Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!floyd!vax135!ariel!houti!hogpc!houxq!3723edm
From: 3723edm@houxq.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: supreme court decision
Message-ID: <389@houxq.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 9-Jul-83 22:05:14 EDT
Article-I.D.: houxq.389
Posted: Sat Jul  9 22:05:14 1983
Date-Received: Sun, 10-Jul-83 23:57:19 EDT
Lines: 28

Patrician Collins stated, on the subject of pension plans and life insurance:
	For those who think it would be fair to charge a woman more or
	give her less because STATISTICALLY she is likely to outlive
	her male counterpart:  This amounts to discriminating against an
	individual based on some generalization about members of the group.

I agree that this is a powerful argument for non-discrimination, but NOT
just on the basis of sex.  It applies equally to people in hazardous
occupations, where the chance of death is largely dependent on the skill
of the individual.  Instead of generalizing about all skydivers, mortality
tables should be completely personalized.  Or at the opposite extreme, people
in hazardous occupations should pay the same rates as anybody else.

Non-discrimination should also apply in selecting job candidates.  Why
should a computer science graduate have a better chance for a job than
a high-school dropout? Why not give the two candidates an equal chance
to prove their skills at coding and systems design, instead of generalizing
that computer science graduates make better programmers than dropouts?

If you agree with my arguments, then you're my kind of person.  But if
you think the above arguments are absurd, I put forth this argument:

	the issue of determining what are relevant risk factors or job
	selection criteria are not philosophical, but political, and
	the arguments are strictly emotional.  Therefore, the only
	rational determination of what criteria are suitable for
	determining insurance rates or selecting job candidates are
	experience and empirical evidence.