Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ginosko!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!ucla-cs!uci-ics!tittle
From: em@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (edward.man)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Discrimination studies?
Message-ID: <8909161954.AA03711@ncar.UCAR.EDU>
Date: 27 Sep 89 18:11:59 GMT
References: <1989Sep8.154533.2108@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu>
Sender: tittle@ics.uci.edu (Cindy Tittle)
Reply-To: em@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (edward.man,ho,)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 57
Approved: tittle@ics.uci.edu

In article <1989Sep8.154533.2108@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu> geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu (Gordon E. Banks) writes:
>In article <57397@aerospace.AERO.ORG> twinsun!uunet!orc.olivetti.com!jan (Jan Parcel) writes:
>>My high school daughter has been given a history project, choose one 
>>of the following statements to prove:
>>	... ... ...
>>
>>        4. Women and minorities now have an advantage in America.
>>
>>The teacher specified that individual bigotry was not to be considered
>>institutional discrimination.
>
> ... ... ... ...
>For example, at the entry level of most institutional hiring, it is certainly 
>a plus to be a woman or even more a minority (women + minority = a double
>hit) and you certainly would have a leg up on another candidate
>with equal qualifications in most places.  But at the level of
>department chairman, it is a different story entirely.  Probably
>this is because at the entry level, when no one knows you from Adam
>(Eve?) bureaucratic hiring procedures bias in favor of affirmative
>action, whereas the upper levels are filled by the hierarchy largely
>from their personal friends, and women and minorities have a social
>disadvantage when it comes to "hobnobbing with the brass" due to
>individual discrimination.

I both agree and disagree with Gordon that minority benefits in entry
level hiring depending on the sort of positions one is talking about.
Various studies have shown that asian students are doing much better
in sciences than their non-Asian counterparts around the world and in
the US of A. So if all we know about an individual at an entry level
position is by his academic record, is it fair to say that an Asian
has the edge for this position because of his academic performance?
I certainly think so. However, I have seen AA committees in organizations
setting quotas for hiring. For example, an organization's current make
up is 15% Asians, and they want to ensure that the Asian percentage
does not slip, so the AA committee ensures future hiring is 15% Asian.
But, if we are talking about major R&D organizations which hire only
the best, and, by academic records, the Asians may constitute more
than 15% of the best. Hence, the quota system hurts the Asians.

Also, some organizations have manditory AA participation requirements.
I think this requirement is stupid because how then can we find out
who discriminates and who don't?! AA has become a means for people
to get promoted (some organizations value AA partition much when
considering promotions). I think the concept of AA is fine, but its
implementation is disastrous.

I believe AA is for everyone, not just minorities. We should make sure
that no one (whether you are black, yellow, pink, white, green, purple,
or orange) should be discrminated against. Discrimination is bad, and
so is reverse discrimination. I say, when hiring, ignore the race, sex,
religion, etc. and consider only one's qualification because the only
thing that matters is can one do the job.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
| The above opinion is mine, and mine only; and it's not for sale. |
| And don't you dare steal it.                                     |
--------------------------------------------------------------------