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: <158@lzwi.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 3-Jun-85 17:46:08 EDT
Article-I.D.: lzwi.158
Posted: Mon Jun  3 17:46:08 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 5-Jun-85 00:30:14 EDT
References: <566@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> <879@mnetor.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Information Systems, Lincroft
Lines: 47
Xref: watmath net.politics:9232 net.social:584 net.women:5503 net.flame:10272
Summary: Discrimination isn't dead

> >Yes, disadvantaged poor whites may be outraged.  

Some number of states, for example, Kentucky & Minnesota have special programs
to benefit disadvantaged citizens from particular, primarily "white" regions 
of their states (Appalachia & the Iron Range, respectively). I happen to know 
about these programs because I have lived in those states. These programs
do not seem to receive the national attention that AA programs do.
My point is twofold: 
1) There ARE programs in place that primarily benefit whites/men. 
2) People don't complain about them either because they are accepted as part
of the status quo (& I'm not saying that those people in Appalachia &
the Iron Range don't NEED help) or that people don't somehow consider that
discrimination.

> For most people in a position to hire people (at least in the computer
> industry) I believe that the primary criteria for hiring people is that
> they find the best person for the job.  I don't think racial/sexual
> biases are particularly prevalent anymore especially in highly technical 
> areas (though handicapped *might* be). 
Either life is radically different in Canada or you just haven't talked to
many of the people who've been discriminated against. 
Recruiters tend to hire people they like, & in many cases the people they like
are like themselves. If, for historical reasons, the people who hired the
recruiters are white males, the recruiters are going to take the work of
white males more seriously.
Also, discrimination is not always overt, nor does it simply start at the
job market. In my high school, girls weren't allowed in the computer club.
(This is a public high school, mind you.) Recent studies have shown that
even when girls allowed to use the computers that teachers still tend to 
let the boys use them more often. Girls are less likely to be encouraged
to stay in advanced math classes.

> But, past prejudice doesn't alleviate the fact of someone not being
> best-of-the-applicants qualified for a particular job *now*.

I don't think the prejudice is "past."
And have you *never* worked with an incompetent white male? I hear all
of these complaints about AA discriminating against these postively
brilliant white males who are incredibly overqualified & I look around
me, & when I look at the people who are incompetent, whom do I see in amazingly
disproportionate numbers? Despite the alleged "reverse discrimination" of
AA? White males.
If the "best-of-the-applicants" were all that were/are considered without
AA then how did all this white male dead weight get to where it is?

C. E. Jackson
ihnp4!lznv!cja