Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!apple!usc!henry.jpl.nasa.gov!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!aero!gazit@lear.cs.duke.edu From: gazit@lear.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) Newsgroups: soc.feminism Subject: Re: Affirmative Action Message-ID: <15685@duke.cs.duke.edu> Date: 28 Sep 89 14:04:04 GMT References: <1989Sep28.023614.10776@rpi.edu> Sender: nadel@aerospace.aero.org Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) Organization: The Piranha Club Lines: 21 Approved: nadel@aerospace.aero.org In article <1989Sep28.023614.10776@rpi.edu> keith@pawl.rpi.edu (Keith D. Weiner) writes: >would argue that the 2 questions are the same, merely variants. For a >person (man) who has the right to spend his money as he sees fit, and >who is a free man may elect to hire based on some standard which is >prejudiced. As a society we decided to put limits on companies and to force them to compete. The anti-trust law is a prime examples, companies are not allowed to fix prices etc. between them. The original EEO law had a similar effect, it forced a company to compete by hiring the *best* candidate, and the society in large benefited from it. AA has the opposite effect because a company can't hire the best candidate any more. The assumption is that if a company prefers men then it reduces competition in the economy, but if a company prefers women then everyone benefits... Hillel gazit@cs.duke.edu When I do it to you it's sexism, when you do it to me it's feminism.