Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 11/03/84 (WLS Mods); site fisher.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!princeton!astrovax!fisher!david
From: david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.women
Subject: Re: Alternative Action
Message-ID: <657@fisher.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 5-Jun-85 16:18:31 EDT
Article-I.D.: fisher.657
Posted: Wed Jun  5 16:18:31 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 6-Jun-85 22:20:04 EDT
References: <1447@watdcsu.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Princeton University Department of Statistics
Lines: 22
Xref: watmath net.politics:9270 net.women:5542

> Somebody made a remark to the effect that you can only stop
> discrimination if you make it impossible for an employer to know the
> race and sex of a job applicant.  This was meant to sound ridiculous, I
> think, but something very much like it *can* be accomplished.
> 
> There is no reason why the person who interviews job applicants has to
> be the same person who makes the decision who to hire.  Let the
> interviewer write up a 'spec sheet' for each applicant in which any
> information as to the applicants race, gender or nationality is
> suppressed.  A decision must be made beforehand as to what information
> is to be included.  Level of education, for example, but not which
> school the applicant studied at, because that would be a clue to the
> applicant's nationality.  Work history might include information as to
> the size of the company the applicant worked for, and the
> responsibilities of the applicant in that company, but could not
> actually identify the company, because that, too, is a clue.  The
> applicant's name, of course, can't be included.

Seems to me this only changes who discriminates; now it'll be the
interviewer, rather than the hirer.
	
					David Rubin