Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!ucla-cs!uci-ics!gateway
From: kja@cbnewsd.ATT.COM (krista.j.anderson)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: AA, continued
Message-ID: <2985@cbnewsd.ATT.COM>
Date: 9 Nov 89 04:16:11 GMT
References: <6561@columbia.edu> <8910300440.AA23901@uunet.uu.net> <7152@cs.utexas.edu>
Sender: tittle@ics.uci.edu (Cindy Tittle)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 40
Approved: tittle@ics.uci.edu

<>
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.