mauney@ncsu.UUCP (06/03/83)
References: trw-unix.261
It has been argued that Affirmative Action is a Bad Thing,
because it is by nature discriminatory, and discrimination
is a Bad Thing. I would counter this argument with two questions,
(1) Is AAP simply reverse discrimination or is there more to it?
(2) What have you got that is better?
(1) Consider an open position and two applicants for it. Both are
intelligent, articulate, wear neckties of the proper width, and have
been loyal employees of the company for years. However, candidate A
has had more experience in this phase of the company's operation. On
the face of it, candidate A is better qualified, and to give the
position to candidate B because of membership in some class (race, sex,
fraternity) would be unfair. However, if we ask why candidate A has
more experience, we may find something different. Suppose B has never
been assigned any duties which would give him the experience needed for
promotion, and that this situation is due to class discrimination.
When the company comes to its senses in this matter, it is reasonable
for the company to "make it up" to candidate B by pushing him along
faster than usual. But is it fair to A? Well, for the past few years,
A has been enjoying benefits that have not been shared with B, and
therefore A has gotten a larger portion. In effect, B has given a loan
to A, and will be repaid by getting the new position.
The problem with this scenario is that it is too simplistic. We can't
expect all personnel decisions to be based on minute analyses of (possible)
past discriminations. In some cases, B may have been discriminated against,
but A never received any favors, having transferred from a company that
was scrupulously fair. And so on. It is not possible for the government
to legislate remedies to individual cases of discrimination. The AAP
solution says that "class 1 has benefited at the expense of class 2,
so class 2 shall now be given a boost, until the matter is evened out.
This may cause individual injustices, but the net effect will be beneficial."
(If it turns out that AAP does more harm than good, then it will be a
failure. I don't believe that is the case, however.)
(2) Is there a better solution? Remember that any governmental
intervention will mean a bureaucracy that is no better than the one
currently in place. Anything without government support will probably
not carry enough weight to do any good, unless the oppressed groups
start bumping off corporate executives or something. Even if the
oppressed groups agreed that color-blindness (and lack of other
discrimination) is an acceptable solution, there is the question of
how to convince the non-oppressed groups to go along. The obvious
solution is to keep statistics, and see how actual numbers compare with
the expected. Sound familiar? Outlawing discrimination and letting
individuals sue when discriminated against may seem fair, but it isn't.
It puts the burden of proof on the people who already have the burden
of discrimination. It also pits the individual against the corporation
in a battle of lawyers; guess who has the advantage.
Waiting for the bigots to die of natural causes is too slow,
and not guaranteed to work.
I can't say that Affirmative Action is great. But I don't think it's as
unfair as some people claim, and I haven't heard any suggestions for
anything better.
Jon Mauney
Computer Science Department
North Carolina State University
duke!mcnc!ncsu!mauneyjobe@ssc-vax.UUCP (06/03/83)
Aaaah, Prudence (such a lovely name!), I think that you and I are in agreement that discrimination is wrong, has always been wrong, and will always be wrong. But I'm also sure that we don't agree on very much else. Lessee, here, now... You say that those arguments were (that the end justifies the means) used not to long ago to justify the happenings at Auschwitz, Bergen-Belsen, and places like that there. But waitaminnit- does that imply that discrimination against whites is equivalent to the massacre of Jews by the Nazis? Now come on, isn't that a bit of a specious argument? Actually, what I see here again (and you people think I'm paranoid!) is another person justifying the fact that blacks and other minorities are still on the bottom of the rockpile due to the racist activities of your predecessors? Look, to put it bluntly, we've all got to start somewhere. If you continue to keep a significant portion of society in the economic cellar, sooner or later they're gonna get sick and tired of it. And somehow the bandaid of AAP on the wound of opression is far better than the misery, squalor, and perhaps violence that wound could cause. Besides that, really all we want is a chance at your society. Is it so important to you to keep us from it? Apparently the only black on the Net, jobe
mam@rabbit.UUCP (06/03/83)
This is all very well, but society does need to do something about discrim- ination. I would agree that AAP is discriminatory, but I think that it works, and I don't think that those of us who belong to the majority, ie whites are going to, for the most part, suffer terribly. Also, I wuold questionthe wisdom of criticizing something without having a better solution.
trb@floyd.UUCP (06/04/83)
Rabbit!mam says: This is all very well, but society does need to do something about discrimination. I would agree that AAP is discriminatory, but I think that it works, and I don't think that those of us who belong to the majority, ie whites are going to, for the most part, suffer terribly. Also, I wuold questionthe wisdom of criticizing something without having a better solution. I don't get any benefit from people smoking cigarettes. They make me quite ill. Sometimes I'd like to take shotguns and blow off their heads, I think the world would be a better place. Or, as mam would put it, I think it would work and I don't think the majority would suffer terribly. I don't have a better solution. I wouldn't implement my solution, and for the same reason, I don't like the implementation of AAP. Andy Tannenbaum Bell Labs Whippany, NJ (201) 386-6491
trb@floyd.UUCP (06/04/83)
ncsu!mauney asks whether AAP is reverse discrimination. REVERSE DISCRIMINATION? What's reverse discrimination? It's discrimination! To call it reverse discrimination is to set it apart from discrimination, and there's the entire root of the problem, discrimination. This comes out sounding like a Groucho Marx monologue, but I'm serious. Andy Tannenbaum Bell Labs Whippany, NJ (201) 386-6491
ark@rabbit.UUCP (06/04/83)
If the government has the right to force nondiscrimination, then they also have the right to force discrimination. I reject the latter, so I must also reject the former.
swatt@ittvax.UUCP (06/05/83)
There were, last I knew, the following agencies concerned with discrimination in employment: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) EEOC concentrates on violations of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Fair Employment Practices Commission (FEPC) They are more concerned with discrimination in promotions, salary, etc. Civil Service Commission. I don't know if they have any AA responsibility, but I would think it likely for federal employees. There must be others (National Labor Relations Board ??). The HEW used to take some AA action on its own; I don't know what's happened since the reorganization. Either one of these agencies or yet another one worries about college admissions. One would think with all this federal muscle to push Affirmative Action that we would make rapid progress. Milton Freedman says: There is a sure-fire way to predict the consequences of a government social program adopted to achieve worthy ends. Find out what the well-meaning, public-interested persons who advocated its adoption expected it to accomplish. Then reverse those expectations. You will have an accurate prediction of actual results. Does anyone know of any studies on the effectiveness of the AA programs? It seems we're mostly repeating opinions. It's hard to conceive of an objective study these days because the merest suggeston these programs be abandoned is greeted with the political equivalent of tactical nukes. It is interesting to think about possible alternate methods to promote fairer employment of minorities. Several which occur to me are: Tax breaks. Or possibly an "investment tax credit" similar to what is now given when corporations invest in capital equipment. Why not a tax credit for investing in human capital? Government paid Social Security taxes. How about a sliding scale of federal payments into the S.S. fund for new minority hires? Start off with perhaps the Federal Government paying 100% of the Employer's contribution, and tapering off to 0% after several years. This would make minority applicants that much more attractive for entry-level positions when they lack the experience of their non-minority competitors. Neither of these ways would FORCE anyone to hire minorities, rather they would seek to make minorities more attractive to offset disadvantages of their background. The prosecution approach leads to all kinds of absurdities, becuase the LAW cannot stop to consider individual circumstances, or local customs. An example is the owner of a Japanese resturaunt who hired only oriental waitresses, to maintain an "authentic atmosphere". Is this discrimination? Under the law it is, but is it really something we want to eradicate? An approach based on enhancing the motivation to hire minorities would probably succeed at least as well as our existing programs, and would allow anyone who chose to ignore those motivations to do so without legal penalty. - Alan S. Watt ------------------ The ideas presented here are my own and do not reflect the policies of ITT. ITT is an equal opportunity employer.
mark@cbosgd.UUCP (06/05/83)
I don't quite buy Andy's comparsion of AA to blowing off the heads of smokers. I too am very annoyed by cigarette smoke (I'm allergic to it) and try to avoid smokers. I try to frequent eateries with non-smoking sections. I strongly favor any legislation to make my life easier in this regard, and was amazed at how the tobacco industry bought the elections in California a few years back that tried to set up smoking/non-smoking sections everywhere. I applaud whatever Diane recently signed (although details are scant out here in the land of the corn insecticide commercial). But this is not my point. Let's make a more rational comparison, say AA vs. legislation that completely outlaws smoking. (Assume nicotine tablets would be made available by perscription for persons already addicted.) The same arguments can be made - the ends justify the means. In fact, the only people hurt would be the tobacco industry (for which I feel absolutely no sympathy) and existing smokers (for whom I feel some, but very limited, sympathy). Now, Andy, care to shoot this one down? (Actually, this may start another good debate, but I'm not sure I can see how the two examples relate to each other.) Mark Horton
swatt@ittvax.UUCP (06/05/83)
This is actually regarding Mark Horton's re-cast of Andy's comparison of AA vs. smoking. Mark asks: Let's make a more rational comparison, say AA vs. legislation that completely outlaws smoking. (Assume nicotine tablets would be made available by perscription for persons already addicted.) The same arguments can be made - the ends justify the means. In fact, the only people hurt would be the tobacco industry (for which I feel absolutely no sympathy) and existing smokers (for whom I feel some, but very limited, sympathy). Now, Andy, care to shoot this one down? (Actually, this may start another good debate, but I'm not sure I can see how the two examples relate to each other.) This assumes the mandated substitute (nicotine tablets) would be acceptable to smokers. I will mention in passing that the only reason we DON'T have such tablets available today is the FDA. If this assumption is true, one would expect that simply introducing such tablets (i.e. recinding an existing ban) would have the same effect, particularly if the tablets were cheaper than cigarettes (which they could be made to be by simply NOT taxing them as cigarettes are now taxed). If, for whatever reasons, the substitute tablets were NOT acceptable to smokers, you have just created a black market in cigarettes. Banning "undesirable" substances was tried in 1740 when importation of rum into Georgia was made illegal; it didn't work. It was tried again with Prohibition, which didn't work. We are trying it now with the various narcotics and controlled substances laws, which aren't working. Whenever something is banned, it just becomes part of the black market. Black markets flourish in Communist countries because so much is either proscribed, or not available on terms people find acceptable. Far more than "only the tobacco industry" would be hurt, in exactly the same way that far more than "just the booze" industry was hurt during prohibition, and far more than "just the narcotics" industry is hurt by our current drug laws. The injury stems from the application of coercion to MAKE people behave in some way differently from what they otherwise would. This case is related to AA only in that the negative effects of using force to accomplish some desirable goal can easily outweigh the benefits of obtaining that goal. In the cases I mentioned, the stated goals were never achieved, which leaves ONLY the negative effects. Tobacco is an especially interesting case because it has been around long enough to involve several agencies at contradictory purposes: + Tobacco subsidies. Yes, that's right, tax money is still spent to subsidize tobacco production, making the growing of tobacco more profitable than it otherwise would be. In fact the state of Connecticut grows tobacco!! (under special nets that raise the temperature). + Health agencies. Having spent some tax money to enhance tobacco production, the federal govennment spends more to tell people about the dangers of using tobacco. + Cigarette taxes. Failing to disuade people from smoking, the federal government then taxes cigarettes. The agencies responsible for taking in revenue would lose if cigarette sales went down. + FDA. This agency does several things. Studies have shown that it is the nicotine which satisfies the habit, but the tar which causes the cancer. It profits manufacturers therefore to process cigarettes to remove tar, and then enhance the nicotine content. This is "felony adulteration", like putting vitamin C in booze (which some studies have shows reduces hangovers). In several countries in Europe, nicotine chewing gum is available especially to help people overcome smoking; the FDA prohibits this in the U.S. So the FDA prevents manufacture of what could be safer cigarettes, and prevents the availability of a possible substitute. Various agencies of the federal government, all spending tax money, combine by contradictory goals to produce no net change. One could presumably eliminate all these programs without changing the status quo, but saving those portions of the federal budget. Fat chance. I haven't seen any studies of the negative effects of the AA programs. One might speculate: + Companies faced with A.A. programs might decide NOT to expand (hire more employees). This might not be quite no naked; like everything else, companies expand hiring only if they believe the increased cost is justified by the probable increased gain. If A.A. programs increase the cost of carrying employees (the "fully burdened cost"), then the same probable increased gain in the market justifies hiring fewer new employees. [ Milton Freedman once calcualted that the work required in person-hours to fill out all the required federal forms EXCEEDED the total work force of G.M. devoted to producing automobiles; the cost of filling out forms is of course reflected in the ultimate price charged for whatever commodity is produced. ] + When expanding into new plants, the A.A. programs might make domestic expansion less attractive than foreign expansion. Instead of building new plants in this country, companies might prefer to invest in plants in Hong Kong, or Singapore. These are cases of trading "visible benefits" (increased minority hiring) for "invisible damages" (lower level of domestic economic growth). The government agencies will happily trumpted the former, but the latter is somebody else's problem. As I said, this is just speculation on my part; I haven't seen any studies. It is hard to imagine a study could establish a causal connection anyway; the movement of jobs and capital is affected by so many things that it would be difficult to factor out just the effects of the A.A. programs. The only way to do it would be to show that considerations imposed by A.A. DID affect decision making in these or similar ways in actual cases. Given the atmosphere today, you are not likely to get anyone to admit they tried to "get around" A.A. - Alan S. Watt --------------------------------------- The opinions expressed here are my own and do not reflect the policies of ITT. ITT is an equal opportunity employer. (ITT also prohibits smoking in meetings)
bormanp@stolaf.UUCP (06/06/83)
As you said, the government taxes tobacco products, but also, tobacco farmers get a massive subsidy from the government for growing their tobacco, which the government then says is bad. Pretty stupid huh? I met a guy from the south who farmed tobacco (he was about 16). He cliamed he made $5,000 in one year on an acre and a half of tobacco. I told him that my friends lived on farms of up to a 1,000 acres. He thought the must be millionares. Have you looked at what farmers up north get for corn and soybeans? No, I don't like Tobacco I wish it would go away Yes, I know it wont. Paul R Borman St. Olaf College ihnp4!stolaf!agnes!paul
jobe@ssc-vax.UUCP (06/08/83)
I have heard complaints, flames, and general griping about how AAP is discrimination. But, consider that racial discrimination has been a fact of life in this country for quite a long time (I won't b*** about so-many-hundreds-of-years any more, I promise!), and it simply will not go away on it's own. So I ask: Where *were* you people when it was minority people that were being discriminated against? Why is it that you will only complain about it when it seems to threaten *you*?? It seems to me that discrimination isn't discrimination; only *reverse* discrimination is discrimination.... Still trying to understand you people, Jobe (...!ssc-vax!jobe)
prudence@trw-unix.UUCP (06/10/83)
"I would agree that AAP is discriminatory, but I think that it works."
Well folks, it looks like we're back to the oldest rationalization in
the books, "The ends justify the means." For the love of God, didn't
we learn anything at Nuremburg?
Prudence
{decvax,ucbvax}!trw-unix!prudencejrt@hou5f.UUCP (06/10/83)
>>If the government has the right to force nondiscrimination, >>then they also have the right to force discrimination. >>I reject the latter, so I must also reject the former. What mental midget deduced this?? can I reword.... If the gov has the right to force non-murder then the gov has the right to force murder. I reject the former....... Come On!, The first is an illegal, immoral act that is being PREVENTED!! albeit with force or whatever means is necessary in a nation that contains individuals who if left alone would discriminate, or worse yet allow discrimination because it doesn't affect them.(Or doesn't seem to) The second does NOT follow from the first. Look back to your high school logic classes. (** FRODO **)
mat@hou5e.UUCP (06/14/83)
Look, to put it bluntly, we've all got to start somewhere. If you continue to keep a significant portion of society in the economic cellar, sooner or later they're gonna get sick and tired of it. And somehow the bandaid [This is a trademark, folks ... MAT] of AAP on the wound of oppression is far better than the misery, squalor, and perhaps violence that wound could cause. Besides that, all we really want is a chance at your society. jobe Let me fill you in on a side of the AAP/EEO business that you probably didn't see. Billions of dollars were and are spent on paperwork to comply with the regulations. Where it is impossible to comply (ie,the job requires skills equated with, say, three years experience or a college degree, and there aren't enough ``protected class'' people within 300 miles to fill them) billions more were spent in court battles that often turned into circuses where attorneys and judges could show off their wisdom by making or proposing truly outrageous decisions. And the problem of not enough PC people can occur easily. Women are counted as bodies just like men in the EEO rules, but many more women than men stay home or work part time. Those gigabucks could better have been spent on inner-city and rural ghetto education. They could have helped thousands of economically and historically disadvantaged people get through college. They could have allowed the easing of property taxes on minority businesses that remained and employed in the inner city. Remember, the legal system is nothing but overhead. The (small) firm I used to work for took in several million dollars a year consulting for lawyers. The lawyers often employed several such firms. The lawyers earned a great deal of money themselves. And the firms that could not hire under the rules could not expand and withered -- just as the economy was heading toward one of the most persistant recession/inflation periods of recent history. Who benefited? I don't argue that people who come from depressed backgrounds shouldn't have an extra shot, or a better shot, than they would otherwise receive. I don't think that body counting and pushing paper is the way to do it. Oh, and if inner city police forces were now to be beefed up, and if money were spent on block associations, crimewatch programs, counselling for those who have only seen violence as a solution to problems, and credit and financial planning aid, how much better off would we ALL be? My father's business is located in a poorer area of Brooklyn. Since the iron shop has been there (about 7 years now), there have been two murders on the block. These were not muggings, but family quarrels. The people involved have only known anger and violence as solutions. How can we hope that they will take places of responsibility in our society. OUR society, jobe -- not white society or black society, but yours and mine. If it is too late for the adults of 53rd street, have we a chance at reaching the children? (now let's start a flame on busing for racial integration ...) Mark Terribile Duke fo DeNet
dje@5941ux.UUCP (06/14/83)
ssc-vax!jobe asks:
Where *were* you people when it was minority people that were being
discriminated against? Why is it that you will only complain about it
when it seems to threaten *you*??
It seems to me that discrimination isn't discrimination; only *reverse*
discrimination is discrimination....
I'm not going to play down the history or effects of racial discrimination.
Discrimination is indeed real, and more than just the "designated" minority
groups are affected by it. Let me cite some examples of anti-Jewish
discrimination.
A generation ago, my mother applied for a clerical position with New York
Telephone. She wore a Jewish star pendant to the interview. The job
required only a 30 wpm typing skill, but the employment representative told
her she had to type 50 wpm to get the job. Well, she *could* type 50 wpm,
so he replied that she couldn't be hired unless she knew steno. She told him
she could do steno, and he now said she had to be fluent in Spanish. When she
explained to him that Spanish was her undergraduate major, he had no more
excuses. "Look, lady," he said, staring at her pendant, "You don't understand.
No matter how qualified you are, you just aren't qualified."
Well, things are different now, or are they? A friend of mine got his Master's
degree from MIT in Chemical Engineering, and applied to a large and very well
known Ohio-based corporation that makes detergents and other household
products. At the end of the interview, he was asked about his surname:
"Dershowitz... now what kind of name is that?" The interviewer followed up
with "You realize we can't hire you; you just wouldn't fit in." My friend
told him that this kind of discrimination was illegal, only to be informed
that the corporation would categorically deny that any such exchange had ever
taken place. Applicants who don't get the job make all kinds of false and
defamatory accusations that could get them into serious trouble...
Another example, this time from my personal experience. I was once told in
private by a manager who participates in my merit evaluation that Jews are
articulate and forceful in their conversation, which tends to put other people
off. It was just an offhand, casual remark, probably long forgotten by the
other party. But the message was not lost on me.
Now, another example to show how affirmative action affects the picture. My
wife held a six-month temporary teaching job, at which she performed well.
When she applied for a permanent slot, she was passed up so that the school
could hire a minority applicant. The person hired had less teaching experience
than my wife, and he lacked the college degree that was allegedly a requirement
for the position. But he got the position, and my wife was left without a job.
"We people" suffer from discrimination too, and we're getting it from
both sides, forward *and* reverse. Discrimination is wrong, even if it is
sponsored with the best of intentions.
Finally, where were "we" when "you" were being discriminated against? Jews
were in the forefront of the civil rights movement from its beginning. Who
still remembers Schwerner, Cheney and Goodman? And what is the predominant
attitude "we" see from minorities? Hostility towards Zionism, our own
national movement. Accusations that we are racist and insensitive.
You say you are "still trying to understand you people." I hope this article
contributes to that understanding. There's a lot of common ground between
us. I can only hope for more understanding and cooperation in the future.
Dave Ellis / Bell Labs, Piscataway NJ
...!{ariel,lime}!houti!hogpc!houxm!5941ux!djerh@mit-eddi.UUCP (Randy Haskins) (06/22/83)
Let's model racial discrimination as a pendulum. The damage done by it is the time integral of the angle of displacement, NO MATTER WHICH SIDE IT IS ON. Now, we will all admit that the pendulum has been on the side that discriminates against minorities (mostly black). Very few of us are not reasonable enough to admit that this is a bad thing. However, what affirmative action seeks to do is push the pendulum to the other side. (Bakke didn't take "screw you" for an answer, however.) What we should try to do is bring it gently to rest in the middle, so that no further damage is done. (Cliche time: two wrongs don't make a right.) Of course, we can't do that too easily, since employers, et. al., can't overlook that fact that someone is of a different race, so they must be given a decision algorithm as to whether that is in that person's favor or against. If they have a conscience (or rules and laws hanging over their heads), they will tend to put it in that person's favor. If they are ignorant, unconscienable, and unpressured, they will hold it against the person.