Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site mnetor.UUCP Path: utzoo!utcs!mnetor!clewis From: clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) Newsgroups: net.politics,net.social,net.women,net.flame Subject: Re: Discrimination and Affirmative Action Message-ID: <952@mnetor.UUCP> Date: Fri, 7-Jun-85 11:27:18 EDT Article-I.D.: mnetor.952 Posted: Fri Jun 7 11:27:18 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 7-Jun-85 12:23:52 EDT References: <566@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> <879@mnetor.UUCP> <394@mtxinu.UUCP> Reply-To: clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) Organization: Computer X (CANADA) Ltd., Toronto, Ontario, Canada Lines: 68 Xref: utcs net.politics:9094 net.social:557 net.women:5597 net.flame:10029 Summary: In article <394@mtxinu.UUCP> ed@mtxinu.UUCP (Ed Gould) writes: >In article <879@mnetor.UUCP> clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) writes: >> >>I don't think racial/sexual >>biases are particularly prevalent anymore especially in highly technical >>areas (though handicapped *might* be). > >A study just released by a group at Stanford shows that women in technical >fields make less than men, and hold fewer management positions, by *more* >than the natinal average. In other words, discrimination in the high-tech >world is worse. My own observations seem to yield the same conclusions >about minority races, with the possible exception of Asians, whose >culture predisposes them to work inordinately harder than us honkies. My own observations have shown the opposite. Besides, it takes time for people to move up the corporate ladder. This by itself can explain why there are fewer women in higher levels of business. After all, for example, til about 15 years ago (or was it 25?) IBM fired women when they got married. Even if discrimination COMPLETELY disappeared tomorrow morning, it doesn't mean that 51% of all management would be women by the evening, or next week, or next year, or even next decade. Such movement does NOT happen overnight. But, it IS getting better here. > >> ... >> >>Considering the long way society has come since the '30s and '40s it >>would be far better to let things alone and the problem of discrimination >>will disappear as it has been doing - things have been happening >>without anybody really noticing. > >Things have been happening - maybe without people noticing, but if >so only because they're happening too slowly - only because people >continue to *do* things about it. If we stop actively striving for >equality, then we'll surely degenerate back to where we were - maybe >as far back as the early 19th century and beyond. Remember those times >from your history lessons (you *did* study basic history in school, >didn't you) when people were actually *bought and sold*? I sure don't >want to go back there, nor, I suspect, do you. I don't think it is "too slowly". Equal access provisions (which I support) and individual/group striving are fine and ARE working. Pretty quickly too when you consider how long major social restructuring usually takes. AA goes beyond this and tries to impose changes unrealistically fast. Yes, I know about slavery. It IS something that can be eliminated quickly. But stuffing management with the same proportions as the population, where many of the groups do NOT have appropriate qualifications (yet) just ends up destroying the viability of many companies, and inciting hostility with those people who are qualified but passed over. Sure there are lots of studies that show some group is not yet proportionally represented in some sector of the workplace. We just had a study done on women in the media that showed that they aren't close to full representation. But, 20 years ago there weren't ANY women in the media. 20 years from now it will probably be really close to fair representation (without AA). Trying to force "fair" representation this instant, when the group does not have a "tradition" in a particular sector (so that proportionate numbers of the group are choosing to enter the sector) is unfair to those who have. Besides, would you want to force quotas on areas that are disproportionate by nature? (eg: modelling men's underwear, hockey or football teams). Equal access provides the protection that people are not discriminated against with non-job-related factors. That's sufficient AND fair to everybody. -- Chris Lewis, UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!clewis BELL: (416)-475-8980 ext. 321