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