Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!usc!henry.jpl.nasa.gov!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!aero!turpin@cs.utexas.edu
From: turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: AA, continued
Summary: A new direction for the debate?
Message-ID: <7174@cs.utexas.edu>
Date: 9 Nov 89 18:02:55 GMT
References: <6561@columbia.edu> <8910300440.AA23901@uunet.uu.net> <2985@cbnewsd.ATT.COM>
Sender: nadel@aerospace.aero.org
Organization: U. Texas CS Dept., Austin, Texas
Lines: 50
Approved: nadel@aerospace.aero.org
Status: R


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