was it untrue that blacks were being disproportionately promoted in certain depts and divisions but even in divisions such as plant maintenance and security where minorities were often 50% of the employees, supervisors were 90% white males. Why? Are we to just assume that minorities and women are "incompetent"? I would like to see the evidence that such is the case. tim sevener whuxl!orb
muffy@lll-crg.ARPA (Muffy Barkocy) (03/20/85)
In article <519@whuxl.UUCP> orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: >*THIS* is the reason for Affirmative Action: to counter people's >natural prejudices about blacks and women so that they begin to think: > tim sevener whuxl!orb I can't say I like this phrasing. *What*, pray tell, is a "natural" prejudice? Is this to say that it is natural for people to be pre- judiced, at least in some cases? Muffy
edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall) (03/29/85)
> I heard this the other day, attributed to an airline pilot: > > "Remember, next time you're flying at 30,000 feet, > that the guy piloting that 747 may not necessarily > be the best person qualified to fly the plane, but > got hired to fulfill a quota requirement." > -- > Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,sun}!amdahl!gam I fail to see your point, Gordon. Of course, the chance of the *person* piloting the 747 being the BEST is exactly one out of N, where N is the total number of airline pilots. Me? I'm happy just knowing that they're *qualified*. I've yet to hear of unqualified pilots being hired just to fill quotas. Have you? -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall
al@mot.UUCP (Al Filipski) (03/29/85)
>>I heard this the other day, attributed to an airline pilot: >> >> "Remember, next time you're flying at 30,000 feet, >> that the guy piloting that 747 may not necessarily >> be the best person qualified to fly the plane, but >> got hired to fulfill a quota requirement." >>-- >>Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,sun}!amdahl!gam > >That's right... for the first 50 or so years of aviation, he was hired >because he was a white male, thereby fufilling a very simple quota system: >all us, no them. Grow up. > >David Rossiter / CS Dep't / Cornell University / Ithaca / NY / 14850 / USA Grow up? Is one arbitrary quota system better than another? Isn't it better just to treat people as individuals? I think we would be pretty grown up if we could do that. -------------------------------- Alan Filipski, UNIX group, Motorola Microsystems, Tempe, AZ U.S.A {allegra|ihnp4}!sftig!mot!al {seismo|ihnp4}!ut-sally!oakhill!mot!al -------------------------------- nostalgia just isn't what it used to be