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!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!pegasus!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: <159@lzwi.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 3-Jun-85 20:41:38 EDT
Article-I.D.: lzwi.159
Posted: Mon Jun  3 20:41:38 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 5-Jun-85 00:32:47 EDT
References: <566@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP>, <478@hou2g.UUCP> <445@sftri.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Information Systems, Lincroft
Lines: 86
Xref: watmath net.politics:9233 net.social:585 net.women:5504 net.flame:10273
Summary: A Brief History of AA policy

> What is fair?  Well, my company's affirmative action policy as I
> understand it comes pretty close I think.
> Essentially, the policy is to use affirmative action
> considerations to break a tie that can't reasonably be broken in any
> other way.  But along with this are workshops held here to let
> current employees gain an understanding of the problems faced by
> minorities and women and to explain the affirmative action policy, plus
> presentations at schools and other places encouraging minorities and
> women to consider applying.
> 
> Job discrimination is a problem.  But it is a problem that isn't
> going to be solved by simply changing which groups are the target of
> such discrimination.  I, for one, will fight against such quotas 
> until they put the last nail in my coffin.
> 

Before there were quotas, there was EEO, which stipulated
that people/companies shouldn't discriminate. People continued
discriminating. Companies, ignoring the call of the allegedly
"free" marketplace (which would presumably encourage them to
hire the "best qualified" candidate regardless of race, sex,
etc.), continued to discriminate. 
The government then set up guidelines for ideal minority/female employment. 
These guidelines were not 51% for women and 11%, but much
lower & tailored to job type/regions. For instance, if 10% of all
graduating B.E.E. people were women for a given year, the
government guidelines suggested that 10% of the new hires in
EE-related fields be women. Regardless of the fact that women's 
GPA's tend to be somewhat higher than men's (which would lead one to 
believe that in a "free" market, the best jobs would be more likely to
go to women & fewer women would be without jobs), companies
still failed to meet the guidelines. Many companies failed to
even come *near* the guidelines.
Depending on how miserably & flagrantly the companies thumbed
their noses at the government's guidelines, the government
retaliated with quotas.
You and I both work for AT&T. In the 60-70s, AT&T suffered a few 
class action suits & basically instituted the AA policy that you suggested
was fair. AT&T did not do so, as I understand the company's
history, because it particularly cared about women or blacks
but because it had enough other kinds of lawsuits pending
(from within & without the government) wanted to avoid ones
about discrimination. So it came up with a voluntary policy &
even attempts to enforce the policy so that it doesn't have to worry
about government-imposed quotas.
Other companies were less distracted, less foresighted, sleazier
& more bigoted. The government then imposed quotas on them.
I think you underestimate what a fundamentally decent company
we work for--what do you do with companies that defy the law?
AA is a tool in implementing the goals of the 1965 Civil
Rights Act. It is a tool that was used by the Justice
Department until 1981, & was applied differently to different
situations. There is NO law anywhere that says in all
occupations everywhere, the nation must have 51% female
employment & 11% black employment. It is only a tool that is
used to enforce the law. The Reagan Administration chooses not
to use it, but has not substituted any other tool to replace
it. One reason I am so interested in defending AA is that I
have yet to see a better tool (& yes this is a flawed one, but
what IS the alternative--the only real one I've heard
suggested is to wait for society to "evolve." It's a funny
concept of law & justice to say that my best hope is to work
so that my greatgranddaughter gets the justice I am denied). 
In discarding this tool, it seems as if the Reagan Administration 
has given up enforcing the law altogether (RR WAS against the 1965 
Civil Rights Act when it came out, you know). I find that idea 
far more repugnant than quotas imposed on lawbreakers. 

Why are AA quotas seen as more offensive than forcing
companies to comply with the Clean Air Act? In 1965, the government
said it's illegal to discriminate, just as the government said
that it is illegal to pollute. In the late 60s, the government
saw that many industries polluted & many discriminated.
To rectify this problem, suggested guidelines were drawn up in
both instances. Those companies which complied, like AT&T,
were left alone (on that issue :-}). Those which did not were 
regulated more carefully.
How would you like to see the government enforce the law?
Are you suggesting that the government should not enforce the
law? Isn't it a violation of RR's oath of office not to
enforce the law?
When companies violate the 1965 Civil Rights Act, what would
YOU have the government do to force them to comply?

C. E. Jackson
ihnp4!lznv!cja