Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site luke.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!hao!hplabs!oliveb!bene!luke!sml
From: sml@luke.UUCP (Steven List @ Uncle Bene's Farm)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.social,net.women,net.flame
Subject: Re: Re: Discrimination and Affirmative Action
Message-ID: <174@luke.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 2-Jun-85 17:43:51 EDT
Article-I.D.: luke.174
Posted: Sun Jun  2 17:43:51 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 6-Jun-85 05:16:54 EDT
References: <566@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP>, <478@hou2g.UUCP> <598@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP>
Organization: Benetics Corp, Mt.View, CA
Lines: 49
Xref: watmath net.politics:9266 net.social:596 net.women:5532 net.flame:10301

> 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.
> 
> -- 
> 
> --JB                                          Life is just a bowl.

I'm curious about something here.  While I agree with the first comment
(AA is MORE THAN a fair shot), I wonder if the stats quoted by JB are
(1) accurate and (2) represent proportions of the WORKING population.
Is AA truly an attempt to enforce equity, or is it a drawn-out guilt
trip?  Why shouldn't employers/recruiters be free to hire on the basis
of qualifications?

Maybe I'm naive in this, but it seems to me that while the population
may be 51% female, the working population is not.  I live in a nice
suburban area (called Silicon Valley :-)) and find that there are many
women who not only are not part of the working population, but do not
wish to be.  How does that fit in?  In general, I resent any RULE which
restricts my freedom to hire.  Is it rational to be able to discriminate
on the basis of tobacco smoking but not on criminal record or sexual
preference?  Don't misunderstand - I am opposed to discrimination on the
basis of anything other than qualifications.  But either the whole thing
has to hold together or it should be canned.

                                     /-\  
:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:
:                  Steven List @ Benetics Corporation                         :
:                              (415) 940-6300                                 :
:                  {cdp,idi,oliveb,tolerant}!bene!luke!steven                 :
:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:
                                     \-/