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.