fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (05/21/85)
Fair-minded administrators may go out of their way to seek black candidates (students, employees) as a way to balance the subconsious racism caused by their own hidden predjudices. This is perhaps the only valid rational for affirmative action. The attempt to justify affirmative action as justice for past wrongs fails on two accounts: 1) It fails to compensate those who were most injured, compensating instead those who merely look like the injured parties. 2) It fails to discriminate between those who caused the injury and those who merely resemble the guilty parties. Thus, the ethnic white (Italian, Irish, Jewish, Catholic, Poor) or Asian who suffered similar (if less intense) discrimination suffers further. The new African or Carribean black immigrant receives an undeserved bonus. Even in the best circumstances, affirmative action merely punishes and rewards people for their ancestors' experiences. Thus, ethnic or racial quotas actually increase the net injustice. Furthermore, when affirmative action programs are too blatent, as in the case of racial quotas, disadvantaged poor whites are justifiably outraged, thus becoming a rich recruiting ground for right-wing extremist groups. Blacks, in turn, suffer loss of self-confidence and self-esteem, always doubting their true ability. The American blacks' dilemma goes deeper than poverty. As a group, they suffer from lack of self-confidense -- a feeling that they do not control their own destiny. Programs such as affirmative action not only devisively create resentment; they fail to solve this core problem. Blacks must solve problems such as poverty and unemployment via economic growth from within their own community. What is needed is a new black enterprenurial class. True black power will be created with the rise of black storekeepers and merchants. By starting their own businesses, blacks can create their own opportunities, instead of depending on some white "big daddy" to take care of them. Frank Silbermann In article <sphinx.525> shor@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Melinda Shore) writes: >[] >> From: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) >>> Why do *I*, as a white adult male of Northern European descent, have to pay >>> for what *someone else* did more than 200 years ago?... >> >> *You* oughta be grateful for what *you* have received and stop >> complaining. Perhaps it's true that material well being does breed >> GREED. Pity. > >Amen to that. > >One of life's little ironies is that the bozos who oppose affirmative action >on the grounds that it's rewarding {race, gender} rather than skill happen >to be same same bozos unwilling to surrender their white male privilege. > >-- >Melinda Shore >University of Chicago Computation Center
wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) (05/24/85)
Malcom X said it all when he told his followers to first: "Learn Baby, Learn. Then, earn baby, earn" It was a refreshing departure from another black leaders "Burn Baby, Burn." T. C. Wheeler
beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Beth Christy) (05/26/85)
From: fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann), Message-ID: <266@unc.UUCP>: >Fair-minded administrators may go out of their way to seek >black candidates (students, employees) as a way to balance >the subconsious racism caused by their own hidden predjudices. >This is perhaps the only valid rational for affirmative action. > >The attempt to justify affirmative action as justice for past wrongs >fails on two accounts: > > 1) It fails to compensate those who were most injured, > compensating instead those who merely look like > the injured parties. > > 2) It fails to discriminate between those who caused the injury > and those who merely resemble the guilty parties. The purpose of affirmative action is not to provide "justice for past wrongs". It is to prevent future wrongs of the same type. Hiring inequities are a result of the personal prejudices of individual hiring authorities. The only truly effective way to eliminate the inequities is to step into the minds of everyone who hires people and eliminate the prejudices. That's obviously a pretty tough task, and even if the government *could* do it, I doubt anyone would *want* them to regulate people's opinions. But we *do* want the inequities to go away. So what else can we do but require people to ignore whatever prejudice they have and hire a black/woman/hispanic/handicapped_individual? And then hope they recognize that the above-mentioned individual *is* performing well. >Thus, the ethnic white (Italian, Irish, Jewish, Catholic, Poor) or Asian >who suffered similar (if less intense) discrimination suffers further. >The new African or Carribean black immigrant receives an undeserved bonus. >Even in the best circumstances, affirmative action merely punishes and rewards >people for their ancestors' experiences. Thus, ethnic or racial quotas >actually increase the net injustice. It is unfortunately true that the people who have been disadvantaged in the past are *not* the ones getting the jobs - the jobs are going to the folks who benifitted from affirmative action in colleges, not the folks who have been denied a job a hundred times over. I'm not sure I agree that the net injustice is increased significantly. But again, the point of this is to prevent future injustice. >Furthermore, when affirmative action programs are too blatent, >as in the case of racial quotas, disadvantaged poor whites are >justifiably outraged, thus becoming a rich recruiting ground for >right-wing extremist groups. Blacks, in turn, suffer loss of >self-confidence and self-esteem, always doubting their true ability. Yes, disadvantaged poor whites may be outraged. But while I understand the reaction completely, I'm not sure I agree it's "justified". It's true that they have less opportunity than they did before. They now have their *fair share* of opportunity. The poor disadvantaged blacks are no less disadvantaged than the whites (in fact, they're signifi- cantly *more* disadvantaged), and if whites are outraged because blacks are now getting a fair shot, that's not particularly justifiable in my book. Understandable, since it's worse than the whites are used to. But not justifiable. >The American blacks' dilemma goes deeper than poverty. As a group, >they suffer from lack of self-confidense -- a feeling that they >do not control their own destiny. Programs such as affirmative >action not only devisively create resentment; they fail to solve >this core problem. I'm not sure why you feel blacks as a group are significantly less confident than whites. The blacks I know seem just about the same as the whites I know. But even if your statement's true, I don't see why giving them as good a shot at being a corporate executive as they've got at being busboys (bussers? :-) would *reduce* their confidence. One doesn't gain confidence and self-respect from *getting* a job - one gets it from *doing* a job. And giving them a fair shot at doing a job should indeed solve that problem (if it is in fact a problem). And I really don't think it's fair to say the *core* problem lies with blacks. I think it's pretty clear that the *core* problem is in the minds of whites. >Blacks must solve problems such as poverty and unemployment >via economic growth from within their own community. >What is needed is a new black enterprenurial class. >True black power will be created with the rise of black >storekeepers and merchants. By starting their own businesses, >blacks can create their own opportunities, instead of depending >on some white "big daddy" to take care of them. Oh, get real, wouldja? How the h*ll do you expect blacks to build a new black entreprenurial class by starting their own businesses? Can you really see a poor, disadvantaged black woman walking into a bank and asking for a loan to start her own business? Shit, nobody'll give her money to do work for them. Who's gonna give her money for her signature? Get real. And why do we want a *black* entreprenurial class? This whole mess started because we have a *white* class. We're trying to get *rid* of segregation here, not promote it. And if this is interpreted as a handout from "white big daddy", we've got trouble. This is an attempt to get all of us working together to make things better for everyone. *Everyone* benefits when we can overcome discrimination and prejudice. The former "have-nots" get a chance to feed their families, and the former "have's" have a new pool of talent from which to draw. And people just get along better with each other. >Frank Silbermann -- --JB "The giant is awake." Disclaimer? Who wud claim dis?
clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) (05/28/85)
In article <566@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Beth Christy) writes: > >Yes, disadvantaged poor whites may be outraged. But while I understand >the reaction completely, I'm not sure I agree it's "justified". It's >true that they have less opportunity than they did before. They now >have their *fair share* of opportunity. The poor disadvantaged blacks But they *don't* have their fair share of opportunity. That's the problem. Without job hiring practises being based upon "best suited for the job" "fair share of opportunity" is impossible in specific cases (and that's all a specific person cares about). Particularly if a group of applicants for a job (or classification) are not evenly distributed (same ratios as society) as to race, sex or whatever. For most people in a position to hire people (at least in the computer industry) I believe that the primary criteria for hiring people is that they find the best person for the job. I don't think racial/sexual biases are particularly prevalent anymore especially in highly technical areas (though handicapped *might* be). Having to pass over more highly qualified people to fill out a blanket quota will only serve to create more racism/sexism. Don't get me wrong, I don't believe that a particular minority is less or more suited for a particular position - but abstracting from the population as a whole down to individual cases and professions result in truncation errors. I recognize that much of the reason for disproportionate groups of applicants for particular positions is frequently due to a bias-caused lack of education/experience on the part of some minorities. But, past prejudice doesn't alleviate the fact of someone not being best-of-the-applicants qualified for a particular job *now*. Considering the long way society has come since the '30s and '40s it would be far better to let things alone and the problem of discrimination will disappear as it has been doing - things have been happening without anybody really noticing. Racial/sexual/whatever quotas will bring back the prejudices and hatred of the 40's - only worse because the object of this hatred is mixed into the workplace. Then everybody will be involved in it. You can see this happening up here due to long-standing hiring policies of the Canadian Govt. w.r.t. French speaking employees. It is getting very near the point where employers are not allowed to discriminate against incompetence. -- Chris Lewis, UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!clewis BELL: (416)-475-8980 ext. 321
scott@hou2g.UUCP (Scott Berry the Unbeliever) (05/28/85)
Let's get something straight: 1. "Equal Opportunity" is a FAIR SHOT. 2. "Affirmative Action" is MORE THAN a fair shot and in fact represents discrimination on basis of race and sex. SJBerry
robertp@weitek.UUCP (Robert Plamondon) (05/29/85)
In article <566@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP>, beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Beth Christy) writes: > So what else can we do but require people to ignore whatever prejudice > they have and hire a black/woman/hispanic/handicapped_individual? And then > hope they recognize that the above-mentioned individual *is* performing > well. Well, the Irish and the Jews have pretty much overcome prejudices against them without government aid. I'm always irritated by the presumption that today's minorities are too incompetent to do the same. For that matter, the idea that government intrusion into people's lives would ever LESSEN resentment strikes me as absurd. OSHA insists that they're regulating working conditions for the workers' own good, but have you ever heard a kind word about them? Why would you assume that regulation of YOUR causes would be less inept than other regulation? The nazis in Germany felt that the Jews had been oppressing them for centuries, and were excluding good Aryans from professional positions. So they set up government programs to restore the balance... The side effects were unpleasant.
fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (05/29/85)
In article <sphinx.566> beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Beth Christy) writes: > >The purpose of affirmative action is not to provide "justice for past >wrongs". It is to prevent future wrongs of the same type. >Hiring inequities are a result of the personal prejudices of individual >hiring authorities. The only truly effective way to eliminate the inequities >is to step into the minds of everyone who hires people and eliminate the >prejudices. That's obviously a pretty tough task, and even if the >government *could* do it, I doubt anyone would *want* them to regulate >people's opinions. But we *do* want the inequities to go away. So what >else can we do but require people to ignore whatever prejudice they have >and hire a black/woman/hispanic/handicapped_individual? And then hope >they recognize that the above-mentioned individual *is* performing well. But be careful you don't merely substitute future wrongs of a different type. It's very tricky to find the right balance. >>Blacks must solve problems such as poverty and unemployment >>via economic growth from within their own community. >>What is needed is a new black enterprenurial class. >>True black power will be created with the rise of black >>storekeepers and merchants. By starting their own businesses, >>blacks can create their own opportunities, instead of depending >>on some white "big daddy" to take care of them. > >Oh, get real, wouldja? How the h*ll do you expect blacks to build a >new black entreprenurial class by starting their own businesses? Can >you really see a poor, disadvantaged black woman walking into a bank >and asking for a loan to start her own business? Shit, nobody'll give >her money to do work for them. Who's gonna give her money for her >signature? Get real. Who says all businesses are created with borrowed money? What about doing it the way immigrant Koreans, Jews and Japanese did it? I.e. you take a low-wage job in a small, low-capital business (i.e. fruit store, candy store, tailor shop, newsstand). While you struggle to learn all facets of the business, you pinch pennies for years until you accumulate a small nest egg. Maybe you borrow a bit more from relatives, in exchange for a piece of the action. Then you open your own business. To save labor costs, you and your whole family work long hours, and continue to pinch pennies. You gradually expand. Eventually the business is too big for just your family, so you hire cousins and neighbors who might otherwise be unemployed. >And why do we want a *black* entreprenurial class? >This whole mess started because we have a *white* class. >We're trying to get *rid* of segregation here, not promote it. Who said anything about segregation? With enough wealthy black entrprenures, blacks will have the power and influence to give other blacks jobs. >And if this is interpreted as a handout from "white big daddy", we've >got trouble. This is an attempt to get all of us working together to >make things better for everyone. *Everyone* benefits when we can >overcome discrimination and prejudice. The former "have-nots" get a >chance to feed their families, and the former "have's" have a new pool >of talent from which to draw. And people just get along better with >each other. But why must it always be white entrepreniurs giving out the jobs. If blacks want their share of the jobs, they must CREATE their share of jobs, as well. And jobs are created when people open and expand businesses. Frank Silbermann
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (05/30/85)
>Considering the long way society has come since the '30s and '40s it >would be far better to let things alone and the problem of discrimination >will disappear as it has been doing - things have been happening >without anybody really noticing. I'd like a bit of statistical data on that claim. My impression was that there was less sexual discrimination in the workforce during and after the war than now (or at least in recent years, until affirmative action programs began taking hold). > Racial/sexual/whatever quotas >will bring back the prejudices and hatred of the 40's - only worse >because the object of this hatred is mixed into the workplace. Then >everybody will be involved in it. You can see this happening up >here due to long-standing hiring policies of the Canadian Govt. >w.r.t. French speaking employees. What's that supposed to mean? Federal employees who are not French monolinguals hate those who are? Bilingual employees are hated by monolinguals because people HAVE to be bilingual in senior positions in this bilingual country? Come off it! I don't know where the machine "mnetor" is, but it doesn't seem to be in Ottawa, and if it is a Federal Government machine in Toronto, there is almost NO language requirement other than English for any but the most senior positions. I haven't heard from francophone bilinguals working in the Federal Government that they feel hated, or that they hate anglophones (bilingual or otherwise). The only places I have come across anti-French "hatred" are in newspaper reports out of rural districts of Manitoba and westward, where they object to bilingual cereal boxes as "pushing French down our throats." In Manitoba, there was a great fuss about giving the substantial French-speaking population equal legal rights with the English speakers, but that was hardly affirmative action in the workplace; it was simple bigotry of people afraid that allowing others equal rights might in some way jeopardize their own position. I guess a lot of this antipathy to affirmative action, ERA and so forth comes from this same fear (but not all; there have been some rational arguments as well). -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt
beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Beth Christy) (05/30/85)
From: scott@hou2g.UUCP (Scott Berry the Unbeliever), Message-ID: <478@hou2g.UUCP>: >Let's get something straight: > > 1. "Equal Opportunity" is a FAIR SHOT. > > 2. "Affirmative Action" is MORE THAN a > fair shot and in fact represents > discrimination on basis of race and sex. > > SJBerry I'm assuming that "Affirmative Action" is a requirement that a company's payroll be (on the order of) 51% females and (on the order of) 11% blacks at all levels of employment. This reflects the current proportion of females and blacks in the population as a whole. Is that what you think it means? If so, why do you think that such a requirement offers "MORE THAN a fair shot" to females and blacks? Please elaborate. -- --JB Life is just a bowl.
9234dwz@houxf.UUCP (T.SIEFRING) (05/30/85)
-->>From: scott@hou2g.UUCP (Scott Berry the Unbeliever),
-->
-->>Let's get something straight:
-->>
-->> 1. "Equal Opportunity" is a FAIR SHOT.
-->>
-->> 2. "Affirmative Action" is MORE THAN a
-->> fair shot and in fact represents
-->> discrimination on basis of race and sex.
-->>
-->> SJBerry
-->
-->I'm assuming that "Affirmative Action" is a requirement that a company's
-->payroll be (on the order of) 51% females and (on the order of) 11% blacks at
-->all levels of employment. This reflects the current proportion of females
-->and blacks in the population as a whole. Is that what you think it means?
-->If so, why do you think that such a requirement offers "MORE THAN a fair
-->shot" to females and blacks? Please elaborate.
-->
-->--JB Life is just a bowl.
-->
Elaboration-
51 % ??????? in work force ?
Fine, even good ( at equal pay for equal work !!!!!!!)
51 % ??????? in work force at all levels ?
Fine , even good, IF qualified
Bad IF NOT qualified.
(resentment,ineffiency you name it)
I use qualified above to include education, experience, competency,
which are the general parameters used in evaluating someone for a
promotion. Anyone think these should be changed ????????
Where women and minorities lose out is generally in experience, a lot of
them are only now getting the chance to break into exclusively white male
fields. From these opportunities they WILL get the chance to progress, that
is why there is legislation in force. In time the percentages of women,etc
in all levels will rise, dramatically over the next decade, and then at a
more gradual pace after that (my opinion only).
The human race generally evolves at it's own pace, if left alone, now if anyone
wants radical change then revolution will be needed. Now I'm sure there are
militants on both sides of the fence that would embrace the thought of
revolution.ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (05/30/85)
>>Let's get something straight: >> >> 1. "Equal Opportunity" is a FAIR SHOT. >> >> 2. "Affirmative Action" is MORE THAN a >> fair shot and in fact represents >> discrimination on basis of race and sex. >> >> SJBerry > I'm assuming that "Affirmative Action" is a requirement that a company's > payroll be (on the order of) 51% females and (on the order of) 11% blacks at > all levels of employment. This reflects the current proportion of females > and blacks in the population as a whole. Is that what you think it means? > If so, why do you think that such a requirement offers "MORE THAN a fair > shot" to females and blacks? Please elaborate. a Let's make several assumptions for the sake of argument: 1. you are running a company of some sort. 2. you are in an area that is 51% female and 11% black. 3. three quarters of your job applicants are black. 4. you are actively hiring. 5. job applicants' qualifications are independent of color. 6. you are required to keep your workforce 11% black. You now have two choices: either allow your workforce to become more than 11% black, or hire whites who are less qualified than blacks. If you do the latter, you are compromising your business. Is it OK to hire more than 11% blacks in these circumstances? If so, is it OK to hire less than 11% blacks if 99% of the applicants are white?
clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) (05/30/85)
In article <1562@dciem.UUCP> mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) writes: > >>Considering the long way society has come since the '30s and '40s it >>would be far better to let things alone and the problem of discrimination >>will disappear as it has been doing - things have been happening >>without anybody really noticing. > >I'd like a bit of statistical data on that claim. My impression >was that there was less sexual discrimination in the workforce >during and after the war than now (or at least in recent years, until >affirmative action programs began taking hold). The war was a special case - the male workforce was so tied up with being part of the war that females HAD to be employed to manufacture goods. There was no less sexual discrimination - males would still have been hired preferentially but there weren't enough to fill all the jobs nor were women treated fairly for promotion. As soon as the war ended most women were kicked out of the workforce immediately. Though a case can be made that there was less discrimination afterwards because exposure and experience to women in the workforce made it more acceptable to many the overall level of discrimination didn't really change much during or after. There was a movie that we saw recently with Sally Field (I forget the title) which demonstrated this pretty well. Discrimination is obvious when there aren't enough jobs around to employ everybody. If there are jobs to employ everybody, it doesn't necessarily follow that there is no discrimination. Discrimination during levels of low-unemployment merely is more subtle (and possibly more damaging because of "but we do hire lots of minorities" - sort of like "some of my best friends are <choose your favorite minority>") There aren't any affirmative action policies in Canada yet (except for the bilingualism program). Didn't you see the stuff in the papers recently about the report on employment integration and proposed affirmative action? (Sorry, I can't quite remember the name of the woman who wrote the report, nor the title) That would have been just about the first instance of official affirmative action in this country. I know that (I don't have statistics, but it is *obvious* from society) that most of the lessening of discrimination in the workplace started long before official affirmative action policies became common. The minorities are very much better represented in the workforce in Canada now than they were in the 00's-mid 60's in spite of the fact that very few places in Canadian society have affirmative action policies even now. One primary example: until the late fifties IBM (at least in one of the sites here) consisted almost solely of crew-cut WASP males with white shirts and unmarried women in menial jobs (females were fired when they got married - that *was* official policy!). Currently, the place I worked in IBM actually has considerably more women and other minorities than strict population percentages would dictate. Mind you, some is due to carry-over of U.S. affirmative action policies into Canada. But I do believe that most of this is a result of attitude changes before there were affirmative action policies. Actually, strict affirmative action adherence would probably *decrease* minority representation in the area I was in at IBM. (That would be a great mistake too!) My comments were primarily directed against official "affirmative action" policies. I have no quibble with "equal rights/access" provisions in our constitution or other legislation. I should have made that clear in my original posting. > >> Racial/sexual/whatever quotas >>will bring back the prejudices and hatred of the 40's - only worse >>because the object of this hatred is mixed into the workplace. Then >>everybody will be involved in it. You can see this happening up >>here due to long-standing hiring policies of the Canadian Govt. >>w.r.t. French speaking employees. > >What's that supposed to mean? Federal employees who are not French >monolinguals hate those who are? Bilingual employees are hated by >monolinguals because people HAVE to be bilingual in senior positions >in this bilingual country? Come off it! I don't know where the machine >"mnetor" is, but it doesn't seem to be in Ottawa, and if it is a Federal >Government machine in Toronto, there is almost NO language requirement >other than English for any but the most senior positions. What does the machine or whom I'm working for have to do with it? Just because I live in Toronto doesn't mean that I cannot know Federal employees in Ottawa - I know quite a few - some that work in the same place that you do! I used to work in Ottawa and I once worked for the Ontario Govt. too. I know people who work for the Federal Govt. (some in relatively high places I'm afraid to say) that are *extremely* biased against the bilingual requirements (and imagined monolingual French privileges) and those who are hired/promoted because of it (or imagined to). One of them would give Hitler a run for the money in "most vituperative/racist thinking sweepstakes" (and he *isn't* a friend of mine either! The reason he is not being promoted is because he's a jerk not because he's not French or bilingual). The Ontario Govt. isn't free of these attitudes either in spite of the fact that Ontario isn't officially bilingual (yet) and has very few (if any) bilingual hiring policies. Nor, as you contend, are the Federal bilingual policies directed *only* at high level employess. The bilingual policy is directed at almost every level of Federal employment where contact with the public occurs. (and, to me it makes sense too!) The hatred that I'm concerned about is not necessarily based upon a "fact" of discrimination but on the perception. Affirmative action: 1) Doesn't take into account the fact that minorities are disproportionately represented (either plus or minus) in the class of people qualified *now* for a particular area of the workforce. 2) Provides an excuse (and spawning ground for hatred) for those people not hired because of affirmative action either in truth or in fiction: a) An unqualified applicant takes the easy way out and blames non-hiring/promotion upon discrimnatory policies (and those horrible people taking *his* job) rather than his own inadequacies. b) A better-qualified applicant (who has mouths to feed too!) being turned down simply because he was the wrong minority. We have to face the fact that affirmative action is *not* fair to the individual - particularly the one who has to pay for past injustices by other people. Consider the following situation: Women have justifiable complaint about their representation in the workforce. What happens if the hiring (or promotion) group already has filled their quota on women, but has to fill quota with another minority. A women turned down under those circumstances is *still* being discriminated against because she's a women. And, she will probably still come to the same conclusion that she has been discriminated against. People usually don't really care *why* the discrimination exists, only the fact that *they* *were* discriminated against. If we don't have affirmative action, but still have "equal access on ability" policies, then it is *both* fair to everyone *and* will correct the existing injustice in the long term. Things have been changing a lot faster without official affirmative action policies than you think! Just look around, there's *far* more minority involvement at all levels than there used to be. As a few examples, ten years ago there weren't *any* female newscasters, newspaper publishers or VP-upwards executives. People tend to forget what things were like even only five years ago. Official affirmative action creates and/or perpetuates division between groups - it doesn't do anything to eliminate it. >I haven't heard from francophone bilinguals working in the Federal Government >that they feel hated, or that they hate anglophones (bilingual or >otherwise). The only places I have come across anti-French "hatred" >are in newspaper reports out of rural districts of Manitoba and westward, Pure crap! What have you been reading or not reading for that matter? Are you sure that you live in the same country? I assume that you are, because D.C.I.E.M. is less than 10 miles from where I live and work, but you certainly don't seem to know what's going on. If you think that anti-French sentiment is restricted to the west of Canada, you are sadly mistaken. It exists in Ontario, parts of Quebec (they aren't all French!) and in the Maritimes - it is quite possibly highest in Ottawa! Where, for example, do you think that Ottawans figure that the criminals who perpetuate the highest bank-robbery rates outside of Quebec come from anyways? Hull! (just across the Ottawa river which is the Ontario/Quebec border for you people not knowing the geography). They're probably right, but drawing the distinction is what matters. Nor does it matter whether the object of the sentiment (French Mono/Bi lingual) know it or not. It's a lot better than it was (say than during WW II) but it still exists. It's unpleasant but true. Fortunately, all the companies I have worked for don't discriminate (much...). The Manitoba (and you forgot New Brunswick) situation doesn't really have much to do with access to employment per-se. Most of it is an irrational fear of becoming unequally represented in law, taxation, education, and Govt. services. Even I get extremely uncomfortable when Quebec wants to have the ability to veto any legislation that effects them in any way. No other province would have that much power. Somehow that seems to mean that the rest of the country has less than equal control over their destiny. -- Chris Lewis, UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!clewis BELL: (416)-475-8980 ext. 321
mom@sftri.UUCP (Mark Modig) (05/30/85)
> From: scott@hou2g.UUCP (Scott Berry the Unbeliever), > Message-ID: <478@hou2g.UUCP>: > > >Let's get something straight: > > > > 1. "Equal Opportunity" is a FAIR SHOT. > > > > 2. "Affirmative Action" is MORE THAN a > > fair shot and in fact represents > > discrimination on basis of race and sex. > > > > SJBerry > > I'm assuming that "Affirmative Action" is a requirement that a company's > payroll be (on the order of) 51% females and (on the order of) 11% blacks at > all levels of employment. This reflects the current proportion of females > and blacks in the population as a whole. Is that what you think it means? > If so, why do you think that such a requirement offers "MORE THAN a fair > shot" to females and blacks? Please elaborate. > In the workplace today, there are certain occupations where the overwhelming majority of workers and prospective workers are women or men, due to societal pressures, "tradition", or whatever. Things may be changing, but in some occupations this is still fact. What the above definition of affirmative action does is impose quotas on a business. About 51% of your employees must be women, about 49% must be men, (the rest I guess could be anything), and similarly for a racial distribution. I am assuming that these quotas are based on national figures, as the racial makeup of different areas of the country can be quite disparate. These quotas are inherently unfair, in my view, because one of the primary determinations of an applicant's fitness for a job would be whether or not the applicant was of the proper race and sex. In a job occupation such as nursing, male nurses would benefit unfairly because of their sex, not because their ability. Now it's true that we seem to be talking about quotas based on a company-wide basis, so nursing might apply to a hospital, where there are other professions working as well. But there would still have to be juggling among all of the personnel to get the quotas for the whole hospital to come out right. [We need x male janitors to counter the y female nurses we hired...etc., etc.,] And thus we have people being hired as much because of their race or sex as because of their ability. You could also turn the whole example around using a technical firm that hires a lot of engineers. In this case, the quotas would be more than fair to females and minorities because a primary consideration in their hiring would be their race and/or sex. It would be conceivable under such a system that I couldn't hire people I wanted to hire because they weren't of the proper sex or race. To me, that's not fair. What is fair? Well, my company's affirmative action policy as I understand it comes pretty close I think. First and foremost in consideration is the applicant's ability, along with experience, personability, would the applicant get along well with others, etc. Then, and only then, would affirmative action considerations come into play. Essentially, the policy is to use affirmative action considerations to break a tie that can't reasonably be broken in any other way. But along with this are workshops held here to let current employees gain an understanding of the problems faced by minorities and women and to explain the affirmative action policy, plus presentations at schools and other places encouraging minorities and women to consider applying. Job discrimination is a problem. But it is a problem that isn't going to be solved by simply changing which groups are the target of such discrimination. I, for one, will fight against such quotas until they put the last nail in my coffin. Cornily yours, Mark Modig ihnp4!sftri!mom
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (05/30/85)
In article <197@weitek.UUCP> robertp@weitek.UUCP (Robert Plamondon) writes: > > Well, the Irish and the Jews have pretty much overcome prejudices against > them without government aid. I'm always irritated by the presumption that > today's minorities are too incompetent to do the same. Well, I'm irritated by your presumption that new minorities should have to be initiated by running a gauntlet of prejudice and discrimination. > For that matter, the idea that government intrusion into people's lives > would ever LESSEN resentment strikes me as absurd. OSHA insists that > they're regulating working conditions for the workers' own good, but have > you ever heard a kind word about them? Why would you assume that regulation > of YOUR causes would be less inept than other regulation? The only people I've heard complain about OSHA are employers, largely about the costs of complying. By analogy, when's the last time you heard a good thing said about vaccines by someone who didn't catch a disease? But we do hear bad things said about vaccines by people who bear their costs: occaisional bad reactions, or conflicts with religion. > The nazis in Germany felt that the Jews had been oppressing them for > centuries, and were excluding good Aryans from professional positions. So > they set up government programs to restore the balance... I see. The Jewish majority decided they'd been oppressing the poor Nazis, so they enacted genocidal lws against themselves and handed over the reigns of government to the non-Jewish minority. :-( I'd be hard-put to make a weaker analogy than yours. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
san@peora.UUCP (Sanjay Tikku) (05/30/85)
In article <598@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Beth Christy) writes: >From: scott@hou2g.UUCP (Scott Berry the Unbeliever), >Message-ID: <478@hou2g.UUCP>: > >>Let's get something straight: >> >> 1. "Equal Opportunity" is a FAIR SHOT. >> >> 2. "Affirmative Action" is MORE THAN a >> fair shot and in fact represents >> discrimination on basis of race and sex. >> >> SJBerry > >I'm assuming that "Affirmative Action" is a requirement that a company's >payroll be (on the order of) 51% females and (on the order of) 11% blacks at >all levels of employment. This reflects the current proportion of females >and blacks in the population as a whole. Is that what you think it means? >If so, why do you think that such a requirement offers "MORE THAN a fair >shot" to females and blacks? Please elaborate. > This discussion on discrimination is now starting to border on ridiculous suggestions. On one hand everyone wants to champion the cause of free economy so that the market decides the price and services. Also, people want the free economy to benefit the consumer and that's us. Then why don't you leave the hiring of employees also to the market. If I am running a business and competing in a free market economy, then give me one good reason why I will not hire a person with the maximum productivity level from the available pool of workers. Why should I be forced to hire a woman just because she is a woman or why should I have to hire a person just because he/she belongs to a minority class. With the same reasoning, if a minority class worker is the best for the given job, I'll hire him. The bottom line in every business is DOLLARS. If I have to hire people on grounds other than ability to perform the job then that is fundamentally contradicting the free market theory. Also, how can I produce the cheapest goods(maximizing profit) if I don't have the best available people. In most arguments the quota system is favored to compensate for past discrimination. I have a question for all you EEO/AA champions - what line of reasoning says that past discrimination can be compensated by future discrimination? Seems to me that further mess is being made. sanjay -- Full-Name: Sanjay Tikku UUCP: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!san CSnet: san%peora.UUCP@CSNET-RELAY USnail: MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC; 2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642 Tel: (305)850-1042-Off. ; (305)851-3700-Res.
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (05/31/85)
Affirmative Action attempts to encourage the hiring of minorities who aren't represented in the workforce according to their %age of the population. To do this it must: a) Split the workforce into contingents, ie. white vs. black b) Request that this dividing line be used as a criteria in hiring. I don't care what the goal or effect of these laws is. The fact remains is that they treat me as a white man before treating me as a person and they treat a black man as a black man before a person. I will always maintain that my skin colour and other non-competence related characteristics should not be considered in passing judgement on me. Anyone who states otherwise is a racist by most definitions of that word. I don't care what their goal is, they are still racists. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
jdh@mtung.UUCP (Julia Harper) (05/31/85)
() Please note: 1. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY = a fair shot. 2. AFFIRMITIVE ACTION exists to counteract the LACK OF EQUAL OPPORTUNITY. There is no way to force unfair employers to practice EQUAL OPPORTUNITY. AFFIRMITIVE ACTION puts a quota on the employer to force at least some semblance of EQUAL OPPORTUNITY. By the way, just because there are minimum quotas for disadvantaged groups doesn't mean that equal opportunity is achieved for these groups. It is possible (and likely) that unfair employers never hire more than the quota for a group, WHETHER OR NOT they should hire more on the basis of EQUAL OPPORTUNITY. Another thought: perhaps AFFIRMATIVE ACTION should start at a lower level -- like in schools, not just jobs. -- Julia Harper [ihnp4,ariel]!mtung!jdh
ed@mtxinu.UUCP (Ed Gould) (05/31/85)
In article <879@mnetor.UUCP> clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) writes: > >For most people in a position to hire people (at least in the computer >industry) I believe that the primary criteria for hiring people is that >they find the best person for the job. I don't think racial/sexual >biases are particularly prevalent anymore especially in highly technical >areas (though handicapped *might* be). A study just released by a group at Stanford shows that women in technical fields make less than men, and hold fewer management positions, by *more* than the natinal average. In other words, discrimination in the high-tech world is worse. My own observations seem to yield the same conclusions about minority races, with the possible exception of Asians, whose culture predisposes them to work inordinately harder than us honkies. > ... > >Considering the long way society has come since the '30s and '40s it >would be far better to let things alone and the problem of discrimination >will disappear as it has been doing - things have been happening >without anybody really noticing. Things have been happening - maybe without people noticing, but if so only because they're happening too slowly - only because people continue to *do* things about it. If we stop actively striving for equality, then we'll surely degenerate back to where we were - maybe as far back as the early 19th century and beyond. Remember those times from your history lessons (you *did* study basic history in school, didn't you) when people were actually *bought and sold*? I sure don't want to go back there, nor, I suspect, do you. -- Ed Gould mt Xinu, 2910 Seventh St., Berkeley, CA 94710 USA {ucbvax,decvax}!mtxinu!ed +1 415 644 0146
jdh@mtung.UUCP (Julia Harper) (05/31/85)
{}
>Let's make several assumptions for the sake of argument:
> 1. you are running a company of some sort.
> 2. you are in an area that is 51% female and 11% black.
> 3. three quarters of your job applicants are black.
> 4. you are actively hiring.
> 5. job applicants' qualifications are independent of color.
> 6. you are required to keep your workforce 11% black.
>
1. Females and blacks are not exclusive.
2. Affirmative Action doesn't require 11% blacks and 51% women.
The quotas require a MINIMUM number of people from discriminated
groups to be hired. This number is probably more than the current
number employed in a typical desirable position in a company,
but certainly less than actual population statistics.
2. A typical employer would problably hire 11% blacks, 51% women,
and THE REST WHITE MEN no matter how unqualified they were,
because the typical employer only hires the MINIMUM number
of people in discriminated groups that is REQUIRED BY QUOTAS.
In fact, Affirmative Action will have only partially solved the
UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITY of these discriminated against groups.
--
Julia Harper
[ihnp4,ariel]!mtung!jdhsml@luke.UUCP (Steven List @ Uncle Bene's Farm) (06/03/85)
> From: scott@hou2g.UUCP (Scott Berry the Unbeliever), > Message-ID: <478@hou2g.UUCP>: > > >Let's get something straight: > > > > 1. "Equal Opportunity" is a FAIR SHOT. > > > > 2. "Affirmative Action" is MORE THAN a > > fair shot and in fact represents > > discrimination on basis of race and sex. > > > > SJBerry > > I'm assuming that "Affirmative Action" is a requirement that a company's > payroll be (on the order of) 51% females and (on the order of) 11% blacks at > all levels of employment. This reflects the current proportion of females > and blacks in the population as a whole. Is that what you think it means? > If so, why do you think that such a requirement offers "MORE THAN a fair > shot" to females and blacks? Please elaborate. > > -- > > --JB Life is just a bowl. I'm curious about something here. While I agree with the first comment (AA is MORE THAN a fair shot), I wonder if the stats quoted by JB are (1) accurate and (2) represent proportions of the WORKING population. Is AA truly an attempt to enforce equity, or is it a drawn-out guilt trip? Why shouldn't employers/recruiters be free to hire on the basis of qualifications? Maybe I'm naive in this, but it seems to me that while the population may be 51% female, the working population is not. I live in a nice suburban area (called Silicon Valley :-)) and find that there are many women who not only are not part of the working population, but do not wish to be. How does that fit in? In general, I resent any RULE which restricts my freedom to hire. Is it rational to be able to discriminate on the basis of tobacco smoking but not on criminal record or sexual preference? Don't misunderstand - I am opposed to discrimination on the basis of anything other than qualifications. But either the whole thing has to hold together or it should be canned. /-\ :-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-: : Steven List @ Benetics Corporation : : (415) 940-6300 : : {cdp,idi,oliveb,tolerant}!bene!luke!steven : :-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-: \-/
robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (06/03/85)
In article <900@mnetor.UUCP> clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) writes: >There aren't any affirmative action policies in Canada yet (except >for the bilingualism program). Didn't you see the stuff in the papers >recently about the report on employment integration and proposed >affirmative action? (Sorry, I can't quite remember the name of the woman >who wrote the report, nor the title) That would have been just about >the first instance of official affirmative action in this country. Personally, I'd prefer to see AA policies in Canada than "Equal Pay for Work of Equal Value" (known as "comparable pay" in the US). My reasoning is that although AA may result in a loss of productivity in the short run as lesser qualified people are hired in order to satisfy policy requirements all that would really be happening is the speeding up of a process that is not only inevitable but also desirable. EPFWOEV, on the other hand, would result in the *government* setting pay scales - a radical departure from the free market system and a move that is sure to have a depressing effect on an already depressed economy. I see that EPFWOEV is all but assured for Ontario's public and *private* sectors. I've got two questions: 1) To anyone that cares to respond- Surely something in the Constitution prohibits the government from telling the private sector how much to pay its employees? 2) To Comrades Rae and Peterson, the soon-to-be premiers- How much are electrical engineers worth? (I hope they decide it's what they make at Ontario Hydro - I'd rather be overpaid than underpaid any day) Since EPFWOEV will (initially) be restricted to individual organizations it seems to me that the smart move for an entry level computer professional would be to gain employment with with as large a company as possible. Then, survey the wage levels of the various blue collar jobs and when you find that job that pays the most, which you can bet your iron ring pays more than you're making, take your case to the wage police and get a totally undeserved but nonetheless welcome raise. (don't forget about the B.C. grocery clerks who make $16.45/hour for stocking shelves) J.B. Robinson
petersen@ucbvax.ARPA (David A. Petersen) (06/03/85)
In article <598@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Beth Christy) writes: >From: scott@hou2g.UUCP (Scott Berry the Unbeliever), >Message-ID: <478@hou2g.UUCP>: > >>Let's get something straight: >> >> 1. "Equal Opportunity" is a FAIR SHOT. >> >> 2. "Affirmative Action" is MORE THAN a >> fair shot and in fact represents >> discrimination on basis of race and sex. >> >> SJBerry > >I'm assuming that "Affirmative Action" is a requirement that a company's >payroll be (on the order of) 51% females and (on the order of) 11% blacks at >all levels of employment. This reflects the current proportion of females >and blacks in the population as a whole. Is that what you think it means? >If so, why do you think that such a requirement offers "MORE THAN a fair >shot" to females and blacks? Please elaborate. > >-- > >--JB Life is just a bowl. Would you like to enforce these conditions on Pro Basketball? Herbert Ko
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (06/03/85)
Mark Modig's article reflects some common misconceptions about Affirmative Action programs and hiring goals: > From Mark Modig: > What the above definition of affirmative action does is impose > quotas on a business. About 51% of your employees must be women, > about 49% must be men, (the rest I guess could be anything), and > similarly for a racial distribution. I am assuming that these > quotas are based on national figures, as the racial makeup of > different areas of the country can be quite disparate. > This is *not true*. Affirmative Action does *not* mean that any employer *must* hire 51% women , 11% blacks, and x% other minorities. It means that employers should strive to attain these goals and make progress towards attaining them. > These quotas are inherently unfair, in my view, because one of the > primary determinations of an applicant's fitness for a job would be > whether or not the applicant was of the proper race and sex. > Again, this is simply *not* true. Nobody is saying that any black high school dropout can apply for a job as a programmer and any other kind of job and get hired simply because she is black. The *primary* determinants of any hiring decision are qualifications to do the job. The fact is that in many fields there are actually many more people qualified to do the job than there are job openings. The other fact is that discrimination has been entrenched in many places and exists today. Right now there is not a single black dancer in the Rockettes of Radio City Music Hall. Not one. In fact there have been over 5000 Rockettes since they were founded-and in over 40 years not a single one of them has been black, red or anything but lily-white. Is this because there are no qualified black female dancers? Certainly not. It is because of an entrenched policy of white only dancers. The same thing occurs on a smaller scale throughout this country sad to say. > > It would be conceivable under such a system that I couldn't hire > people I wanted to hire because they weren't of the proper sex or > race. To me, that's not fair. > If somebody is unequivocally the best-qualified applicant then there is nothing to stop that person being hired so long as s/he is a U.S. citizen. However if "I want to hire fellow white good ole boys" *because they are "white good ole boys" then that is unfair. In fact that is what often happens. Affirmative Action programs attempt to counter that inherent bias. > What is fair? Well, my company's affirmative action policy as I > understand it comes pretty close I think. First and foremost in > consideration is the applicant's ability, along with experience, > personability, would the applicant get along well with others, etc. > Then, and only then, would affirmative action considerations come > into play. Essentially, the policy is to use affirmative action > considerations to break a tie that can't reasonably be broken in any > other way. But along with this are workshops held here to let > current employees gain an understanding of the problems faced by > minorities and women and to explain the affirmative action policy, plus > presentations at schools and other places encouraging minorities and > women to consider applying. > Mark Modig Your company's affirmative action policy, Mark, is *precisely* what affirmative action programs are! They are not "mandated quotas" they are not meant to make hiring decisions based solely upon race or sex, they are not meant to discriminate against *any* group. They are meant to give groups which have always been discriminated against an even break. The Rockettes are simply one among thousands of groups and organizations which have not given discrminated groups an even break. tim sevener whuxl!orb
jkpachl@watdaisy.UUCP (Jan Pachl) (06/03/85)
J. Robinson writes > > Since EPFWOEV will (initially) be restricted to individual organizations > it seems to me that the smart move for an entry level computer > professional would be to gain employment with with as large a company > as possible. Then, survey the wage levels of the various blue collar > jobs and when you find that job that pays the most, which you can bet your > iron ring pays more than you're making, take your case to the wage police > and get a totally undeserved but nonetheless welcome raise. (don't forget > about the B.C. grocery clerks who make $16.45/hour for stocking shelves) The way I understand the EPFWOEV legislation, it does not say that the lower paid person must get a raise; it is equally acceptable (as far as the legislation is concerned) that the higher paid person get a wage cut.
cja@lzwi.UUCP (C.E.JACKSON) (06/03/85)
In article <903@houxf.UUCP>, 9234dwz@houxf.UUCP (T.SIEFRING) writes: > 51 % ??????? in work force ? > > Fine, even good ( at equal pay for equal work !!!!!!!) > > 51 % ??????? in work force at all levels ? > > Fine , even good, IF qualified > > Bad IF NOT qualified. > (resentment,ineffiency you name it) > > I use qualified above to include education, experience, competency, > which are the general parameters used in evaluating someone for a > promotion. Anyone think these should be changed ???????? --------------------------------------------------------- First, I find that many white males are promoted for reasons other than education, experience, competency, etc. and that even when those reasons are a factor, other factors also come into play. People are promoted or hired or not fired because they go to church with the person making the decision (or someone known to the person making the decision), because they belong to the same fraternity, because they lived in the same town or because they went to the same school. People who have these kinds of close personal contacts with those in power are more likely to get breaks than those who don't. Because of America's habits & history, blacks are less likely to live in the same towns/neighborhoods with whites, less likely to attend the same schools or belong to the same fraternities, social clubs or churches. Women are also less likely to have professional or quasi-professional contacts with the males in power. Therefore, AA policies help to make up for the difference in access to opportunities that currently exists. Second, I think one thing AA tries to do is question what really constitutes valid "experience." Let's consider the case of medical school admissions. I would suggest that the experience of being discriminated against (which IS the case for most blacks and women) has made them, in general, less arrogant than white males. I would also suggest that the arrogance of the white male medical establishment is one reason for the skyrocketing malpractice insurance & higher medical costs. Shouldn't the experience of not thinking you were born god of the universe be considered as a valid criterion in evaluating medical school admissions? Being the child of a doctor is considered a valid criterion--how many blacks have had that opportunity denied to them? And wouldn't someone who grew up in a ghetto be more willing to practice there AND better at it than some rich WASP from the suburbs whose dad was a doctor? I personally would rather go to a black doctor who made B's in college & didn't think s/he knew everything in the world than some arrogant white male who got all A's but forgot that I was a human being. The truth of the matter is that I don't have to make that choice--actually, most black & female medical school graduates are MORE qualified (in terms of their grade point averages than white males--& in my experience, generally far more sensitive.) Medical school is one example, but I suggest that there are many professions and jobs in which the experiences that this sexist and racist society forces blacks and women to undergo gives blacks and women a qualification that employers/admissions people/whomever need to consider in evaluating performance. > > The human race generally evolves at it's own pace, if left alone, now if anyone > wants radical change then revolution will be needed. Now I'm sure there are > militants on both sides of the fence that would embrace the thought of > revolution. Or perhaps you need militants pushing for revolution to force the more conservative majority to "evolve." Do you really think that if the 60s, with its militant push for civil rights *hadn't* happened, that blacks would be as well off as they are today? I think we'd still be where South Africa is.
cja@lzwi.UUCP (C.E.JACKSON) (06/04/85)
> >Yes, disadvantaged poor whites may be outraged. Some number of states, for example, Kentucky & Minnesota have special programs to benefit disadvantaged citizens from particular, primarily "white" regions of their states (Appalachia & the Iron Range, respectively). I happen to know about these programs because I have lived in those states. These programs do not seem to receive the national attention that AA programs do. My point is twofold: 1) There ARE programs in place that primarily benefit whites/men. 2) People don't complain about them either because they are accepted as part of the status quo (& I'm not saying that those people in Appalachia & the Iron Range don't NEED help) or that people don't somehow consider that discrimination. > For most people in a position to hire people (at least in the computer > industry) I believe that the primary criteria for hiring people is that > they find the best person for the job. I don't think racial/sexual > biases are particularly prevalent anymore especially in highly technical > areas (though handicapped *might* be). Either life is radically different in Canada or you just haven't talked to many of the people who've been discriminated against. Recruiters tend to hire people they like, & in many cases the people they like are like themselves. If, for historical reasons, the people who hired the recruiters are white males, the recruiters are going to take the work of white males more seriously. Also, discrimination is not always overt, nor does it simply start at the job market. In my high school, girls weren't allowed in the computer club. (This is a public high school, mind you.) Recent studies have shown that even when girls allowed to use the computers that teachers still tend to let the boys use them more often. Girls are less likely to be encouraged to stay in advanced math classes. > But, past prejudice doesn't alleviate the fact of someone not being > best-of-the-applicants qualified for a particular job *now*. I don't think the prejudice is "past." And have you *never* worked with an incompetent white male? I hear all of these complaints about AA discriminating against these postively brilliant white males who are incredibly overqualified & I look around me, & when I look at the people who are incompetent, whom do I see in amazingly disproportionate numbers? Despite the alleged "reverse discrimination" of AA? White males. If the "best-of-the-applicants" were all that were/are considered without AA then how did all this white male dead weight get to where it is? C. E. Jackson ihnp4!lznv!cja
cja@lzwi.UUCP (C.E.JACKSON) (06/04/85)
> What is fair? Well, my company's affirmative action policy as I > understand it comes pretty close I think. > Essentially, the policy is to use affirmative action > considerations to break a tie that can't reasonably be broken in any > other way. But along with this are workshops held here to let > current employees gain an understanding of the problems faced by > minorities and women and to explain the affirmative action policy, plus > presentations at schools and other places encouraging minorities and > women to consider applying. > > Job discrimination is a problem. But it is a problem that isn't > going to be solved by simply changing which groups are the target of > such discrimination. I, for one, will fight against such quotas > until they put the last nail in my coffin. > Before there were quotas, there was EEO, which stipulated that people/companies shouldn't discriminate. People continued discriminating. Companies, ignoring the call of the allegedly "free" marketplace (which would presumably encourage them to hire the "best qualified" candidate regardless of race, sex, etc.), continued to discriminate. The government then set up guidelines for ideal minority/female employment. These guidelines were not 51% for women and 11%, but much lower & tailored to job type/regions. For instance, if 10% of all graduating B.E.E. people were women for a given year, the government guidelines suggested that 10% of the new hires in EE-related fields be women. Regardless of the fact that women's GPA's tend to be somewhat higher than men's (which would lead one to believe that in a "free" market, the best jobs would be more likely to go to women & fewer women would be without jobs), companies still failed to meet the guidelines. Many companies failed to even come *near* the guidelines. Depending on how miserably & flagrantly the companies thumbed their noses at the government's guidelines, the government retaliated with quotas. You and I both work for AT&T. In the 60-70s, AT&T suffered a few class action suits & basically instituted the AA policy that you suggested was fair. AT&T did not do so, as I understand the company's history, because it particularly cared about women or blacks but because it had enough other kinds of lawsuits pending (from within & without the government) wanted to avoid ones about discrimination. So it came up with a voluntary policy & even attempts to enforce the policy so that it doesn't have to worry about government-imposed quotas. Other companies were less distracted, less foresighted, sleazier & more bigoted. The government then imposed quotas on them. I think you underestimate what a fundamentally decent company we work for--what do you do with companies that defy the law? AA is a tool in implementing the goals of the 1965 Civil Rights Act. It is a tool that was used by the Justice Department until 1981, & was applied differently to different situations. There is NO law anywhere that says in all occupations everywhere, the nation must have 51% female employment & 11% black employment. It is only a tool that is used to enforce the law. The Reagan Administration chooses not to use it, but has not substituted any other tool to replace it. One reason I am so interested in defending AA is that I have yet to see a better tool (& yes this is a flawed one, but what IS the alternative--the only real one I've heard suggested is to wait for society to "evolve." It's a funny concept of law & justice to say that my best hope is to work so that my greatgranddaughter gets the justice I am denied). In discarding this tool, it seems as if the Reagan Administration has given up enforcing the law altogether (RR WAS against the 1965 Civil Rights Act when it came out, you know). I find that idea far more repugnant than quotas imposed on lawbreakers. Why are AA quotas seen as more offensive than forcing companies to comply with the Clean Air Act? In 1965, the government said it's illegal to discriminate, just as the government said that it is illegal to pollute. In the late 60s, the government saw that many industries polluted & many discriminated. To rectify this problem, suggested guidelines were drawn up in both instances. Those companies which complied, like AT&T, were left alone (on that issue :-}). Those which did not were regulated more carefully. How would you like to see the government enforce the law? Are you suggesting that the government should not enforce the law? Isn't it a violation of RR's oath of office not to enforce the law? When companies violate the 1965 Civil Rights Act, what would YOU have the government do to force them to comply? C. E. Jackson ihnp4!lznv!cja
kyle@ucla-cime.UUCP (Kyle D. Henriksen) (06/04/85)
From: fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann), Message-ID: <266@unc.UUCP>: >Blacks must solve problems such as poverty and unemployment >via economic growth from within their own community. >What is needed is a new black enterprenurial class. >True black power will be created with the rise of black >storekeepers and merchants. By starting their own businesses, >blacks can create their own opportunities, instead of depending >on some white "big daddy" to take care of them. Look you jerk you can say anything you want about what blacks should or should not do, but I would appreciate it if you would not include cute little "jive" quotes in your submissions. What the hell is a "big daddy" anyway? Seeming as I have never heard this term used (other than on TV shows written by white people), I'll have to assume you have know as much about black people as the "Dukes of Hazzard". I bet you even have a "black" friend (gag). -- Kyle Henriksen US Snail: UCLA - Crump Institute 6417 Boelter Hall Los Angeles, Ca. 90024 ARPA: ucla-cime!kyle@UCLA-LOCUS.arpa UUCP: {ucla-cs,cepu}!ucla-cime!kyle
9234dwz@houxf.UUCP (T.SIEFRING) (06/04/85)
FIRST T.SEIFRING IS A GROUP ACCOUNT LOGIN (he's also an individual unrelated to the article in question)
I'd love to find time to address all of C.E. JACKSONs points, but time won't
permit that. I hope that CEJ doesn't feel that I'm taking things out of
context.
1)
->First, I find that many white males are promoted for reasons other
->than education, experience, competency, etc. and that even
->when those reasons are a factor, other factors also come into
->play. People are promoted or hired or not fired because they go to church
->with the person making the decision (or someone known to the
->person making the decision), because they belong to the same
->fraternity, because they lived in the same town or because they
->went to the same school. People who have these kinds of close
->personal contacts with those in power are more likely to get
->breaks than those who don't. Because of America's habits &
->history, blacks are less likely to live in the same
->towns/neighborhoods with whites, less likely to attend the
->same schools or belong to the same fraternities, social clubs
->or churches. Women are also less likely to have professional
->or quasi-professional contacts with the males in power.
These "social footladders" are just as difficult to penetrate for
the average white male as they are for blacks & females, consider
Mr X from Average Town with no parental financial support to
speak of. How does he pay the country club fees ? He went to a
State University (because his parents couldn't afford Haaaarvard).
With the mobility afforded/needed today he probably wasn't
raised in the same town/neighbourhood.
->Therefore, AA policies help to make up for the difference in
->access to opportunities that currently exists.
They also kick Mr X in the teeth too ! Where does his help come
from. Not that he's asking for help just a fair shot !
I could go on but CEJ uses a RICH white male as the villain of
the piece and ignores the fact that probably 90% or of white
males don't fit that picture.
->
->Or perhaps you need militants pushing for revolution to force
->the more conservative majority to "evolve." Do you really
->think that if the 60s, with its militant push for civil rights
->*hadn't* happened, that blacks would be as well off as they
->are today? I think we'd still be where South Africa is.
->
I see the civil rights movemant as a part of evolution where
the "establishment" wasn't moving quick enough and needed a good
kick. I ALSO see the Reagan administration as part of that same
evolution where enough people thought things had swung too far
from the "establishment" way of thinking. I expect in time to
come that the pendulum will swing again.
If the civil rights movement hadn't happened I don't KNOW
how well/bad off the blacks would be. If it hadn't happened in
the 60s then it would have happened when ENOUGH people decided
ths time had come.
->
-> -the only real one I've heard
->suggested is to wait for society to "evolve." It's a funny
->concept of law & justice to say that my best hope is to work
->so that my greatgranddaughter gets the justice I am denied).
What justice is being denied to you ? As opposed to an inequity
that you think is being placed upon you.
Dave Peak
@ ihnp4!hotel!dxp
"I am the God of Hellfire, and I bring you fire" - CWoA Brownclewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) (06/05/85)
In article <158@lzwi.UUCP> cja@lzwi.UUCP (C.E.JACKSON) writes: >> they find the best person for the job. I don't think racial/sexual >> biases are particularly prevalent anymore especially in highly technical >> areas (though handicapped *might* be). >Either life is radically different in Canada or you just haven't talked to >many of the people who've been discriminated against. Life must be different in Canada - most of the places (IBM, AES and BNR - all pretty big companies) that I have worked at have been balanced pretty well - some disproportionately well. I've had lots of opportunity to talk to people who were in the groups that are supposed to be discriminated against. >Recruiters tend to hire people they like, & in many cases the people they like >are like themselves. If, for historical reasons, the people who hired the >recruiters are white males, the recruiters are going to take the work of >white males more seriously. Recruiters hiring people that they know (somehow, via Church, clubs, social groups etc.) or indirectly know of because of what area they are in the social group isn't necessarily discrimination. Many times it makes perfect sense because the recruiter already knows what they are like. It's a lot safer to hire a known person than someone that you know from nothing more than an half an hour interview. Yes, maybe the inclusion of certain minorities in certain groups (eg: particular religious denominations) isn't proportionate. Sometimes that may be discrimination (and usually past discrimination) That can be a problem. However, would you like to impose a requirement that 10% of all Catholics in the U.S. must be black? Then again, most of the recruiters that I have dealt with have been female anyways. >Also, discrimination is not always overt, nor does it simply start at the >job market. In my high school, girls weren't allowed in the computer club. What! Holy smokes, you'd never get away with that in most cities in Canada. Amateur hockey is even becoming co-ed (tho slowly). >(This is a public high school, mind you.) Recent studies have shown that >even when girls allowed to use the computers that teachers still tend to >let the boys use them more often. Girls are less likely to be encouraged >to stay in advanced math classes. >> But, past prejudice doesn't alleviate the fact of someone not being >> best-of-the-applicants qualified for a particular job *now*. >I don't think the prejudice is "past." Most of it is. I have had conversations with a lot of people (in various minorities) that have said the same thing. >And have you *never* worked with an incompetent white male? I hear all Of course - lots of times. But, at one place where I worked (one of the companies has AA carryover from the States) almost all of the people in my dept. were incompetent, and almost all from minorities. >of these complaints about AA discriminating against these postively >brilliant white males who are incredibly overqualified & I look around >me, & when I look at the people who are incompetent, whom do I see in amazingly >disproportionate numbers? Despite the alleged "reverse discrimination" of >AA? White males. Interesting - I haven't noticed that. How long have they been there? It's been my experience that incompetence is pretty well distributed amongst various groups, except for a possible increase among white or near-white (but not WASP) males AND females. >If the "best-of-the-applicants" were all that were/are considered without >AA then how did all this white male dead weight get to where it is? Prior prejudice. Even if there was currently a lot of prejudice, most of the "white male dead weight" would have gotten there during prior times (they didn't all get hired last week!) during the obviously higher levels of discrimination. -- Chris Lewis, UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!clewis BELL: (416)-475-8980 ext. 321
robertp@weitek.UUCP (Robert Plamondon) (06/05/85)
In article <394@mtxinu.UUCP>, ed@mtxinu.UUCP (Ed Gould) writes: > > A study just released by a group at Stanford shows that women in technical > fields make less than men, and hold fewer management positions, by *more* > than the natinal average. In other words, discrimination in the high-tech > world is worse. ...The unstated assumption being that discrimination is the *ONLY POSSIBLE* source of differences in the number of women managers, or in average pay. Other reasons come to mind. One is that many women are too nice for their own good. These women don't lean on their employers for raises, they don't do the kind of manic job-hopping that's so common in Silicon Valley, and they aren't agressive enough to wedge their foot in the door when it comes time for a promotion. There are men like that too, of course, but in this culture most women have been raised to be "nice," not aggressive, and it's a handicap in a lot of situations. People who wait patiently for others to discover their sterling qualities are often disappointed. In an ideal world, your all-seeing supervisors would have the wisdom to see your worth and diligently shower you with promotions and raises. In reality, they're just as fallible as you are. -- -- Robert Plamondon {ucbvax!dual!turtlevax,ihnp4!resonex}!weitek!robertp
beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Beth Christy) (06/06/85)
[keep :-)ing] From petersen@ucbvax.ARPA (David A. Petersen), Message <7711@ucbvax.ARPA>: >>I'm assuming that "Affirmative Action" is a requirement that a company's >>payroll be (on the order of) 51% females and (on the order of) 11% blacks at >>all levels of employment. This reflects the current proportion of females >>and blacks in the population as a whole. Is that what you think it means? >>If so, why do you think that such a requirement offers "MORE THAN a fair >>shot" to females and blacks? Please elaborate. >> >>-- >> >>--JB Life is just a bowl. > >Would you like to enforce these conditions on Pro Basketball? > > Herbert Ko On any one team? Nope. On Pro Basketball as a whole? Yup. -- --JB Life is just a bowl.
mom@sftri.UUCP (Mark Modig) (06/06/85)
> Mark Modig's article reflects some common misconceptions about > Affirmative Action programs and hiring goals: > > From Mark Modig: > > What the above definition of affirmative action does is impose > > quotas on a business. About 51% of your employees must be women, > > about 49% must be men, (the rest I guess could be anything), and > > similarly for a racial distribution. I am assuming that these > > quotas are based on national figures, as the racial makeup of > > different areas of the country can be quite disparate. > > > This is *not true*. Affirmative Action does *not* mean that any employer > *must* hire 51% women , 11% blacks, and x% other minorities. It means > that employers should strive to attain these goals and make progress > towards attaining them. > That's YOUR definition of what affirmative action is and is not; if you read my paragraph CAREFULLY (the above definition...) you will see I am specifically addressing a definition put forth by someone else, to wit: *** I'm assuming that "Affirmative Action" is a requirement that a *** company's payroll be (on the order of) 51% females and (on the *** order of) 11% blacks at all levels of employment. This reflects ... etc. (we are asked why this represents more than a fair shot for blacks and women.) My article replied to that question, and I finished by outlining what I thot was a good AA policy. (No, I don't think that AA <--> quotas; rather that quotas could be seen as a way to implement an AA program.) As far as your reply is concerned, Tim, I would like to ask that you read more carefully in the future before you claim or imply that I support a particular view. There is a definite problem with discrimination in this country, and one need not go to the exotic lengths of bringing up the Rockettes to find examples, tho it is a good one. My dispute centers around the means to solve the problem. If you are really interested, I think AA in businesses is an idea that is very limited because the damage has already been done in large part thru, for example, inequities in education. Programs like Head Start should be vigorously supported. Pressure should be exerted at all levels to get poor schools up to par, and to encourage members of minorities and women to stay in school and to explore their educational opportunities in all fields. That solves a big part of the problem. The other really big part of the problem is the discrimination itself. I am not as certain how to change that, though education would again have a role to play, but I have already stated my objections to a quota system as a possible solution. Vigorous prosecution of businesses that are truly discriminatory with stiff penalties are also needed. There are laws against discrimination on the books; what is needed now is enforcement. Mark Modig sftri!mom
greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (06/06/85)
In article <624@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Beth Christy) writes: Dave Peterson talks about 51% of the workforce being female, 11% black. >> >>Would you like to enforce these conditions on Pro Basketball? >> >>> Herbert Ko >> >On any one team? Nope. On Pro Basketball as a whole? Yup. > >-- > >--JB Life is just a bowl. Come on now Beth!! The reason that the majority of players on the pro Basketball teams are black is probably that during tryouts, they were better than the other players. Chances are good that some other race guys tried out for the team also. They just weren't good enough. Now you are willing to have less exciting games, with less qualified people for the sake of AA!!! Let me guess: you'd rather go to a less qualified doctor or lawyer or computer programmer that really isn't up to snuff, but is the right <sex , race>??? Sheesh! -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York --------->{ihnp4 | vax135}!timeinc!greenber<--------- I highly doubt that Time Inc. they would make me their spokesperson. ------ "There's something wrong in the world. There's always been. Something no one has ever named or explained" --- Francisco d'Anconia
karen@randvax.UUCP (Karen Isaacson) (06/06/85)
> ->First, I find that many white males are promoted for reasons other > ->than education, experience, competency, etc. and that even > ->when those reasons are a factor, other factors also come into > ->play. People are promoted or hired or not fired because they go to church > ->with the person making the decision (or someone known to the > ->person making the decision), because they belong to the same > ->fraternity, because they lived in the same town or because they > ->went to the same school... > > These "social footladders" are just as difficult to penetrate for > the average white male as they are for blacks & females, consider > Mr X from Average Town with no parental financial support to > speak of. How does he pay the country club fees ? He went to a > State University (because his parents couldn't afford Haaaarvard). Well, my husband is a fairly "average white male" (though don't tell him I said so) who was bright enough & hard working enough to be accepted by Haaaarvard & surprise! If you are accepted, they make sure you can afford to go. (Though I have to admit they don't pay your country club fees...) Of course, if he was a Kennedy,$I suppose he *would* have had an easier time of it, but how many Kennedys (Kennedies?) are there? -- Karen Isaacson decvax!randvax!karen karen@rand-unix.arpa
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (06/07/85)
In article <159@lzwi.UUCP> cja@lzwi.UUCP (C.E.JACKSON) writes: >Before there were quotas, there was EEO, which stipulated >that people/companies shouldn't discriminate. People continued >discriminating.... >The government then set up guidelines for ideal minority/female employment. >These guidelines were not 51% for women and 11%, but much >lower & tailored to job type/regions. For instance, if 10% of all >graduating B.E.E. people were women for a given year, the >government guidelines suggested that 10% of the new hires in >EE-related fields be women. > ... companies >still failed to meet the guidelines. Many companies failed to >even come *near* the guidelines. >Depending on how miserably & flagrantly the companies thumbed >their noses at the government's guidelines, the government >retaliated with quotas. The guidelines you mentioned seem fair at first glance only. New hires can be recent graduates, or they can be experienced people who have left their previous job. If 10% of recent B. E. E.'s are women, but fewer than 10% were women in previous years, then the percentage of *experienced* E. E.'s will be less than 10%. A company that hires more than a few experienced E. E.'s would not be able to meet the 10% guideline by hiring fairly. And then their failure gets interpreted as defiance. Lovely. If you are reporting what happened accurately, it just goes to show that the government *can't* be trusted to set fair quotas. -- David Canzi "When more and more people are thrown out of work, unemployment results." -- Calvin Coolidge
parnass@ihu1h.UUCP (Bob Parnass, AJ9S) (06/07/85)
> A study just released by a group at Stanford shows that women in technical > fields make less than men, and hold fewer management positions, by *more* > than the natinal average. In other words, discrimination in the high-tech > world is worse. My own observations seem to yield the same conclusions > about minority races, with the possible exception of Asians, whose > culture predisposes them to work inordinately harder than us honkies. Your conclusion that "discrimination in the high-tech world is worse" may be correct, but the study you cite isn't sufficient evidence by itself. Unless this study addresses on-the-job performance (qualifications) of workers in the groups being compared, your conclusion is not fully supported. As a matter of fact, if I understand your last sentence, it seems to erode your first conclusion (i.e., it's working hard that earns promotion). -- =============================================================================== Bob Parnass, Bell Telephone Laboratories - ihnp4!ihu1h!parnass - (312)979-5414
clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) (06/07/85)
In article <394@mtxinu.UUCP> ed@mtxinu.UUCP (Ed Gould) writes: >In article <879@mnetor.UUCP> clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) writes: >> >>I don't think racial/sexual >>biases are particularly prevalent anymore especially in highly technical >>areas (though handicapped *might* be). > >A study just released by a group at Stanford shows that women in technical >fields make less than men, and hold fewer management positions, by *more* >than the natinal average. In other words, discrimination in the high-tech >world is worse. My own observations seem to yield the same conclusions >about minority races, with the possible exception of Asians, whose >culture predisposes them to work inordinately harder than us honkies. My own observations have shown the opposite. Besides, it takes time for people to move up the corporate ladder. This by itself can explain why there are fewer women in higher levels of business. After all, for example, til about 15 years ago (or was it 25?) IBM fired women when they got married. Even if discrimination COMPLETELY disappeared tomorrow morning, it doesn't mean that 51% of all management would be women by the evening, or next week, or next year, or even next decade. Such movement does NOT happen overnight. But, it IS getting better here. > >> ... >> >>Considering the long way society has come since the '30s and '40s it >>would be far better to let things alone and the problem of discrimination >>will disappear as it has been doing - things have been happening >>without anybody really noticing. > >Things have been happening - maybe without people noticing, but if >so only because they're happening too slowly - only because people >continue to *do* things about it. If we stop actively striving for >equality, then we'll surely degenerate back to where we were - maybe >as far back as the early 19th century and beyond. Remember those times >from your history lessons (you *did* study basic history in school, >didn't you) when people were actually *bought and sold*? I sure don't >want to go back there, nor, I suspect, do you. I don't think it is "too slowly". Equal access provisions (which I support) and individual/group striving are fine and ARE working. Pretty quickly too when you consider how long major social restructuring usually takes. AA goes beyond this and tries to impose changes unrealistically fast. Yes, I know about slavery. It IS something that can be eliminated quickly. But stuffing management with the same proportions as the population, where many of the groups do NOT have appropriate qualifications (yet) just ends up destroying the viability of many companies, and inciting hostility with those people who are qualified but passed over. Sure there are lots of studies that show some group is not yet proportionally represented in some sector of the workplace. We just had a study done on women in the media that showed that they aren't close to full representation. But, 20 years ago there weren't ANY women in the media. 20 years from now it will probably be really close to fair representation (without AA). Trying to force "fair" representation this instant, when the group does not have a "tradition" in a particular sector (so that proportionate numbers of the group are choosing to enter the sector) is unfair to those who have. Besides, would you want to force quotas on areas that are disproportionate by nature? (eg: modelling men's underwear, hockey or football teams). Equal access provides the protection that people are not discriminated against with non-job-related factors. That's sufficient AND fair to everybody. -- Chris Lewis, UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!clewis BELL: (416)-475-8980 ext. 321
michael1@ihlpm.UUCP (pula) (06/07/85)
From postnews Fri Jun 7 10:54:21 1985 > > A study just released by a group at Stanford shows that women in technical > fields make less than men, and hold fewer management positions, by *more* > than the natinal average. In other words, discrimination in the high-tech > world is worse. My own observations seem to yield the same conclusions > about minority races, with the possible exception of Asians, whose > culture predisposes them to work inordinately harder than us honkies. > Sometimes I get just sick enough of this crap to respond and this is one of those times! 1). Concerning the Stanford study; Who knows what it was based upon? Statistic (studies et all) can be made to show anything you want them to show if you take the "right" sample and choose to leave off relevant facts. Does anyone take into account past training of women, men or minorities. Does anyone take into account inborn traits or skills? 2). Women in technical fields make less than men. What is Stanford basing this bit of bullshit on? Are they comparing analysts with analysts with the same background the same years experience, the same ratings (note ratings are something I describe as others observations of your goals and abilities). Or is good 'ol stats comparing women and minorities who are associates to senior engineers. All they say are technical fields. 3). There are fewer women in management positions. Well I'm not sure what the census is at other universities, but at IIT the ratio was about 80% male engineering/commputer science students to 20% females. If this is the norm or even close, It's no great suprise why men have more of the managerial roles. Michael K. Pula AT&T Technologies
beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Beth Christy) (06/07/85)
In article <879@mnetor.UUCP> clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) writes: >Considering the long way society has come since the '30s and '40s it >would be far better to let things alone and the problem of discrimination >will disappear as it has been doing - things have been happening >without anybody really noticing. "things have been happening without anybody really noticing"?!?!?!?! Have you ever heard of John F. Kennedy? Martin Luther King? Gloria Steinem? Ring any bells for you? Do you *really* believe that dis- crimination has just been disappearing by itself? Get real. -- --JB Life is just a bowl.
robertp@weitek.UUCP (Robert Plamondon) (06/07/85)
Let's take a hypothetical example, and you people out there tell me how it
effects your concept of affirmative action.
An person starts a new company and wishes to hire some people. The employer
interviews a number of applicants, and feels that the people with the best
qualifications, and the people who will be most effective working together
at the company, are a subset of the applicants of the employer's own ethnic
group and gender.
1. Is this person hiring in an "affirmative action way...
A. If the employer is a white male.
B. If the employer is a black female.
C. If the employer is a white male nazi Bircher who beats his wife.
2. If your answers weren't the same for all three choices, why not?
A. White males [or black females, or nazi Birchers who beat their
wives] are always wrong in these situations, because of original
sin, or history, or racial deficiencies, or something.
B. Affirmative action has nothing to do with morality: it's a power
play, and that's the way I like it.
C. Huh? I thought this was net.comics!
E. Other: _________________________________
3. Should the employer hire some 'tokens' anyway, even though the 'tokens'
would be less qualified? Even if the tokens are white? Males? Yuppies?
4. Should the employer feel responsible for the past crimes of his/her ethnic
group, even if he/she wasn't alive at the time, and try to make up for
them by favoring people who resemble the victims?
A. Yes
B. No
C. Only if the employer is a white male.
5. I believe that the federal government will do a wonderful job of ending
discrimination, if given adequate funding and police powers.
A. True
B. False
6. Using race as a criterion when hiring is not bigotry when the effect is
to cause a member of a fashionable group (such as Eskimos or women) to
be hired.
A. True
B. False.
If any of you feel like filling this out, mail the reply to me --DON'T post
to the net. If you only want to comment in general, please don't include
this whole posting; just put in enough so we know what you're replying to.
--
-- Robert Plamondon
{ucbvax!dual!turtlevax,ihnp4!resonex}!weitek!robertpsimard@loral.UUCP (Ray Simard) (06/08/85)
>> Affirmative Action does *not* mean that any employer >> *must* hire 51% women , 11% blacks, and x% other minorities. It means >> that employers should strive to attain these goals and make progress >> towards attaining them. >> How does one measure "striving"? How does the government determine if XYZ Corp. is "striving" enough, and in the right directions? This perception is specious. Law must be explicit, objective, and measurable. Otherwise, there is no way that the citizenry can ever be sure it is complying, nor can enforcement and judiciary ever determine compliance. Laws that require "striving" are unmeasurable and unenforceable. Therfore, regardless of the intent or wording of Affirmative Action statutes, compliance is still measured by head counts - and that means counting race and sex as compliance criteria - de facto racism/sexism. [ I am not a stranger, but a friend you haven't met yet ] Ray Simard Loral Instrumentation, San Diego {ucbvax, ittvax!dcdwest}!sdcsvax!sdcc6!loral!simard ...Though we may sometimes disagree, You are still a friend to me!
ed@mtxinu.UUCP (Ed Gould) (06/09/85)
>In article <394@mtxinu.UUCP>, ed@mtxinu.UUCP (Ed Gould) (me) writes: >> >> ... In other words, discrimination in the high-tech >> world is worse. > In article <213@weitek.UUCP> robertp@weitek.UUCP (Robert Plamondon) writes: >...The unstated assumption being that discrimination is the *ONLY POSSIBLE* >source of differences in the number of women managers, or in average pay. > >Other reasons come to mind. One is that many women are too nice for their >own good. These women don't lean on their employers for raises, they don't >do the kind of manic job-hopping that's so common in Silicon Valley, and >they aren't agressive enough to wedge their foot in the door when it comes >time for a promotion. > But why is that except for discrimination? Women in our society are those things (or aren't, depending on perspective) because they've been, discriminatingly, *tought* - by society - to be them. Maybe I should have said that the effects of discrimination are worse in high-tech areas. I made the original comment because so many people were reporting their intuitive sense that thngs were bettir in computer and related fields. -- Ed Gould mt Xinu, 2910 Seventh St., Berkeley, CA 94710 USA {ucbvax,decvax}!mtxinu!ed +1 415 644 0146
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (06/12/85)
> From postnews Fri Jun 7 10:54:21 1985 > > > > A study just released by a group at Stanford shows that women in technical > > fields make less than men, and hold fewer management positions, by *more* > > than the natinal average. In other words, discrimination in the high-tech > > world is worse. My own observations seem to yield the same conclusions > > about minority races, with the possible exception of Asians, whose > > culture predisposes them to work inordinately harder than us honkies. > > > > Sometimes I get just sick enough of this crap to respond and this is one > of those times! > > 1). Concerning the Stanford study; Who knows what it was based upon? > Statistic (studies et all) can be made to show anything you want them > to show if you take the "right" sample and choose to leave off > relevant facts. Does anyone take into account past training of women, > men or minorities. Does anyone take into account inborn traits or > skills? > > 2). Women in technical fields make less than men. What is Stanford basing > this bit of bullshit on? Are they comparing analysts with analysts with > the same background the same years experience, the same ratings (note > ratings are something I describe as others observations of your goals > and abilities). Or is good 'ol stats comparing women and minorities > who are associates to senior engineers. All they say are technical > fields. > I have seen the claim made that if you compare men and women in the same job upto the point where the women have children, that there is no difference in pay. Certainly, what I saw while I was hunting heads seemed to match up with reality. Those women who had not yet had children had pay that sufficiently similar to men doing the same jobs, that I couldn't see any obvious large discrepancy. (Although a small one was possible.) A fair number of professional women, at least until recently, took anywhere from a few months to a few years off to raise their kids, and then re-entered the field. Not surprisingly, this put them behind men of comparable age in total years of experience. More important, the time away from work had put them at a disadvantage compared to men with the same number of years of experience, because the men had been working continuously while the women were raising their kids. While I have no basis in statistics or personal experience for my next assertion, I suspect it is reasonable: Career women tend to do a disproportionate share of the housework and child-rearing. Would it be surprising to anyone if this affected their performance on the job? (Those 2:00 AM baby feedings will do that to you.) > Michael K. Pula > AT&T Technologies Will all the statistics mongers please take a little time to study the issues before they get carried away with "proving" discrimination by comparing apples and oranges?
geoff@burl.UUCP (geoff) (06/12/85)
In article <569@mtung.UUCP> jdh@mtung.UUCP (Julia Harper) writes: >() >Please note: > >1. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY = a fair shot. > >2. AFFIRMITIVE ACTION exists to counteract the LACK >OF EQUAL OPPORTUNITY. There is no way to force unfair >employers to practice EQUAL OPPORTUNITY. AFFIRMITIVE >ACTION puts a quota on the employer to force at least >some semblance of EQUAL OPPORTUNITY. > I have a real ambivalent feeling here. I can understand and sympathize with people who are discriminated against. It must be a real bitch to be told 'I won't hire you because you are black/white/male/female/long hair/ or-what-have-you'. I wish there were no discrimination in the world. There is, and my desires won't change it. Opposing view: I oppose government interference in my life. If I were to own a company, I would oppose interference in that. Telling me that I have to hire people I don't want to hire (for whatever reason, no matter how stupid) is a pretty major infringement of MY rights because I have to PAY people I don't want to. (I can feel the flames now). Why does someone have a right to a job they want? After all, that right is a claim on the furnisher of that job, and that seems an infringement of his or her rights. Government has some legitimate uses -- some safety regulations are surely in order, protecting people against fraud, violence, defense and so forth. I also think the government does a pretty lousy job of everything (including those above). It gets its fingers (tentacles) into everything, and then when it screws things up, it uses this as an excuse to get into more. In summary, I oppose both government interference -- and discrimination. Hence the ambivalence. >-- >Julia Harper >[ihnp4,ariel]!mtung!jdh geoff sherwood
clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) (06/13/85)
In article <633@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Beth Christy) writes: >In article <879@mnetor.UUCP> clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) writes: >"things have been happening without anybody really noticing"?!?!?!?! >Have you ever heard of John F. Kennedy? Martin Luther King? Gloria >Steinem? Ring any bells for you? Do you *really* believe that dis- >crimination has just been disappearing by itself? Get real. J.F.K. assassination was not racially motivated. MLK's was, but by a lunatic (who might have existed whether or not there was any general racial discrimination). What about G.S.? (was she assassinated and I missed it?) I think that you've taken my quote out of context. What I was saying is that "equal access" provisions and (to a certain extent) general social movement (the 60's etc.) HAVE been moving society, and discrimination HAS been disappearing without requiring severe intervention imposed by Affirmative Action. Make sure that you read the article before you start flaming back! -- Chris Lewis, UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!clewis BELL: (416)-475-8980 ext. 321
fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (06/15/85)
>> is myself, Frank Silbermann > is Kyle D. Henriksen >>Blacks must solve problems such as poverty and unemployment >>via economic growth from within their own community. >>What is needed is a new black enterprenurial class. >>True black power will be created with the rise of black >>storekeepers and merchants. By starting their own businesses, >>blacks can create their own opportunities, instead of waiting >>for some white "big daddy" to take care of them. > Look you jerk True, I am a jerk. But that's hardly relevant here. > you can say anything you want about what blacks should or should not do, > but I would appreciate it if you would not include cute little "jive" > quotes in your submissions. Big deal! OK, I'll try not to do it again. > What the hell is a "big daddy" anyway? A paternalistic boss who makes decisions for you and is responsible for your welfare (no pun intended). My point was: The idea that blacks are doomed to remain in poverty until the government decides to do something about it is insulting to blacks, and implies that they are helpless to improve their situation on their own. Such beliefs are remind me of the white slave owners who claimed that blacks were inherently too immature to look after themselves, and thus require whites to control their lives and lead them. I don't believe it. > Seeming as I have never heard this term used (other than on TV shows > written by white people), I'll have to assume you know as much > about black people as the "Dukes of Hazzard". I bet you even have a > "black" friend (gag). You're right, I know nothing at all about blacks. But, I assume that beneath the skin they are no different than whites. And whites I know about. Am I wrong about this? Do YOU believe that there are fundamental differences between people of different races? I'd be interested in hearing the details. I get the impression that my earlier posting offended you, but I am not sure exactly what I said that you disagree with. Surely you cannot be so irate merely over my amateuristic writing style? Frank Silbermann
ed@mtxinu.UUCP (Ed Gould) (06/16/85)
In article <593@ihu1h.UUCP> parnass@ihu1h.UUCP (Bob Parnass, AJ9S) writes: >[reference to my earlier posting suggesting that Asians might be better > off in the hi-tech workforce due to working harder] >As a matter of fact, if I understand your last sentence, it seems to >erode your first conclusion (i.e., it's working hard that earns promotion). There is a degree to which hard work earns promotions, but remember that I used the phrase "work *inordinately* harder". I don't think that Asians do nearly as much better than other minorities to balance out the harder work. What I was suggesting is that through working much harder than members of the "establishment", they are able to get their representation in the work force up to about what it "should" be, just taking numbers of people of various races into account. Since they *do* work so hard, I would suggest that rather than be adequately represented, they are still under-represented because they're more qualified and therefore should have more of the jobs. -- Ed Gould mt Xinu, 2910 Seventh St., Berkeley, CA 94710 USA {ucbvax,decvax}!mtxinu!ed +1 415 644 0146
diego@cca.UUCP (Diego Gonzalez) (06/18/85)
I'd like to say something out of my own experience. I could give you a lesson in sociology and anthropology. But I have been reading the net discussion about the affirmative action issue and feel that I should give you some insight. I am a light-skinned, Hispanic-sur-named black. I grew up in Massachusetts communities that were predominantly (more than 98%) non-colored. They had, because it was important to my parents, good school systems. I received a good education, attended the state university, graduated and served as an officer in the Navy. After some years in graduate school, I entered the civilian working world. During my school and service years, I had encountered some adverse racial discrimination but it was rarely blatant enough to stir me to react. I tended to consider it ignorance and let it pass. At the time that civil rights leaders (and other voices) were looking for an affirmative action law or laws, I felt that equal access guarantees were sufficient. I no longer believe this. Here is why. Sex- and race-biased imbalances in the workplace are not accidental nor unconscious. They are, in fact, the result of very deliberate selective hiring practices (you could call it "the principle of hiring for similarity"). It is a set of practices grounded in a kind of thinking which most of us, at one time or another, have been guilty. The thinking I speak of is the rationalization that there will be greater harmony (and therefore productivity, I assume) in the workplace if the members share similar backgrounds and culture. For centuries, this type of hiring was practiced without question. In American society, we are faced by facts that compel a different approach. There are some factors that, by the old standards, would perpetually exclude some members of society from most workplaces (if only on the basis of tradition). The two most notable -- although certainly not most important -- are a person's sex or race. Like the protagonist in Ralph Ellison's "Invisible Man", women, blacks, Hispanics and other visually recognizable minorities were considered blanketly incapable of doing the functions of the white male business majority. In fact, a survey of Massachusetts corporate boards recently seemed to indicate that this attitude is far from dead. I have been a victim of such attitudes, treated like an "invisible" person, and my career opportunity has been narrow. I am different. But the differences that have made my professional life more difficult than normal have not been differences of qualifications or aptitude. There are differences of style, presentation, and of relationship. They are the kinds of differences which, if accepted and utilized in the American workplace over the last decades, would have resulted in a much different picture in the comparative successes in the international marketplaces. They are the differences that simply request that individuals not assume that their place in the world is their right due to their maleness, whiteness, or American-ness. What I am saying is that many people, some probably without even realizing it, sincerely believe that they have been born with some kind of superiority. The courts and lawmakers of the past two decades agreed broadly that the kind of exclusory discrimination described above had occurred and that it should be halted and corrected as soon as possible. Their conclusion was that active adjustments should be encouraged and, where possible, directed. They saw then, as I do now, that the problem was a deep seated one, and that passive approaches would have little effect on making actual changes in hiring and promotion practice. They fully understood that change required actually having minorities working in positions from which "tradition" had perennially barred them. Further, they knew that from the point of strictest "fairness," affirmative action would for a time create its own form of discrimination. However, in the long term a policy actively pursuing true employment equality could accomplish in fact a long denied constitutional principle. It was to this end that today's affirmative action laws and programs were created. The intent (and effect, in most cases) of the laws is to create a dynamic process that actively begins a change. Without such laws, it would be too easy for an employer so disposed to shrug off a minority job candidate by saying "Not qualified" or "No _____s or ____n applied." Affirmative action applies the pressure to find and promote persons who, in the past, had no recourse is cases of job or promotional rejection. As minority workers increase their presence in the workplace, as they are accepted as fully contributing members of th professions, are promoted and themselves assume the power of hiring, the need to actively enforce minority hiring should diminish. Consider that it has been one hundred and twenty years since the freeing of the majority of American blacks and sixty-odd years since women won the right to vote. If the issue of workplace equality were to follow its course simply by "equal opportunity" policy, can anyone predict at what time in the future minorities could widely claim a reasonable share the workplace pie. It is, to me, unfortunate that laws must be passed to compel people to do what seems just, fair, and beneficial (to say nothing of being common sense). That is the reality of American society, however, and our own law -- the Constitution -- says that equality of human kind is a basic tenet of our national beliefs. People talk about morality a lot these days. The Constitution is our stated moral guide, it seems to me, and if we are not up to taking action to bring such dreams to pass what are our *real* goals for democracy?
hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (The Polymath) (06/19/85)
In article <2973@cca.UUCP> diego@cca.UUCP writes: > > Sex- and race-biased imbalances in the workplace are not accidental >nor unconscious. They are, in fact, the result of very deliberate >selective hiring practices (you could call it "the principle of hiring >for similarity"). Absolutely true. Let me give an example from my real-world experience: Back in the early '70s I was working for the Los Angeles County Engineer, Aviation Division. At that time, _all_ airport attendants were male, by Division policy. Then the Board of Supervisors handed down an edict prohibiting sexual discrimination in hiring practices ... You wouldn't have believed the confusion. Two division chiefs and six airport managers were running around for weeks trying to figure a way to legally _not_ comply with the edict. They asked _everyone_, including me and some of the (female) secretaries(!), to dream up excuses for them. Typical excuse: "There aren't any women's showers at the airports." Pretty lame, right? Well, they used it. Note that we're not talking about a highly skilled position here. An airport attendant was a not-very-glorified gas pump jockey. In between fueling planes, they'd weed the median strips and perform miscellaneous janitorial tasks. Not what you'd call Doctorate level stuff. Nor did the job call for great physical strength. If this goes on in the Civil Service, imagine what happens in private business. -- -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe) Citicorp TTI Common Sense is what tells you that a ten 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. pound weight falls ten times as fast as a Santa Monica, CA 90405 one pound weight. (213) 450-9111, ext. 2483 {philabs,randvax,trwrb,vortex}!ttidca!ttidcc!hollombe
clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) (06/20/85)
In article <2973@cca.UUCP> diego@cca.UUCP (Diego Gonzalez) writes: > > I'd like to say something out of my own experience. I could give >you a lesson in sociology and anthropology. But I have been reading the >net discussion about the affirmative action issue and feel that I should >give you some insight. >... >affirmative action law or laws, I felt that equal access guarantees were >sufficient. I no longer believe this. Here is why. >... > The courts and lawmakers of the past two decades agreed broadly >that the kind of exclusory discrimination described above had occurred >and that it should be halted and corrected as soon as possible. Their >... >positions from which "tradition" had perennially barred them. Further, >they knew that from the point of strictest "fairness," affirmative >action would for a time create its own form of discrimination. However, >in the long term a policy actively pursuing true employment equality >could accomplish in fact a long denied constitutional principle. Thanks for the well thought out discussion on AA. I think that it boils down to a difference of opinion in the following area: Given that AA is not strictly fair in the short term, I personally believe that in the short-term AA will not only be unfair, but in fact generate MORE discrimination. Maybe not in the workplace, but certainly in personally held beliefs by those people who were passed over (or thought they were) due to AA. In my opinion, then, AA may result in the long term with a fully integrated workplace but, perhaps, with a lot of internal tension. Prejudice would still exist (and even, possibly be worse), only be a lot harder to measure - "Yeah, the workplace is fully integrated, but everybody hates each other's guts!". (sorta the problem in Lebanon - the place is mixed, but polarized.) I'd personally prefer that it take a little longer for the fully integrated workplace to appear which wouldn't have the resentment. If it was simply a matter of hiring people to fill quotas, irrespective of ability (overstating, but you get the idea), in the hopes of raising the average qualifications of people to some sort of population average, then I suppose I could live with it - long-term gains would outweigh the short. But, there is another factor - the long-term resentment mentioned in the previous paragraph. Over the last 20 years or so, particularly in Canada which has little AA legislation, equal access legislation does seem to have been working. Quite well in fact. Racial groups and women are MUCH better represented (particularly at the higher levels) than they've ever been before. Sure, it's not totally integrated w.r.t. population statistics, but it's getting there, and, maybe, just maybe, the "natural" level (on a sector by sector basis) isn't EXACTLY the same as the population statistics. Maybe, for instance, the number of women that would enter Engineering disciplines (given no social biasing) wouldn't be the oft-quoted 51%. -- Chris Lewis, UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!clewis BELL: (416)-475-8980 ext. 321
kyle@ucla-cime.UUCP (Kyle D. Henriksen) (06/21/85)
Frank, The only problem I had with what you said was the term "Big Daddy". I find the term patronizing and insulting. I'm sure you could have expressed your viewpoint without using such terms.
jhs@hou2d.UUCP (J.SCHERER) (06/24/85)
> If this goes on in the Civil Service, imagine what happens in private > business. > The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe) Sorry, that doesn't follow. The government is well-known for ignoring its own rules while penalizing private industry for not following them. Congress specifically exempted itself from EO/AA citing the confidential relationship that must exist (I forget the exact wording) between a member and his or her staff. I understand that the Supreme Court has a dismal record in applying EO/AA to law clerks. There was a survey that found OSHA among the worst in the country in ignoring it's own workplace safely rules (this was some time ago - may not be true now - but I sorta doubt they've changed). John Scherer AT&T Bell Labs
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (06/25/85)
> In article <2973@cca.UUCP> diego@cca.UUCP writes: > > > > Sex- and race-biased imbalances in the workplace are not accidental > >nor unconscious. They are, in fact, the result of very deliberate > >selective hiring practices (you could call it "the principle of hiring > >for similarity"). > > Absolutely true. Let me give an example from my real-world experience: > > Back in the early '70s I was working for the Los Angeles County Engineer, > Aviation Division. At that time, _all_ airport attendants were male, by > Division policy. Then the Board of Supervisors handed down an edict > prohibiting sexual discrimination in hiring practices ... > > You wouldn't have believed the confusion. Two division chiefs and six > airport managers were running around for weeks trying to figure a way to > legally _not_ comply with the edict. They asked _everyone_, including me > and some of the (female) secretaries(!), to dream up excuses for them. > > Typical excuse: "There aren't any women's showers at the airports." > > Pretty lame, right? Well, they used it. > > Note that we're not talking about a highly skilled position here. An > airport attendant was a not-very-glorified gas pump jockey. In between > fueling planes, they'd weed the median strips and perform miscellaneous > janitorial tasks. Not what you'd call Doctorate level stuff. Nor did the > job call for great physical strength. > > If this goes on in the Civil Service, imagine what happens in private > business. > -- Why do you assume that Civil Service is less prone to discrimination than the private sector? From what I've read, the private sector has a better track record over the last 50 years than the public sector.
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (06/25/85)
> In article <593@ihu1h.UUCP> parnass@ihu1h.UUCP (Bob Parnass, AJ9S) writes: > >[reference to my earlier posting suggesting that Asians might be better > > off in the hi-tech workforce due to working harder] > > >As a matter of fact, if I understand your last sentence, it seems to > >erode your first conclusion (i.e., it's working hard that earns promotion). > > There is a degree to which hard work earns promotions, but remember that > I used the phrase "work *inordinately* harder". I don't think that Asians > do nearly as much better than other minorities to balance out the harder work. > What I was suggesting is that through working much harder than members > of the "establishment", they are able to get their representation in the > work force up to about what it "should" be, just taking numbers of people > of various races into account. > > Since they *do* work so hard, I would suggest that rather than be adequately > represented, they are still under-represented because they're more > qualified and therefore should have more of the jobs. > > -- > Ed Gould mt Xinu, 2910 Seventh St., Berkeley, CA 94710 USA > {ucbvax,decvax}!mtxinu!ed +1 415 644 0146 As a proportion to their number in the population, Asians are dramatically overrepresented in all the companies I have ever worked for --- perhaps 200% or 300% over their numbers in the population. Mr. Gould seems to be arguing that they are underrepresented in comparision to their hard work. Does he mean that Asians work 200% to 300% harder than white males? This is implausible, to say the least. If anyone ever starts to impose affirmative action as vigorously as some people seem to want, I suspect the first group to get cut back is going to be Asians --- and we will all be the worse for it.
ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (06/26/85)
In article <1059@mnetor.UUCP> clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) writes: >Given that AA is not strictly fair in the short term, I personally >believe that in the short-term AA will not only be unfair, but in fact >generate MORE discrimination. But it is not unfair, because white males already have an advantage, at least in America. Even with AA. Removing AA will just widen the disparity. -michael
fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (06/26/85)
[Anectdote about blatant anti-women discrimination in government] >> If this goes on in the Civil Service, imagine what happens in private >> business. In article <kontron.266> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: >Why do you assume that Civil Service is less prone to discrimination than >the private sector? From what I've read, the private sector has a better >track record over the last 50 years than the public sector. This is one of the reasons Milton Friedman, a conservative economist, favors the private sector, rather than one that is government-controlled. In his youth, anti-Jewish discrimination was much greater than it is today. When working in the private sector, Dr. Friedman discovered that he could overcome his boss's anti-semitism by being twice as qualified as the other workers. In other words, even an antisemitic boss would prefer to hire and promote an excellent Jewish worker rather than a non-Jew that was only mediocre. The boss was looking after his own self-interest. On the other hand, when working in the public sector Dr. Friedman discovered that the boss's prosperity was not so directly determined. The boss had job security and a pay scale that did not take into account his group's performance. The boss was free to indulge all his petty prejudices. He had no incentive to do otherwise. Frank Silbermann
clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) (06/28/85)
In article <366@spar.UUCP> ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) writes: >In article <1059@mnetor.UUCP> clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) writes: > >>Given that AA is not strictly fair in the short term, I personally >>believe that in the short-term AA will not only be unfair, but in fact >>generate MORE discrimination. > > But it is not unfair, because white males already have an advantage, > at least in America. If you read the article to which I followed up to it indicated that even the legislators who enacted AA knew that it was unfair - to an individual. Judging someone on social group rather than merit because in the past his/her group had an advantage is unfair. I thought that this society had gotten out of the "Sins of the fathers [parents] are visited upon the sons [offspring]" syndrome. It's pretty poor consolation to the person unable to find a job because AA has already filled his/her group's quota. He's got just as much right to a job as anybody else. Especially, since AA also discriminates against non-white-males too - AA means that we have to have 49% male nurses, and 89% basketball players doesn't it? -- Chris Lewis, UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!clewis BELL: (416)-475-8980 ext. 321