X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 6 Jan 1993 08:48:00 EST
From:         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.OIT.UNC.EDU>
Subject:      Re: the quota thing -- how real is it?
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@UCF1VM.CC.UCF.EDU>

> Hi again :)
> Brett's comment about quotas in a recent post got me to wondering -- just
> how real are quotas?  You see, I've participated in a number of job
> searches -- both as the searcher and as a searchee -- and I can't think of
> a single instance of an individual being hired to fulfill a racial/gender
> quota.  In all cases, posts were being filled in 90%+ white male
> departments in public institutions and many noises were made about
> affirmative action.  In all but one case, white males were hired; in all
> but one case (not the same one :)), the candidate with the strongest
> qualifications got the job.
>
> I know this is only one person's experience in a limited number of settings
> -- so I'm asking others out there with more knowledge than I:  how "real"
> are quotas?  How often do poorly-qualified folks get hired to fill quotas?
> Just how big a problem is it?

Well, talk about great timing.  Just last night I happened to come
across the following article.  It doesn't address the question you
raise directly, but the information it contains should give you a
pretty good approximation.  It's by Sheryl McCarthy and was titled
"White Men Have Nothing to Fear"

begin quote

In the work world of the last two decades, the terms "affirmative
action" and "quotas" have come to be used negatively.  They
describe two of the processes through which women and people of
color, primarily blacks, were for the first time allowed in
sizeable numbers into jobs that traditionally had excluded them.

The terms are often used to suggest a win-lose situation.  The
theory is that white men have suffered from this onslaught of
blacks and women, have been routed out of jobs that should
rightfully be theirs and have been displaced by people less
qualified than they.

Hence another negative term, "reverse discrimination," was born,
with white men as its victims.  Another derisive word has been
applied only to black women.  Under the demands of affirmative
action, the argument goes, because black female employees could
be counted by an employer as both a female and a minority hire,
black women were the employees of choice and so benefitted more
from this scheme than anybody else, including black men.

The way these terms have been used has always annoyed me.  I've
been working for a long time, and I've never seen much
affirmative action taking place--with any employers.  I have not
noticed that white men seem to be suffering, except
psychologically, from this invisible onslaught of women and
blacks.  Nor have I seen black women enjoying any advantage
either in being hired or promoted over anyone else.

So a new book by Natalie Sokoloff, a professor of sociology at
John Jay College of Criminal Justice, is refreshing.  "Black
Women and White Women in the Professions" lays to rest the
commonly held myths about who the winners and losers were in the
opening up of the job market that occurred between 1960 and 1980.
In those years blacks and women suddenly had access to jobs that
were previously denied them because there was a huge surge in the
economy and a lot of new jobs were created.  Moreover, new
federal laws required that employers cease discriminating against
these groups, and many social forces were pushing for inclusion.

I've always thought it ironic that white men, who comprise the
largest segment of mediocre and unqualified workers in the
nation, never complain about lowered standards and competence
until women and people of color start being let in.  Then the
hiring or promotion of one or two women, or one or two blacks, is
met with cries that "they're taking over," even though in terms
of numbers and status, white men remain clearly in the
ascendancy.

In her book, Sokoloff dispels many of the myths by taking a look
at what happened in the professional and high-level technical
jobs from 1960-1980.  They are the most prestigious and highly-
paid jobs in the nation, in short, those jobs that people aspire
to.

Here are her conclusions:

1.  White men lost nothing when the job market opened up to
include lots more women and blacks.  Because the number of jobs
expanded so greatly between 1960 and 1980, the job market was
able to absorb the new female and black workers without putting
white men out of work.

Between 1966 and 1979 the proportion of jobs held by white women
and black men multiplied 2 1/2 times, while the proportion of
professional jobs held by black women multiplied by more than 3
1/2 times.  Yet despite a tenfold increase in the number of black
women entering law and medicine, black women still ended up with
only 2.2 percent of all professional jobs in 1979.  This is
because their starting point was so far behind.

Despite the gains of blacks and women in the '60's and '70's, by
1980 white men dominated the professions of medicine and
dentistry, law, the clergy and engineering, holding 85 to 90
percent of these positions.

Not only were white men not displaced, they actually increased
their representation in the more prestigious professions, like
law and medicine, compared to their representation in the total
work force.  Moreover, white men kept the more prestigious,
higher paid jobs within these professions, while women and blacks
filled in at the lower end.

2.  While white women made significant gains in job areas
traditionally dominated by men, they did so often by moving into
jobs that men no longer wanted, because those jobs were being
downgraded in terms of pay or prestige.

3.  Black men, like white women, moved into jobs that white men
no longer wanted, because the pay or prestige was eroding, or
into other jobs that white women no longer wanted because they
had now had access to jobs formerly occupied by white men.  Black
men and women moved in great numbers into newly created,
government-sponsored jobs that were aimed at improving social
conditions for the poor and for blacks--social workers and equal-
employment officers, for example.

4.  Black women moved into jobs that had traditionally been held
by white women, as well as into jobs that were vacated by white
men and black men because the jobs were being downgraded in terms
of pay and prestige.  A few black men and black women moved into
the elite professions formerly dominated by white men, but their
total percentage in those jobs remains minuscule compared to
white men.

For example, while the number of black women lawyers increased
tenfold between 1960 and 1980--from 400 to 4,000--they remained a
tiny fraction of the 471,000 lawyers in the nation.  Comparing
their representation in the legal profession to their
representation in the total workforce, white men dominated the
profession even more in 1980 than they did in 1960.  The same was
true for the elite profession of medicine.

5.  Black women did not take jobs away from black men because
they tend to specialize in different areas of the professions.
Black women were more likely to move into jobs in nursing,
elementary school teaching and accounting, while black men moved
into areas like engineering, painting and sculpting.  Where black
men and women did move into the same professions--law professors,
for example--black men tended to have jobs higher in rank,
prestige and pay than black women.

6.  To the extent that white men lost at all, they lost their
dominance in professions that were declining in prestige--
accounting, designers and the less prestigious college teaching
jobs, for example.

According to Sokoloff, there were no losers caused by the
expansion of jobs and the inclusion of blacks and white women
between 1960 and 1980.  Blacks and women were able to upgrade
their professional standing, while white men maintained their
dominance in the higher-status professions.

In short, the combination of job expansion and greater inclusion
was a win-win situation, without a net loss for anybody.

Now that the country is struggling to come out of a recession,
affirmative action, to the extent that it ever existed, has
ground to a halt.  The question becomes how do we continue the
move into the professions that women and blacks made during the
1960's and 1970's.

Sokoloff believes the solution lies in revitalizing affirmative
action as well as the principle of "comparative worth," which
means we will value the work that is usually done by women in the
same way that we value the work that men do.  Hopefully, the
Clinton administration will move in that direction.  If it does,
one thing is clear.  White men will have nothing to fear.

end quote

Hope that helps.

> Kerry
> who suspects it does happen sometimes, but is beginning to think the q word
> is becoming another red flag.  Or is it red herring?

I think that both terms are appropriate--the red flag to rile people up,
and the red herring to draw their attention away from the truth.  In
some circles, I think it's also being recruited to take the place of the
red menace.

Hey, maybe the redcoats _are_ coming!

Best,
Peter
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU