Path: utzoo!censor!geac!lethe!torsqnt!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!ora!daemon
From: gazit@lear.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: AA, continued
Message-ID: <16042@duke.cs.duke.edu>
Date: 10 Nov 89 03:46:28 GMT
References: <7152@cs.utexas.edu> <2790@cbnewsl.ATT.COM>
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Organization: The Piranha Club
Lines: 21
Approved: ambar@ora.com

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.