Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ucsfcgl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!ucbvax!ucsfcgl!arnold
From: arnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Ken Arnold%CGL)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: informed opinions
Message-ID: <563@ucsfcgl.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 3-Jul-85 19:37:16 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucsfcgl.563
Posted: Wed Jul  3 19:37:16 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 5-Jul-85 05:55:07 EDT
References: <2988@hplabsb.UUCP>
Reply-To: arnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Ken Arnold)
Organization: UCSF Computer Graphics Lab
Lines: 39

[eat this and be merry]

In article <2988@hplabsb.UUCP> pc@hplabsb.UUCP writes:
>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).

(I promised myself I'd keep out of this, but I guess I'm going to have
to stop trusting myself.)

I hate to say this, but the number of people who understand this is
small on both sides of the issue.  I was heavily involved in hiring and
firing decisions in an organization of students which was primarily in
favor of AA, and the few people who understood what you say about AA
were constantly fighting the AA supporters about just these issues.  It
was the supporters who insisted that certain spots be filled with a
woman, and so rejected any male applicants.  It was also the supporters
who insisted on setting aside reasonable qualifications in order to
hire underqualified minorities.  The difference between properly
applied AA and discrimination is an extremely fine (if extant) line.

I know that, among the knowledgable AA supporters, you are right.  But
on of the reasons the anti-AA people oppose it is because some
*supporters* make the kinds of assertions you attribute to *opponents*,
which are snatched up and echoed back.  Of course, some of them
generate enough bile without this, but the ignorance you mention is by
no means confined to the anti-AA people.

(This has not generally been true of the postings on the net, but
it is true in the world in general.  Some of AA's worst enemies are
its friends.)

		Ken Arnold