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