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.