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!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!pesnta!pertec!kontron!cramer
From: cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Discrimination and Affirmative Action
Message-ID: <219@kontron.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 10-Jun-85 13:34:32 EDT
Article-I.D.: kontron.219
Posted: Mon Jun 10 13:34:32 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 11-Jun-85 08:35:22 EDT
References: <sphinx.566> <338@unc.UUCP> <337@mhuxr.UUCP>
Organization: Kontron Electronics, Irvine, CA
Lines: 108

> The idea is FALSE that Affirmative Action  equals quotas
> 
> Let us look at the *reality* of AA plans. AA is a recognition that merely
> declaring that an employer will not discriminate is not enough. When doors
> have been closed to some for so long, putting up a sign that they are now
> unlocked will not be convincing (remember, the 14th and 15th amendments,
> which outlaw discrimination, did not stop same). An employer needs to
> affirm the intention to not discriminate. In practice, AA is a pledge
> that an employer will actively attempt to *include* members of disadvantaged
> groups in the *pool* of candidates for jobs/promotions.
> 

Let's look at the reality of affirmative action; whatever high minded
theory you may have about it, the *reality* of how it is administered is
that certain private employers cannot hire based on qualifications, but
must hire *solely* on the basis of race, in order to do work for the
government.  Equal Employment Opportunity is a pledge by the employer
that they will try very hard to give *everyone* an equal opportunity at
a job.

> But the private sector is far more important. First because that is where
> the majority of workers are; second because that is where the majority of
> netters are (:-) There are few, if any, private employer AA programs
> that proclaim the intention of hiring X percent of disadvantaged groups,
> and promoting Y of them to senior positions within Z units of time.
> Rather, private AA programs pledge that their *goal* is to integrate
> their work force. As long as progress is being made, neither the government
> nor private organizations representing discriminated against job candidates
> has a prayer of winning a suit aimed at forcing the employer to move
> faster (the definition of progress is subject to disagreement,
> especially when the employer is acting in bad faith) So far, there is
> no discrimination for or against anyone, merely a statement of intent
> to include a representative percentage of members of disadvantaged
> groups in consideration for hiring/promotion.
> 

The *fear* of lawsuits, and the *fear* of losing government contracts
matter a lot more than the lawsuits themselves.  When I working as an
employment agent, I found myself *frequently* running into people who
worked for the big aerospace companies in this area who were, pure and
simple, hired on account of their race.  (Tragically, these same
individuals usually find higher paying jobs with another aerospace 
company, still doing nothing.)

> The concept of representative percentage is based on census figures
> for the area the employer is located in (the definition of an area
> is set by government) The employer attempts to find a number of
> job applicants representative of the population distribution ***for the
> particular skill required for the job***. The presumption is that
> a subset of those applicant proportional to the percentage will be
> found qualified, be hired and in time promoted, thus leading to
> a company whose employee distribution reflects that of the region it is
> located in. The key words here are "goal", "in time", and "progress"
> The assumption is that the employer is acting in good faith,
> and genuinely wants to achieve the stated goal.
> 
> Unfortunately, some act in bad faith. They may hire unqualified people
> and then point to them as proof of the failure of AA~r. They may set
> quotas and then point to their "unfairness". Blaming the concept of
> AA for these implementation flaws is throwing the baby out with the
> bathwater. AA programs by and large work. The growing integration
> of the work force is proof to that. No one should think that employers
> would have integrated on their own. After all, there were laws of various
> strength on the books for almost 100 years, and entrenched discrimination,
> before the advent of AA
> 

"Blaming the concept of AA for these implementation flaws is throwing the
baby out with the bathwater."  You may recall that the Supreme Court
threw out "separate but equal" because from a practical standpoint, it
didn't seem to work out that way, most times.  Similarly with affirmative
action: if the actual implemented policies are racist and discriminatory,
perhaps the idea needs to be re-evaluated.

> Those who complain of reverse discrimination and unfairness probably
> work for companies that have AA programs. Have any of *them* been passed
> over for a job or a promotion in favor of a female, a black or whomever,
> who was less qualified? Can they *prove* the slight? Or is it a reaction
> to increased competition? AA *does not* mandate that the disadvantaged
> be promoted at the expense of white males, but that special efforts
> be made to identify worthy disadvantaged people and include them on
> promotion/hiring candidate lists. Selection is made on the basis
> of qualifications, as always (the employer better be able to give
> some good reason why a qualified female/black is turned down, however)
> One who does not wish to lose out ton AA boosted competitor need
> only be *better* This added requirement for white males is
> offset by that of blacks and females, who must constantly prove
> their worth, who must do twice as well to be considered half as
> good.
> 

I have never lost out on a job because of affirmative action (at least
to my knowledge).  I certainly got screwed when it came to the granting
of scholarships for college.  There were a great many scholarships that
were specifically reserved for blacks and Hispanics --- can you imagine
the uproar if a public institution like my high school had assisted in
administering scholarships that were limited to whites?  (And with good
reason there would be an uproar.)  When it came time for me to go off
to school, the University of California managed to find plenty of money
for scholarships for "minority youth".  In a color-blind environment,
I would have gotten a scholarship also.  In 1973, my parents combined
income was $4700 a year (just below the poverty line); I graduated 28th 
in a graduating class of > 980; my SAT Scores were 700 and 690; and yet 
the people that administered scholarships at UCLA didn't think I needed 
any help.  If race wasn't a factor, I'm not sure who the scholarships 
were going to.

> Marcel Simon