Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site mnetor.UUCP Path: utzoo!utcs!mnetor!clewis From: clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) Newsgroups: net.politics,net.social,net.women,net.flame Subject: Re: Discrimination and Affirmative Action Message-ID: <900@mnetor.UUCP> Date: Thu, 30-May-85 12:55:50 EDT Article-I.D.: mnetor.900 Posted: Thu May 30 12:55:50 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 30-May-85 14:24:44 EDT References: <566@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> <1562@dciem.UUCP> Reply-To: clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) Organization: Computer X (CANADA) Ltd., Toronto, Ontario, Canada Lines: 180 Xref: utcs net.politics:8927 net.social:514 net.women:5360 net.flame:9858 Summary: In article <1562@dciem.UUCP> mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) writes: > >>Considering the long way society has come since the '30s and '40s it >>would be far better to let things alone and the problem of discrimination >>will disappear as it has been doing - things have been happening >>without anybody really noticing. > >I'd like a bit of statistical data on that claim. My impression >was that there was less sexual discrimination in the workforce >during and after the war than now (or at least in recent years, until >affirmative action programs began taking hold). The war was a special case - the male workforce was so tied up with being part of the war that females HAD to be employed to manufacture goods. There was no less sexual discrimination - males would still have been hired preferentially but there weren't enough to fill all the jobs nor were women treated fairly for promotion. As soon as the war ended most women were kicked out of the workforce immediately. Though a case can be made that there was less discrimination afterwards because exposure and experience to women in the workforce made it more acceptable to many the overall level of discrimination didn't really change much during or after. There was a movie that we saw recently with Sally Field (I forget the title) which demonstrated this pretty well. Discrimination is obvious when there aren't enough jobs around to employ everybody. If there are jobs to employ everybody, it doesn't necessarily follow that there is no discrimination. Discrimination during levels of low-unemployment merely is more subtle (and possibly more damaging because of "but we do hire lots of minorities" - sort of like "some of my best friends are ") There aren't any affirmative action policies in Canada yet (except for the bilingualism program). Didn't you see the stuff in the papers recently about the report on employment integration and proposed affirmative action? (Sorry, I can't quite remember the name of the woman who wrote the report, nor the title) That would have been just about the first instance of official affirmative action in this country. I know that (I don't have statistics, but it is *obvious* from society) that most of the lessening of discrimination in the workplace started long before official affirmative action policies became common. The minorities are very much better represented in the workforce in Canada now than they were in the 00's-mid 60's in spite of the fact that very few places in Canadian society have affirmative action policies even now. One primary example: until the late fifties IBM (at least in one of the sites here) consisted almost solely of crew-cut WASP males with white shirts and unmarried women in menial jobs (females were fired when they got married - that *was* official policy!). Currently, the place I worked in IBM actually has considerably more women and other minorities than strict population percentages would dictate. Mind you, some is due to carry-over of U.S. affirmative action policies into Canada. But I do believe that most of this is a result of attitude changes before there were affirmative action policies. Actually, strict affirmative action adherence would probably *decrease* minority representation in the area I was in at IBM. (That would be a great mistake too!) My comments were primarily directed against official "affirmative action" policies. I have no quibble with "equal rights/access" provisions in our constitution or other legislation. I should have made that clear in my original posting. > >> Racial/sexual/whatever quotas >>will bring back the prejudices and hatred of the 40's - only worse >>because the object of this hatred is mixed into the workplace. Then >>everybody will be involved in it. You can see this happening up >>here due to long-standing hiring policies of the Canadian Govt. >>w.r.t. French speaking employees. > >What's that supposed to mean? Federal employees who are not French >monolinguals hate those who are? Bilingual employees are hated by >monolinguals because people HAVE to be bilingual in senior positions >in this bilingual country? Come off it! I don't know where the machine >"mnetor" is, but it doesn't seem to be in Ottawa, and if it is a Federal >Government machine in Toronto, there is almost NO language requirement >other than English for any but the most senior positions. What does the machine or whom I'm working for have to do with it? Just because I live in Toronto doesn't mean that I cannot know Federal employees in Ottawa - I know quite a few - some that work in the same place that you do! I used to work in Ottawa and I once worked for the Ontario Govt. too. I know people who work for the Federal Govt. (some in relatively high places I'm afraid to say) that are *extremely* biased against the bilingual requirements (and imagined monolingual French privileges) and those who are hired/promoted because of it (or imagined to). One of them would give Hitler a run for the money in "most vituperative/racist thinking sweepstakes" (and he *isn't* a friend of mine either! The reason he is not being promoted is because he's a jerk not because he's not French or bilingual). The Ontario Govt. isn't free of these attitudes either in spite of the fact that Ontario isn't officially bilingual (yet) and has very few (if any) bilingual hiring policies. Nor, as you contend, are the Federal bilingual policies directed *only* at high level employess. The bilingual policy is directed at almost every level of Federal employment where contact with the public occurs. (and, to me it makes sense too!) The hatred that I'm concerned about is not necessarily based upon a "fact" of discrimination but on the perception. Affirmative action: 1) Doesn't take into account the fact that minorities are disproportionately represented (either plus or minus) in the class of people qualified *now* for a particular area of the workforce. 2) Provides an excuse (and spawning ground for hatred) for those people not hired because of affirmative action either in truth or in fiction: a) An unqualified applicant takes the easy way out and blames non-hiring/promotion upon discrimnatory policies (and those horrible people taking *his* job) rather than his own inadequacies. b) A better-qualified applicant (who has mouths to feed too!) being turned down simply because he was the wrong minority. We have to face the fact that affirmative action is *not* fair to the individual - particularly the one who has to pay for past injustices by other people. Consider the following situation: Women have justifiable complaint about their representation in the workforce. What happens if the hiring (or promotion) group already has filled their quota on women, but has to fill quota with another minority. A women turned down under those circumstances is *still* being discriminated against because she's a women. And, she will probably still come to the same conclusion that she has been discriminated against. People usually don't really care *why* the discrimination exists, only the fact that *they* *were* discriminated against. If we don't have affirmative action, but still have "equal access on ability" policies, then it is *both* fair to everyone *and* will correct the existing injustice in the long term. Things have been changing a lot faster without official affirmative action policies than you think! Just look around, there's *far* more minority involvement at all levels than there used to be. As a few examples, ten years ago there weren't *any* female newscasters, newspaper publishers or VP-upwards executives. People tend to forget what things were like even only five years ago. Official affirmative action creates and/or perpetuates division between groups - it doesn't do anything to eliminate it. >I haven't heard from francophone bilinguals working in the Federal Government >that they feel hated, or that they hate anglophones (bilingual or >otherwise). The only places I have come across anti-French "hatred" >are in newspaper reports out of rural districts of Manitoba and westward, Pure crap! What have you been reading or not reading for that matter? Are you sure that you live in the same country? I assume that you are, because D.C.I.E.M. is less than 10 miles from where I live and work, but you certainly don't seem to know what's going on. If you think that anti-French sentiment is restricted to the west of Canada, you are sadly mistaken. It exists in Ontario, parts of Quebec (they aren't all French!) and in the Maritimes - it is quite possibly highest in Ottawa! Where, for example, do you think that Ottawans figure that the criminals who perpetuate the highest bank-robbery rates outside of Quebec come from anyways? Hull! (just across the Ottawa river which is the Ontario/Quebec border for you people not knowing the geography). They're probably right, but drawing the distinction is what matters. Nor does it matter whether the object of the sentiment (French Mono/Bi lingual) know it or not. It's a lot better than it was (say than during WW II) but it still exists. It's unpleasant but true. Fortunately, all the companies I have worked for don't discriminate (much...). The Manitoba (and you forgot New Brunswick) situation doesn't really have much to do with access to employment per-se. Most of it is an irrational fear of becoming unequally represented in law, taxation, education, and Govt. services. Even I get extremely uncomfortable when Quebec wants to have the ability to veto any legislation that effects them in any way. No other province would have that much power. Somehow that seems to mean that the rest of the country has less than equal control over their destiny. -- Chris Lewis, UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!clewis BELL: (416)-475-8980 ext. 321