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?
carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (05/27/85)
Frank Silbermann writes: > The new African or Carribean black immigrant receives an undeserved > bonus [from affirmative action]. He also receives an undeserved handicap: blacks are discriminated against in the US. The point of affirmative action is to counterbalance this handicap. The plain fact is that blacks and women are discriminated against in the job market. If by some miracle all discriminatory attitudes disappeared tomorrow, so that employers were indifferent to a person's race or sex, then the percentage of blacks and women in certain desirable positions would rise, even without affirmative action, would it not? Which is precisely what affirmative action mandates. So I have to conclude that objections to affirmative action are really defenses of the right of employers to discriminate against these groups. > Even in the best circumstances, affirmative action merely punishes and > rewards people for their ancestors' experiences. AA has nothing whatever to do with anyone's ancestors. It is intended to rectify a current situation, not a past one. > Blacks, in turn, suffer loss of self-confidence and self-esteem [from > quotas], always doubting their true ability. And I suppose their confidence and self-esteem will be restored if they continue to be discriminated against and constantly told by the white world that they are not as good and belong in an inferior place in society. What rubbish. Affirmative action does not require an employer to hire anyone who is not among the best qualified candidates for a position, and blacks (and women) know this. I am at a loss to understand why being given a fair chance to be hired will decrease anyone's self-confidence, and I conclude that this argument is really a defense of discrimination. > 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. The dilemma of American blacks, like that of women, is that they are regarded and treated as an inferior caste. The point of affirmative action is to help bring to an end the perception of blacks and women as inferior and different. If blacks suffer from a feeling that they do not control their own destiny, it is because their destiny is to a large extent controlled by the racist attitudes and practices of the white majority. I don't believe that affirmative action will, by itself, eliminate racist and sexist attitudes. But it's a start. Clayton Cramer writes: > > When are the people who believe in government promoted > racial and sexual discrimination going to WAKE UP to the fact that > economics hasn't worked along these neat boundary lines of race, sex, > and national origin? We are all individuals --- viewing everyone as > a member of a race, ethnic group, or sexual class, and assigning > collective guilt, responsibility, or economic oppression based on > our membership in a category is identical to the approach of the KKK. Affirmative action is not government-promoted racial and sexual discrimination, reverse or otherwise. That is the argument of people who believe that since affirmative action mandates quotas, the employer who hires a black instead of a white in order to meet a quota is discriminating against whites, an action which is just as bad as an employer's refusing to hire blacks because he hates blacks. But why on earth is it wrong to require that each person have a fair chance to be hired, free from the handicap of racist and sexist attitudes? And what way is there to ensure that this is accomplished other than some percentage standard, short of preventing the employer from knowing the race or sex of the applicant, and short of that day when racist and sexist attitudes will be rare? Why indeed is it wrong, unless on the grounds that racist and sexist attitudes, and the resulting imbalance in hiring, are just fine? Saying that the approach of affirmative action and equal opportunity laws is identical with that of the KKK is just beneath contempt. The Klan is a racist group devoted to "racial purity" and persecution of blacks and others. Affirmative action does not attempt to assign guilt or merit based on membership in a group -- as I wrote above, its ultimate purpose is to end the perception of these groups as being somehow "different," by equalizing their roles in society. I am deeply moved by the plight of these white males who complain about being discriminated against -- they show that they have not the slightest understanding of the nature of discrimination and prejudice in our society. One wouldn't have thought that such transparent arguments in favor of racial and sexual inequality would be put forth by college-educated adults; that is, before one became familiar with the troglodyte preserve known as the Netnews and its large population of Missing Links. Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
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.
carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (06/03/85)
In article <> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >I will always maintain that my skin colour and other non-competence >related characteristics should not be considered in passing judgement on >me. Affirmative action doesn't require anyone to pass judgment on you on the basis of your race or sex. It makes your race or sex one criterion among others for the employer's decision on whether to hire you, within the specific context defined by a particular AA program. >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. This is our old friend the argument from name-calling. It generates heat rather than light, so could we please refrain from using it on the net? In my everyday encounters with people, I treat women and blacks somewhat differently from white males, that is, my knowledge of a person's race or sex can and usually does affect my actions in some way. Part of the reason for this difference is my knowledge that both groups suffer from deep-rooted and tenacious prejudices in our society, and that this is an important factor in the life of each individual woman or black. This does not mean that I have judged the individual to be better or worse merely because he or she is black or female, and I don't see how it makes me a racist or sexist. Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
scott@hou2g.UUCP (Scott Berry the Unbeliever) (06/03/85)
From: carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) -> Affirmative action doesn't require anyone to pass judgment on you on -> the basis of your race or sex. It makes your race or sex one -> criterion among others for the employer's decision on whether to hire -> you, within the specific context defined by a particular AA program. I fail to see any real difference. In making race or sex a criterion, the employer is making a judgement; he/she is judging your ability to fill the job opening. Under the quota system (which admittedly is only part of AA), that job is suited only for blacks/females/etc. He/she is in effect saying: "I don't care what your qualifications are, you are white/male, and I've already met my quota for the year. Sorry." -> Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes Scott Berry
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.
robertp@weitek.UUCP (Robert Plamondon) (06/03/85)
>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. In article <557@cybvax0.UUCP>, mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: > > Well, I'm irritated by your presumption that new minorities should have to > be initiated by running a gauntlet of prejudice and discrimination. > > Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh *WHAT* new minorities?? Have Martians landed or something? Every minority that has been mentioned in net.women recently has existed for hundreds or thousands of years. For that matter, what makes you think that these hypothetical new minorities *WILL* automatically be subjected to prejudice and discrimination? Things *ARE* getting better, you know. Race riots and lynchings are getting pretty rare, women are getting better jobs and even a little respect, and all. It's not a matter of "dues" at all. It's just that conditions have improved to a point that counter-bigotry seems extreme. -- -- Robert Plamondon {ucbvax!dual!turtlevax,ihnp4!resonex}!weitek!robertp
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
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (06/04/85)
> Frank Silbermann writes: > > > The new African or Carribean black immigrant receives an undeserved > > bonus [from affirmative action]. > > He also receives an undeserved handicap: blacks are discriminated > against in the US. The point of affirmative action is to > counterbalance this handicap. The plain fact is that blacks and > women are discriminated against in the job market. If by some > miracle all discriminatory attitudes disappeared tomorrow, so that > employers were indifferent to a person's race or sex, then the > percentage of blacks and women in certain desirable positions would > rise, even without affirmative action, would it not? Which is > precisely what affirmative action mandates. So I have to conclude > that objections to affirmative action are really defenses of the > right of employers to discriminate against these groups. > In Thomas Sowell's book, _Markets_ _and_ _Minorities_, he points out that blacks who have moved here from the West Indies have much *higher* average incomes than American born blacks. Perhaps the world is a little more complicated place than Mr. Carnes realizes. If racial discrimination was the *primary* factor in discrepancies in income broken down by race, why are West Indian blacks so much better off than American blacks? I suggest Mr. Carnes read Sowell's book for an interesting analysis of the demographics of American blacks; it turns out that American blacks are on average several years younger than American whites, and young people in general have lower incomes. Comparing equally weighted samples of whites and blacks in this country, you find the differences in income (which are almost certainly the result of racism) are quite small --- a few percent at most. > > Even in the best circumstances, affirmative action merely punishes and > > rewards people for their ancestors' experiences. > > AA has nothing whatever to do with anyone's ancestors. It is > intended to rectify a current situation, not a past one. > If it has nothing to do with one's ancestors, affirmative action wouldn't be based on race or ethnic origin. > > Blacks, in turn, suffer loss of self-confidence and self-esteem [from > > quotas], always doubting their true ability. > > And I suppose their confidence and self-esteem will be restored if > they continue to be discriminated against and constantly told by the > white world that they are not as good and belong in an inferior place > in society. What rubbish. Affirmative action does not require an > employer to hire anyone who is not among the best qualified > candidates for a position, and blacks (and women) know this. I am at > a loss to understand why being given a fair chance to be hired will > decrease anyone's self-confidence, and I conclude that this argument > is really a defense of discrimination. > To claim that affirmative action "does not require an employer to hire anyone who is not among the best qualified candidates for a position..." is utterly false. I used to work as an employment agent. One of our clients was a big aerospace company. One of the job orders we received from them stated, "Because the position is currently held by a minority female, the position must be filled with same." The manager wanted an experienced programmer knowledgeable with statistics. He ended up hiring an Asian woman (through us) over a qualified white male because he *had* *no* *choice*. Perhaps affirmative action isn't *supposed* to do this; to ignore that it does is rather like those school districts that claimed that segregated school districts were *supposed* to be equal in quality --- it just didn't quite work out that way. > > 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. > > The dilemma of American blacks, like that of women, is that they are > regarded and treated as an inferior caste. The point of affirmative > action is to help bring to an end the perception of blacks and women > as inferior and different. If blacks suffer from a feeling that they > do not control their own destiny, it is because their destiny is to a > large extent controlled by the racist attitudes and practices of the > white majority. I don't believe that affirmative action will, by > itself, eliminate racist and sexist attitudes. But it's a start. > Affirmative action promotes racist attitudes (thank goodness, it hasn't promoted sexism yet). Neo-Nazi groups in this country have been quite successful in recruiting working class white males at least partly because there is a perception that affirmative action is causing those same white males to be passed over for jobs. Now in fact, this is probably not as widespread a reality as a perception --- no one wants to admit they weren't qualified for a job. But knowing that the government *does* promote racism and sexism through affirmative action generates resentment that doesn't need to be there --- if the government would just obey the 14th Amendment. > Clayton Cramer writes: > > > > When are the people who believe in government promoted > > racial and sexual discrimination going to WAKE UP to the fact that > > economics hasn't worked along these neat boundary lines of race, sex, > > and national origin? We are all individuals --- viewing everyone as > > a member of a race, ethnic group, or sexual class, and assigning > > collective guilt, responsibility, or economic oppression based on > > our membership in a category is identical to the approach of the KKK. > > Affirmative action is not government-promoted racial and sexual > discrimination, reverse or otherwise. That is the argument of people > who believe that since affirmative action mandates quotas, the > employer who hires a black instead of a white in order to meet a > quota is discriminating against whites, an action which is just as > bad as an employer's refusing to hire blacks because he hates blacks. > But why on earth is it wrong to require that each person have a fair > chance to be hired, free from the handicap of racist and sexist > attitudes? Equal employment opportunities are NOT the same as affirmative action. Equal employment opportunities says that racism and sexism is illegal in hiring. It does NOT say, "You will have this many blacks, this many women, this many Hispanics." It says, "Hire based on qualifications, ignoring race, sex, and national origin." Because government is intrinsically a monopoly, and most businesses that are heavily involved with the government tend to become monopolistic (e.g. aerospace, building construction into the 1960s, railroads), it is appropriate for the government to require its contractors to hire regardless of race or sex, both because it is immoral, and because it is *very* expensive for a company to discriminate based on irrelevant criteria. (I don't think the government has any right to involve itself with other businesses unless the government has granted them monopoly powers, or the business signs a contract with the government to feed at the public trough.) > And what way is there to ensure that this is accomplished > other than some percentage standard, short of preventing the employer > from knowing the race or sex of the applicant, and short of that day > when racist and sexist attitudes will be rare? Why indeed is it > wrong, unless on the grounds that racist and sexist attitudes, and > the resulting imbalance in hiring, are just fine? > Overt discrimination still happens. When I was an employment agent, I saw overt discrimination occasionally. One was a government contractor where the engineering manager told the personnel manager (who was a woman), "don't bring me any blacks or Mexicans". He also told her, "There's only two things women are good for: filing and sex." She called in EEOC on this one, and I applauded her actions. Because he was so bigoted, his company missed out on at least two qualified candidates for the position he was trying to fill; I know because he wouldn't take two of my candidates seriously. Before anyone gets too self-righteous, that was the only "traditional" overt racism I saw. The other cases: a woman manager who told me, "Don't send me any women. They're all flakes." Another was a company that was largely run by women; in fact, I think every management position below president was a woman. The personnel manager (a woman) told me one day, off the record "We don't hire East Indians here." What about subtle racism? I only had one company where the reactions of managers to candidates made me suspect racism or sexism. The company that didn't hire East Indians seldom, if ever hired men, and treated them on interviews in a manner that was insulting and offensive. > Saying that the approach of affirmative action and equal opportunity > laws is identical with that of the KKK is just beneath contempt. The > Klan is a racist group devoted to "racial purity" and persecution of > blacks and others. Affirmative action does not attempt to assign > guilt or merit based on membership in a group -- as I wrote above, > its ultimate purpose is to end the perception of these groups as > being somehow "different," by equalizing their roles in society. > I suggest that you read the ongoing debate in net.women, before you claim that AA "...does not attempt to assign guilt or merit based on membership in a group..." --- a great many of the people over there have done *exactly* that, saying that all white males should have less because of what white males have done in the past. > I am deeply moved by the plight of these white males who complain > about being discriminated against -- they show that they have not the > slightest understanding of the nature of discrimination and prejudice > in our society. One wouldn't have thought that such transparent > arguments in favor of racial and sexual inequality would be put forth > by college-educated adults; that is, before one became familiar with > the troglodyte preserve known as the Netnews and its large population > of Missing Links. > > Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes Mr. Carnes: do you know how to tell that someone has lost an argument? They resort to ad hominem arguments, as you did in that last paragraph.
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 Browncarnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (06/05/85)
Clayton Cramer writes: > To claim that affirmative action "does not require an employer to > hire anyone who is not among the best qualified candidates for a > position..." is utterly false. Does anyone have statistics to show that AA results in a significant number of less qualified or unqualified persons being hired? So far all I have heard is anecdotal evidence, but storytelling is suspect when the issue is ideologically charged, as with AA. Also, it's often possible to bring a less well qualified person up to standard by training. > But knowing that the > government *does* promote racism and sexism through affirmative action > generates resentment that doesn't need to be there --- if the government > would just obey the 14th Amendment. Again, I'd like to see some hard evidence that AA fosters racist attitudes among the white working class, many of whom are already sufficiently racist. Even assuming it does, is that a good reason to oppose it? Desegregation and the civil rights activism of the 60's generated a white backlash that aided George Wallace. I'm not sure that this means that the sit-ins and marches were a bad idea. I'd also like to hear some constructive suggestions from the opponents of AA as to how to end the caste-like division of our society in which some groups are perceived as innately inferior, a division which perpetuates itself over the generations. Racial and sexual prejudice and discrimination are alive and well in 1985. Saying that economic rationality will solve the problem doesn't cut it: it just assumes away the problem. Prejudice and the resulting discrimination are by definition irrational; the fact that economic rationality often conflicts with this irrationality isn't sufficient to show that rationality will win out. I've seen lots of crocodile tears (especially from the Reagan Admin.) about discrimination and not much in the way of workable suggestions for ending it. Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come because it serves the self-interest of powerful people; and nothing mobilizes stronger ideological opposition than an idea that threatens the privileged position of the powerful, such as the well-off white males whose interests the Reagan Administration looks after. > Mr. Carnes: do you know how to tell that someone has lost an argument? > They resort to ad hominem arguments, as you did in that last paragraph. You're right that my rhetoric was getting out of hand in that article; but let me point out that you and others have referred to affirmative action as "government-promoted racism." It's both absurd and insulting to its supporters to call a program "racist" whose whole purpose is to attack racial, ethnic, and sexual prejudice and their effects. It's mere name-calling as a substitute for rational arguments that AA is unjust, and it led me to wonder what state of mind could generate that kind of rhetoric. Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (06/05/85)
The idea is FALSE that Affirmative Action equals quotas Let us look at the *reality* of AA plans. AA is a recognition that merely declaring that an employer will not discriminate is not enough. When doors have been closed to some for so long, putting up a sign that they are now unlocked will not be convincing (remember, the 14th and 15th amendments, which outlaw discrimination, did not stop same). An employer needs to affirm the intention to not discriminate. In practice, AA is a pledge that an employer will actively attempt to *include* members of disadvantaged groups in the *pool* of candidates for jobs/promotions. We must differentiate between public and private sector plans. In the public sector, occupations are primarily ones where people receive raises, promotions, etc, by seniority, rather than purely on merit. In such cases, the important thing is to be hired and then avoid screwing up. Since hiring is so important, and since turnover is relatively low (and because politicians seek to justify their existence at election time) public sector jobs sometimes include target dates and milestones by which the AA goals are to be reached. These plans are by and large working well, in that they have not reduced the effectiveness of the police, fire, sanitation, etc work forces, and that they are well accepted by the communities. With the Supreme Court's recent decision that AA does not take precedence over seniority in layoff decisions, there can be few claims of intrinsic discrimination in public sector AA programs, except that their applicant pool has been significantly widened. WIth more competition, fewer white males get the fixed number of jobs available. But the private sector is far more important. First because that is where the majority of workers are; second because that is where the majority of netters are (:-) There are few, if any, private employer AA programs that proclaim the intention of hiring X percent of disadvantaged groups, and promoting Y of them to senior positions within Z units of time. Rather, private AA programs pledge that their *goal* is to integrate their work force. As long as progress is being made, neither the government nor private organizations representing discriminated against job candidates has a prayer of winning a suit aimed at forcing the employer to move faster (the definition of progress is subject to disagreement, especially when the employer is acting in bad faith) So far, there is no discrimination for or against anyone, merely a statement of intent to include a representative percentage of members of disadvantaged groups in consideration for hiring/promotion. The concept of representative percentage is based on census figures for the area the employer is located in (the definition of an area is set by government) The employer attempts to find a number of job applicants representative of the population distribution ***for the particular skill required for the job***. The presumption is that a subset of those applicant proportional to the percentage will be found qualified, be hired and in time promoted, thus leading to a company whose employee distribution reflects that of the region it is located in. The key words here are "goal", "in time", and "progress" The assumption is that the employer is acting in good faith, and genuinely wants to achieve the stated goal. Unfortunately, some act in bad faith. They may hire unqualified people and then point to them as proof of the failure of AA~r. They may set quotas and then point to their "unfairness". Blaming the concept of AA for these implementation flaws is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. AA programs by and large work. The growing integration of the work force is proof to that. No one should think that employers would have integrated on their own. After all, there were laws of various strength on the books for almost 100 years, and entrenched discrimination, before the advent of AA Those who complain of reverse discrimination and unfairness probably work for companies that have AA programs. Have any of *them* been passed over for a job or a promotion in favor of a female, a black or whomever, who was less qualified? Can they *prove* the slight? Or is it a reaction to increased competition? AA *does not* mandate that the disadvantaged be promoted at the expense of white males, but that special efforts be made to identify worthy disadvantaged people and include them on promotion/hiring candidate lists. Selection is made on the basis of qualifications, as always (the employer better be able to give some good reason why a qualified female/black is turned down, however) One who does not wish to lose out ton AA boosted competitor need only be *better* This added requirement for white males is offset by that of blacks and females, who must constantly prove their worth, who must do twice as well to be considered half as good. I have talked about "over time." Will there be a time when AA is no longer necessary? Yes, when minority and female employees can share the quintessential attribute of most of their coworkers: when they can safely be average Marcel Simon
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (06/05/85)
Richard Carnes on AA: > Nothing > is more powerful than an idea whose time has come because it serves > the self-interest of powerful people; and nothing mobilizes stronger > ideological opposition than an idea that threatens the privileged > position of the powerful, such as the well-off white males whose > interests the Reagan Administration looks after. I'll probably regret asking this, but just *how* does AA threaten the privileged position of powerful well-off white males? I thought the only people it *might* threaten were poor out-of-work white males. -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "It's a hard rain a-gonna fall." - Dylan
clewis@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
jj@alice.UUCP (06/05/85)
Carnes--> "I'd like some of you AA opponents to suggest alternatives" JJ--> I've been talking about education from EARLY CHILDHOOD everytime the subject has EVER come up in net.politics, in fact, I've been talking about it on nutnews from before the time that there WAS a nut.politics. I'll repeat it once more. You CANNOT keep a person who's been educated and who has learned to EXPECT, as a matter of courtesy, equal behavior down given the current Civil Rights laws, discrimination of literate, well educated people is just simply more effort than even most of the worst bigots are willing to put out. The malicious bigots will allways exist, of course. <And can be firmly dealt with given current (and some changes in the future, one would hope, to include women and white males, in fact, ALL people) laws.> I hardly claim that the world is perfect, but destroying people's self respect via AA(and via discrimination, sexism, and other forms of sheer stupidity) and expecting them to convey a good sense of self to their offspring is a ridiculous position. There are many psychological studies of the results of Hopelessness and Helplessness, where the person learns that their situation and environment are independant of their behavior. Ghettos, racial crime <from minorities toward the "authority"> and many other things are clearly indicated as the results of hopelessness. In order to emiminate these things, one must remove the CAUSE. It is ESSENTIAL that people be shown that there is hope, and that they can make changes in their life VIA THEIR OWN <constructive> ACTIONS!!!, and that this lesson be conveyed to the offspring. Current AA methods don't do this very well, although it is entirely likely that they're better than nothing as far as as the subject is concerned. The problem with current AA methods is that they further discrimination in the job/marketplace because (among other things) they give the bigots an EXCUSE to continue discriminating. <They also create dangerous situations for people, crime, assault, and a lot of other bad things, but it's not clear that the amount created is less than the amount prevented.> The message? TEACH, and hold people responsible for their own actions. If it is shown that race or sex is an issue in a given situation, punish the person/persons directly responsible, not the current employees. Above all, DON'T GIVE THE PREVIOUS "PRIVLEDGED" CLASS A SENSE OF HOPELESSNESS. To do so only creates hate, and a new class of unhappy people (who, given the power that they DO hold, will ensure that nobody winds up happy.) Remember. If you kick someone who doesn't deserve it, they will become your enemy. If you work with that person to a solution satisfactory to both, you have gained an ally. (If you kick a person who has deliberately hurt you, that's another story.) Any system that PRESUMES guilt (as AA does, in practice) is kicking those who don't deserve it along with those who do. Who needs more enemies? -- TEDDY BEARS HAVE LIMITED PATIENCE! THEY DO EVENTUALLY GET HUNGRY! "Let us remember my cat, Geoffrey, ..." (ihnp4/allegra)!alice!jj
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
tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) (06/05/85)
In article <174@luke.UUCP>, sml@luke.UUCP (Steven List @ Uncle Bene's Farm) writes: > 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. I don't mean especially to pick this entry out -- it's typical of many. I just have to confess that I have never understood the affirmative action debate when it was posed on (pseudo-)moral grounds. (The following really isn't in order ...) First, I have never understood why attempts to raise the probability of social peace and help the advancement of some need to be justified as "attempts to enforce equity". The only reason I can see for the debate to be posed on a moral plane of "justice" is because historically in the US struggles for civil rights have mostly been fought in the courts. There's something implicit in this moral debate that if AA isn't a means of "enforcing equity", whatever that means, then it shouldn't be pursued as policy. Rhetoric aside, the work that needs to be done to assuage (note, I don't say "rectify") a historical crime (cultural-institutional racism backed by law and custom) has no NECESSARY relationship to equity at all. The only reason equity is in the debate is that lawyers have to mangle issues in order to collect fees for disentangling issues, that lawyers get far too much respect in the US, and because civil rights had to be defended in the legal arena because they couldn't be defended anywhere else -- a sad comment on the US. And there equity was a useful buzzword. And recently, equity's in the debate because a new legal principle has arisen -- that any policy not backed by the full weight of American moral and political theology is a bad policy. That the weight of this theology was designed by the Founding Fathers to be obstructionist to the oppressed and expeditious to the "worthy" makes me question both the new "principle" and its politics. Another thing that amazes me about this debate is the lack of challenge that the US system gives to the Orwellian rights of "freedom to work" (remember "arbeit macht frei"?), "freedom to hire", and "freedom to promote". Why should any society give EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYERS ALONE the right to set up a social dictatorship answerable to none? Isn't that what all of these "freedoms" mean? Isn't that Orwell? People take their Orwellian rights seriously, by the evidence of this debate. Arguments like "I resent any RULE that restricts my freedom to hire" are believed by many in here to be a positive argument against affirmative action. Incredible. So you resent it. So what. The only reason anyone should empathize is because they too dream of being an employer someday and want just the same freedom -- the freedom to be a little Big Brother. Or a little sexist. Or a little racist. It freaks me out. The last argument made in the AA debate that I will never understand is that "either the whole thing has to hold together or it should be canned." Why? If it's not perfect, piss on it? Why? I read this AA debate (intermittently), and I think I must come from another planet. Tony Wuersch {amd,amdcad}!cae780!ubvax!tonyw "Wakeup" -- by Run-DMC wakeup ... getup ... wakeup ... When I woke up this morning and got out of bed I had some really fresh thoughts going through my head They were the thoughts that came from a wonderful dream It was a vision of the world working as a team It was a dream ... wakeup ... Just a .. wakeup ... getup There was no guns, there were no tanks, there weren't atomic bombs And to be frank -- oh boy -- there were no arms Just people, working, hand in hand There was a feeling of peace all across the land It was a dream ... wakeup ... Just a ... getup wakeup ... wakeup Between all countries there were good relations There finally was a meaning to "United Nations" And everybody had an occupation Cause we all worked together to fight starvation It was a dream! Just a dream ... getup Everyone was treated on a equal basis No matter what colors, religions or races We weren't afraid to show our faces It was cool to be seen in foreign places It was a dream! .... wakeup Just a dream! getup ... wakeup ... getup ... wakeup ... wakeup ... getup ... wakeup All cities of the world were renovated And the people all cheered and celebrated They were all so happy and elated To live in the world that they created It was a dream. .... wakeup Just a dream. getup ... wakeup ... getup There were no street people -- we lived rent-free And every single person had a place to be A job, a home, and the perfect mate And the world was free of greed and hate It was a dream. wakeup .... Just a dream. getup ... wakeup ... wakeup Unemployment was at a record low And the President was jammin' at our show Listening to the things we had to say And tryin' to create a new and brighter day It was a dream. wakeup .... Just a dream. wakeup It was a dream. wakeup .... Just a dream. wakeup It was a dream. wakeup .... Just a dream. wakeup It was a dream. wakeup .... Just a dream. wakeup getup .... wakeup ..... wakeup .... getup wakeup .... wakeup .... getup .... wakeup wakeup .... getup .... wakeup .... getup
carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (06/05/85)
Jeff Sonntag asks: > I'll probably regret asking this, but just *how* does AA threaten > the privileged position of powerful well-off white males? I thought > the only people it *might* threaten were poor out-of-work white males. I'm glad you asked that question. {:-} While AA doesn't directly threaten rich white males, the principles on which it is based would, I think, threaten their dominant social position if generally accepted. AA is in part based on a rejection of the idea that "equality" means "one rule for all" (as Blake wrote, "One law for the Lion and the Ox is oppression"). The opponents of AA argue that the law in its majestic equality should forbid both advantaged and disadvantaged alike to beg in the streets, sleep under bridges, and benefit from quotas. The prevalence of this view, and of free-market ideology as well, is one of the factors that keep the top dogs on top of the underdogs in our society. At least that's the way I look at it. R. Carnes
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
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
geoff@burl.UUCP (geoff) (06/06/85)
In article <476@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes: >I'd also like to hear some constructive suggestions from the >opponents of AA as to how to end the caste-like division of our >society in which some groups are perceived as innately inferior, a >division which perpetuates itself over the generations. Racial and >sexual prejudice and discrimination are alive and well in 1985. And AA promotes it. (yeah, cheap shot, but I couldn't resist) I don't see a 'caste-like division of our society in which some groups are perceived as innately inferior'. There are prejudiced people, true. And no amount of ANYTHING (short of brainwashing -- a cure worse than the disease) will change their minds. Face it, it ain't gonna happen, no matter how many laws get passed. Equally true, there is no 'caste' system because people can (somewhat) freely move between the levels -- indeed, there are no sharp boundaries which the 'caste' analogy implies. Obviously it takes money to move up, and that is hard for anyone (who doesn't have a lot of it) to get. Minorities and women ARE moving up (it seems to me that few people who read this are poverty stricken (except graduate students!)). >Saying that economic rationality will solve the problem doesn't cut >it: it just assumes away the problem. Prejudice and the resulting >discrimination are by definition irrational; the fact that economic >rationality often conflicts with this irrationality isn't sufficient >to show that rationality will win out. I've seen lots of crocodile >tears (especially from the Reagan Admin.) about discrimination and >not much in the way of workable suggestions for ending it. Nothing >is more powerful than an idea whose time has come because it serves >the self-interest of powerful people; and nothing mobilizes stronger >ideological opposition than an idea that threatens the privileged >position of the powerful, such as the well-off white males whose >interests the Reagan Administration looks after. Again, the 'well-off white males' make up a *very* small part of the population (well, it depends how you define 'well-off'; I assume you mean wealthy). > >> Mr. Carnes: do you know how to tell that someone has lost an argument? >> They resort to ad hominem arguments, as you did in that last paragraph. > >You're right that my rhetoric was getting out of hand in that >article; but let me point out that you and others have referred to >affirmative action as "government-promoted racism." It's both absurd >and insulting to its supporters to call a program "racist" whose >whole purpose is to attack racial, ethnic, and sexual prejudice and >their effects. It's mere name-calling as a substitute for rational >arguments that AA is unjust, and it led me to wonder what state of >mind could generate that kind of rhetoric. > >Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes I disagree strongly with your last point. If you kill murderers, it is still murder. If you rape rapists, it is still rape. If you pursue racist policies against racists, it is still racism. 'The ends justifies the means' is the argument that such things are justified, and has justified some of the most atrocious things. What state of mind could 'generate that kind of rhetoric'? A contemplative state of mind that examines what is being said. geoff sherwood
josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) (06/07/85)
(Richard Carnes) writes: >... While AA doesn't directly >threaten rich white males, the principles on which it is based would, >I think, threaten their dominant social position if generally >accepted. ... > The prevalence... of free-market >ideology as well, is one of the factors that keep the top dogs on top >of the underdogs in our society. At least that's the way I look at >it. > >R. Carnes It seems to me that AA would threaten white males who AREN'T racists, but that white males who ARE racist would believe that, being superior, they would come out on top in a strictly fair competition; indeed, this would hold for anybody who, believing that blacks/women were really inferior, thought they must be helped to come out even, that the competition had better not really be fair or they would lose. I believe in fairness before equality; I know of some people who believe in equality before fairness, and who have *specifically stated* that women (I'm thinking about a particular conversation) would not come out even in a strictly even competition, and must therefore be "helped". This is in fact a logically consistent argument for AA, but I reject it. --JoSH
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
wed@drutx.UUCP (DeibertWE) (06/07/85)
> ...with the possible exception of Asians, whose culture predisposes > them to work inordinately harder than us honkies. Utter BS. Hard work is largely a matter of personal pride irregardless of race, sex, color, creed, *culture* or age. William D.
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!
sigma@usl.UUCP (Spiros Triantafyllopoulos) (06/08/85)
In article <2968@drutx.UUCP> wed@drutx.UUCP (DeibertWE) writes: > > >> ...with the possible exception of Asians, whose culture predisposes >> them to work inordinately harder than us honkies. >> [I am not aware of the original poster's id (spiros)] > >Utter BS. Hard work is largely a matter of personal pride irregardless >of race, sex, color, creed, *culture* or age. > >William D. Ha!! Boy, do I got good news for Ya! In talking to some friends at hi-tech businessess, their managers tend to hire Orientals (Asians also implies Indians, Iranians, et. cetera) because of: (a) far lower job-hopping (& company loyality) (b) (managers' perception) higher throughput w/less complaints (c) willingness to work hard and adopt to alien environments Also, their rather consistent character (see stereotype) makes it rather easy to predict future performance (my opinion, but based on a pretty good sample size (~2500) in our school). <mandatory flame? nope, it's 95 F outside> Spiros
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
gam@amdahl.UUCP (G A Moffett) (06/10/85)
In article <2968@drutx.UUCP> wed@drutx.UUCP (DeibertWE) writes: > [ somebody else writes: ] >> ...with the possible exception of Asians, whose culture predisposes >> them to work inordinately harder than us honkies. > >Utter BS. Hard work is largely a matter of personal pride irregardless >of race, sex, color, creed, *culture* or age. > >William D. I know that sounds very nice, but in fact Asians (and Jews) tend to work harder and longer in their choosen fields because of *cultural upbringing*. This is not some ethnic cliche but an observed fact. Asians are disproportionately represented in the hard sciences, particularly physics and biology/biochemistry, *more so than any other ethnic group*. Jews are also disproportionately represented in the population of doctors (particularly specialists) and lawyers. All of these fields are rather difficult to qualify for, requiring hard work in college (remember *your* science classes? all two of them?) and post-graduate training. (This does not mean that all Asians and Jews are hardworking and dilligent, nor does it mean that non-Asians and non-Jews are necessarily less hardworking.) For more interesting observations of the US workforce and ethnic groups therein, read "The Economics and Politics of Race" by Thomas Sowell (published in `84, I think). -- Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,cbosgd,sun}!amdahl!gam
ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (06/10/85)
>> ...with the possible exception of Asians, whose culture predisposes >> them to work inordinately harder than us honkies. > >Utter BS. Hard work is largely a matter of personal pride irregardless >of race, sex, color, creed, *culture* or age. > >William D. But ALL cultures statistically produce offspring whose ambition, `personal pride', belief in the system, and desire/ability to conform tend to match those of the parents with whom they were raised. This is one of the major problems that our oppressed face. Such conditioning is (apparently) difficult for our overprivileged to understand. Please understand that nobody is saying such conditioning is IMPOSSIBLE to overcome, just that for many it is likely to be a most difficult obstacle. Do you insist that one's upbringing has no influence on one's attitudes? If so, your lack of understanding is appalling. -michael
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (06/10/85)
> The idea is FALSE that Affirmative Action equals quotas > > Let us look at the *reality* of AA plans. AA is a recognition that merely > declaring that an employer will not discriminate is not enough. When doors > have been closed to some for so long, putting up a sign that they are now > unlocked will not be convincing (remember, the 14th and 15th amendments, > which outlaw discrimination, did not stop same). An employer needs to > affirm the intention to not discriminate. In practice, AA is a pledge > that an employer will actively attempt to *include* members of disadvantaged > groups in the *pool* of candidates for jobs/promotions. > Let's look at the reality of affirmative action; whatever high minded theory you may have about it, the *reality* of how it is administered is that certain private employers cannot hire based on qualifications, but must hire *solely* on the basis of race, in order to do work for the government. Equal Employment Opportunity is a pledge by the employer that they will try very hard to give *everyone* an equal opportunity at a job. > But the private sector is far more important. First because that is where > the majority of workers are; second because that is where the majority of > netters are (:-) There are few, if any, private employer AA programs > that proclaim the intention of hiring X percent of disadvantaged groups, > and promoting Y of them to senior positions within Z units of time. > Rather, private AA programs pledge that their *goal* is to integrate > their work force. As long as progress is being made, neither the government > nor private organizations representing discriminated against job candidates > has a prayer of winning a suit aimed at forcing the employer to move > faster (the definition of progress is subject to disagreement, > especially when the employer is acting in bad faith) So far, there is > no discrimination for or against anyone, merely a statement of intent > to include a representative percentage of members of disadvantaged > groups in consideration for hiring/promotion. > The *fear* of lawsuits, and the *fear* of losing government contracts matter a lot more than the lawsuits themselves. When I working as an employment agent, I found myself *frequently* running into people who worked for the big aerospace companies in this area who were, pure and simple, hired on account of their race. (Tragically, these same individuals usually find higher paying jobs with another aerospace company, still doing nothing.) > The concept of representative percentage is based on census figures > for the area the employer is located in (the definition of an area > is set by government) The employer attempts to find a number of > job applicants representative of the population distribution ***for the > particular skill required for the job***. The presumption is that > a subset of those applicant proportional to the percentage will be > found qualified, be hired and in time promoted, thus leading to > a company whose employee distribution reflects that of the region it is > located in. The key words here are "goal", "in time", and "progress" > The assumption is that the employer is acting in good faith, > and genuinely wants to achieve the stated goal. > > Unfortunately, some act in bad faith. They may hire unqualified people > and then point to them as proof of the failure of AA~r. They may set > quotas and then point to their "unfairness". Blaming the concept of > AA for these implementation flaws is throwing the baby out with the > bathwater. AA programs by and large work. The growing integration > of the work force is proof to that. No one should think that employers > would have integrated on their own. After all, there were laws of various > strength on the books for almost 100 years, and entrenched discrimination, > before the advent of AA > "Blaming the concept of AA for these implementation flaws is throwing the baby out with the bathwater." You may recall that the Supreme Court threw out "separate but equal" because from a practical standpoint, it didn't seem to work out that way, most times. Similarly with affirmative action: if the actual implemented policies are racist and discriminatory, perhaps the idea needs to be re-evaluated. > Those who complain of reverse discrimination and unfairness probably > work for companies that have AA programs. Have any of *them* been passed > over for a job or a promotion in favor of a female, a black or whomever, > who was less qualified? Can they *prove* the slight? Or is it a reaction > to increased competition? AA *does not* mandate that the disadvantaged > be promoted at the expense of white males, but that special efforts > be made to identify worthy disadvantaged people and include them on > promotion/hiring candidate lists. Selection is made on the basis > of qualifications, as always (the employer better be able to give > some good reason why a qualified female/black is turned down, however) > One who does not wish to lose out ton AA boosted competitor need > only be *better* This added requirement for white males is > offset by that of blacks and females, who must constantly prove > their worth, who must do twice as well to be considered half as > good. > I have never lost out on a job because of affirmative action (at least to my knowledge). I certainly got screwed when it came to the granting of scholarships for college. There were a great many scholarships that were specifically reserved for blacks and Hispanics --- can you imagine the uproar if a public institution like my high school had assisted in administering scholarships that were limited to whites? (And with good reason there would be an uproar.) When it came time for me to go off to school, the University of California managed to find plenty of money for scholarships for "minority youth". In a color-blind environment, I would have gotten a scholarship also. In 1973, my parents combined income was $4700 a year (just below the poverty line); I graduated 28th in a graduating class of > 980; my SAT Scores were 700 and 690; and yet the people that administered scholarships at UCLA didn't think I needed any help. If race wasn't a factor, I'm not sure who the scholarships were going to. > Marcel Simon
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (06/10/85)
> >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. > > This is our old friend the argument from name-calling. It generates > heat rather than light, so could we please refrain from using it on > the net? > The reality of what affirmative action is beginning to sink in, Mr. Carnes? Is that why you don't like it to be called what it is? > In my everyday encounters with people, I treat women and blacks > somewhat differently from white males, that is, my knowledge of a > person's race or sex can and usually does affect my actions in some > way. Part of the reason for this difference is my knowledge that > both groups suffer from deep-rooted and tenacious prejudices in our > society, and that this is an important factor in the life of each > individual woman or black. This does not mean that I have judged the > individual to be better or worse merely because he or she is black or > female, and I don't see how it makes me a racist or sexist. > > Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes This used to be called "patronizing". *I* treat everyone as an individual; if I don't know someone, I treat them dependent on the circumstances. In a dark alley, everyone, regardless of race or national origin, is a potential danger.
ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (06/11/85)
>{jj@alice} >I'll repeat it once more. > >I hardly claim that the world is perfect, but destroying people's >self respect via AA(and via discrimination, sexism, and >other forms of sheer stupidity) and expecting them to convey a good sense of >self to their offspring is a ridiculous position. Funny how it's mostly white people who say this. And how do you explain that black leaders, political organizations, and electorate are overwhelmingly in favor of AA? >... >In order to emiminate {minority poverty}, one must remove the CAUSE. I concur. And the major causes of the suffering of our underprivileged are inferior education and employment opportunities -- precisely the goal of AA programs. >The problem with current AA methods is that they further discrimination >in the job/marketplace because (among other things) they give the >bigots an EXCUSE to continue discriminating. ANY GOVERNMENT PROGRAM WHATSOEVER that is aimed at helping our underprivileged `minorities' is arguably discriminatory, whether it be in the form of subsidies to black entrepreneurs, economic aid for women students, or free milk programs native american elementary school students. Frankly, the bigots will think of excuses REGARDLESS of whether programs to help are minorities implemented or not. If we fail to act for fear of arousing their wrath, then they have succeeded in continuing the oppression of our underprivileged. >Above all, DON'T GIVE THE PREVIOUS "PRIVLEDGED" CLASS A SENSE >OF HOPELESSNESS. To do so only creates hate, and a new class >of unhappy people (who, given the power that they DO hold, >will ensure that nobody winds up happy.) Why worry more about the imaginary suffering of the overprivileged and their greed-induced hatred when there are so many underprivileged who live with REAL suffering? Rather, I would say, above all, create a nation where all kinds of people can excel, where individual differences are not simply tolerated, but cherished, instead of the current ugly situation where conformism to Anglo Male stereotypes is practically required for entry into America's power structure. How many MILLIONS of white immigrants have destroyed their heritage and sold out to the flimsy Anglo image due to the deeply ingrained conformist attitudes predominating here? >TEDDY BEARS HAVE LIMITED PATIENCE! THEY DO EVENTUALLY GET HUNGRY! You have my deepest sympathy -michael
carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (06/11/85)
I wrote: > In my everyday encounters with people, I treat women and blacks > somewhat differently from white males, that is, my knowledge of a > person's race or sex can and usually does affect my actions in some > way. Part of the reason for this difference is my knowledge that > both groups suffer from deep-rooted and tenacious prejudices in our > society, and that this is an important factor in the life of each > individual woman or black. This does not mean that I have judged the > individual to be better or worse merely because he or she is black or > female, and I don't see how it makes me a racist or sexist. Clayton Cramer replies: > This used to be called "patronizing". *I* treat everyone as an individual; > if I don't know someone, I treat them dependent on the circumstances. It's offensive to most netters when someone attributes to them beliefs and attitudes that they didn't express. Cramer's response is just mud-slinging, like his repeated statements that affirmative action is "racism." To patronize means to treat with a manner or air of condescending notice. What I stated above was that my knowledge of a person's race or sex can influence my actions toward them. (The same is true of everyone reading this: I doubt that many netters are sex-blind in their dating and sex life.) Nothing in this implies condescension or a superior attitude. Is it condescending to be aware, as most of us are, that any woman or black in the US, merely because he or she is black or female, is the object of some deeply rooted prejudices and discriminatory practices, and that this is a significant fact in the lives of most of them? Cramer seems to say that if we let this awareness influence our actions IN ANY WAY, we are guilty of patronizing and taking an attitude of superiority to blacks and females. Perhaps the safest thing to do, on this view, is simply to forget that blacks and women suffer from racism and sexism -- otherwise we are on a slippery slope that leads through condescension to the horrors of "reverse discrimination." What does Cramer mean by the phrase "treat everyone as an individual"? Or is this just a question we're not supposed to ask? I've been going around today trying to mend my ways and "treat everyone as an individual," but I'm damned if I know what to do. Richard Carnes
ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (06/11/85)
>Comparing equally weighted samples of whites and blacks in this >country, you find the differences in income (which are almost certainly >the result of racism) are quite small --- a few percent at most. What do you consider a `few percent' to be? Twenty percent maybe? Perhaps thirty percent? Last time I checked, the (probably unweighted) difference was a whopping fourty five percent. And that was DOWN ten percent from the days of Johnson's `Great Society'.. >Affirmative action promotes racist attitudes This limp-wristed argument is just what the NeoNazis want us to say. So let's give in to the NeoNazis by doing nothing, right? >I suggest that you read the ongoing debate in net.women, before you >claim that AA "...does not attempt to assign guilt or merit based on >membership in a group..." --- a great many of the people over there >have done *exactly* that, saying that all white males should have >less because of what white males have done in the past. But who has been dumping that `guilt' crap in net.women? The opponents of Affirmative Action! >Mr. Carnes: do you know how to tell that someone has lost an argument? Keep saying that to yourself. Maybe you'll believe it.. You speak of AA as discrimination. So is ANY program aimed at helping the disadvantaged minorities in this country. I assume you are against all such programs, yes? Furthermore, without government coercion, the most qualified person to work in an organization consisting of racist male pigs is yet another racist male pig. As a matter of pure economics, selecting people who conform to the existing stereotype makes good business sense. The status quo is also discrimination, too. And it favors those who are OVERPRIVILEGED. -michael
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
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (06/12/85)
> Equal Employment Opportunity is a pledge by the employer > that they will try very hard to give *everyone* an equal opportunity at > a job. > Since AA is the implementation of the EEO promise, I see no contradiction here. > I found myself *frequently* running into people who > worked for the big aerospace companies in this area who were, pure and > simple, hired on account of their race. (Tragically, these same > individuals usually find higher paying jobs with another aerospace > company, still doing nothing.) The cases you cite are prime examples of the bad faith I referred to in my original article (337@mhuxr.UUCP) An employer prefers hiring unqualified people to making some effort to find qualified munirities and women. I call that willful discrimination. Blaming it on the existence of AA makes no sense to me. The whole point of AA is to try and *find* those qualified female engineers and blacks. That government contractors refuse to do so might be an insight on why our taxes pay for $600 ashtrays and $400 toilet seats. > "Blaming the concept of AA for these implementation flaws is throwing the > baby out with the bathwater." You may recall that the Supreme Court > threw out "separate but equal" because from a practical standpoint, it > didn't seem to work out that way, most times. Similarly with affirmative > action: if the actual implemented policies are racist and discriminatory, > perhaps the idea needs to be re-evaluated. > Perhaps some lawyers on the net can set the recordstraight, but I was under the impression that "Brown v Board of Education" found "separate but equal" unconstitutional because of the concept of segregation rather than whatever inequalities that resulted from its practice. An employer who willfully hires unqualified people is *not* living up to EEO (a legal requirement) or to any AA plan (a voluntary implementation) Remember, the government does not require that companies adopt AA plans, just that they show reasonable progress in integrating their workforce. > I have never lost out on a job because of affirmative action (at least > to my knowledge). I certainly got screwed when it came to the granting > of scholarships for college. There were a great many scholarships that > were specifically reserved for blacks and Hispanics --- can you imagine > the uproar if a public institution like my high school had assisted in > administering scholarships that were limited to whites? (And with good > reason there would be an uproar.) When it came time for me to go off > to school, the University of California managed to find plenty of money > for scholarships for "minority youth". In a color-blind environment, > I would have gotten a scholarship also. In 1973, my parents combined > income was $4700 a year (just below the poverty line); I graduated 28th > in a graduating class of > 980; my SAT Scores were 700 and 690; and yet > the people that administered scholarships at UCLA didn't think I needed > any help. If race wasn't a factor, I'm not sure who the scholarships > were going to. You of course know your own situation better than I, but let me point out that there are scholarship funds with strings attached; in othe words, the university may not have had one large pool of scholarship money available. Besides, other considerations than grades and need are used in awarding scholarship. Besides, you obviously did manage to get to college; you probably succeeded in graduating and now hold, from all appearances, a quite decent job. I fail to see how you were *hurt* by the University of California's AA program (if such was indeed the reason you were denied a scholarship.) Marcel Simon
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (06/12/85)
> > In my everyday encounters with people, I treat women and blacks > > somewhat differently from white males, that is, my knowledge of a > > person's race or sex can and usually does affect my actions in some > > way. Part of the reason for this difference is my knowledge that > > both groups suffer from deep-rooted and tenacious prejudices in our > > society, and that this is an important factor in the life of each > > individual woman or black. This does not mean that I have judged the > > individual to be better or worse merely because he or she is black or > > female, and I don't see how it makes me a racist or sexist. > > > > Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes > > This used to be called "patronizing". *I* treat everyone as an individual; > if I don't know someone, I treat them dependent on the circumstances. In > a dark alley, everyone, regardless of race or national origin, is a potential > danger. Congratulations! You ARE the perfect person. Now, us mere mortals who are honest enough to admit it realize that we are all prejudiced. We may rationalize our biases (as a racist does), pretend our biases don't exist (the "who, me?" bigot), or try to correct or surpress them. Pretending they don't exist makes them more potent. Now maybe you do treat EVERYONE as an individual ALL the time; for me (and those such as Carnes who are honest enough to understand their own feelings), justness is something that must be striven for. Frankly, those who err and atone are far more credible than those who claim never to have erred at all. Now if you only would treat Carnes as an individual and stop rushing to apply a label to him so you can treat him as part of some group... David Rubin {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david
crs@lanl.ARPA (06/13/85)
> > When it came time for me to go off > > to school, the University of California managed to find plenty of money > > for scholarships for "minority youth". In a color-blind environment, > > I would have gotten a scholarship also. In 1973, my parents combined > > income was $4700 a year (just below the poverty line); I graduated 28th > > in a graduating class of > 980; my SAT Scores were 700 and 690; and yet > > the people that administered scholarships at UCLA didn't think I needed > > any help. If race wasn't a factor, I'm not sure who the scholarships > > were going to. > > You of course know your own situation better than I, but let me > point out that there are scholarship funds with strings attached; in > othe words, the university may not have had one large pool of scholarship > money available. Besides, other considerations than grades and need > are used in awarding scholarship. > > Besides, you obviously did manage to get to college; you probably > succeeded in graduating and now hold, from all appearances, a quite decent > job. I fail to see how you were *hurt* by the University of California's > AA program (if such was indeed the reason you were denied a scholarship.) > > Marcel Simon I thought we were talking about fairness and nondiscrimination, not about whether a particular individual can *manage*. To use this line of reasoning, why do we need affirmative action, EEO or any of the other institutions that this discussion is about? If the person in the earlier of the two quotes can do it why don't we just say that anyone else can do it and get rid of EEO and AA? This is, obviously, not an acceptable approach to any who *benefit* from AA and EEO so why should it be an acceptable approach to the person above who, it seem to me, *was* hurt by it? Hurt in the same sense as a person who doesn't get a deserved salary increase or promotion is hurt. One can only conjecture about how the individual managed, if indeed he (?) did, to graduate, etc as assumed in the second quote, but it seems reasonable the it was by virtue of a lot of work *while* going to school. To say that he was not hurt by being denied a scholarship is to say that he would not have benefitted by having the time spent working either to study or just to relax. I'm afraid that I think that is bullshit! Charlie -- Charlie Sorsby ...!{cmcl2,ihnp4,...}!lanl!crs crs@lanl.arpa
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (06/13/85)
> >I suggest that you read the ongoing debate in net.women, before you > >claim that AA "...does not attempt to assign guilt or merit based on > >membership in a group..." --- a great many of the people over there > >have done *exactly* that, saying that all white males should have > >less because of what white males have done in the past. > > But who has been dumping that `guilt' crap in net.women? > > The opponents of Affirmative Action! Since this article was cross-posted to net.politics, and some of you net.politics readers might not have been following the action in net.women recently, I just thought I'd let you know that the last statement above is false. The person who thought that all white males should share in some collective blame for the actions of some white men *was* arguing in favor of affirmative action. > > -michael -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "It's a hard rain a-gonna fall." - Dylan
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
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (06/14/85)
> First, I have never understood why attempts to raise the probability of > social peace and help the advancement of some need to be justified as > "attempts to enforce equity". The only reason I can see for the debate > to be posed on a moral plane of "justice" is because historically in the US > struggles for civil rights have mostly been fought in the courts. > > There's something implicit in this moral debate that if AA isn't a means > of "enforcing equity", whatever that means, then it shouldn't be pursued as > policy. Rhetoric aside, the work that needs to be done to assuage (note, > I don't say "rectify") a historical crime (cultural-institutional racism > backed by law and custom) has no NECESSARY relationship to equity at all. > If "equity" and "justice" aren't the reason for affirmative action, then what is? Just an amoral grasping for power? > The only reason equity is in the debate is that lawyers have to mangle > issues in order to collect fees for disentangling issues, that lawyers > get far too much respect in the US, and because civil rights had to be > defended in the legal arena because they couldn't be defended anywhere > else -- a sad comment on the US. And there equity was a useful buzzword. > Civil rights are defended in the legal arena because civil rights are protections from the government. > And recently, equity's in the debate because a new legal principle has arisen -- > that any policy not backed by the full weight of American moral and political > theology is a bad policy. That the weight of this theology was designed by > the Founding Fathers to be obstructionist to the oppressed and expeditious to > the "worthy" makes me question both the new "principle" and its politics. > I suggest that you do a little reading about the Constitutional Convention debates. Much of the dispute about how to hamstring the government was *not* fear of the poor (which was discussed as a possibility and dismissed as unlikely) but fear that ambitious and power-mad aristocrats would use the lower classes as dupes to amass power and wealth for these same aristocrats. Certainly this century demonstrates that their concerns are real --- the totalitarians have risen to power mostly because of the votes of working class people who honestly believed they were going to be given a fair shake. > Another thing that amazes me about this debate is the lack of challenge > that the US system gives to the Orwellian rights of "freedom to work" > (remember "arbeit macht frei"?), "freedom to hire", and "freedom to > promote". Why should any society give EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYERS ALONE the > right to set up a social dictatorship answerable to none? Isn't that what > all of these "freedoms" mean? Isn't that Orwell? > The phrase "arbeit macht frei" (hung over the entrance to one of the concentration camps) means "work makes you free". It's quite a stretch to link that the idea of "freedom to work". As for social dictatorship of employers: that's bunk. Employment is definitely a two-way street, with employers sometimes having the upper hand, and employees sometimes having the upper hand. It sounds like you would prefer a dictatorship of the proletariat. > People take their Orwellian rights seriously, by the evidence of this > debate. Arguments like "I resent any RULE that restricts my freedom to > hire" are believed by many in here to be a positive argument against > affirmative action. Incredible. So you resent it. So what. The only > reason anyone should empathize is because they too dream of being an employer > someday and want just the same freedom -- the freedom to be a little Big > Brother. Or a little sexist. Or a little racist. It freaks me out. > No. We say, "leave us alone, and we will leave you alone." You are the one with the Big Brother desires, because you want to involve the government in a relationship between employer and employee. I am not a racist, or a sexist. I don't want to government telling employers what they can and can't do in this area simply because promoting racism is intrinsically evil. > The last argument made in the AA debate that I will never understand is > that "either the whole thing has to hold together or it should be canned." > Why? If it's not perfect, piss on it? Why? > > I read this AA debate (intermittently), and I think I must come from another > planet. > > Tony Wuersch > {amd,amdcad}!cae780!ubvax!tonyw You're right, you come from another planet. Perhaps you should read Orwell's _1984_ again --- I think you managed to miss the whole point of the book --- absolute power corrupts.
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
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (06/17/85)
> > > In my everyday encounters with people, I treat women and blacks > > > somewhat differently from white males, that is, my knowledge of a > > > person's race or sex can and usually does affect my actions in some > > > way. Part of the reason for this difference is my knowledge that > > > both groups suffer from deep-rooted and tenacious prejudices in our > > > society, and that this is an important factor in the life of each > > > individual woman or black. This does not mean that I have judged the > > > individual to be better or worse merely because he or she is black or > > > female, and I don't see how it makes me a racist or sexist. > > > > > > Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes > > > > This used to be called "patronizing". *I* treat everyone as an individual; > > if I don't know someone, I treat them dependent on the circumstances. In > > a dark alley, everyone, regardless of race or national origin, is a potential > > danger. > > Congratulations! You ARE the perfect person. Now, us mere mortals > who are honest enough to admit it realize that we are all prejudiced. > We may rationalize our biases (as a racist does), pretend our biases > don't exist (the "who, me?" bigot), or try to correct or surpress > them. Pretending they don't exist makes them more potent. > A frightening thought: maybe I really don't have racism built in to me. Why do you assume that everyone is racially prejudiced? Is it because *you* have a problem with racial prejudice? > Now maybe you do treat EVERYONE as an individual ALL the time; for me > (and those such as Carnes who are honest enough to understand their own > feelings), justness is something that must be striven for. Frankly, > those who err and atone are far more credible than those who claim > never to have erred at all. > > Now if you only would treat Carnes as an individual and stop rushing > to apply a label to him so you can treat him as part of some group... > > David Rubin > {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david Mr. Carnes applied the label to himself by admitting that he treats blacks differently from whites.
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (06/17/85)
> > Equal Employment Opportunity is a pledge by the employer > > that they will try very hard to give *everyone* an equal opportunity at > > a job. > > > Since AA is the implementation of the EEO promise, I see no contradiction here. > > > I found myself *frequently* running into people who > > worked for the big aerospace companies in this area who were, pure and > > simple, hired on account of their race. (Tragically, these same > > individuals usually find higher paying jobs with another aerospace > > company, still doing nothing.) > > The cases you cite are prime examples of the bad faith I referred to > in my original article (337@mhuxr.UUCP) An employer prefers hiring > unqualified people to making some effort to find qualified munirities > and women. I call that willful discrimination. Blaming it on the existence > of AA makes no sense to me. The whole point of AA is to try and *find* those > qualified female engineers and blacks. That government contractors refuse > to do so might be an insight on why our taxes pay for $600 ashtrays > and $400 toilet seats. > For reasons that have a lot to do with governmental discrimination in schooling, and somewhat to do with social tendencies towards racism, there is frequently a shortage of *qualified* female or black engineers. I am sure that this problem will go away over the next few years. Nonetheless, it seems reasonable to me that an employer would, if they needed to hire a minority or female engineer, would hire the best that they could find. The alternative is to believe that the racism is *so* widespread that employers can afford to hire unqualified workers without fear that their competitors (admittedly, few and far between in aerospace) will hire qualified minority or female engineers. I know few people who are that racist. > > "Blaming the concept of AA for these implementation flaws is throwing the > > baby out with the bathwater." You may recall that the Supreme Court > > threw out "separate but equal" because from a practical standpoint, it > > didn't seem to work out that way, most times. Similarly with affirmative > > action: if the actual implemented policies are racist and discriminatory, > > perhaps the idea needs to be re-evaluated. > > > Perhaps some lawyers on the net can set the recordstraight, but I was under > the impression that "Brown v Board of Education" found "separate but equal" > unconstitutional because of the concept of segregation rather than whatever > inequalities that resulted from its practice. > My understanding is that "Brown vs. Board of Education" threw out segregation because it wasn't implemented according to the rules that "Plessy vs. Ferguson" set up. It would have been much more honest to throw it out because segregation violates the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection under the law --- something that affirmative action clearly violates. > An employer who willfully hires unqualified people is *not* living up > to EEO (a legal requirement) or to any AA plan (a voluntary implementation) > Remember, the government does not require that companies adopt AA plans, > just that they show reasonable progress in integrating their workforce. > Saying that a company isn't "required" to implement affirmative action is rather like saying, "Blacks weren't *required* to ride in the back of the bus --- they could have walked." When the government is redistributing wealth from taxpayers to government contractors, it is reasonable, just, and essential, to require that those contractors give everyone a fair shot at employment, regardless of race or sex --- affirmative action is not a fair shot. > > I have never lost out on a job because of affirmative action (at least > > to my knowledge). I certainly got screwed when it came to the granting > > of scholarships for college. There were a great many scholarships that > > were specifically reserved for blacks and Hispanics --- can you imagine > > the uproar if a public institution like my high school had assisted in > > administering scholarships that were limited to whites? (And with good > > reason there would be an uproar.) When it came time for me to go off > > to school, the University of California managed to find plenty of money > > for scholarships for "minority youth". In a color-blind environment, > > I would have gotten a scholarship also. In 1973, my parents combined > > income was $4700 a year (just below the poverty line); I graduated 28th > > in a graduating class of > 980; my SAT Scores were 700 and 690; and yet > > the people that administered scholarships at UCLA didn't think I needed > > any help. If race wasn't a factor, I'm not sure who the scholarships > > were going to. > > You of course know your own situation better than I, but let me > point out that there are scholarship funds with strings attached; in > othe words, the university may not have had one large pool of scholarship > money available. Besides, other considerations than grades and need > are used in awarding scholarship. > > Besides, you obviously did manage to get to college; you probably > succeeded in graduating and now hold, from all appearances, a quite decent > job. I fail to see how you were *hurt* by the University of California's > AA program (if such was indeed the reason you were denied a scholarship.) > > Marcel Simon I had to drop out of college do to funding problems; I did not graduate; fortunately, college is only necessary for a good job in software if you lack character or intelligence. (Then, a degree is essential.)
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (06/17/85)
> I wrote: > > > In my everyday encounters with people, I treat women and blacks > > somewhat differently from white males, that is, my knowledge of a > > person's race or sex can and usually does affect my actions in some > > way. Part of the reason for this difference is my knowledge that > > both groups suffer from deep-rooted and tenacious prejudices in our > > society, and that this is an important factor in the life of each > > individual woman or black. This does not mean that I have judged the > > individual to be better or worse merely because he or she is black or > > female, and I don't see how it makes me a racist or sexist. > > Clayton Cramer replies: > > > This used to be called "patronizing". *I* treat everyone as an individual; > > if I don't know someone, I treat them dependent on the circumstances. > > It's offensive to most netters when someone attributes to them > beliefs and attitudes that they didn't express. Cramer's response is > just mud-slinging, like his repeated statements that affirmative > action is "racism." To patronize means to treat with a manner or air > of condescending notice. What I stated above was that my knowledge > of a person's race or sex can influence my actions toward them. (The > same is true of everyone reading this: I doubt that many netters are > sex-blind in their dating and sex life.) Nothing in this implies > condescension or a superior attitude. Is it condescending to be > aware, as most of us are, that any woman or black in the US, merely > because he or she is black or female, is the object of some deeply > rooted prejudices and discriminatory practices, and that this is a > significant fact in the lives of most of them? Cramer seems to say > that if we let this awareness influence our actions IN ANY WAY, we > are guilty of patronizing and taking an attitude of superiority to > blacks and females. Perhaps the safest thing to do, on this view, is > simply to forget that blacks and women suffer from racism and sexism > -- otherwise we are on a slippery slope that leads through > condescension to the horrors of "reverse discrimination." > Mr. Carnes, you assume that every black or woman in the US has been victimized by prejudice and discrimination; worse, you assume that they have experienced the same level of it. You also assume that white males have not also experienced prejudice and discrimination, which is false, even if you ignore the government's actions. > What does Cramer mean by the phrase "treat everyone as an > individual"? Or is this just a question we're not supposed to ask? > I've been going around today trying to mend my ways and "treat > everyone as an individual," but I'm damned if I know what to do. > > Richard Carnes "Treat everyone as an individual": that means I approach people without preconceived ideas based on their race, sex, national origin. I'm sorry that you seem to have trouble approaching people that way. Do you remember Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech, when he said that he looked forward to a day when people would not be judged by the color of their skin? I'm sorry you've forgotten.
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (06/17/85)
> >Comparing equally weighted samples of whites and blacks in this > >country, you find the differences in income (which are almost certainly > >the result of racism) are quite small --- a few percent at most. > > What do you consider a `few percent' to be? > > Twenty percent maybe? > Perhaps thirty percent? > > Last time I checked, the (probably unweighted) difference was a whopping > fourty five percent. > > And that was DOWN ten percent from the days of Johnson's `Great Society'.. > You are right that the unweighted difference is dramatic. A weighted comparision is much less dramatic. On the 20th anniversary of Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech Newsweek carried a series of articles about discrimination. They quoted one of the directors of NAACP as saying that black salaries were 99% of white salaries *for those blacks that were working* (emphasis added). He went on to say that this was because of union efforts to abolish inequality. (This may be part of it, although I doubt it is all.) A great many blacks have received inadequate educations, both in the number of years, and in the quality of those years. In addition, blacks are on average *younger* than whites; young people don't make the money that older people do. Again, compare weighted averages; there is still evidence of racism, but the difference (depending on how you evaluate the weightings) is a few percent. > >Affirmative action promotes racist attitudes > > This limp-wristed argument is just what the NeoNazis want us to say. > > So let's give in to the NeoNazis by doing nothing, right? > I'm a firm believer in cutting the rug out from under the neo-Nazis; the neo-Nazis do want something done --- the exact reverse of affirmative action, with jobs guaranteed for whites. > >I suggest that you read the ongoing debate in net.women, before you > >claim that AA "...does not attempt to assign guilt or merit based on > >membership in a group..." --- a great many of the people over there > >have done *exactly* that, saying that all white males should have > >less because of what white males have done in the past. > > But who has been dumping that `guilt' crap in net.women? > > The opponents of Affirmative Action! > The "guilt" has been assigned by the proponents of Affirmative Action in net.women. Read it before you assume. > >Mr. Carnes: do you know how to tell that someone has lost an argument? > > Keep saying that to yourself. Maybe you'll believe it.. > > You speak of AA as discrimination. So is ANY program aimed at > helping the disadvantaged minorities in this country. I assume > you are against all such programs, yes? > > Furthermore, without government coercion, the most qualified person to > work in an organization consisting of racist male pigs is yet another > racist male pig. As a matter of pure economics, selecting people > who conform to the existing stereotype makes good business sense. > > The status quo is also discrimination, too. And it favors those > who are OVERPRIVILEGED. > > -michael If every company in America consisted of "racist male pigs", you might be right. In my experience, those sorts control very few companies, and mostly companies going down the tubes because their racism and sexism prevents them from hiring competent employees at a market salary. Could you define "overprivileged"? Don't you just mean, someone who has more than I think they should have?
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?
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (06/18/85)
> I thought we were talking about fairness and nondiscrimination, not > about whether a particular individual can *manage*. To use this line > of reasoning, why do we need affirmative action, EEO or any of the > other institutions that this discussion is about? If the person in > the earlier of the two quotes can do it why don't we just say that > anyone else can do it and get rid of EEO and AA? > 1) Someone who is a white male is better able to "manage" than a non- white female. 2) Fairness and nondiscrimination may have had something to do with it, but the poster provided no proof that he had been discriminated against except to say that he was denied a scholarship and that in some quite unconnected way, "minority youth" received scholarship(s) He failed to link the two facts and show discrimination. > Hurt in the same > sense as a person who doesn't get a deserved salary increase or > promotion is hurt. One can only conjecture about how the individual > managed, if indeed he (?) did, to graduate, etc as assumed in the > second quote, but it seems reasonable the it was by virtue of a lot of > work *while* going to school. To say that he was not hurt by being > denied a scholarship is to say that he would not have benefitted by > having the time spent working either to study or just to relax. I'm > afraid that I think that is bullshit! > > Charlie Sorsby "Deserved" in this case is subjective, seeing as how the complete facts are not known. This discussion has little to do with AA, anyway. I have posted several articles that try to clear away some of the ideological ravings and look at the reality: the relevant sections of the Civil Rights Act and employer AA plans. The tewndency to assume that any minority ot woman who beat out a white male for some position was somehow undeserving and that the white male was cheated is curious and unsettling to me. It strikes me as possible that however deserving the particular gentleman may have been, he was beaten out by some more deserving person who happened to be female or of a minority group. Until there are facts on the subject, all this conjecture is pointless anyway. Marcel Simon
cs1@oddjob.UUCP (Cheryl Stewart) (06/19/85)
1. Assume that natural endowments are distributed evenly among men, women,
american indians, negroes, orientals, and caucasians--at birth.
2. Assume that socialization and education have little or no effect on
the presence of these natural endowments--that despite discouragement,
a woman with a fine mathematical mind still has a fine mathematical
mind; that despite lack of formal training, a negro with formidable
verbal sensibilities still has formidable verbal sensibilites; that
despite "macho" socialization, a man may have the patience of Job and the
mercy of Florence Nightingale; that an american indian may be born
with an unusually high intuition for spatial relations and three-
dimensional puzzle-solving; that an oriental woman may well be
born with a clear eye, a steady hand and nerves of steel--which are
not hampered by ANY home or educational environment...only left
undeveloped.
3. Assume that socialization and education can only enhance these natural
endowments, and that the greater the endowment, the less socialization
is required to bring it out in a person. The limit of this would be
that the american indian would make a far better architect or engineer,
and learn his trade in far less time than a caucasian with little or
no spatial intuition. The woman would become a brilliant mathematician
if only given half a chance. The negro would influence the course of
history as a diplomat, the oriental woman would be a crack phantom jet
pilot, and the man with the patience of Job and the mercy of Florence
Nightingale might make a good nurse or dental assistant or elementary
school teacher. Oh, he seems to have some business aptitude! Can he
type? Oh, it says here that he worked with computers in college! I'll
bet he can figure out how to use our word processor! He's such a NICE
little boy--let's make sure he has some pin money to take his children
to the zoo--let's give him a JOB (hey, aren't we being liberal and
wonderful and fair by hiring one of these deprived, poorly-socialized,
white men? This will get the government off our backs about AA fer
sure, fer sure.)
4. There being an equal distribution of natural endowment in both sexes
and all races, and there being a disproportionately low number of
minorities and women utilizing these natural endowments in their
work, simple logic would have it that a disproportionately high
number of minorities and women are undereducated and underemployed
given their level of natural endowment. Put simply--"that's right,
the women are smarter"...than men holding the same jobs. This
scares the pants off men, and is what leads them to continue to
seek social advantages based on ill-advised and misconcieved notions
about their "superiority". In a job-situation, a woman may have a
man out-ranked--but given that there are more men than women in that
workplace, he can make sure she is out-flanked (please, no flames on
the use of the word 'flank'). He can't hurt her ability, but he can
hurt her performance as long as ANYTHING she has to do requires that
she rely on him or one of his cronies to do HIS job. People can
be selectively competent--competent when a friend is relying on
them, and incompetent when an enemy is relying on them. As long
as men in the workplace view women as enemies, and as long as there
are fewer women than men, women will continue to be periodically
outflanked in ways that can serve to reinforce men's notions that
they and their buddies are better suited for their work than women.
Harsh realities--but realities nonetheless.
5. Because women and minorities are undereducated and underemployed
considering their natural endowments, it would only make sense
that to encourage women and minorities to make the most of their
abilities would increase the level of competition for jobs. This
may or may not make for better employees. (A high level of com-
petition for medical school acceptance does not necessarily mean
that we have better doctors.) But chances are that by automatically
giving a job to a minority or a woman who is just as qualified
as a white male applicant, the employer is increasing his chances
of getting someone who has more natural ability, and thus insuring
a better workforce in the future. The only reason employers haven't
been really stocking up on women and minorities is that it would
create too much friction among the existing ranks...since they know
that many white male employees care more about their chances for
that next promotion than they care about the future of the company
and would really raise a ruckus & start politicking like crazy if
they were suddenly in danger of being outranked AND outflanked by
women and minorities.
6. If handled incorrectly, AA can be easily used against the people it
is intended to help. The government cannot legislate the correct
use of AA because it cannot regulate every aspect of office politics.
However, when AA IS being misused in this manner, it's pretty obvious.
A company or university is only hurting itself when it is careless in
this regard--it alienates and loses its best people...or worse yet,
makes them into real, live enemies.
7. As long as it is handled carefully, AA can be good for the workforce,
good for the country, and even build some character in the men that
presently must rely on unfair advantages.
Cheryl Stewart
Curiouser and curiouser...
--
There's one kind of favor I'll ask of you:
Just see that my grave is kept clean.mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (06/19/85)
> For reasons that have a lot to do with governmental discrimination in > schooling, and somewhat to do with social tendencies towards racism, there > is frequently a shortage of *qualified* female or black engineers. I > am sure that this problem will go away over the next few years. Nonetheless, > it seems reasonable to me that an employer would, if they needed to hire > a minority or female engineer, would hire the best that they could find. > The alternative is to believe that the racism is *so* widespread that > employers can afford to hire unqualified workers without fear that their > competitors (admittedly, few and far between in aerospace) will hire > qualified minority or female engineers. I know few people who are that > racist. > I have difficulty with believing that racism and sexism will "get better" without vigorous action, with government leading the way. We have heard that repeatedly throughout the century ('don't make waves, thigs will get better" sometime, always just after my life expectancy) When we have enough qualified minorities and women candidates on a habitual basis, there will be no need for AA programs > Saying that a company isn't "required" to implement affirmative action > is rather like saying, "Blacks weren't *required* to ride in the back of > the bus --- they could have walked." When the government is redistributing > wealth from taxpayers to government contractors, it is reasonable, just, > and essential, to require that those contractors give everyone a fair shot > at employment, regardless of race or sex --- affirmative action is not a > fair shot. > And given past history, it is "reasonable, just and essential" to require that they demonstrate that they have given everyone a fair shot. > I had to drop out of college do to funding problems; I did not graduate; > fortunately, college is only necessary for a good job in software if you > lack character or intelligence. (Then, a degree is essential.) You did have a tough road to travel. Consider, however, the chances of a woman or a black with no degree, compared to yours (I am assuming you are a white male; correct me if you are not) I am inclined to say they would have had a tougher time of finding a job. We can never know for sure, however. Marcel Simon
scott@hou2g.UUCP (Danger Mouse) (06/19/85)
Cheryl Stewart:
[...many valid assumptions about equality of innate skills among all people...]
-> There being an equal distribution of natural endowment in both sexes
-> and all races, and there being a disproportionately low number of
-> minorities and women utilizing these natural endowments in their
^^ ^^^^^
-> work, simple logic would have it that a disproportionately high
^^^^
-> number of minorities and women are undereducated and underemployed
-> given their level of natural endowment.
I fail to see how women and minorities WHO WORK are underemployed. Under-
educated, probably, but by my definition, people who are underemployed
don't have jobs.
-> Put simply--"that's right,
-> the women are smarter"...than men holding the same jobs.
Run that by me again? Women with equal natural endowment are smarter?
-> Because women and minorities are undereducated and underemployed
-> considering their natural endowments, it would only make sense
-> that to encourage women and minorities to make the most of their
^^^^^^^^^
-> abilities would increase the level of competition for jobs.
I agree completely here. Encouragement (especially with regard to education)
should be, er, ... encouraged.
-> But chances are that by automatically
-> giving a job to a minority or a woman who is just as qualified
-> as a white male applicant, the employer is increasing his chances
-> of getting someone who has more natural ability, and thus insuring
-> a better workforce in the future.
In this situation, the ONLY possible way to increase the chances of getting
someone with more natural ability, among EQUALLY QUALIFIED applicants, is
to hire BOTH. Otherwise, the chance is EQUAL. You seem to say that
women/minorities are better to hire because they have more "untapped"
potential. What bullshit! What's the difference between a person
using 100% of his/her potential and one using 50% who may then live
up to the "full" 100%?
-> The government cannot legislate the correct
-> use of AA because it cannot regulate every aspect of office politics.
Then why is it mandating something it can't control? (Oh, excuse me. I
forgot. The gov't CAN control it--through quotas! What a wonderful idea!)
-> As long as it is handled carefully, AA can be good for the workforce,
-> good for the country, and even build some character in the men that
-> presently must rely on unfair advantages.
^^^^
The most that anyone can safely say is that some white men TAKE ADVANTAGE.
I don't think RELY is correct or fair. You might as well say women/minorities
have to RELY on AA to get a job. You want to insult them that way?
Scott J. Berrydavid@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (06/19/85)
[">>>>" = Carnes, ">>>" & ">" = Clayton, ">>" & "" = Rubin] >>>>In my everyday encounters with people, I treat women and blacks >>>>somewhat differently from white males, that is, my knowledge of a >>>>person's race or sex can and usually does affect my actions in some >>>>way. Part of the reason for this difference is my knowledge that >>>>both groups suffer from deep-rooted and tenacious prejudices in our >>>>society, and that this is an important factor in the life of each >>>>individual woman or black. This does not mean that I have judged the >>>>individual to be better or worse merely because he or she is black or >>>>female, and I don't see how it makes me a racist or sexist. >>>This used to be called "patronizing". *I* treat everyone as an individual; >>>if I don't know someone, I treat them dependent on the circumstances. In >>>a dark alley, everyone, regardless of race or national origin, is a potential >>>danger. >>Congratulations! You ARE the perfect person. Now, us mere mortals >>who are honest enough to admit it realize that we are all prejudiced. >>We may rationalize our biases (as a racist does), pretend our biases >>don't exist (the "who, me?" bigot), or try to correct or surpress >>them. Pretending they don't exist makes them more potent. >A frightening thought: maybe I really don't have racism built in to me. >Why do you assume that everyone is racially prejudiced? Is it because >*you* have a problem with racial prejudice? I frankly admit to being instinctually prejudiced (prejudice does NOT neceassarily imply racism or any other ism; see below). I am aware of this, and endeavor to firmly surpress it. W. H. Auden once said something to the effect that all Christians possessed anti-Semitic feelings, but the tragedy was that so few of them were ashamed of it. It is my firm belief that ALL of us tend to prejudge those who are "like" us in a better manner than those who are "unlike", and I am shamed by my frailty. However, knowledge must precede shame. >>Now maybe you do treat EVERYONE as an individual ALL the time; for me >>(and those such as Carnes who are honest enough to understand their own >>feelings), justness is something that must be striven for. Frankly, >>those who err and atone are far more credible than those who claim >>never to have erred at all. >>Now if you only would treat Carnes as an individual and stop rushing >>to apply a label to him so you can treat him as part of some group... >Mr. Carnes applied the label to himself by admitting that he treats >blacks differently from whites. If Carnes is a racist or sexist, than we all are. There is a grave leap from acknowledged prejudice (what Carnes is guilty of) to the adoption of the intellectual belief in the inferiority of another race or sex. Your haste to blur that distinction appears to me an attempt to prejudge Carnes. If you were to acknowledge your own human tendency to prejudge, you might have first determined Carnes's motives and his reaction to his own prejudice before you began attempting application of scarlet letters. David Rubin {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david
jeand@ihlpg.UUCP (Diaz) (06/19/85)
> -> There being an equal distribution of natural endowment in both sexes > -> and all races, and there being a disproportionately low number of > -> minorities and women utilizing these natural endowments in their > ^^ ^^^^^ > -> work, simple logic would have it that a disproportionately high > ^^^^ > -> number of minorities and women are undereducated and underemployed > -> given their level of natural endowment. > > I fail to see how women and minorities WHO WORK are underemployed. Under- > educated, probably, but by my definition, people who are underemployed > don't have jobs. If I have the talent to be an expert mathematician, and I'm keeping the books for the local hardware store instead, I would definitely call it underemployment. > -> Put simply--"that's right, > -> the women are smarter"...than men holding the same jobs. > > Run that by me again? Women with equal natural endowment are smarter? No, but a woman with a large (but undeveloped) natural endowment would wind up working with a white male who is at the limit of his talents--hence the above quote. Jean Marie Diaz "Never play leapfrog with a unicorn."
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
lonetto@phri.UUCP (Michael Lonetto) (06/21/85)
> 1. Assume that natural endowments are distributed evenly among men, women, > american indians, negroes, orientals, and caucasians--at birth. > 2. Assume that socialization and education have little or no effect on > the presence of these natural endowments--that despite discouragement, > 3. Assume that socialization and education can only enhance these natural > endowments, and that the greater the endowment, the less socialization > 4. There being an equal distribution of natural endowment in both sexes > > 5. Because women and minorities are undereducated and underemployed > 6. If handled incorrectly, AA can be easily used against the people it > is intended to help. The government cannot legislate the correct > > 7. As long as it is handled carefully, AA can be good for the workforce, > good for the country, and even build some character in the men that > presently must rely on unfair advantages. > Cheryl Stewart All I can say is that programming must be too easy a job if people CAN rely on >>unfair<< advantages. In research such people usually find something not too difficult for them (low pressure) and vegetate. There is unfortun- ately an "old boy" network in place (though it is being converted to "old scientists") and it is difficult for ANYONE starting out. In fact there are nowhere near enough good jobs for all the very qualified people around now. I think this has more to do with the lack of women in science than anything AA is likely to cure. Who wants to go into a field where there aren't enough jobs and those that exist go to people who "know someone?" The answer is, those people who got a bug for curiosity at an early age and can't help them- selves. I would like to see more women in science, but with the state of public school science education what it is, and the societal discouragement of women exibiting interest in yukky things like the insides of animals (or the mathematics of cosmology for that matter) it doesn't look likely in the near future. This is a shame, since attitudes are improving towards women (at least in biochemistry) and in some places (like here) they are already quite good. sigh. -- ____________________ Michael Lonetto PHRI NYC (allegra!phri!lonetto) !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!LIFE IS A TRIP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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.
robert@fear.UUCP (Robert Plamondon) (06/22/85)
In article <357@mhuxr.UUCP>, mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) writes: > I have difficulty with believing that racism and sexism will "get > better" without vigorous action, with government leading the way. We > have heard that repeatedly throughout the century ('don't make waves, > things will get better" sometime, always just after my life > expectancy) But things ARE better, aren't they? And wasn't the government the major *BARRIER* to progress in many instances (No votes for women, "protective" labor laws for women)? Most of the progress in this century has been in the area of REPEALING discriminatory laws that were passed by the very government you trust so well. An example of things getting better by themselves is alcohol consumption in America, which (on a per capita basis) has dropped to less than half of its level in the 1840s. Did Prohibition play a major role in this, do you think? The facts indicate otherwise. -- -- Robert Plamondon {turtlevax, resonex, cae780}!weitek!robert
muffy@lll-crg.ARPA (Muffy Barkocy) (06/23/85)
In article <252@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: >> who are OVERPRIVILEGED. >> >> -michael > >Could you define "overprivileged"? Don't you just mean, someone who >has more than I think they should have? Actually, people should be careful of this word, "overprivileged." It implies that someone has "too much privilege," which further implies that there is some quantity of privilege which is *not* too much, and this quantity may be non-zero. Now, "privilege" generally means that someone is allowed or given something that someone else, or many other people don't have, so this word *could* mean that it is okay for some people to have things or rights that other people don't. I suspect that the intent was just to make the word seem even more forceful: "he's not just privileged, he's OVERPRIVILEGED." Muffy
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) (06/24/85)
> > For reasons that have a lot to do with governmental discrimination in > > schooling, and somewhat to do with social tendencies towards racism, there > > is frequently a shortage of *qualified* female or black engineers. I > > am sure that this problem will go away over the next few years. Nonetheless, > > it seems reasonable to me that an employer would, if they needed to hire > > a minority or female engineer, would hire the best that they could find. > > The alternative is to believe that the racism is *so* widespread that > > employers can afford to hire unqualified workers without fear that their > > competitors (admittedly, few and far between in aerospace) will hire > > qualified minority or female engineers. I know few people who are that > > racist. > > > I have difficulty with believing that racism and sexism will "get better" > without vigorous action, with government leading the way. We have heard that > repeatedly throughout the century ('don't make waves, thigs will get better" > sometime, always just after my life expectancy) > Things *have* dramatically improved, mostly since the 1950s, and because the attitudes of many people in our society changed --- not because the government started trying to force a change in the late 1960s and early 1970s. I can see a dramatic reduction in racism just since 1962, when my earliest memories of racism start. I suspect that the belief that government must intervene are reflective of your faith in government's power, rather than a rational evaluation of recent social history in this country. > > Saying that a company isn't "required" to implement affirmative action > > is rather like saying, "Blacks weren't *required* to ride in the back of > > the bus --- they could have walked." When the government is redistributing > > wealth from taxpayers to government contractors, it is reasonable, just, > > and essential, to require that those contractors give everyone a fair shot > > at employment, regardless of race or sex --- affirmative action is not a > > fair shot. > > > And given past history, it is "reasonable, just and essential" to > require that they demonstrate that they have given everyone a fair shot. > Fair shot = everyone gets an equal chance to apply for a job --- that's not the same as affirmative action. > > I had to drop out of college do to funding problems; I did not graduate; > > fortunately, college is only necessary for a good job in software if you > > lack character or intelligence. (Then, a degree is essential.) > > You did have a tough road to travel. Consider, however, the chances of a woman > or a black with no degree, compared to yours (I am assuming you are a > white male; correct me if you are not) I am inclined to say they > would have had a tougher time of finding a job. We can never know for sure, > however. > > Marcel Simon At least in California, they would have had only slightly harder of a time than I had --- perhaps back East, where the governments are further left, (and the population more racist) a minority in the same position would have had a much tougher time. (For those wondering about my comments above (which are out of context), my comments about my own situtation were originally in the context of discussing apparent racism in scholarships.)
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (06/24/85)
> [">>>>" = Carnes, ">>>" & ">" = Clayton, ">>" & "" = Rubin] > > >>>>In my everyday encounters with people, I treat women and blacks > >>>>somewhat differently from white males, that is, my knowledge of a > >>>>person's race or sex can and usually does affect my actions in some > >>>>way. Part of the reason for this difference is my knowledge that > >>>>both groups suffer from deep-rooted and tenacious prejudices in our > >>>>society, and that this is an important factor in the life of each > >>>>individual woman or black. This does not mean that I have judged the > >>>>individual to be better or worse merely because he or she is black or > >>>>female, and I don't see how it makes me a racist or sexist. > > >>>This used to be called "patronizing". *I* treat everyone as an individual; > >>>if I don't know someone, I treat them dependent on the circumstances. In > >>>a dark alley, everyone, regardless of race or national origin, is a potential > >>>danger. > > >>Congratulations! You ARE the perfect person. Now, us mere mortals > >>who are honest enough to admit it realize that we are all prejudiced. > >>We may rationalize our biases (as a racist does), pretend our biases > >>don't exist (the "who, me?" bigot), or try to correct or surpress > >>them. Pretending they don't exist makes them more potent. > > >A frightening thought: maybe I really don't have racism built in to me. > >Why do you assume that everyone is racially prejudiced? Is it because > >*you* have a problem with racial prejudice? > > I frankly admit to being instinctually prejudiced (prejudice does NOT > neceassarily imply racism or any other ism; see below). I am aware of > this, and endeavor to firmly surpress it. > > W. H. Auden once said something to the effect that all Christians > possessed anti-Semitic feelings, but the tragedy was that so few of them > were ashamed of it. It is my firm belief that ALL of us tend to > prejudge those who are "like" us in a better manner than those who are > "unlike", and I am shamed by my frailty. However, knowledge must > precede shame. > "All Christians possessed anti-Semitic feelings"? What? That is the most absurd nonsense I've ever heard (in addition to being highly prejudiced). Please don't speak for me when you claim "ALL of us tend to prejudge". Some of us were raised to view prejudice as an uneqivocal evil. > >>Now maybe you do treat EVERYONE as an individual ALL the time; for me > >>(and those such as Carnes who are honest enough to understand their own > >>feelings), justness is something that must be striven for. Frankly, > >>those who err and atone are far more credible than those who claim > >>never to have erred at all. > > >>Now if you only would treat Carnes as an individual and stop rushing > >>to apply a label to him so you can treat him as part of some group... > > >Mr. Carnes applied the label to himself by admitting that he treats > >blacks differently from whites. > > If Carnes is a racist or sexist, than we all are. There is a grave > leap from acknowledged prejudice (what Carnes is guilty of) to the > adoption of the intellectual belief in the inferiority of another race > or sex. Your haste to blur that distinction appears to me an attempt > to prejudge Carnes. If you were to acknowledge your own human > tendency to prejudge, you might have first determined Carnes's motives > and his reaction to his own prejudice before you began attempting > application of scarlet letters. > > David Rubin > {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david Mr. Carnes leaps from prejudice to an intellectual belief in the inferiority of another race or sex by acknowledging that he has to treat blacks and women with kid gloves, rather than treating them like anyone else.
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.
carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (06/25/85)
>Mr. Carnes leaps from prejudice to an intellectual belief in the >inferiority of another race or sex by acknowledging that he has to >treat blacks and women with kid gloves, rather than treating them like >anyone else. May I just interject a word into this interesting discussion of my psychology. No one said anything about kid gloves. The point is that ethnic group or sex is a significant datum about an individual. Ask a woman or black or Hispanic whether they ever think about being female or black or Hispanic. Does it ever cross their minds, do you suppose? If so, why should it not cross our minds, and even influence our actions? While I'm at it I would like to object once more to the use of the terms racism and sexism to mean simply prejudice or "thinking of people as groups" or whatever is the favorite usage of the deep thinkers at National Review or The Wall Street Journal. Loose talk is generally an index of loose thinking. Many blacks in the US are for understandable reasons prejudiced against whites -- that's why I am not given to taking casual strolls through many areas of Chicago's South Side. But I have never heard of a black racist in the US, unless there have been blacks who shared the beliefs of white racists. Racism is the belief, held by many honorable and sincere men such as David Hume, Thomas Jefferson, G.W.F. Hegel, and Louis Agassiz, that one ethnic group is "by nature" inferior, morally or intellectually, to another. This was "respectable" opinion among many whites in the 19th century. The scientific evidence for this belief is nonexistent. Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (06/26/85)
>[Robert Plamondon] >>[Marcel] > >> I have difficulty with believing that racism and sexism will "get >> better" without vigorous action, with government leading the way. We >> have heard that repeatedly throughout the century ('don't make waves, >> things will get better" sometime, always just after my life >> expectancy) > >But things ARE better, aren't they? I've seen figures that indicate that the ratio of black:white income levels DROPPED 10% from the one-time high of 65% at the end of LBJ's term to ~55%. >And wasn't the government the >major *BARRIER* to progress in many instances (No votes for women, >"protective" labor laws for women)? And that was before women could vote. Back when blacks were kept away from the polls. For better or worse, since FDR, big government has been the agent of social reform. I don't like big government, but since even nonblatant, de facto job discrimination is profitable, who else can force change? `The system' is us. And our only vehicle for conscious control is the government. Your faith in the status quo is understandable though, as it appears to favor you. Incidentally, Robert, there are far better arguments for your position than those you consistently use... >Most of the progress in this >century has been in the area of REPEALING discriminatory laws that >were passed by the very government you trust so well. Frankly, I don't give a damn whether laws are repealed or passed, provided that social welfare is served. Perhaps you are in favor of minimizing government interference -- if so, please keep that argument in net.politics. I don't particularly trust the government either, but at least it is accountable to the public; besides, can you name one agent that has acted for the benefit of our underprivileged to the extent that our government has since ~1945? White males NATURALLY have every reason to trust the existing order -- its already biased in their favor -- as any head count of business execs or salary levels will easily demonstrate. >An example of things getting better by themselves is alcohol >consumption in America, which (on a per capita basis) has dropped to >less than half of its level in the 1840s. Did Prohibition play a >major role in this, do you think? The facts indicate otherwise. If the purpose of AA were to `correct bad attitudes among the racists' then I might accept your analogy -- I agree that legal action is pointless against victimless crimes. The problem here is one of group vs group, not of individual vs self, and that problem seems to remain in spite of america's major improvements in societal attitudes towards blacks/women since 1960. The worst enemy is the existing predominance of conformist (though not always overtly racist/sexist) white males with prestige jobs. Note that nonconformist white males have great difficulty succeeding beyond certain levels, too. Prestige work and management environments poorly reflect the pluralism of our population. Skin color and sex, like language, mannerisms, dress and customs, are but two of the criteria our conformist society uses to statistically and unfairly judge people's worthiness for advancement. Must every kind of person in our society sell out to the flimsy anglo male middle class image before we can have economic equality? -michael
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
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (06/28/85)
> >Mr. Carnes leaps from prejudice to an intellectual belief in the > >inferiority of another race or sex by acknowledging that he has to > >treat blacks and women with kid gloves, rather than treating them like > >anyone else. > > May I just interject a word into this interesting discussion of my > psychology. No one said anything about kid gloves. The point is > that ethnic group or sex is a significant datum about an individual. > Ask a woman or black or Hispanic whether they ever think about being > female or black or Hispanic. Does it ever cross their minds, do you > suppose? If so, why should it not cross our minds, and even > influence our actions? > It crosses my mind that my ethnic origin is German, a group which suffered significant discrimination during World War I --- but I don't let that knowledge rule my life, and I would resent *tremendously* if someone treated me a particular way for being of German extraction. > While I'm at it I would like to object once more to the use of the > terms racism and sexism to mean simply prejudice or "thinking of > people as groups" or whatever is the favorite usage of the deep > thinkers at National Review or The Wall Street Journal. Loose talk > is generally an index of loose thinking. Many blacks in the US are > for understandable reasons prejudiced against whites -- that's why I > am not given to taking casual strolls through many areas of Chicago's > South Side. But I have never heard of a black racist in the US, > unless there have been blacks who shared the beliefs of white > racists. Have you forgotten about the Black Muslim movement in the early 1960s? (The Black Muslims have since dropped a lot of the racial hatred involved in their beliefs.) > Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes If I understand Mr. Carnes correctly, he is arguing that racism is bad (because it supposes ethnic or racial inferiority), but prejudice is OK (because it supposes only difference). My, the left sure has made a lot of progress since Martin Luther King gave his "I have a dream" speech. :-)