Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ttidcc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!mcnc!philabs!ttidca!ttidcc!regard
From: regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: net.women,net.flame
Subject: AA and guilt
Message-ID: <471@ttidcc.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 11-Jun-85 17:28:33 EDT
Article-I.D.: ttidcc.471
Posted: Tue Jun 11 17:28:33 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 14-Jun-85 00:49:51 EDT
Organization: TTI, Santa Monica, CA.
Lines: 19
Xref: watmath net.women:5775 net.flame:10499


>The point is that AA is a violation of the premise
>"innocent until proven guilty" and that it presumes
>I'm guilty.  (As does Mike Ellis, and someone else who
>calls me a Bozo, and so on.)
>(ihnp4/allegra)!alice!jj

jj,

guilty of what?  AA isn't on trial, and neither are you.  If an employer
ignores the guidelines determined by the govt., they may be found guilty,
but guilty of ignoring the guidelines, period.  "innocent until proven
guilty" is a legal concept.

Now the guidelines were put in place because people WERE guilty of
discrimination, but unless you are an employer who refuses to attempt
to implement the guidelines, you aren't guilty of anything.  We don't
try bigots for bigotry, we try them for something else.  Motives aren't
on trial. Actions (or the lack thereof) are.