Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site ihu1m.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!ihu1m!gadfly
From: gadfly@ihu1m.UUCP (Gadfly)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Discrimination
Message-ID: <434@ihu1m.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 15-May-85 11:01:12 EDT
Article-I.D.: ihu1m.434
Posted: Wed May 15 11:01:12 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 16-May-85 08:15:25 EDT
References: <354@iham1.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 30

--
> 	I think that the only legitimate criterion for choosing a
> person to receive something (job, scholarship, promotion, access
> to certain schools, whatever) is merit.  Legalistic gyrations aside,
> *ANY*, and I do mean *ANY*, such decision made on the basis of any
> other criteria such as race, color, religion, sex, or national origin
> is discrimination. Period.
> 
> 					Carl Deitrick

You're making two assumtions (possibly justifiable).  For one, you
assume that "merit" is not quantized.  For another, you assume that
the organization doing the choosing has no larger, social purpose.
At some point it will be meaningless to say one person is "more
qualified" than another; both must be considered "qualified".  Then
how do you choose?  This may relate to the chooser's basic purpose.
Most businesses strive to maximize their profits, but some have
decided that without a deeper reason for existence (like trying to make
the world a better place) it's hardly worth the bother.  I find it
much more enjoyable to work for companies with such an outlook.
Although their affirmative action policies do not maximize my own
material white male position, they create an environment that's fun
to be in.
-- 
                    *** ***
JE MAINTIENDRAI   ***** *****
                 ****** ******  15 May 85 [26 Floreal An CXCIII]
ken perlow       *****   *****
(312)979-7188     ** ** ** **
..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken   *** ***