Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watdcsu.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!watnot!watdcsu!dmcanzi
From: dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.women
Subject: Alternative Action
Message-ID: <1447@watdcsu.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 2-Jun-85 09:15:06 EDT
Article-I.D.: watdcsu.1447
Posted: Sun Jun  2 09:15:06 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 3-Jun-85 01:14:36 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 52
Xref: watmath net.politics:9198 net.women:5468

(I've noticed a great deal of emotional language and personal attacks
in net.women and net.politics, lately, and rather a lot of it was
coming from my keyboard.  I'm going to try to write an entire article
without insulting anybody.  If politeness works, I may make it a
habit.)

Those who favor AA, favor it as a means of remedying discrimination.
Those who oppose AA see it as a form of inverse discrimination and/or
another expensive government program.  Much emotional bickering then
follows.

Rather than just opposing AA, I think I can offer an alternative which
could stop discrimination, and would not result in inverse
discrimination.

Somebody made a remark to the effect that you can only stop
discrimination if you make it impossible for an employer to know the
race and sex of a job applicant.  This was meant to sound ridiculous, I
think, but something very much like it *can* be accomplished.

There is no reason why the person who interviews job applicants has to
be the same person who makes the decision who to hire.  Let the
interviewer write up a 'spec sheet' for each applicant in which any
information as to the applicants race, gender or nationality is
suppressed.  A decision must be made beforehand as to what information
is to be included.  Level of education, for example, but not which
school the applicant studied at, because that would be a clue to the
applicant's nationality.  Work history might include information as to
the size of the company the applicant worked for, and the
responsibilities of the applicant in that company, but could not
actually identify the company, because that, too, is a clue.  The
applicant's name, of course, can't be included.

Let the spec sheets then be passed from the interviewer to the
"decider", for the making of the final decision.  To reduce the
possibility of dishonesty, there could be an "interview quality control
officer" who reinterviews 1 out of "n" applicants just to make sure the
interviewer is interviewing accurately, and not passing subtle messages
to the decider.

(By the way, I intend this as a scheme that companies would implement
voluntarily.  The only government role I can bring myself to approve of
in this is as a distributor of information on how to implement this
"affirmative non-discrimination" scheme.)

Does anybody see anything fundamentally wrong with this idea?
(I mean, aside from the fact that I don't want it enforced?)

-- 
	David Canzi

			Permission is not freedom.