Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1     9/27/83; site hplabsb.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtunh!mtung!mtunf!ariel!vax135!petsd!moncol!pesnta!hplabsb!pc
From: pc@hplabsb.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: informed opinions
Message-ID: <2988@hplabsb.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 25-Jun-85 18:28:02 EDT
Article-I.D.: hplabsb.2988
Posted: Tue Jun 25 18:28:02 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 28-Jun-85 01:30:55 EDT
Organization: Hewlett Packard Labs, Palo Alto CA
Lines: 41

I know this may appear a rash notion, but... could people posting articles
attempt to check their own preconceived notions against facts before letting
loose?
	Have those posting about Affirmative Action knowledge of the area?
Most of the stuff I've seen (and you guys can really shovel a barrel full!) is
ill informed & wide of the facts.  A few gentle souls have tried to point out
the goals and the methods of AA (which do not include trying to hire 51% female
EEs nor promoting a minority who has less aptitude than another WASP candidate).
	It is of sociological interest to hear the rantings about people's
perceptions of AA/EEO, but if we're going to get anywhere, we need a fewer myths
and more facts.  Perhaps we could even reach some agreement (well, I can dream,
can't I?) if we understood the AA goals & methods.

	AA has as a goal, the representation of people (measured by their
	"attributes": race/gender/age/creed) in proportion to their
	availability and ability to perform job functions.  That is, if 10%
	of the available pool of software scientists is female, a reasonable-
	sized staff of software scientists might be expected to have ABOUT 
	10% women.  [While this implies a fall from privileged status for 
	young white males, it doesn't discriminate against them.]

	In the process, it wants to be sure (among other things) that 
	(1) the qualifications for the job are based on what's needed for the
	job-- not to include qualifications which are not really necessary and
	do coincidentally exclude minorities, women, or people over 40 yrs old,
	(2) that people who have the aptitude but perhaps not all of the
	training (due to past discrimination) are not excluded from
	consideration, and (3) that candidates are not overlooked (e.g.,
	by recruiters who habituate the WASP Citadels but who neglect the
	more enthically rich environs).

NOTE: for those who pride themselves on trying to find holes in the words,
it is a shallow satisfaction.  Try the challenge of understanding the SPIRIT
of the words.  Then you'll have something to be proud of.

						Patricia Collins


-- 

					{ucbvax|duke|hao|allegra}!hplabs!pc