Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site alice.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!alice!ark
From: ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.social,net.women,net.flame
Subject: Re: Discrimination and Affirmative Action
Message-ID: <3771@alice.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 30-May-85 10:10:10 EDT
Article-I.D.: alice.3771
Posted: Thu May 30 10:10:10 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 31-May-85 04:50:21 EDT
References: <598@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Labs, Murray Hill
Lines: 34
Xref: watmath net.politics:9152 net.social:567 net.women:5379 net.flame:10186

>>Let's get something straight:
>>
>>	1. "Equal Opportunity" is a FAIR SHOT. 
>>
>>	2. "Affirmative Action" is MORE THAN a
>>	   fair shot and in fact represents
>>	   discrimination on basis of race and sex.
>>
>>			SJBerry

> I'm assuming that "Affirmative Action" is a requirement that a company's
> payroll be (on the order of) 51% females and (on the order of) 11% blacks at
> all levels of employment.  This reflects the current proportion of females
> and blacks in the population as a whole.  Is that what you think it means?
> If so, why do you think that such a requirement offers "MORE THAN a fair
> shot" to females and blacks?  Please elaborate.
a

Let's make several assumptions for the sake of argument:

	1. you are running a company of some sort.
	2. you are in an area that is 51% female and 11% black.
	3. three quarters of your job applicants are black.
	4. you are actively hiring.
	5. job applicants' qualifications are independent of color.
	6. you are required to keep your workforce 11% black.

You now have two choices: either allow your workforce to become more
than 11% black, or hire whites who are less qualified than blacks.
If you do the latter, you are compromising your business.

Is it OK to hire more than 11% blacks in these circumstances?
If so, is it OK to hire less than 11% blacks if 99% of the applicants
are white?