Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!aero-c!nadel
From: uunet!infmx!robert@ncar.UCAR.EDU (robert coleman)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: "64 cents!" (Was Re: The problem in academia)
Message-ID: <1991Apr27.005737.22242@informix.com>
Date: 27 Apr 91 00:57:37 GMT
References: <1991Apr15.145023.7239@psych.toronto.edu> <672079231@lear.cs.duke.edu> <1991Apr25.131335.1@dev8a.mdcbbs.com>
Sender: uunet!infmx!news@ncar.UCAR.EDU (Usenet News)
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.
Lines: 44
Approved: nadel@aerospace.aero.org
Status: R
Originator: nadel@aerospace.aero.org



In article <1991Apr25.131335.1@dev8a.mdcbbs.com> rivero@dev8a.mdcbbs.com writes:
>
>In article <672079231@lear.cs.duke.edu>, gazit@cs.duke.EDU (Hillel Gazit) writes:
>> In article <1991Apr15.145023.7239@psych.toronto.edu>
>> chris@psych.toronto.edu (Christine Hitchcock) writes:
->
->>or the way in which women's earnings remain around 64% of men's,
->
-> When I hear such "data", I suggest affirmative action by income level.
-> Instead of giving priority by sex, give priority to the applicant with
-> the lowest income.  *If* the above data is correct then it will be a
-> non-sexist AA program.
-
-True, but it will remove the last vestige of meritocracy from our
-system of work incentives. After all, why should I work my way through
-college, and put in overtime at the office if the underpaid party animal
-high school dropout sitting next to me gets priority in hiring?
-
-Michael

	Hillel did not explain his idea as clearly here as he has in the past.
The idea was that when two people are *equally* qualified, choose the one with 
the lower salary.  The high school dropout party-animal is unlikely to have the
same qualifications as you if you've been to college and work lots of extra 
hours.
	If woman and blacks have been prejudiced against in the past, however,
even if they have the same qualifications, they would likely have a lower
salary.  This system would then have the same general affect as a
race-or-gender-quota-system, except that people of the "oppressed" classes who
haven't been "oppressed" wouldn't benefit, and people of the "oppressor" class
who haven't benefitted from being an "oppressor" wouldn't be automatically
excluded.  Wait, that means that this would be a non-sexist, non-racist system,
by any definition!
	It also means that it would re-introduce meritocracy back into the
system, where currently race-or-gender-quota-systems are open to the abuse of
accepting the lower qualified person because they have the right doodads.

Robert C.
-- 
----------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: My company has not yet seen fit to
	    elect me as spokesperson. Hmmpf.