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).