brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (06/14/85)
Thanks for posting those definitions. They defined racism as a philosophy that asserted some form of superiority or inferiority to a certain race. They also said racism is any policy or action based on that concept. Now AA is a program that states that certain races are downtrodden, discriminated against and hurt. It states that this quality, which should be pitied is inherent in the race. It says, "Because your skin is black, you are downtrodden and thus must be given special status" Not because you were downtrodden in some time in your life, but simply because your skin is black, or you have a double X chromasome. When you consider this, AA fits the published definitions of racism rather well. It asserts that members of a certain group, simply by membership in that group, are entitled to special status and rights. It states that hiring policies should be directed by this thought. Perhaps you are confused because AA does not assert that blacks are superior to whites in a physical sense. Instead it simply says they should be treated better by the law, because they should be pitied. A difference perhaps, but an important one? ------------ On another note, the federal government has recently rejected a proposal brought on by a committee looking into affirmative action. This proposal called for wage police to make sure of equal pay for work of equal value. Instead, in a typical government way, they are calling for AA, but will create no enforcement agency. Better than having to watch out for the wage police, I guess. The thought police would not have been far behind. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (06/17/85)
> Now AA is a program that states that certain races are downtrodden, > discriminated against and hurt. It states that this quality, which > should be pitied is inherent in the race. It says, "Because your skin > is black, you are downtrodden and thus must be given special status" > > Not because you were downtrodden in some time in your life, but simply > because your skin is black, or you have a double X chromasome. > That may be a definition of something but it is not the definition of AA. AA is set of actions taken to ensure that the promise of Equal Employment, which is the law, becomes a reality. Essentially, AA attempts to include a representative number of minorities and women in the pool of candidates for jobs and promotions.The presumption is that some percentage of those thus included will be qualifies and hired/promoted. It is most emphatically NOT saying that some group will automatically hird or promoted on the basis of race. Employers who hire on promote blacks and women on the basis of quotas are NOT implementing AA in a fairand rational manner. THEY are the ones who should be flamed, for THEY are the racist ones. The concept of AA is not sullied by them. Marcel imon
robertp@fear.UUCP (Robert Plamondon) (06/18/85)
In article <354@mhuxr.UUCP>, mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) writes: > > Employers who hire on promote blacks and women on the basis of quotas > are NOT implementing AA in a fairand rational manner. THEY are > the ones who should be flamed, for THEY are the racist ones. > The concept of AA is not sullied by them. > > Marcel imon The whole idea of having a law is to FORCE people who disagree with you to do what you want. The whole idea of AA legislation is to force employers who want to hire in a governmentally-approved manner. The idea that these employers will "implement AA in a fair and rational manner" is ludicrous. The government is trying to force them to do something they don't want to do, so they're trying to wriggle out -- just as YOU would do if the government tried to force YOU to do something you thought was wrong. Most laws are full of loopholes, irrational provisions, and nasty side effects. People who disapprove of the law will of course take advantage of this. All of this is utterly predicatble. If you complain that a law isn't having the effect you envisioned, the fault is in the law, not the public. -- -- Robert Plamondon {turtlevax, resonex, cae780}!weitek!robertp
shor@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Melinda Shore) (06/24/85)
[] > From: robertp@fear.UUCP (Robert Plamondon) > The whole idea of having a law is to FORCE people who disagree with > you to do what you want. Silly me. And here I thought that the whole idea of having a law was to protect individual liberties and promote general welfare. > The idea that these employers will "implement AA in a fair and > rational manner" is ludicrous. True enough. Which is why we need legislation. It's pretty clear that telling employers that discrimination is morally repugnant is not enough. > Most laws are full of loopholes, irrational provisions, and nasty > side effects. People who disapprove of the law will of course take > advantage of this. All of this is utterly predicatble. If you > complain that a law isn't having the effect you envisioned, the fault > is in the law, not the public. True again, but I don't see that as justification for not trying to right some grossly obvious wrongs. -- Melinda Shore University of Chicago Computation Center uucp: ..!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!shor Bitnet: shor%sphinx@uchicago.bitnet
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (06/27/85)
> [] > > From: robertp@fear.UUCP (Robert Plamondon) > > The whole idea of having a law is to FORCE people who disagree with > > you to do what you want. > > Silly me. And here I thought that the whole idea of having a law was to > protect individual liberties and promote general welfare. > That may the idea of law, but from a practical standpoint, laws just about everywhere are primarily to force compliance from people who disagree. > > The idea that these employers will "implement AA in a fair and > > rational manner" is ludicrous. > > True enough. Which is why we need legislation. It's pretty clear that > telling employers that discrimination is morally repugnant is not enough. > > > Most laws are full of loopholes, irrational provisions, and nasty > > side effects. People who disapprove of the law will of course take > > advantage of this. All of this is utterly predicatble. If you > > complain that a law isn't having the effect you envisioned, the fault > > is in the law, not the public. > > True again, but I don't see that as justification for not trying to right > some grossly obvious wrongs. > -- You missed the point Melinda --- forcing people to do things only works if 1) they already agree with you or 2) you have a sufficiently intrusive government to force them. If enforced selectively, the law will create even more problems than not having the law at all. > Melinda Shore > University of Chicago Computation Center
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (06/28/85)
> The whole idea of having a law is to FORCE people who disagree with > you to do what you want. The whole idea of AA legislation is to > force employers who want to hire in a governmentally-approved manner. > Note that the law only FORCES employers to offer equal opportunity. AA plans are arrived at "voluntarily", with more or less governmental arm twisting. MOST often, the arm twisting occurs because the employer refuses to stop conscious and unconscious discriminatory practices. > The idea that these employers will "implement AA in a fair and > rational manner" is ludicrous. The government is trying to force > them to do something they don't want to do, so they're trying to > wriggle out -- just as YOU would do if the government tried to force > YOU to do something you thought was wrong. > You have just pointed out the necessity of AA. The law mandates equal opportunity. Discriminatory employers refuse to implement the law fairly. (Just saying "you can't discriminate" DOES NOT WORK, historically) So now what. Should Government, which theoretically also represents those discriminated agains, just say "too bad, we tried, but those evil employers just won't stop" ? Racist and sexist people will continue to be so. However, they should, they MUST not be allowed to impose their prejudices on others. Marcel Simon
csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) (07/01/85)
In article <363@mhuxr.UUCP> mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) writes: >arm twisting. MOST often, the arm twisting occurs because the employer >refuses to stop conscious and unconscious discriminatory practices. Oh is just sooooooooooooooooo easy, isn't it. A story: A few years ago, the Massachusetts Committee Against Discrimination paid my father (who was in charge of hiring) a visit. In the five years my father had had this position, he had not hired a single black. They wanted him to know they weren't pleased. Pause to think about this situation a moment. He showed them his files. In the course of the five years, only one black had even applied for a job and was *clearly* not qualified (no degree is special education). 87% of his employees were women. My conclusion: MCAD is a good thing. The people who work for it must be stupid as all hell, though. I worked for a computer company last summer: 150 employees, all white and they've never been "visited". Comments? -- Charles Forsythe CSDF@MIT-VAX "The Church of Fred has yet to come under attack. No one knows about it." -Rev. Wang Zeep
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (07/05/85)
> A few years ago, the Massachusetts Committee Against Discrimination paid > my father (who was in charge of hiring) a visit. In the five years my > father had had this position, he had not hired a single black. They > wanted him to know they weren't pleased. > > He showed them his files. In the course of the five years, only one > black had even applied for a job and was *clearly* not qualified (no > degree is special education). 87% of his employees were women. > > My conclusion: MCAD is a good thing. The people who work for it must be > stupid as all hell, though. I worked for a computer company last summer: > 150 employees, all white and they've never been "visited". > > Charles Forsythe You have not given the end of the story. I assume that the MCAD, after looking at your father's files, went away satisfied that no discrimination had occurred (they could also look at whether or not your father had made some effort at advertising his firm as open to black employees, something I also assume he had done) Given that, I'd say the system worked. Your father made good faith efforts to integrate his work force, sexually and racially, which is all that is required of him under the law. No government can and should hold the lack of applicants against him *in a good faith recruiting effort* environment. As for the employees of MCAD being stupid. Maybe you're right. Maybe there is too few of them for an effective policing job. However, the company you mention, which I'll again assume (lots of assuming; that'll get me in trouble...) was all white on purpose, is reason for the existence of such a government body, wouldn't you say? Marcel Simon
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (07/05/85)
> > The whole idea of having a law is to FORCE people who disagree with > > you to do what you want. The whole idea of AA legislation is to > > force employers who want to hire in a governmentally-approved manner. > > > Note that the law only FORCES employers to offer equal opportunity. > AA plans are arrived at "voluntarily", with more or less governmental > arm twisting. MOST often, the arm twisting occurs because the employer > refuses to stop conscious and unconscious discriminatory practices. > I'm sure glad you put that word "voluntarily" in quotes, because the arm twisting (threats to cut off contracts) is not *quite* the same as a truly voluntary situation. In the case of colleges, though, the government requires colleges to abide by EEO and AA rules, even if the college has no control over receiving federal funds (e.g. students receiving federal grants which go directly the student). While I would agree that usually the problem is an employer who is engaged in discriminatory practices, it is unfair to those employers who are not discriminating, and just happen to have a low percentage of the "right" groups. > > The idea that these employers will "implement AA in a fair and > > rational manner" is ludicrous. The government is trying to force > > them to do something they don't want to do, so they're trying to > > wriggle out -- just as YOU would do if the government tried to force > > YOU to do something you thought was wrong. > > > You have just pointed out the necessity of AA. The law mandates equal > opportunity. Discriminatory employers refuse to implement the law fairly. > (Just saying "you can't discriminate" DOES NOT WORK, historically) > So now what. Should Government, which theoretically also represents > those discriminated agains, just say "too bad, we tried, but those evil > employers just won't stop" ? Racist and sexist people will continue to be > so. However, they should, they MUST not be allowed to impose their > prejudices on others. > > Marcel Simon The history of drug prohibition in this country should be a warning to everyone: if a significant portion of the population disapproves of a law or policy, the only way to actually make it work is a police state.