Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site kontron.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!pesnta!pertec!kontron!cramer From: cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: (Re:**N) Affirmative Action Message-ID: <259@kontron.UUCP> Date: Fri, 21-Jun-85 14:53:00 EDT Article-I.D.: kontron.259 Posted: Fri Jun 21 14:53:00 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 24-Jun-85 06:43:53 EDT References: <2685@decwrl.UUCP> Organization: Kontron Electronics, Irvine, CA Lines: 100 > >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? > How did she do? One of my associates talked to the hiring manager some time later, and the word was "so-so" --- apparently because they really needed someone more experienced than her. You seem to assume that this blatant racism is acceptable because "he can find a job easily enough". It's still unfair discrmination, anyway you try to make it appear. > >*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). > The major distinction between AA and EEO is that AA involves firm (or at least semi-solid) quotas. "How many Asian females do you have? How many black males? How many Hispanics? Are within our goals?" AA without quotas is called EEO. I argue strenuously with your assertion that there would more discrimination without AA --- society has changed so that it no longer anywhere as racist as it used to be. However, I can't come up with a way to eliminate discrimination anymore than I can eliminate gravity --- it seems at times to be built in to the human species, and the best we can hope for is to allow the free market to make discrimination costly. > With AA, disadvantaged white males get the short end of the stick. But > not as short as minorities would get without it. > This is a debatable point; I would not argue it strongly either way. The objection to AA is moral (discrimination is wrong), and pragmatic (it promotes racism among blue collar workers, a group that is predisposed by socioeconomic status towards racism anyway). > >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 Ghettos are caused by the fact that newly arrived members of any group, coming to a strange environment, tend to live near "their own kind". This was a factor for almost all newly arrived ethnic groups in this country, and was a factor for the large black migrations from the rural South to the urban North in this century. (Remember, Detroit was *less* segregated by race in 1875-1899, than now.) > A. The "honkie" world will never give them a break, and > B. There's always welfare or crime. > To suggest that crime is a response to the lack of economic opportunity is implausible. Perhaps burglary or armed robbery might be argued that way, but a lot of ghetto crime is murder, rape, and assault. There's no economic motivation involved. There are a lot of factors involved with the disproportionate minority involvement in crime: average age of minority populations, perhaps some cultural values acquired during the brutal experience of slavery, perhaps even the quality of the justice system in big cities, where most of the ghettos are located. > AA can help by giving minorities a fair shot. > EEO is a fair shot; AA is not. > Mike Ryan > ARPA: ryan%fremen.DEC@DECWRL.ARPA > UUCP: {decvax,allegra,ihnp4,ucbvax,...}!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-fremen!ryan >