Gordon Fitch (10/31/89)
(Travis Lee Winfrey): }>...[complains that some people use AA to portray] }>"feminists" as technicians of inequality, as if AA programs were all that }>they did or cared about. gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit): }Please count the political achievements of feminism in the last 15 years. }AA is in the top of the list, but of course it's not important... (Travis Lee Winfrey): }>Presumably you mean actions other than feminist analyses of social }>structures, e.g., [...cites a lot of books...] gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit): }I see that you're quite good in name dropping and you just can't see what }wrong in the feminist literature, so here is a small "spelling out": } }>From "Against Our Will": } }"War provides men with the perfect psychologic backdrop to give vent to } their ... [etc. etc.]" } }Brownmiller says very clear that men enjoy being in army and all the jazz }around it. Some simple questions like "if men enjoy being in war so much, }why there is a need to draft them?" are high above her feminist head. Not long ago, I said that quotations were taken from individual feminist authors, generally out of context, and used to represent the whole movement, so that it could be attacked. This is an example. There is no attempt to understand either the movement as a whole, or even the author quoted. All other authors are simply hand-waved. }I tell you that what she said is feminist Cow-Shit and her understanding }of men in army is somewhere near zero (*I* have first hand experience). }If you want to debate about the *text* and not just to drop names feel }free to do it, but I prefer a non-moderated group (soc.men). It seems to me if one prefers the style of soc.men, one should read and post there, and not here. In that group I asked for some specifics about AA, and there was silence. I'll try it in soc.feminism. If people really want to talk about affirmative action as an actual practice, and not a theory, they should "quote some facts." It's been said that AA was a major effort of feminists. I doubt this, but go ahead: define "feminists" and "effort" and show that the greatest effort of the set of people called "feminists" went into pressure for AA programs, as opposed to other aspects of equal opportunity, and all the non-employment related things (such as reproductive freedom). By the way, I'm defining AA as "weighting employment and promotion opportunities to balance representation of categories of workers in a given work force." I think AA is a buyout to avoid more serious changes, and I don't think it's theoretically significant, but if people are really hot about it, I think we should start with some facts relating feminism to AA. -- Gordon Fitch || uunet!hombre!mydog!gcf
mingus@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (Damballah Wedo) (11/08/89)
> turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) (in <7152@cs.utexas.edu>): > [ responding to Krista Anderson ] > Conspicuously absent from Ms Anderson's list is: (g) applying > weaker admission/employment/entrance standards to minority > candidates. While (a) through (f) might not hurt white males, > (g) can hurt everyone who is judged by the normal standards. I am a strong supporter of Affirmative Action. Yet I am strongly opposed to lowering job/promotion requirements to enhance representation of affected class members. I do think the requirements should be examined carefully to determine whether they are truly relevant or just expressions of sexist atttitudes. One example I recall was the NY City Police Dept's former requirement that officers be no less than a certain height and no less than a certain weight. After somere- thinkin, prodded by women's groups, came the realization that so long as the officer is able to apprehend the perpetrator, it makes little difference how tall or heavy he or she is. Besides, the police nightstick is one great equalizer, to say nothing of weighted flashlights or other items. Lowered standards are neither required nor really needed under intelligent Affirmative Action plans. The principal point is that the employer commit to ensuring that affected class members be represented at the *inputs* to the employment and promotion processes. Given representation at the inputs, we can expect, if the process is free of discrimination (as ensured by EEO), that there will be representation at the outputs. THis last point is important. Some (Hillel especially) see a separation between EEO and AA. AA does not replace EEO. EEO requires that the processes be non-discriminatory; AA goes beyond to demand that the people flowing through the processes represent the population distribution. AA, in effect, is all about *identifying* qualified candidates who are members of affected classes, then letting their qualifications take them where they will. Yes, there are stupid implementations of AA that hire or promote affected class members regardless of their qualifications. The principle of AA cannot he held responsible for such stupidity, any more that capitalism can be held responsible for Ivan Boesky, or that freedom of speech can be held responsible for white supremacists marching downtown. -- Marcel-Franck Simon mingus@attunix.ATT.COM, attunix!mingus " Papa Loko, ou se' van, ou-a pouse'-n ale' Nou se' papiyon, n'a pote' nouvel bay Agwe' "
kja@cbnewsd.ATT.COM (krista.j.anderson) (11/09/89)
<> In article <3009@splut.conmicro.com>, jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes: > In article <2883@cbnewsd.ATT.COM> kja@cbnewsd.ATT.COM (krista.j.anderson) writes: > >You equate affirmative action with reverse discrimination. What > >will it take to make you realize that the two phrases are not > >synonymous? > > About as much as it will take for you to realize that AT&T's definition > of AA is what everyone else is calling EEO, and that AT&T doesn't > practice AA as the rest of the world acknowledges it. Ok, I admit AT&T is a bit of an ivory tower. So, tell me what's going on in the real world. I really have only two examples to go on, AT&T and my husband's experiences. He comes into contact with smaller companies that have mostly blue collar workers. From his experience, discrimination against women and certain minorities is much more prevalent than discrimination against white males. Consider truck drivers. Do you see a lot of women crowding out white males? My husband has also talked with managers who openly admit that they won't hire Blacks. So tell me about all the reverse discrimination that's going on against white males. Please be specific. And don't bother mentioning Berkeley and Bakke or Asians; we've already talked about that and I personally agree that quotas don't allow enough flexibility. But just because some places used quotas as part of their AA doesn't mean we should trash AA altogether. -- Krista A.
kja@cbnewsd.ATT.COM (krista.j.anderson) (11/09/89)
<> In article <7152@cs.utexas.edu>, turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) writes: > Conspicuously absent from Ms Anderson's list is: (g) applying > weaker admission/employment/entrance standards to minority > candidates. While (a) through (f) might not hurt white males, > (g) can hurt everyone who is judged by the normal standards. > > While affirmative action includes all the things Ms Anderson > lists, it also includes (g), and it is (g) which has generated > all the furor over reverse discrimination. Well, in a large company that can attract a large percentage of the best qualified people, (g) isn't necessarily part of AA. I don't like the assumption that standards must be "weakened". AT&T did make some *changes* in their hiring practises around 1974. This was in the operations area, for jobs similar to computer operators. They had to stop using tests that were known to discriminate. I don't see this as "weakening" the standards, but as opening up the standards to include "different" people. For example, you don't have to know the name of a "tri-square" in order to learn how to hang a tape. Other companies still have tests. Caterpiller, which is a local company around here, has the employment office administer a general aptitude test. You have to be in the 80th to 90th percentile in order to be considered as a machinist. This seems ridiculous to me, since most people scoring that high would probably be interested in college rather than skilled labor. But the tests may favor people with previous Caterpiller experience, so maybe that's what the idea is. Cindy asked me to get more specific about what I thought AA was, so I listed examples of things that could be used in AA programs. A more general definition would be that AA is any program designed to ensure that equal opportunities exist. That's the definition used by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission anyway. There are probably good AA programs and bad AA programs, but I don't see that as a reason to trash the whole idea. -- Krista A.
turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) (11/10/89)
I wrote: > > Conspicuously absent from Ms Anderson's list is: (g) applying > > weaker admission/employment/entrance standards to minority > > candidates. While (a) through (f) might not hurt white males, > > (g) can hurt everyone who is judged by the normal standards. In article <2985@cbnewsd.ATT.COM>, kja@cbnewsd.ATT.COM (krista.j.anderson) writes: > Well, in a large company that can attract a large percentage of the > best qualified people, (g) isn't necessarily part of AA. I don't like > the assumption that standards must be "weakened". ... They [ATT] had to > stop using tests that were known to discriminate. I don't see this as > "weakening" the standards, but as opening up the standards to include > "different" people. ... A lot of the argument over AA has concerned different ideas of fairness. There is an intuitive principle with great appeal that the same standards should apply to all. When a standard is found to embed discriminatory assumptions that are irrelevant to the purpose of the standard, very few people object to a new standard being adopted, as long as the new standard is itself uniformly applied. What riles people is when one standard is applied to one group and a different standard is applied to another group. It is not too hard to determine which standard is more stringent, in the sense that most people who pass it can also pass the other, but not vice versa. > A more general definition would be that AA is any program designed to > ensure that equal opportunities exist. That's the definition used by > the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission anyway. > > There are probably good AA programs and bad AA programs, but I don't > see that as a reason to trash the whole idea. You have been engaged in a dialogue with several people who vociferously object to AA. I posted partly because it was clear to me that (g) was what bothered them about AA -- or at least (g) was the only part to which their arguments applied. (At least one of the participants distinguished between EEO programs and AA programs because of (g).) Perhaps a little less heat and a little more light will be generated if the terms of the dialogue are shifted. Your opponents could agree that the things you listed are worthwhile and not unfairly injurious to anyone. Rather than trashing AA, they could then focus on what I think has been at the heart of the debate: in your terms, what constitutes good AA vs bad AA. Your opponents could argue that (g) is not the way to go, and those who favor different standards for different groups can argue (1) they're necessary, (2) they aren't self-perpetuating, and (3) their bad results aren't so bad. Any takers on either side of this? Russell
geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu (Gordon E. Banks) (11/10/89)
In article <7152@cs.utexas.edu> turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) writes: >Conspicuously absent from Ms Anderson's list is: (g) applying >weaker admission/employment/entrance standards to minority >candidates. While (a) through (f) might not hurt white males, >(g) can hurt everyone who is judged by the normal standards. >While affirmative action includes all the things Ms Anderson >lists, it also includes (g), and it is (g) which has generated >all the furor over reverse discrimination. Perhaps it was omitted because while minority applicants have poor preadmission credentials, women usually don't. In fact their grades (the best correlate of college & med school performance) usually are better than those of the boys. In the academic world, it is not until you get to the phase of your career where the number of papers published matters that you would have to start making exceptions for women's qualifications.
turpin@cs.utexas.EDU (Russell Turpin) (11/10/89)
I wrote: > > Conspicuously absent from Ms Anderson's list is: (g) applying > > weaker admission/employment/entrance standards to minority > > candidates. While (a) through (f) might not hurt white males, > > (g) can hurt everyone who is judged by the normal standards. In article <2230@hudson.acc.virginia.edu>, scl@sasha.acc.Virginia.EDU (Steve Losen) writes: > Suppose I have a large company that is looking for a new vice president. > I might reasonably insist on hiring someone with at least 15 years of > previous executive experience. This "normal standard" would very heavily > favor white male candidates, since few women and minorities have these > credentials (yet). ... > > Should I lower my standards? This would admit a lot more candidates, > many of whom would be female and/or minority. But now I am still left > with the original problem. How do I pick from this enlarged pool in > such a way that my decision is not biased toward white males? > > Again, assuming that no group is inherently superior to any other, > and well aware that my "normal standards" are biased toward white > males, I treat each group separately. I build a final pool of candidates > by including the female candidates with the most experience relative to > the other female candidates. ... If the standards you are using discriminate in an unfair way against some group, then a new standard is needed. But why is a different standard needed for each group? Consider a concrete example. If the SAT discriminates against minorities, then new admission criteria are needed for colleges. But if, instead, a college simply treats minorities different from white students, and considers a minority student with an SAT of 1000 on par, ceteris parebus, with a white student with an SAT of 1200, then one hasn't really changed the criteria, just lowered it for minorities. Doing this kind of thing does raise all of the problems that those arguing against AA have raised in previous postings. > This looks just like the dreaded (g) to me. Indeed some disgruntled white > males do not get interviewed even though they have more experience than > some female and minority interviewees. But this means nothing because > "years of experience" is a biased standard. ... It depends on what the new standard is. If the new standard is simply to weaken some criterion for minority groups, then, pace Ms Anderson, the white male *is* hurt by it. Whether or not this is right is another issue. > ... What if the best overall > candidate turns out to be a female with only 8 years of executive experience? What do you mean by "best overall candidate"? And whatever measurements go into deciding this, why can they not be formulated so that when applied uniformly to all candidates, they give comparable results? Russell
lfd@cbnewsm.ATT.COM (leland.f.derbenwick) (11/10/89)
In article <3009@splut.conmicro.com>, jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes: > In article <2883@cbnewsd.ATT.COM> kja@cbnewsd.ATT.COM (krista.j.anderson) writes: [...] > >a chance. AA means finding the people who were previously chased > >away and giving them a chance. AA is a sign on the door that > >says, "Now you are welcome here, so please come back." > > EEO means finding the people who were previously chased away and giving > them a chance. No, EEO means _permitting_ them to have a chance. AA includes the notion of deliberately seeking out those who have been discriminated against (or who may have been). > [...] > > *Affirmative action is: > [...] > > f) making sure, rather than assuming, that equal opportunities exist > You just gave a very good description of EEO. EEO (when applied!) rules out overt and blatant discrimination. It is essentially passive, assuming that if you aren't _actively_ discriminating against any group, you must be providing equal opportunity. There are so many ways in which discrimination can occur, that lack of blatant discriminatory acts hardly guarantees lack of discrimination. The AA laws are intended to require _active_ behavior to avoid discriminating against certain groups. If applied properly, it is an activist equivalent of EEO. But, since the nature of such behavior is not prescribed (admittedly, I don't see any way to specify it for all cases!), the _easy_ ways to meet the letter of the law, if not its spirit, are to impose stupid quota systems or their equivalents. And far too many places have taken the easy way. (Or done _nothing_, and had the "easy way" imposed upon them from outside.) [...] > Sounds like a good EEO program to me. > The corresponding AA program would stop or restrict hiring males for > that job until some nebulous goal had been reached. [...] > Equal employment opportunity is a Good Thing. > Affirmative action is the antithesis of equal employment opportunity. Some _bad_ _implementations_ of affirmative action are very close to being the antithesis of equal employment opportunity. But you have defined AA to include only those bad implementations. Since AT&T is a very large corporation, it gets watched very closely, so it would be surprising if its implementation of AA did not fall within the letter of the AA laws. Therefore, a definition of AA that doesn't include what AT&T does is probably incomplete. I suspect that there are quite a few companies with other good AA implementations. I'm sure there are lots with bad ones, because its so easy to do almost _anything_ wrong, and I doubt that good AA is ever easy to implement. Speaking strictly for myself, not for AT&T..... -- Lee Derbenwick, AT&T Bell Laboratories, Warren, NJ -- lfd@cbnewsm.ATT.COM or <wherever>!att!cbnewsm!lfd
gazit@lear.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) (11/10/89)
In article <2790@cbnewsl.ATT.COM> (Damballah Wedo) writes: >Given representation at the inputs, we can expect, if the process >is free of discrimination (as ensured by EEO), that there will be >representation at the outputs. So why do you insist that in *every* AA program the race/sex of the applicants will be mentioned? Why *no* AA program can find these perfect standards and stop asking about race/sex? >Yes, there are stupid implementations of AA that hire or promote >affected class members regardless of their qualifications. The principle >of AA cannot he held responsible for such stupidity, any more that >capitalism can be held responsible for Ivan Boesky, Ivan Boesky is a small failure of capitalism. If every broker had been someone like Boesky than it was a *big* failure of capitalism (that was more or less the situation before the Depression). If no AA program can achieve its targets without asking about sex/race of the applicants then it is a big failure of AA.
travis@douglass.cs.columbia.edu (Travis Lee Winfrey) (11/11/89)
In article <16042@duke.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes: >In article <2790@cbnewsl.ATT.COM> (Damballah Wedo) writes: >>Given representation at the inputs, we can expect, if the process >>is free of discrimination (as ensured by EEO), that there will be >>representation at the outputs. >So why do you insist that in *every* AA program the race/sex of the >applicants will be mentioned? Why *no* AA program can find >these perfect standards and stop asking about race/sex? Hillel, do you claim that there is discrimination based on race/gender, that this discrimination is wrong, but that any solution seeking to redress these wrongs should not ask about race or gender? >>Yes, there are stupid implementations of AA that hire or promote >>affected class members regardless of their qualifications. The principle >>of AA cannot he held responsible for such stupidity, any more that >>capitalism can be held responsible for Ivan Boesky, >Ivan Boesky is a small failure of capitalism. If every broker had been >someone like Boesky than it was a *big* failure of capitalism (that was >more or less the situation before the Depression). Although this thread seems to veer off into the wings, I do want to correct your mistaken impression that the 1929 Depression was caused by insider trading, or that insider trading is a failure of Capitalism per se. Insider trading is illegal in the US, but that is based on an idea of fairness. It is no less a `failure' of Capitalism than are monopolies or the Mafia. You seem to have confused pure Capitalism with what is or is not currently legal in the United States. It is interesting that this confusion of yours corresponds directly to your disdainful view of affirmative action implementations. t Arpa: travis@cs.columbia.edu Usenet: rutgers!columbia!travis
" Maynard) (11/14/89)
I suspect we're arguing the definition of terms here. The only people defending AA as merely an activist EEO are AT&T employees. Earlier comments lead me to believe that AA is the label AT&T applies to the entire spectrum of non- and anti-discrimination activities. This differs from the practice of just about all of the rest of corporate America. I, and the others arguing here (I think) against AA, have no objection whatsoever to making sure that opportunities are truly equal for all people, without regard to race, religion, sex, color, national origin, previous condition of servitude, prior membership in any armed force, or whether or not they drive an import car. :-) In article <6393@cbnewsm.ATT.COM> lfd@cbnewsm.ATT.COM (leland.f.derbenwick) writes: >In article <3009@splut.conmicro.com>, jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes: >> EEO means finding the people who were previously chased away and giving >> them a chance. >No, EEO means _permitting_ them to have a chance. AA includes the >notion of deliberately seeking out those who have been discriminated >against (or who may have been). Huh? Your underlined word above is hairsplitting. Giving them a chance is the same as permitting them to have a chance. Seeking out those who may have been discriminated against in the past is nothing more than insuring they, too, have an equal opportunity. AA (which, after all, comes from the words "affirmative action to employ, and advance in employment" minorities) is, for example, the Caltech program where they will admit any qualified woman, even if that forces them to not admit a more qualified man. That is unequal opportunity. >EEO (when applied!) rules out overt and blatant discrimination. >It is essentially passive, assuming that if you aren't _actively_ >discriminating against any group, you must be providing equal >opportunity. There are so many ways in which discrimination can >occur, that lack of blatant discriminatory acts hardly guarantees >lack of discrimination. EEO is just that, when properly applied - _equal_ opportunity. For all. Without regard to anything irrelevant to the job. Properly applied, it allows _no_ discrimination, blatant or otherwise. I agree that it may not be working as designed. The solution is not to overturn it, but to enforce it. >The AA laws are intended to require _active_ behavior to avoid >discriminating against certain groups. If applied properly, it >is an activist equivalent of EEO. "Affirmative action to employ and advance in employment" is _not_ an activist equivalent. It's reverse discrimination, pure and simple. >I suspect that there are quite a few companies with other good >AA implementations. I'm sure there are lots with bad ones, >because its so easy to do almost _anything_ wrong, and I doubt >that good AA is ever easy to implement. I'd like to see a company that separates EEO and AA, and does not discriminate in the name of AA. AT&T is obfuscating the issue. -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can jay@splut.conmicro.com (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity. {attctc,bellcore}!texbell!splut!jay +---------------------------------------- Shall we try for comp.protocols.tcp-ip.eniac next, Richard? - Brandon Allbery
gazit@cs.duke.edu (11/15/89)
[Note: followups are set to soc.men, as per Hillel's request -- AMBAR] In article <2790@cbnewsl.ATT.COM> (Damballah Wedo) writes: #I am a strong supporter of Affirmative Action. Yet I am strongly #opposed to lowering job/promotion requirements to enhance #representation of affected class members. # #I do think the requirements should be examined carefully to determine #whether they are truly relevant or just expressions of sexist In article <6625@columbia.edu> (Travis Lee Winfrey) writes: >Hillel, do you claim that there is discrimination based on >race/gender, that this discrimination is wrong, but that any solution >seeking to redress these wrongs should not ask about race or gender? Exactly. Wedo had claimed that he does not want to lower the requirements, just to cross out those which are sexist/racist. I say "fine with me, write and *publish* your requirements and we will check them using *small* random samples". Every AA program that I've heard about asks about the race/sex of every applicant. IMO they ask about race/sex because the decisions are based on race/sex and not on that ideal non-sexist set, and this is discrimination. Let's give you an example. It was repeatedly claimed that the Verbal test discriminate against women because there are questions which are based on technical knowledge. Let's assume that the claim is true. There are two ways to fix it: 1) Add some points to the score of women. 2) Ask more about "feminine" subjects. Way one punishes men with "feminine" properties (prefer to cook and not to fix the car), and helps women with "masculine" properties (prefer to fix the car and not to cook). Way two helps people with "feminine" properties regardless of their sex. For way one you need to know the sex of everyone who takes the test. For way two you can take small random samples to check that the scores are not skewed. I prefer way two. Which way do you prefer and why? Which way the AA programs that ask about the sex/race of every applicant prefer and *why*? >Although this thread seems to veer off into the wings, I do want to >correct your mistaken impression that the 1929 Depression was caused >by insider trading, That's not what I had said. >or that insider trading is a failure of Capitalism per se. The basic axiom of capitalism is that if everyone works for his/her benefit the society in large benefits from it. The inside traders worked for their benefit, and the society in large was harmed by it. Since the old capitalist system had permitted it, it had been a failure of the old system. >It is interesting that this confusion of yours corresponds directly to >your disdainful view of affirmative action implementations. It is interesting that this preference of yours to discuss my "confusion" corresponds directly to the weakness of your position... Let's continue to debate on that last subject in an unmoderated group. (Follow-up is set to soc.men.) Hillel gazit@cs.duke.edu The Army has carried the American ... ideal to its logical conclusion. Not only do they prohibit discrimination on the grounds of race, creed and color, but also on ability. -- T. Lehrer
mingus@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (Damballah Wedo) (11/15/89)
< >I wrote: < >Given representation at the inputs, we can expect, if the process < >is free of discrimination (as ensured by EEO), that there will be < >representation at the outputs. < gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) (in <16042@duke.cs.duke.edu>): < So why do you insist that in *every* AA program the race/sex of the < applicants will be mentioned? Why *no* AA program can find < these perfect standards and stop asking about race/sex? Huh? I've been trying for three days to parse this, and relate it back to what I said, and failed. I said that the point of AA is to increase the number of affected class members at the inputs of a given process; THEN to let the non-discriminatory process mandated by EEO do its thing. I don' t have the faintest idea where perfect standards and asking about race/sex comes into it. < >Yes, there are stupid implementations of AA that hire or promote < >affected class members regardless of their qualifications. The principle < >of AA cannot he held responsible for such stupidity, any more that < >capitalism can be held responsible for Ivan Boesky, < < Ivan Boesky is a small failure of capitalism. If every broker had been < someone like Boesky than it was a *big* failure of capitalism (that was < more or less the situation before the Depression). Exactly. And a cretinous AA implementation is no reflection on AA itself. < If no AA program can achieve its targets without asking about < sex/race of the applicants then it is a big failure of AA. More of that race/sex of applicants stuff again. Whatever *that* means. -- Marcel-Franck Simon mingus@attunix.ATT.COM, attunix!mingus " Papa Loko, ou se' van, ou-a pouse'-n ale' Nou se' papiyon, n'a pote' nouvel bay Agwe' "
travis@douglass.cs.columbia.edu (Travis Lee Winfrey) (11/16/89)
>[Note: followups are set to soc.men, as per Hillel's request -- AMBAR] I don't know what to do -- I don't like soc.men, it's way too busy, flame-filled, is very blaming, and has interminable discussions about guns, vans, war, etc. I unsubscribed a long time ago, and I just checked to make sure the same small clique of yahoos are posting there. [As long as the discussion is relevant, there's no problem with attempting to keep it here. Hillel is under no obligation, of course, to respond in any particular newsgroup and if two posters really want a discussion between themselves, not with the general public, I suggest e-mail as being more appropriate. Cross-posting, however, is against the charter. - MHN] I'm posting this in soc.feminism primarily because I just wanted to check on the difference between Hillel's and my view of the problem. In any case, I doubt that I'll continue this thread much longer. In article <190@ora.ora.com> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes: >In article <6625@columbia.edu> (Travis Lee Winfrey) writes: > >>Hillel, do you claim that there is discrimination based on >>race/gender, that this discrimination is wrong, but that any solution >>seeking to redress these wrongs should not ask about race or gender? > >Exactly. > [...] >I say "fine with me, write and *publish* your requirements and we will >check them using *small* random samples". Every AA program that I've >heard about asks about the race/sex of every applicant. IMO they ask about >race/sex because the decisions are based on race/sex and not on >that ideal non-sexist set, and this is discrimination. Ok, that's fine. This means that we're not ever going to see eye to eye on this problem. I will restate what you said means to me, what I think your beliefs might be: Discrimination exists in our society, gender- and race-discrimination, to name two. This discrimination has existed in most of recorded history, and is undeniably present in our culture today. We have further decided that the abilities of the individual are paramount, and that any discrimination based on any attributes other than ability are wrong. Although this wrongful discrimination may appear at any time between any two (or more) individuals, any legal examination of a particular case of alleged discrimination will *always* be wrong because it will necessarily take note of the race, gender, etc., of the two participants. The same is true of any program that actively seeks to eliminate discrimination. Therefore, any laws against discrimination must themselves always be wrong in the same sense that discrimination is wrong, because these laws will need to use the information that is itself invalid to use, namely, the precise status of the participants. The intent of the laws is irrelevant, because they will discriminate themselves, and this is always wrong. Is this what you believe? >It was repeatedly claimed that the Verbal test discriminate against women >because there are questions which are based on technical knowledge. >Let's assume that the claim is true. No, this is an incorrect recounting of the facts, if you're referring to the more recent battle in the courts. Verbal tests against women are alleged to be discriminatory because they determine scholarships and admittance into college. This is based on the invalid assumption that standardized testing is an accurate predicter of academic ability. Men do better on standardized tests in high schools, but women go on to make better grades in college, as they did in high school. The discrimination lies in the fact that rewards are based on a metric that men will excell, but the metric does not correlate to later performance in college, the intended basis of giving scholarships and admitting people to the more elite schools. What you have recalled are really claims against *minority* performance on standardized tests, where cultural and class differences are said to explain a portion of the difference between minority and non-minority scoring patterns, e.g., vocabulary tests that really measure class usage. For the most part, men and women will share the same cultural and class backgrounds, so gender will not correlate to the decline in test scores. >There are two ways to fix it: >1) Add some points to the score of women. >2) Ask more about "feminine" subjects. Gee, I don't know. If you started asking about tampons on the SAT at the high school I went to, there'd be a riot. Actually, Hillel, this are solutions irrelevant to the types of problems that have been uncovered with test scores. If one's college grades correlate well to high school grades, and SAT scores don't, then grades should be made a primary factor instead of SATs. SATs don't need to ask about "feminine" subjects, whatever those might be. >>Although this thread seems to veer off into the wings, I do want to >>correct your mistaken impression that the 1929 Depression was caused >>by insider trading, > >That's not what I had said. You claimed that people like Boesky were the problem before the 1929 Depression. Since Boesky was brought up on charges of insider trading, I don't know what else you could mean. >>or that insider trading is a failure of Capitalism per se. > >The basic axiom of capitalism is that if everyone works for his/her >benefit the society in large benefits from it. > >The inside traders worked for their benefit, and the society in large >was harmed by it. Since the old capitalist system had permitted it, it >had been a failure of the old system. Again, this is very interesting (although entirely misguided about the nature of capitalism). You've made an unsubstantiated claim of societal harm by insider trading, one phrased so strongly that you view laws against insider trading as perfectly natural. The lack of any laws against it was a "failure of the old system," so this area must be regulated. But, as any trader not too coked out to grab you by the lapels will tell you, this is government interference with the capitalist system, this is not right, this is socialism! You're telling one person who knows about a upcoming, unannounced trade or merger that he or she can't make money off it. I don't want to make the hypothetical trader's point any more (particularly since I don't agree with it), but instead point out the contrast between your active solution in one case of societal harm and your indifference in another. That is, there are substantial harms claimed of a society that discriminates based on gender, but you're always been totally opposed to any interference with this normal process as being morally wrong -- even though you have admitted the claims of discrimination are just. Why is government interference ok in insider trading, but not in hiring or college admittance policies? You've claimed ``society at large'' is harmed, but I doubt very much you can prove this with any more rigor than harms caused by gender discrimination. You seem to be permanently outraged by the alleged injustices of Affirmative Action laws and programs, but other types of socialist interference by the Government pass by you without any comment. You didn't even blink: "insider trading is wrong, it should have been banned." t Arpa: travis@cs.columbia.edu Usenet: rutgers!columbia!travis
lfd@cbnewsm.ATT.COM (leland.f.derbenwick) (11/16/89)
In article <3037@splut.conmicro.com>, jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes: > > I suspect we're arguing the definition of terms here. The only people > defending AA as merely an activist EEO are AT&T employees. Earlier > comments lead me to believe that AA is the label AT&T applies to the > entire spectrum of non- and anti-discrimination activities. This differs ^^^^ ^^^^^ EEO AA Thank you, Jay, that's a _much_ simpler way to explain the difference! EEO involves non-discrimination activities (like allowing members of minority groups to be hired), while AA involves anti-discrimination activities (like recruiting at colleges with large minority enrollments). > [ lots deleted ] > AT&T is obfuscating the issue. That's just my writing style. :-) [or maybe :-( ] > -- > Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can > jay@splut.conmicro.com (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity. > {attctc,bellcore}!texbell!splut!jay +---------------------------------------- I think that what passes for AA at many places is a misguided mess that, to quote your .sig, "can adequately be explained by stupidity." Does anyone from outside AT&T have some comments on a _good_ (or at least reasonable) implementation of AA that they have encountered? (I'm sure I could get comments from within AT&T about _bad_ things done in the name of AA. Or good things that should have been done and weren't. AT&T is large [understatement] and organizationally diverse, and _nobody_ gets everything right. See "explained by stupidity," above, though that's no excuse for not trying.) Or is there anyone who can quote some key passages from the relevant laws (and court decisions, and ...)? -- Speaking for myself, -- Lee Derbenwick, AT&T Bell Laboratories, Warren, NJ -- lfd@cbnewsm.ATT.COM or <wherever>!att!cbnewsm!lfd
mingus@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (Damballah Wedo) (11/17/89)
> >> jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay Maynard) (in <3009@splut.conmicro.com>): > >> EEO means finding the people who were previously chased away and giving > >> them a chance. > jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay Maynard) (in <3037@splut.conmicro.com>): > I suspect we're arguing the definition of terms here. The only people > defending AA as merely an activist EEO are AT&T employees. Earlier > comments lead me to believe that AA is the label AT&T applies to the > entire spectrum of non- and anti-discrimination activities. This differs > from the practice of just about all of the rest of corporate America. I, > and the others arguing here (I think) against AA, have no objection > whatsoever to making sure that opportunities are truly equal for all > people, without regard to race, religion, sex, color, national origin, > previous condition of servitude, prior membership in any armed force, or > whether or not they drive an import car. :-) The key word here is "ensure that opportunities exist." Which, in the English I learned, does not mean "ensure diversity" at the inputs of the hiring and promotion processes. Which, I believe, the precisely what we (well, I) have been arguing is the difference between EEO and AA. If one has to be an AT&T employee to be able to see this difference, perhaps that says something about the superior intellects of AT&T employees :-) Joking aside, "ensuring that opportunities exist" certainly does not mean finding people and making sure they are aware of the opportunities that do exist, and also making sure they know of and have access to the tools necessary to realize these opportunities. Certainly it is fundamental that opportunities exist. Their mere existence, however, does nothing to remedy existing imbalances; *that* requires a more activist stance. Besides, EEO is the law. If what AA defenders call AA really falls under the purview of EEO, why are there such vast differences in how employers approach EEO/AA? Jay Maynard might say the difference I draw between EEO and AA is mere hair splitting. I'm a reasonable guy. I'll agree that what I call AA actually is part of EEO when I see Jay Maynard vigorously advocating that ALL companies do what is necessary to promote diversity. > I'd like to see a company that separates EEO and AA, and does not > discriminate in the name of AA. > > AT&T is obfuscating the issue. I don't speak for AT&T, but in my personal experience, the company expends a lot of energy making sure it provides to employees like myself who are not white males, an environment where they have every opportunity to achieve all the success predicated by their skills. In my opinion, it can do no less. Advocating the separation of EEO from AA is a red herring. AA is a superset of EEO; one cannot have any sort of AA without first having a vigorous EEO policy. I can provide the exact text of AT&T policy, and excerpts from the relevant legislation defining EEO. I have read these texts many times, and have a clear understanding of the differences between AA and EEO. The charge of obfuscation has no merit. -- Marcel-Franck Simon mingus@attunix.ATT.COM, attunix!mingus " Papa Loko, ou se' van, ou-a pouse'-n ale' Nou se' papiyon, n'a pote' nouvel bay Agwe' "