Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!rex!samsung!usc!henry.jpl.nasa.gov!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!aero!mingus@cbnewsl.ATT.COM From: mingus@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (Damballah Wedo) Newsgroups: soc.feminism Subject: Re: AA, continued Message-ID: <2790@cbnewsl.ATT.COM> Date: 8 Nov 89 12:58:58 GMT References: <7152@cs.utexas.edu> Sender: nadel@aerospace.aero.org Reply-To: mingus@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (Damballah Wedo) Organization: The Poto Mitan in the Houmfor Lines: 48 Approved: nadel@aerospace.aero.org > 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' "