Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ttidcc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!cmcl2!philabs!ttidca!ttidcc!regard From: regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Discrimination and AA Message-ID: <520@ttidcc.UUCP> Date: Tue, 2-Jul-85 14:57:36 EDT Article-I.D.: ttidcc.520 Posted: Tue Jul 2 14:57:36 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 5-Jul-85 06:18:33 EDT Organization: TTI, Santa Monica, CA. Lines: 23 >>We have a handicapped >>programmer on our staff, which probably fulfills some sort of quota, but >>this person was hired because of his skills. >> Adrienne Regard >If so, then why have quotas altogether? You can't defend quotas on the >grounds that they don't make a difference anyway. > Mike Sykora (1) I'm not defending quotas on the grounds that they don't make a difference anyway. I am saying that quotas do not, of themselves, cause poorly prepared people to be hired into work situations. (2) "Why have quotas altogether" is really very simple to answer -- the LAWS guaranteeing the end of discrimination didn't have any effect, since there was no way to ensure compliance. Quotas provide a (imperfect) measure, which is better than none. They also provided a basis for law suits. Put another way: skills or no, I believe that neither the handicapped nor the females, nor the blacks nor the other minorities would be working in traditionally white-male bastions if it were not for EEO _and_ AA. Further, I believe that these people would not have had the opportunity to acquire the skills. Adrienne Regard