From: DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU (The Integral Differential)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: freedom from discrimination
Date: 7 Jan 93 17:19:52 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>
>>
>> No, it doesn't.  That's one of the outrageous lies I referred to.  There
>> is no affirmative action law that dictates that lesser-qualified blacks
>> get jobs in preference to better-qualified whites. I invite you to post
>> the text of one to the list.  There may be some private set-aside
>> programs undertaken voluntarily by private employers, but those are
>> not mandated by Federal law.  And even those would be struck down if
>> they contained such a blanket provision as you outlined.
>>
>> Perhaps "outrageous lies" was a little inflammatory (though I think it
>> fits in certain circumstances).  Think of them as urban legends instead.
>> The myth that minorities get some kind of preference by laws against
>> discrimination is not borne out by the evidence.  The laws do help them
>> get equal treatment (and loss of their own special priveleges is what
>> a lot of these opponents are screaming about), but it is the talents and
>> efforts of minorities and women that help them succeed afterwards.  And
>> that's as it is supposed to be.
>>
>> Best,
>> Peter
>>
>
>   ok, peter. what *does* affirmative action do? apparently my idea
>that it mandates special treatment for blacks/women/etc is incorrect.
>minority set-asides, changing the scores of non-whites on things like
>the gatb, and lowering the requirements for jobs like firefighters so
>more blacks/women/etc qualify are all attempts to make things more
>equal.

        As an example:

        A couple of years ago two black police sergeants were promoted to
leutenant over 14 white police persons who had scored higher on the exam.

        Why?  Because the AA guidelines are vague and merely state that
minorities should be promoted so that equitable distributions of race are
achieved.  Obviously that means that if you are supposed to have "equitable"
numbers, implying 10-12% of overall positions for national averages, that you
must promote minorities *regardless of relative merit* until you meet those
goals, lest the EEOC descend upon you.
        What you have in that case are implied quotas.  Since real numbers
won't work all across the country you get phrases like "equitable
distribution".  What is an employer supposed to think?  Is 5% enough?  10%?
20%?

        Two of the white police people sued, and lost.  They each got 93 on the
tests.  The two that got in because of AA got 70 and 71.  Lower than the other
14 people trying for the position who didn't get it.

        Comments?

>   apparently, judging people by the content of their character and
>their merit in a given situation is out of fashion. i wonder how
>mlk would feel about a government that makes judging people by their
>skin color the bedrock of much public policy.
>rtf

        Swinging the pendulum the other way (granting positions because of
minority race) will simply reverse the problems.

        Merit merit merit.  If you think certain people are disadvantaged in
opportunity because of education, then fight for better education and not lower
standards.

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU