Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site mtxinu.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!tektronix!hplabs!intelca!qantel!dual!unisoft!mtxinu!ed
From: ed@mtxinu.UUCP (Ed Gould)
Newsgroups: net.women,net.flame
Subject: Re: My God... did I *really* say *that*?
Message-ID: <403@mtxinu.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 5-Jun-85 04:29:22 EDT
Article-I.D.: mtxinu.403
Posted: Wed Jun  5 04:29:22 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 10-Jun-85 21:10:37 EDT
References: <354@iham1.UUCP> <250@spar.UUCP> <1391@watdcsu.UUCP> <260@spar.UUCP> <1417@watdcsu.UUCP> <1435@watdcsu.UUCP>
Reply-To: ed@mtxinu.UUCP (Ed Gould)
Distribution: net
Organization: mt Xinu, Berkeley, CA
Lines: 20
Xref: watmath net.women:5658 net.flame:10416
Summary: 

In article <1435@watdcsu.UUCP> dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) writes:
>
>A basic requirement for AA to be fair is a *realistic* setting of
>percentage quotas ...
>                                             (I call a realistic
>percentage the percentage that a "color-blind" and "gender-blind"
>employer would end up hiring by accident.  I have a suspicion that AA
>fans favor higher quotas than this.)

Certainly some of us do.  The quotas should be high enough such that
we get to a state where the percentages are those that the "blind"
employer would hire if there were no discrimination *and there never had been*.
If there were enough role models for girls so that they would aspire
to these jobs, then your quota idea would probably be enough.  But there
aren't nearly enough women who are "successful" enough to provide
those models.  Until there are, then we neet to over-balance the scales.

-- 
Ed Gould		    mt Xinu, 2910 Seventh St., Berkeley, CA  94710  USA
{ucbvax,decvax}!mtxinu!ed   +1 415 644 0146