From: greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu (Greg Trotter)
Subject: Those darn quotas (was: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC)
Originator: usenet@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 06:23:03 GMT
Organization: Gallifrey - Home of the Timelords

In article <By1H3B.C4q@news.udel.edu> roby@brahms.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
>In article <BxJAAI.88H@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu (Greg Trotter) writes:
>>P.S. You ever notice that companies will put EEO/AA on applications, ads,
>>etc.? Of course, this expands to mean "Equal Opportunity Employer/Affirmative
>>Action." Isn't this contradictory? If you have a quota system in place, it's
>>not equal opportunity.
>
>There is ALWAYS a quota system in place, whether it is stated or not.  
>When it is not stated, we get the "default" quota system.

Not always, but it is a problem. Read on.

>In a society where whites grow up on one side of the highway and 
>blacks grow up on the other side of the highway, it is almost 
>inevitable, that (left to their own choices) white will hire white 
>and black will hire black.  This may well be an unintentional and 
>subconscience act, but it will occur.  Most people spend most of their 
>lives working and playing with people of their own color in modern 
>America.
>
>Most businesses and organizations in our society are dominated by 
>white males, so usually the "default" quota system is "white male 
>preferred".  It is only through conscience effort that this 
>"default" quota can be avoided.  Hence, Affirmative Action, an 
>ALTERNATE quota system to the "default" one, and one that is more 
>likely to guarantee TRUE equal opportunity than pretending there 
>is no "default" quota system, is the best and FAIREST way to go.

Why not abolish quotas and make everyone play on a level playing field?
A company that has to hire a less qualified person just because of their
skin color or gender is a handicapped company. Oops, sorry -- forgot PC.
"Competitively Challenged."

>We get a quota no matter what.  Let us choose a fair one.

"Fair quota" is an oxymoron. Try again.

>P.S.  Do you honestly believe that Thomas was NOT a 
>"quota" appointment?  I found this quite an ironic appointment 
>coming from the "anti-quota" president.  (And as I already explained, 
>"anti-quota" is an oxymoron anyway, since there is always a "default" 
>quota ready to fill in, whenever a quota system is not stated.)

Oh, I'm quite sure Thomas was a quota appointment. I'm sure that he wasn't
the best man for the job. However, I do believe that 1) He was and is
qualified; and 2) Anita Hill notwithstanding, he was a good appointment
from a "political" view.

>P.S.S.  DITTOHEAD sounds real silly.  Glad you are one and I'm not.  :-)
>(And yes, I do watch Rush -- I like watching him contradict 
>himself repeatedly.  E.g., making fun of Reverand Jesse Jackson 
>while at the same time claiming not to.  Not that I am a fan of 
>Jackson, mind you.  He and Rush are birds of a feather on opposite 
>sides of the political fence.)

Same reason I watched Clinton to closely during the campaign. ;-)

I said earlier that we should make everyone compete on a level playing
field. How? We could put some teeth into EOE laws. But I'd prefer a tax
break or other financial incentive. Here's a handy chart on how political
parties treat businesses:

Libertarians:	You will do the Right Thing if we leave you alone.
Republicans:	You will do the Right Thing if we give you financial
			incentive to do so.
Democrats:	You will do the Right Thing under penalty of law.

The Libertarian approach is ideal. The Democrats' approach looks great on
paper, but laws have loopholes. The Republican ideology seems to be more
in line with Real Life(tm). Give someone a reason -- not a threat and not
an obscure concept -- to change, and let them decide. America's about me
making choices that decide my destiny, not Government making those decisions.

							- greg
-- 
Greg Trotter				| Joe Isuzu in '96
Norman, Oklahoma			|     -- Stay the Course!
Internet: greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu	|
Fidonet: 1:147/63 Treknet: 87:6012/8009	| I don't even represent me.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.women,soc.men,alt.politics.homosexuality