Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!decvax!wivax!linus!allegra!eagle!mhuxt!mhuxi!mhuxa!houxm!hocda!spanky!burl!duke!mcnc!ncsu!mauney From: mauney@ncsu.UUCP Newsgroups: net.flame,net.politics Subject: Re: A Flame at Affirmative Action Message-ID: <2198@ncsu.UUCP> Date: Fri, 3-Jun-83 10:56:55 EDT Article-I.D.: ncsu.2198 Posted: Fri Jun 3 10:56:55 1983 Date-Received: Thu, 9-Jun-83 01:33:33 EDT Lines: 63 References: trw-unix.261 It has been argued that Affirmative Action is a Bad Thing, because it is by nature discriminatory, and discrimination is a Bad Thing. I would counter this argument with two questions, (1) Is AAP simply reverse discrimination or is there more to it? (2) What have you got that is better? (1) Consider an open position and two applicants for it. Both are intelligent, articulate, wear neckties of the proper width, and have been loyal employees of the company for years. However, candidate A has had more experience in this phase of the company's operation. On the face of it, candidate A is better qualified, and to give the position to candidate B because of membership in some class (race, sex, fraternity) would be unfair. However, if we ask why candidate A has more experience, we may find something different. Suppose B has never been assigned any duties which would give him the experience needed for promotion, and that this situation is due to class discrimination. When the company comes to its senses in this matter, it is reasonable for the company to "make it up" to candidate B by pushing him along faster than usual. But is it fair to A? Well, for the past few years, A has been enjoying benefits that have not been shared with B, and therefore A has gotten a larger portion. In effect, B has given a loan to A, and will be repaid by getting the new position. The problem with this scenario is that it is too simplistic. We can't expect all personnel decisions to be based on minute analyses of (possible) past discriminations. In some cases, B may have been discriminated against, but A never received any favors, having transferred from a company that was scrupulously fair. And so on. It is not possible for the government to legislate remedies to individual cases of discrimination. The AAP solution says that "class 1 has benefited at the expense of class 2, so class 2 shall now be given a boost, until the matter is evened out. This may cause individual injustices, but the net effect will be beneficial." (If it turns out that AAP does more harm than good, then it will be a failure. I don't believe that is the case, however.) (2) Is there a better solution? Remember that any governmental intervention will mean a bureaucracy that is no better than the one currently in place. Anything without government support will probably not carry enough weight to do any good, unless the oppressed groups start bumping off corporate executives or something. Even if the oppressed groups agreed that color-blindness (and lack of other discrimination) is an acceptable solution, there is the question of how to convince the non-oppressed groups to go along. The obvious solution is to keep statistics, and see how actual numbers compare with the expected. Sound familiar? Outlawing discrimination and letting individuals sue when discriminated against may seem fair, but it isn't. It puts the burden of proof on the people who already have the burden of discrimination. It also pits the individual against the corporation in a battle of lawyers; guess who has the advantage. Waiting for the bigots to die of natural causes is too slow, and not guaranteed to work. I can't say that Affirmative Action is great. But I don't think it's as unfair as some people claim, and I haven't heard any suggestions for anything better. Jon Mauney Computer Science Department North Carolina State University duke!mcnc!ncsu!mauney