Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!cca!decvax!ittvax!swatt
From: swatt@ittvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.flame,net.politics
Subject: Re: A Flame at Affirmative Action
Message-ID: <768@ittvax.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 4-Jun-83 22:07:31 EDT
Article-I.D.: ittvax.768
Posted: Sat Jun  4 22:07:31 1983
Date-Received: Mon, 6-Jun-83 20:44:37 EDT
References: rabbit.1545
Lines: 74


There were, last I knew, the following agencies concerned with discrimination
in employment:

	Equal Employment Opportunity Commission	 (EEOC)
		EEOC concentrates on violations of Title VII of the 1964
		Civil Rights Act.

	Fair Employment Practices Commission (FEPC) They are more concerned
		with discrimination in promotions, salary, etc.

	Civil Service Commission.  I don't know if they have any AA
		responsibility, but I would think it likely for federal
		employees.
	

There must be others (National Labor Relations Board ??).  The HEW
used to take some AA action on its own;  I don't know what's happened
since the reorganization.  Either one of these agencies or yet another
one worries about college admissions.

One would think with all this federal muscle to push Affirmative Action
that we would make rapid progress.  Milton Freedman says:

	There is a sure-fire way to predict the consequences of
	a government social program adopted to achieve worthy ends.
	Find out what the well-meaning, public-interested persons
	who advocated its adoption expected it to accomplish.  Then
	reverse those expectations.  You will have an accurate
	prediction of actual results.

Does anyone know of any studies on the effectiveness of the AA programs?
It seems we're mostly repeating opinions.  It's hard to conceive of an
objective study these days because the merest suggeston these programs be
abandoned is greeted with the political equivalent of tactical nukes.

It is interesting to think about possible alternate methods to promote
fairer employment of minorities.  Several which occur to me are:

	Tax breaks.  Or possibly an "investment tax credit" similar to
	what is now given when corporations invest in capital
	equipment.  Why not a tax credit for investing in human
	capital?

	Government paid Social Security taxes.  How about a sliding
	scale of federal payments into the S.S. fund for new minority
	hires?  Start off with perhaps the Federal Government paying
	100% of the Employer's contribution, and tapering off to 0%
	after several years.  This would make minority applicants that
	much more attractive for entry-level positions when they lack
	the experience of their non-minority competitors.

Neither of these ways would FORCE anyone to hire minorities, rather they
would seek to make minorities more attractive to offset disadvantages
of their background.

The prosecution approach leads to all kinds of absurdities, becuase the
LAW cannot stop to consider individual circumstances, or local
customs.  An example is the owner of a Japanese resturaunt who hired
only oriental waitresses, to maintain an "authentic atmosphere".  Is
this discrimination?  Under the law it is, but is it really something
we want to eradicate?

An approach based on enhancing the motivation to hire minorities would
probably succeed at least as well as our existing programs, and would
allow anyone who chose to ignore those motivations to do so without
legal penalty.


	- Alan S. Watt

------------------
The ideas presented here are my own and do not reflect the policies of
ITT.  ITT is an equal opportunity employer.