regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) (06/13/85)
To all you people out there who oppose AA, on whatever grounds: One of these days, it is going to be your lover, or your best friend who is turned down, passed over, unhired, etc., on the basis of sex or race. Assuming, just for the sake of argument, that you are male, and the person in question is female, and you are married, that discrimination is going to affect your ability to buy the home of your (collective) choice, to send your kids to the school of your (collective) choice, the afforda- bility of taking the time off to launch your own business, etc., etc., etc. _You_ may never be discriminated against. But you do not live in a vacuum. Give it some thought, and lets hear the alternatives.
hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (The Polymath) (06/14/85)
In article <482@ttidcc.UUCP> regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) writes: > >One of these days, it is going to be your lover, or your best friend >who is turned down, passed over, unhired, etc., on the basis of sex >or race. > >_You_ may never be discriminated against. But you do not live in a vacuum. Seems to me this argument can cut both ways. My SO could just as well lose out on a job because they're a WASP and the company has a quota to meet with a limited number of job openings. AA doesn't live in a vacuum either. -- -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe) Citicorp TTI "How goes the rat race?" 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. "The rats are winning." Santa Monica, CA 90405 -- Paul Lynde (213) 450-9111, ext. 2483 {philabs,randvax,trwrb,vortex}!ttidca!ttidcc!hollombe
fagin@ucbvax.ARPA (Barry Steven Fagin) (06/15/85)
In article <482@ttidcc.UUCP> regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) writes: > > >To all you people out there who oppose AA, on whatever grounds: > >One of these days, it is going to be your lover, or your best friend >who is turned down, passed over, unhired, etc., on the basis of sex >or race. > >Assuming, just for the sake of argument, that you are male, and the >person in question is female, and you are married, that discrimination is >going to affect your ability to buy the home of your (collective) choice, >to send your kids to the school of your (collective) choice, the afforda- >bility of taking the time off to launch your own business, etc., etc., etc. > >_You_ may never be discriminated against. But you do not live in a vacuum. My wife just graduated from law school, and is looking for work after being denied a position at a law firm where she worked over the summer. Because she's not working yet, we're still living in a small apartment and indeed cannot afford the home of our choice. Our childrearing plans are also uncertain. Whether she did not get a job offer because of her sex we will never know, but neither my wife nor I would even consider the ludicrous thought that we have some right to dictate in *ANY* way the hiring practices of a prospective employer. The implication from the above posting is that we'd support AA if we saw that we could benefit from it. At least in our case, that is untrue. --Barry -- Barry Fagin @ University of California, Berkeley
greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (06/16/85)
Assume, just for the sake of argument that you are male and the person
in question is a member of the class/race that benefits from
AA and they get the job and you don't. That discrimination is
going to affect your ability to buy the home of your *individual*
choice, to send your kids to the school of your *individual* choice,
etc., etc....
_You_ may have been discriminated against. That doesn't mean that
now, discrimination is good, as long as *you* benefit.
I belong to the group that gets taken from it whatever goes
to the beneficiaries of AA. Now tell me again how much I should
enjoy helping a less qualified person than myself get the job I was
after, by helping to support such a sexist/racist policy as AA.
Ross
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York
--------->{ihnp4 | vax135}!timeinc!greenber<---------
I highly doubt that Time Inc. they would make me their spokesperson.
------
"There's something wrong in the world. There's always been. Something no one
has ever named or explained" --- Francisco d'Anconiamom@sftri.UUCP (Mark Modig) (06/16/85)
> > > To all you people out there who oppose AA, on whatever grounds: > > One of these days, it is going to be your lover, or your best friend > who is turned down, passed over, unhired, etc., on the basis of sex > or race. > > _You_ may never be discriminated against. But you do not live in a vacuum. > > Give it some thought, and lets hear the alternatives. I've already voiced my thoughts several times on this issue-- I think the problem should be vigorously attacked on an educational basis. I have no quarrel with AA, but rather with the implementation currently in wide use, which focuses a lot on the workplace. I feel that when this approach is logically extended, some form of quota system is unavoidable. How else are you to measure progress? I am not even against quotas or goals per se: for example, I would be much more receptive to the idea that every school in an area (eventually the entire country) would have to reach a certain level of competency as demonstrated by test scores (granted, not a terrific yardstick, but perhaps the best we have at this point?). Schools doing considerably better than the norm would be studied so that their methods could be applied at schools doing less well, and perhaps even teachers could be moved around-- trying to ensure that all schools give their students an equal education. This still avoids perhaps the most important part of the problem-- individual attitudes. How these are to be changed (alas-- I can't agree to brainwashing the whole population) I am really not sure-- it will have to be a grass roots sort of change-- since the change involves the attitudes of individuals, individuals are going to have to stand up and fight for their beliefs. That's about it. Mark Modig ihnp4!sftri!mom
scott@hou2g.UUCP (Danger Mouse) (06/17/85)
-> One of these days, it is going to be your lover, or your best friend -> who is turned down, passed over, unhired, etc., on the basis of sex -> or race. -> Assuming, just for the sake of argument, that you are male, and the -> person in question is female, and you are married, that discrimination is -> going to affect your ability to buy the home of your (collective) choice, -> to send your kids to the school of your (collective) choice, the afforda- -> bility of taking the time off to launch your own business, etc., etc., etc. Yeah, right. I can see the problems my (as yet to be determined) wife and I will have in the future. AA is fully implemented, and we can't buy the home of our choice or send our kids to a good school, etc. all because *I*, a WHITE MALE, though completely qualified, can't get a job. They give them all to equally qualified "minorities". SJBerry
robertp@fear.UUCP (Robert Plamondon) (06/18/85)
In article <482@ttidcc.UUCP>, regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) writes: > > To all you people out there who oppose AA, on whatever grounds: > > One of these days, it is going to be your lover, or your best friend > who is turned down, passed over, unhired, etc., on the basis of sex > or race. It *IS* funny, isn't it? Some of us stick by our principles even when it's not to our advantage. Silly us -- to have ethics in an amoral world. -- -- Robert Plamondon {turtlevax, resonex, cae780}!weitek!robertp
root@bu-cs.UUCP (Barry Shein) (06/21/85)
I can't resist relating the story of a good friend of mine (who was black): He had just graduated an ivy league college with straight A's, had two published books, one had gone on to paperback (if you don't know the publishing industry, that takes good sales.) Numerous published articles, guest columns in some of the most widely circulated magazines and newspapers in the country, need I go on? Hi boards, you bet, well spoken etc, you bet... He got into a good law school, a professor there took him aside to mention to him how much he resented his presence as a 'quota' student (which he wasn't except maybe in the statistics, certainly not as was meant by the callous remark: ie. that he hadn't earned his class place.) No, the prof didn't know what he was talking about, just flaming. UGGGH! I get embarrassed for humanity just thinking about it! I know, you'll say "he's not what we are talking about, it's the unqualified ones...". I'll say, most of you don't know *what* you are talking about, you're just trying to cover up cruelty with facile equity arguments. Qualifications are not carved in stone, I do hiring here and I have never hired two people for exactly the same reasons or criteria. It's a nice fantasy to think you hire only based on (whatever impersonal objective abstractions you think are 'fair'.) B******T, when you give a person a job you are doing two things 1) you are providing a person to your organization who should perform some task and 2) you are influencing that person and the world around them. Anyone who won't take (2) into account is too small minded to be working as management. Whaddya think, the only time you make 'social' decisions is when you walk into a voting booth? Grow up. -Barry Shein, Boston University