Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83 based; site hou2g.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!tektronix!uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!houxm!hou2g!scott
From: scott@hou2g.UUCP (Danger Mouse)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Discrimination and Affirmative Action
Message-ID: <513@hou2g.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 19-Jun-85 08:46:28 EDT
Article-I.D.: hou2g.513
Posted: Wed Jun 19 08:46:28 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 23-Jun-85 14:46:25 EDT
References: <806@oddjob.UUCP>
Organization: A Loss For Words
Lines: 65

Cheryl Stewart:

[...many valid assumptions about equality of innate skills among all people...]


->  There being an equal distribution of natural endowment in both sexes
->  and all races, and there being a disproportionately low number of 
->  minorities and women utilizing these natural endowments in their
                                                            ^^ ^^^^^
->  work, simple logic would have it that a disproportionately high
    ^^^^
->  number of minorities and women are undereducated and underemployed
->  given their level of natural endowment.  

I fail to see how women and minorities WHO WORK are underemployed.  Under-
educated, probably, but by my definition, people who are underemployed
don't have jobs.


->                                           Put simply--"that's right,
->  the women are smarter"...than men holding the same jobs.

Run that by me again?  Women with equal natural endowment are smarter?


->  Because women and minorities are undereducated and underemployed
->  considering their natural endowments, it would only make sense
->  that to encourage women and minorities to make the most of their
            ^^^^^^^^^
->  abilities would increase the level of competition for jobs.

I agree completely here.  Encouragement (especially with regard to education)
should be, er, ... encouraged.

->                                But chances are that by automatically
->  giving a job to a minority or a woman who is just as qualified
->  as a white male applicant, the employer is increasing his chances 
->  of getting someone who has more natural ability, and thus insuring
->  a better workforce in the future. 

In this situation, the ONLY possible way to increase the chances of getting
someone with more natural ability, among EQUALLY QUALIFIED applicants, is
to hire BOTH.  Otherwise, the chance is EQUAL.  You seem to say that
women/minorities are better to hire because they have more "untapped"
potential.  What bullshit!  What's the difference between a person 
using 100% of his/her potential and one using 50% who may then live 
up to the "full" 100%?

->                        The government cannot legislate the correct 
->  use of AA because it cannot regulate every aspect of office politics.

Then why is it mandating something it can't control?  (Oh, excuse me. I
forgot.  The gov't CAN control it--through quotas!  What a wonderful idea!)

->  As long as it is handled carefully, AA can be good for the workforce,
->  good for the country, and even build some character in the men that
->  presently must rely on unfair advantages.
                   ^^^^
The most that anyone can safely say is that some white men TAKE ADVANTAGE.
I don't think RELY is correct or fair.  You might as well say women/minorities
have to RELY on AA to get a job.  You want to insult them that way?


				Scott J. Berry