Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!sobmips!uunet!lll-winken!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!usc!henry.jpl.nasa.gov!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!aero!jay@splut.conmicro.com From: jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) Newsgroups: soc.feminism Subject: Re: AA, continued Message-ID: <3037@splut.conmicro.com> Date: 13 Nov 89 22:48:06 GMT References: <6561@columbia.edu> <8910300440.AA23901@uunet.uu.net> <3009@splut.conmicro.com> <6393@cbnewsm.ATT.COM> Sender: nadel@aerospace.aero.org Reply-To: jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) Organization: Confederate Microsystems, League City, TX Lines: 64 Approved: nadel@aerospace.aero.org Status: R 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