Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site peora.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!petsd!peora!san From: san@peora.UUCP (Sanjay Tikku) Newsgroups: net.politics,net.social,net.women,net.flame Subject: Re: Discrimination and Affirmative Action Message-ID: <1000@peora.UUCP> Date: Thu, 30-May-85 14:36:30 EDT Article-I.D.: peora.1000 Posted: Thu May 30 14:36:30 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 31-May-85 23:56:27 EDT References: <566@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> <478@hou2g.UUCP> <598@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> Reply-To: san@peora.UUCP (Sanjay Tikku) Organization: Perkin-Elmer SDC, Orlando, Fl. Lines: 54 Xref: watmath net.politics:9166 net.social:573 net.women:5403 net.flame:10202 Summary: In article <598@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Beth Christy) writes: >From: scott@hou2g.UUCP (Scott Berry the Unbeliever), >Message-ID: <478@hou2g.UUCP>: > >>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. > This discussion on discrimination is now starting to border on ridiculous suggestions. On one hand everyone wants to champion the cause of free economy so that the market decides the price and services. Also, people want the free economy to benefit the consumer and that's us. Then why don't you leave the hiring of employees also to the market. If I am running a business and competing in a free market economy, then give me one good reason why I will not hire a person with the maximum productivity level from the available pool of workers. Why should I be forced to hire a woman just because she is a woman or why should I have to hire a person just because he/she belongs to a minority class. With the same reasoning, if a minority class worker is the best for the given job, I'll hire him. The bottom line in every business is DOLLARS. If I have to hire people on grounds other than ability to perform the job then that is fundamentally contradicting the free market theory. Also, how can I produce the cheapest goods(maximizing profit) if I don't have the best available people. In most arguments the quota system is favored to compensate for past discrimination. I have a question for all you EEO/AA champions - what line of reasoning says that past discrimination can be compensated by future discrimination? Seems to me that further mess is being made. sanjay -- Full-Name: Sanjay Tikku UUCP: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!san CSnet: san%peora.UUCP@CSNET-RELAY USnail: MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC; 2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642 Tel: (305)850-1042-Off. ; (305)851-3700-Res.