scott@hou2g.UUCP (Scott Berry the Unbeliever) (05/30/85)
From: beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Beth Christy) Message-ID: <598@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> -> 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. I don't disagree per se with the idea that the makeup of the "work force" should be consistent with the makeup of the population, assuming of course reasonably equal skills (or perhaps potential is better here, although that's harder to judge). What I disagree with is the idea that the proportions of women, minorities, etc. should match that of the population TODAY, THIS YEAR, whatever. That idea can and does lead to the hiring of (possibly) underqualified individuals, solely on the "qualification" of race/gender. As Equal Opportunity is rigidly implemented, those "proportions" WILL occur. Everybody gets a "fair shot" because everybody is evaluated on the same criteria (which do NOT include race/gender/sexual orientation/etc.). If you go out tomorrow to look for a job, you have no worse of a chance than a white male (but no better either). THAT'S how I define a "fair shot". In addition, as an earlier poster pointed out, you can't reasonably expect that 51% of CEOs next year will be women. They haven't been in the work force (in general) for the requisite time. (You don't promote someone from office person to president in 2 years.) What you CAN reasonably expect is that ALL promotions will be "fair", as above, assuming equal merit. I see no reason to believe the average male worker is any more deserving or "meritorious" that the average female. Therefore, the percentages will eventually balance out. As a side issue, don't you think, then, that Affirmative Action also implies that 49% (or whatever) of nurses, teachers, secretaries, etc. should be required to be male? What, you say? There aren't that many men interested or qualified for these jobs? Funny, until a few years ago, the same could be said about women engineers or executives.... Scott Berry