pc@hplabsb.UUCP (06/26/85)
I know this may appear a rash notion, but... could people posting articles
attempt to check their own preconceived notions against facts before letting
loose?
Have those posting about Affirmative Action knowledge of the area?
Most of the stuff I've seen (and you guys can really shovel a barrel full!) is
ill informed & wide of the facts. A few gentle souls have tried to point out
the goals and the methods of AA (which do not include trying to hire 51% female
EEs nor promoting a minority who has less aptitude than another WASP candidate).
It is of sociological interest to hear the rantings about people's
perceptions of AA/EEO, but if we're going to get anywhere, we need a fewer myths
and more facts. Perhaps we could even reach some agreement (well, I can dream,
can't I?) if we understood the AA goals & methods.
AA has as a goal, the representation of people (measured by their
"attributes": race/gender/age/creed) in proportion to their
availability and ability to perform job functions. That is, if 10%
of the available pool of software scientists is female, a reasonable-
sized staff of software scientists might be expected to have ABOUT
10% women. [While this implies a fall from privileged status for
young white males, it doesn't discriminate against them.]
In the process, it wants to be sure (among other things) that
(1) the qualifications for the job are based on what's needed for the
job-- not to include qualifications which are not really necessary and
do coincidentally exclude minorities, women, or people over 40 yrs old,
(2) that people who have the aptitude but perhaps not all of the
training (due to past discrimination) are not excluded from
consideration, and (3) that candidates are not overlooked (e.g.,
by recruiters who habituate the WASP Citadels but who neglect the
more enthically rich environs).
NOTE: for those who pride themselves on trying to find holes in the words,
it is a shallow satisfaction. Try the challenge of understanding the SPIRIT
of the words. Then you'll have something to be proud of.
Patricia Collins
--
{ucbvax|duke|hao|allegra}!hplabs!pccramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (06/27/85)
> I know this may appear a rash notion, but... could people posting articles > attempt to check their own preconceived notions against facts before letting > loose? > Have those posting about Affirmative Action knowledge of the area? > Most of the stuff I've seen (and you guys can really shovel a barrel full!) is > ill informed & wide of the facts. A few gentle souls have tried to point out > the goals and the methods of AA (which do not include trying to hire 51% female > EEs nor promoting a minority who has less aptitude than another WASP candidate). There is a wide disparity between the stated purpose of affirmative action, and how it is actually administered by the petty bureaucrats who are busy promoting racism and indirectly causing unqualified candidates to be hired and promoted based on race. > It is of sociological interest to hear the rantings about people's > perceptions of AA/EEO, but if we're going to get anywhere, we need a fewer myths > and more facts. Perhaps we could even reach some agreement (well, I can dream, > can't I?) if we understood the AA goals & methods. > > AA has as a goal, the representation of people (measured by their > "attributes": race/gender/age/creed) in proportion to their > availability and ability to perform job functions. That is, if 10% > of the available pool of software scientists is female, a reasonable- > sized staff of software scientists might be expected to have ABOUT > 10% women. [While this implies a fall from privileged status for > young white males, it doesn't discriminate against them.] > In a company of 350 which I used to work for, we were grossly overrepresented in Asian females (we had one), and grossly underrepresented in black males (we had a couple). In small companies, it is very easy to be dramatically out of target because of randomness. It is even possible, though less likely, for this same randomness to work in a larger company. It is absurd to assume racism rather than randomness. > In the process, it wants to be sure (among other things) that > (1) the qualifications for the job are based on what's needed for the > job-- not to include qualifications which are not really necessary and > do coincidentally exclude minorities, women, or people over 40 yrs old, > (2) that people who have the aptitude but perhaps not all of the > training (due to past discrimination) are not excluded from > consideration, and (3) that candidates are not overlooked (e.g., > by recruiters who habituate the WASP Citadels but who neglect the > more enthically rich environs). > All of the above are fine with me, as long as race doesn't become a factor in hiring a candidate --- and it is, because of how affirmative action has been implemented by the government and the aerospace companies anxious to please the government. > NOTE: for those who pride themselves on trying to find holes in the words, > it is a shallow satisfaction. Try the challenge of understanding the SPIRIT > of the words. Then you'll have something to be proud of. > > Patricia Collins > > > -- > > {ucbvax|duke|hao|allegra}!hplabs!pc The spirit is meaningless if the implementation is discrminatory.
arnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Ken Arnold%CGL) (07/04/85)
[eat this and be merry] In article <2988@hplabsb.UUCP> pc@hplabsb.UUCP writes: >I know this may appear a rash notion, but... could people posting articles >attempt to check their own preconceived notions against facts before letting >loose? > Have those posting about Affirmative Action knowledge of the area? >Most of the stuff I've seen (and you guys can really shovel a barrel full!) is >ill informed & wide of the facts. A few gentle souls have tried to point out >the goals and the methods of AA (which do not include trying to hire 51% female >EEs nor promoting a minority who has less aptitude than another WASP >candidate). (I promised myself I'd keep out of this, but I guess I'm going to have to stop trusting myself.) I hate to say this, but the number of people who understand this is small on both sides of the issue. I was heavily involved in hiring and firing decisions in an organization of students which was primarily in favor of AA, and the few people who understood what you say about AA were constantly fighting the AA supporters about just these issues. It was the supporters who insisted that certain spots be filled with a woman, and so rejected any male applicants. It was also the supporters who insisted on setting aside reasonable qualifications in order to hire underqualified minorities. The difference between properly applied AA and discrimination is an extremely fine (if extant) line. I know that, among the knowledgable AA supporters, you are right. But on of the reasons the anti-AA people oppose it is because some *supporters* make the kinds of assertions you attribute to *opponents*, which are snatched up and echoed back. Of course, some of them generate enough bile without this, but the ignorance you mention is by no means confined to the anti-AA people. (This has not generally been true of the postings on the net, but it is true in the world in general. Some of AA's worst enemies are its friends.) Ken Arnold