Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site mhb5b.UUCP Path: utzoo!decvax!harpo!floyd!vax135!ariel!houti!hogpc!houxm!mhuxa!mhb5b!smb From: smb@mhb5b.UUCP Newsgroups: net.flame Subject: Re: racism and hi-tech Message-ID: <430@mhb5b.UUCP> Date: Fri, 3-Jun-83 13:06:31 EDT Article-I.D.: mhb5b.430 Posted: Fri Jun 3 13:06:31 1983 Date-Received: Wed, 8-Jun-83 12:44:21 EDT References: <109@decvax.UUCP> Organization: Bell Labs, Murray Hill Lines: 63 I confess I'm uncomfortable with the idea of Affirmative Action Programs, but frankly, I don't see much of a choice. Let's look at the positive side of them: a) they encourage awareness of the problem of discrimination. Too many folks insist "it doesn't happen here, only in small Southern towns." Bantha poodoo! b) they force employers and schools to reach out beyond the "old boy network", which tends to perpetuate a stratified society. I'm not claiming, incidentally, that personal referrals involve conscious or even unconscious racism; however, given the existing patterns of association and stratification in our society, a white male is likely to know more white males to recommend, as opposed to blacks, women, etc. c) they remove the incentive to discriminate intentionally. d) they deal with statistical discrimination patterns, as opposed to gross individual acts of discrimination. Many studies have shown that white males earn more, and are promoted more, than comparably- qualified white females or blacks. For example, white male high school dropouts earn more than white female college graduates. I trust we can all agree that a large portion of that difference is due to sexism, be it individual acts or societal patterns? (By "societal patterns", I refer to the unwillingness of many (most?) women to seek out high-paying blue collar jobs, for example.) e) they give people a chance. Lots of folks who are "unqualified" *can* do the job, albeit with some extra training or remedial courses. As a friend of mine remarked a few years ago, "I don't mind if they lower the entrance standards to college -- as long as they don't lower the exit standards". f) they help prevent false stereotyping, by enforcing equal treatment. Recent articles on the net show how prevalent such stereotypes are. (Shall I see only Jewish doctors? Mormon businessmen? Should I go drinking only with Indians?) My mother tells a story about how an employer of hers, after firing a black for embezzling, swore he'd never hire another black, because they were all thieves. She pointed out that he'd made no similar vows about Irishmen a few months earlier, when a similar incident occured. g) they can be used to overturn traditional entrance qualifications that are *not* demonstrably job-related. The most troubling part of Affirmative Action Programs is the quota system that many incorporate. Unfortunately, such are necessary to accomplish some of the goals I outlined above. My main constraint, then, is that the quotas be set at a realistic level, given the total possible applicant pool. For example, there are very few black CS PhDs; there's no way that any company could hire enough to reflect the racial makeup of the country. --Steve P.S. For those who disagree, I'd be curious to hear how you'd solve the problems I mentioned without using an AAP. Pay particular attention to (b) and (d).