Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watmum.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!water!watmum!cdshaw
From: cdshaw@watmum.UUCP (Chris Shaw)
Newsgroups: can.politics,net.women
Subject: Discrimination against x
Message-ID: <197@watmum.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 1-Jul-85 12:40:14 EDT
Article-I.D.: watmum.197
Posted: Mon Jul  1 12:40:14 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 2-Jul-85 04:48:17 EDT
References: <893@mnetor.UUCP> <5642@utzoo.UUCP> <896@mnetor.UUCP>
Reply-To: cdshaw@watmum.UUCP (Chris Shaw)
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 58
Xref: watmath can.politics:581 net.women:6185

The opinion that AA for women is misguided has been expressed in this
newsgroup. I'd like just to mention that there are a number of facets to this
discussion which people seem to be missing.

First, there is the famous 63cents-on-the-dollar rate of pay for Ms Average
versus Mr Average. There is an argument made by anti-AA people that this
figure is somehow bogus, and that there are other factors.

The problem is, if we are debating social policy, we have to make clear what
we want and what we don't want. Too often people broadly state "we want 
equality", then go no further to define what they are talking about. Do they
want every man, woman and android earning precisely $12,385.55 per annum, or
do they want equality of opportunity only in  civil service jobs? Or somewhere
in between? It is clear that this is a debate which needs some definitions -- 
a structured approach (debating in Pascal, anyone??).

So here's my rash attempt at definitions.

First off, what do we want ? (i.e., what (at least) are MY goals)
I'd like to see a situation where (given an accurate job description) the
average wage for holders of that job did not differ on basis of sex, religion,
race, etc. In other words, black female plumbers get the same money as white
male plumbers.

I'd also like completely equal opportunity for any job that you care to mention
(modulo qualification). In other words, pick the most qualified person. This
also extends to situations where job applications are handed out to families
of employees only. (I haven't been burned by nepotism, I just think it sucks
as badly as sex-based inequality of opportunity.) Thus, we theoretically
have the situation where an eskimo woman might become president of IBM.
Of course, there aren't many eskimos who might be qualified, but if there were,
then there should be no reason why not.

What I don't want is  the situation where people are promoted or hired for the
sole reason that they are a member of some 'officially downtrodden' group.

This requires some degree of research. One topic which requires more light is
this 65-cents thing. Is it because women are paid less than men in exactly the
same jobs, and are discriminated against in the promotion process? Or is there
some other problem? I suspect it is both. 

For different-pay-for-same-job, something can easily be done 
(pass laws against it). For the passed-over-in-promotion 
situation, a solution doesn't come to mind, other than a typical
union grievance kind of procedure, where the person who feels he is a victim
can complain to some arbitration body, who will do essentially the same as
the person who did the promotion did... find the best-qualified of the 
applicants. Note that the person doing the promotion states his criteria for
qualification, which can be (up to a limit) reasonably arbitrary, and could
be as simple as "the person most suited to working with me". This wouldn't
wash is the guy was promoting assembly line workers, but probably would if
a high-level manager was looking for an strategy-planning assistant.

This is getting long, so I'll shut up.

Chris Shaw    watmath!watmum!cdshaw  or  cdshaw@watmath
University of Waterloo
I was walking down the street one day, when suddenly... my baloney melted !