Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site decwrl.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-fremen!ryan From: ryan@fremen.DEC (Mike Ryan DTN 264-8280 MK01-2/H32) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: (Re:**N) Affirmative Action Message-ID: <2685@decwrl.UUCP> Date: Thu, 13-Jun-85 20:20:29 EDT Article-I.D.: decwrl.2685 Posted: Thu Jun 13 20:20:29 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 15-Jun-85 08:59:35 EDT Sender: daemon@decwrl.UUCP Organization: DEC Engineering Network Lines: 108 >position..." is utterly false. I used to work as an employment agent. >One of our clients was a big aerospace company. One of the job orders >we received from them stated, "Because the position is currently held >by a minority female, the position must be filled with same." The >manager wanted an experienced programmer knowledgeable with statistics. >He ended up hiring an Asian woman (through us) over a qualified white >male because he *had* *no* *choice*. Perhaps affirmative action isn't How did she do? She may very well haven risen to the occasion once she was given the chance (no, not because Asians are supposedly harder workers than white Americans - because as a minority woman she has to work harder to get the same consideration, and because if she was under-qualified (you never did say whether she was qualified or not) then she was presented with a major challenge). People do rise to challenges occasionally - if they're only given the chance. If the qualified white male was really so well qualified, I doubt he would have as much trouble finding another job as she would - how long did it take you to place him? How long would it have taken to place her if there were no AA? >*supposed* to do this; to ignore that it does is rather like those >school districts that claimed that segregated school districts were >*supposed* to be equal in quality --- it just didn't quite work out >that way. Good point - the wrong way to implement AA is with firm quotas. "Yes, we'll take a black, a cripple, a woman, and two Jews". That's an example of taking it too far. But it's better than nothing at all. AA does involve discrimination, but less than there would be without it. Unless you can come up with a way to eliminate discrimination, I'll take AA (without quotas, though). With AA, disadvantaged white males get the short end of the stick. But not as short as minorities would get without it. >I hardly claim that the world is perfect, but destroying people's >self respect via AA(and via discrimination, sexism, and >other forms of sheer stupidity) and expecting them to convey a good sense of >self to their offspring is a ridiculous position. >There are many psychological studies of the results of Hopelessness >and Helplessness, where the person learns that their situation and >environment are independant of their behavior. Ghettos, >racial crime and many other >things are clearly indicated as the results of hopelessness. >In order to emiminate these things, one must remove the CAUSE. jj, are you saying AA is the CAUSE of ghettos and crime? That's what it looks like, although I think(I certainly hope) you're only saying it's a major factor. I doubt AA can be considered much of a factor compared to the dual knowledge of ghetto blacks that A. The "honkie" world will never give them a break, and B. There's always welfare or crime. AA can help by giving minorities a fair shot. >The message? TEACH, and hold people responsible for their >own actions. If it is shown that race or sex is an issue >in a given situation, punish the person/persons directly responsible, >not the current employees. Right on! Education is the key. And giving people something for nothing does reduce both their self-respect and their incentive for playing by the rules. However, they should also have assurances that if they do work for somehting, they will get an even break. The most important thing to do in the long run to eliminate discrimination is improve education for the disadvantaged. But what about the people who need help now? >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 Again, right on! Ideally, AA should mean giving the benefit of the doubt to minorities and women, since they haven't had the oppurtunities white males have. As implemented, it should mean when two applicants are *approximately* equally qualified (i.e., neither is obviiously better qualified), the job should go to the one who is female or a minority. I don't think AA should try to make up for the past - the point is to give breaks to the people who need them in the present. Actually, since the problem is now less overt racism than simply inherited poverty (and the less-than-subtle sexism in most school programs), AA shouldnt' be targeted at races and women (which, like it or not, makes it as seen today somewhat racist and sexist), but at those with disadvantaged backgrou ds. Unfortunately, they ar much harder to identify than blacks and women. Anybody have any ideas on how to give disadvantaged *people* a hand? Well, that wasn't as well organized as I'd like, but it's time to logout. I'll be back! Mike Ryan ARPA: ryan%fremen.DEC@DECWRL.ARPA UUCP: {decvax,allegra,ihnp4,ucbvax,...}!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-fremen!ryan When the movie is over and everyone leaves the theatre, the accumulated sound leaves with them. It spreads out across the parking lot to become forever part of the landscape. The film is a gift to the surrounding community. -- D. Byrne