Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!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: <2918@cbnewsl.ATT.COM> Date: 17 Nov 89 13:42:04 GMT References: <3037@splut.conmicro.com> Sender: nadel@aerospace.aero.org Reply-To: mingus@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (Damballah Wedo) Organization: The Poto Mitan in the Houmfor Lines: 59 Approved: nadel@aerospace.aero.org > >> jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay Maynard) (in <3009@splut.conmicro.com>): > >> EEO means finding the people who were previously chased away and giving > >> them a chance. > jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay Maynard) (in <3037@splut.conmicro.com>): > 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. :-) The key word here is "ensure that opportunities exist." Which, in the English I learned, does not mean "ensure diversity" at the inputs of the hiring and promotion processes. Which, I believe, the precisely what we (well, I) have been arguing is the difference between EEO and AA. If one has to be an AT&T employee to be able to see this difference, perhaps that says something about the superior intellects of AT&T employees :-) Joking aside, "ensuring that opportunities exist" certainly does not mean finding people and making sure they are aware of the opportunities that do exist, and also making sure they know of and have access to the tools necessary to realize these opportunities. Certainly it is fundamental that opportunities exist. Their mere existence, however, does nothing to remedy existing imbalances; *that* requires a more activist stance. Besides, EEO is the law. If what AA defenders call AA really falls under the purview of EEO, why are there such vast differences in how employers approach EEO/AA? Jay Maynard might say the difference I draw between EEO and AA is mere hair splitting. I'm a reasonable guy. I'll agree that what I call AA actually is part of EEO when I see Jay Maynard vigorously advocating that ALL companies do what is necessary to promote diversity. > 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. I don't speak for AT&T, but in my personal experience, the company expends a lot of energy making sure it provides to employees like myself who are not white males, an environment where they have every opportunity to achieve all the success predicated by their skills. In my opinion, it can do no less. Advocating the separation of EEO from AA is a red herring. AA is a superset of EEO; one cannot have any sort of AA without first having a vigorous EEO policy. I can provide the exact text of AT&T policy, and excerpts from the relevant legislation defining EEO. I have read these texts many times, and have a clear understanding of the differences between AA and EEO. The charge of obfuscation has no merit. -- 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' "