From: roby@brahms.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 01:18:54 GMT

In article <BxK9K7.Mvn@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu (Greg Trotter) writes:
>In article <1992Nov11.074838.8909@nntp.uoregon.edu> eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson) writes:
>>In article <BxJAAI.88H@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu (Greg Trotter) writes:
>>>
>>>Rush's comment was along the lines of: "Since when are qualifications
>>>important to people who support AFFIRMATIVE ACTION?!?"
>>>
>>>Great line. It turned me into a dittohead.
>>>
>>>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.
>>
>>Spoken by a beneficiary of white male privilege. What you call a quota
>>system is the only thing that has gotten people to even look at what are
>>called "qualifications of merit" when they are displayed by white men.
>
>Ooo. Bitter. Actually, I'm a beneficiary of white male and female privilige.
>My parents made (and still do) exactly the same amount.
>
>>As a woman who was on the leading edge of our exit from the pink-collar
>>ghetto, I found affirmative action to be essential to having anyone look at
>>my qualifications.  Before that, they didn't see beyond the fact that I
>>wore a skirt and didn't stand over toilets.
>
>Waitwaitwaitwaitwait. A quota system, *by definition*, has the inherent
>ability to choose people by race/gender/etc. rather than by qualifications.

Her point was, that without an AA quota system, she would have been EXCLUDED
from consideration on the basis of her gender.  This supports my 
contention that there is ALWAYS a quota system.  It's either the 
(often discriminatory) unwritten quota system of the people doing the 
hiring or an AA quota system that is designed to provide TRUE 
equal opportunity.

It is my contention that (left to their own choices) that employers 
will naturally hire those of the same color because we still live 
in a society where residiential areas are largely segregated.
It is my argument that without an AA quota system, then the 
dominant "default" quota system in America would be "white males 
preferred".  (Not the only one, but the dominant one.)

So the question is: is it fairer to let employers use their own 
quota system (often unfair, unintentionally or not) or should we 
use an alternate, fairer quota system.  Either way we get a quota, 
the question is which is better?

>>I graduated with honors in 3 years from an undergraduate program
>>emphasizing pre-law and speech/communications.  I applied for a number of
>>jobs for which these are excellent degrees.  In the first, the Director of
>>Personnel decided that the job he had open was "too good for a woman" so I
>>was told there were no openings.  What he didn't know was that my father
>>was friends with the man who had posted the opening.  The guy got chewed
>>out, but I did not get interviewed--the job was filled by a male who had
>>barely a C average in the 'gimmy' department of a local college.
>
>I fully support legislation insuring Equal Opportunity. If something this
>blatant happens, you should have a recourse. But, if that 'male' had
>exactly the same qualifications as you, he should have a 50% chance of
>getting the job. But that's not what happens under AA.
>
>In fact, I know employers who participate in Affirmitave Action. They
>tell me that when they have two equally qualified candidates, that they
>*have* to go with the minority, even if the WASP male would not skewer the
>proportions -- just to avoid a lawsuit from someone who lost a job on a
>toss of the coin -- or merits, but who feels like they were discriminated
>against.

And if (left to their own choices), most white employers would naturally 
choose the white candidate (familiar over the unknown).  So without AA, 
you still get a quota.  I think, in the long run, an AA quota will be 
fairer to all than an employer-based quota.

In my limited experience on hiring committees, I have the impression 
that cases of applicants with identical qualifications are EXTREMELY RARE.  
These highly touted identical cases are a rare exception and not a 
commonplace occurrance.  The only thing that AA regulations did for the 
committees I have worked on was to make us look at differing races, gender, 
etc as a positive factor rather than a negative factor in our overall hiring 
decisions.  I see that as an improvement over the natural inclination to hire 
people the same as oneself.

Someday, whites and blacks will live together in each neighborhood and 
then we will have the color-blind society that Reagan talked so fondly 
of.  Until that happens, the dominant DEFAULT quota system in America 
will be "white males preferred".  Until that day, alternative quotas, 
such as AA will be necessary in the name of equal opportunity.

NOTE:  I have used whites and blacks as the example here.  What I 
have said also applies to other groups as well.


-- 
Scott W. Roby           *This sentence no verb.*      "No Matter where you go..
Phys.& Astr.Dept.    ///// / /  /  *|*  \  \ \ \\\\\      there you are!"
Univ.of Delaware    ((((( ( (  (  * + *  )  ) ) )))))   -> Buckaroo Banzai
roby@brahms.udel.edu \\\\\ \ \  \  *|*  /  / / /////   *Standard Disclaimer*
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc