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.