Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbatt!cbosgd!ukma!psuvm.bitnet!psuvax1!burdvax!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen From: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) Newsgroups: net.women,net.sci Subject: Re: Why are there so few [female|black] physicists? Message-ID: <1350@psivax.UUCP> Date: Mon, 21-Jul-86 15:28:37 EDT Article-I.D.: psivax.1350 Posted: Mon Jul 21 15:28:37 1986 Date-Received: Wed, 23-Jul-86 03:06:37 EDT References: <638@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU> <343@rtech.UUCP> Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA Lines: 50 Xref: watmath net.women:11479 net.sci:1323 In article <343@rtech.UUCP> jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) writes: >> >> [Dan Green] >> if you are a minority and >> you take a job that you are unqualified for, you not only make yourself >> look bad, you make your race look bad. You get the old "see, I told you >> that we shouldn't have hired that (place your favorite minority here)! " > >I don't think Jeff Winslow was talking about qualifications. Here's an >example that might clarify things. Suppose two people, A and B, are up >for the same job. They are equally qualified. A has been working for the >company for 10 years, B for 1 year. B gets the job. Rightfully, A deserves >the job because of seniority (remember, they are equally qualified). A is >pissed. B is surprised, but not pissed. Oh, by the way, B is a white male, >and A is a black female. Fine, in that situation I would have not qualms about some form of government action. If this kind of problem were the main one attacked by the existing Affirnmative Action program I would have no objection to it! Unfortunately the main situation where AA is applied is where there are fewer qualified minority candidates(due to past inequalities in education and opportunity) and the net result of the quota system applied is that employers are forced to hire less qualified minority persons. If the person responsible for the hiring was prejudiced to begin with this will in fact tend to *confirm* that prejudice not eliminate it. The result is that AA may in fact actually make the problem *worse*, making it a permanent institution rather than a temporary patch until things get better. So what to do? First provide improved *education* opportunities through government grants and the like(we have been doing that at least). Second, provide incentives(in the form of tax rebates or something) for companies which provide training/hiring programs for underpriveledged minorities. Perhaps a massive advertisement campaign, something like many cities are using to combat teenage drug abuse, to educate employers to the problem. And provide recourse (perhaps through civil law) to people victimized as in the above example. There are many things like this that can be done which do not involve promoting the very thing we are trying to eliminate. For example, many parents will punish a child for getting in a fight with a spanking. Child psychologists are now telling us that this actually gives the child the message "it is OK to hit if you are big enough to get away with it". I feel that the current AA program is doing the same thing, it is saying "prejudice is OK if the government allows it". -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen ARPA: ??