Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 4/15/85; site lzwi.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!lzwi!cja From: cja@lzwi.UUCP (C.E.JACKSON) Newsgroups: net.politics,net.social,net.women,net.flame Subject: Re: Discrimination and Affirmative Action Message-ID: <157@lzwi.UUCP> Date: Mon, 3-Jun-85 16:46:08 EDT Article-I.D.: lzwi.157 Posted: Mon Jun 3 16:46:08 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 5-Jun-85 00:27:30 EDT References: <566@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP>, <478@hou2g.UUCP>, <903@houxf.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Information Systems, Lincroft Lines: 74 Xref: watmath net.politics:9231 net.social:583 net.women:5502 net.flame:10271 Summary: what constitutes experience? In article <903@houxf.UUCP>, 9234dwz@houxf.UUCP (T.SIEFRING) writes: > 51 % ??????? in work force ? > > Fine, even good ( at equal pay for equal work !!!!!!!) > > 51 % ??????? in work force at all levels ? > > Fine , even good, IF qualified > > Bad IF NOT qualified. > (resentment,ineffiency you name it) > > I use qualified above to include education, experience, competency, > which are the general parameters used in evaluating someone for a > promotion. Anyone think these should be changed ???????? --------------------------------------------------------- First, I find that many white males are promoted for reasons other than education, experience, competency, etc. and that even when those reasons are a factor, other factors also come into play. People are promoted or hired or not fired because they go to church with the person making the decision (or someone known to the person making the decision), because they belong to the same fraternity, because they lived in the same town or because they went to the same school. People who have these kinds of close personal contacts with those in power are more likely to get breaks than those who don't. Because of America's habits & history, blacks are less likely to live in the same towns/neighborhoods with whites, less likely to attend the same schools or belong to the same fraternities, social clubs or churches. Women are also less likely to have professional or quasi-professional contacts with the males in power. Therefore, AA policies help to make up for the difference in access to opportunities that currently exists. Second, I think one thing AA tries to do is question what really constitutes valid "experience." Let's consider the case of medical school admissions. I would suggest that the experience of being discriminated against (which IS the case for most blacks and women) has made them, in general, less arrogant than white males. I would also suggest that the arrogance of the white male medical establishment is one reason for the skyrocketing malpractice insurance & higher medical costs. Shouldn't the experience of not thinking you were born god of the universe be considered as a valid criterion in evaluating medical school admissions? Being the child of a doctor is considered a valid criterion--how many blacks have had that opportunity denied to them? And wouldn't someone who grew up in a ghetto be more willing to practice there AND better at it than some rich WASP from the suburbs whose dad was a doctor? I personally would rather go to a black doctor who made B's in college & didn't think s/he knew everything in the world than some arrogant white male who got all A's but forgot that I was a human being. The truth of the matter is that I don't have to make that choice--actually, most black & female medical school graduates are MORE qualified (in terms of their grade point averages than white males--& in my experience, generally far more sensitive.) Medical school is one example, but I suggest that there are many professions and jobs in which the experiences that this sexist and racist society forces blacks and women to undergo gives blacks and women a qualification that employers/admissions people/whomever need to consider in evaluating performance. > > The human race generally evolves at it's own pace, if left alone, now if anyone > wants radical change then revolution will be needed. Now I'm sure there are > militants on both sides of the fence that would embrace the thought of > revolution. Or perhaps you need militants pushing for revolution to force the more conservative majority to "evolve." Do you really think that if the 60s, with its militant push for civil rights *hadn't* happened, that blacks would be as well off as they are today? I think we'd still be where South Africa is.