Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site sftri.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!mhuxm!sftig!sftri!mom
From: mom@sftri.UUCP (Mark Modig)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.social,net.women,net.flame
Subject: Re: Re: Discrimination and Affirmative Action
Message-ID: <450@sftri.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 6-Jun-85 00:42:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: sftri.450
Posted: Thu Jun  6 00:42:59 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 7-Jun-85 02:19:54 EDT
References: <566@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP>, <478@hou2g.UUCP> <598@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> <445@sftri.UUCP> <643@whuxl.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Summit N.J.
Lines: 56
Xref: watmath net.politics:9282 net.social:602 net.women:5554 net.flame:10322

> Mark Modig's article reflects some common misconceptions about
> Affirmative Action programs and hiring goals:
> > From Mark Modig: 
> > What the above definition of affirmative action does is impose
> > quotas on a business.  About 51% of your employees must be women,
> > about 49% must be men, (the rest I guess could be anything), and
> > similarly for a racial distribution.  I am assuming that these
> > quotas are based on national figures, as the racial makeup of
> > different areas of the country can be quite disparate.
> > 
> This is *not true*.  Affirmative Action does *not* mean that any employer
> *must* hire 51% women , 11% blacks, and x% other minorities.  It means
> that employers should strive to attain these goals and make progress
> towards attaining them.
>  

That's YOUR definition of what affirmative action is and is not;  if
you read my paragraph CAREFULLY (the above definition...) you will
see I am specifically addressing a definition put forth by someone
else, to wit:


***  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
... etc. (we are asked why this represents more than a fair shot for
    blacks and women.)

My article replied to that question, and I finished by outlining
what I thot was a good AA policy. (No, I don't think that AA <-->
quotas; rather that quotas could be seen as a way to implement an AA
program.)

As far as your reply is concerned, Tim, I would like to ask that you
read more carefully in the future before you claim or imply that I
support a particular view.  There is a definite problem with discrimination
in this country, and one need not go to the exotic lengths of
bringing up the Rockettes to find examples, tho it is a good one.
My dispute centers around the means to solve the problem.  If you
are really interested, I think AA in businesses is an idea that is
very limited because the damage has already been done in large part
thru, for example, inequities in education.  Programs like Head Start
should be vigorously supported.  Pressure should be exerted at all levels
to get poor schools up to par, and to encourage members of
minorities and women to stay in school and to explore their
educational opportunities in all fields.  That solves a big part of
the problem.  The other really big part of the problem is
the discrimination itself.  I am not as certain how to change that, though
education would again have a role to play, but I have already stated
my objections to a quota system as a possible solution.  Vigorous
prosecution of businesses that are truly discriminatory with stiff
penalties are also needed.  There are laws against discrimination on
the books; what is needed now is enforcement.

Mark Modig
sftri!mom