From: greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu (Greg Trotter)
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Originator: usenet@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 06:45:19 GMT
Organization: Gallifrey - Home of the Timelords

In article <By1KzI.CDM@news.udel.edu> roby@brahms.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
>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:
>>>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.

And my point was that I don't know her from Adam. Perhaps she was excluded
because she is female. But, perhaps she was excluded because someone had
better qualifications. Sorry, Eileen, I don't mean to pick on you. I'll
go on the assumption that you are qualified, but to be honest, *I don't
know that,* and that's my point. While I'm sure many qualified people have
been turned down for employment because of race or gender, I'm also sure
that many people who lost out on a basis of qualifications have cried
"racism" or "sexism" and gotten a job or a nice settlement. It's difficult
to prove or disprove those charges in court, and it's costs a company a
lot of money to get there. Especially for small businesses.

But don't worry. Clinton's new tax plan should eliminate small businesses
by taxing them out of existence, so that should't be a problem.

>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.)

OK, we've already covered this.

>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?

OK, I've argued that as well. I'm not resigned to the fact that your
oxymoronic "fair quota" can't be replaced by something better.

>>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.

[yawn] Sorry, I think I've heard this. ;-)

>In my limited experience on hiring committees, I have the impression 
>that cases of applicants with identical qualifications are EXTREMELY RARE.  

Then quotas shouldn't come into play at all. Hire on qualifications, right?
Or does your committee recommend hiring a lower qualified minority over
a more qualified white male? Please explain this.

(And this isn't arrogance, folks. It's hypothetical. I know that the
blade cuts both ways, and that the white male may be the lesser
qualified canidate.)

>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.

Differing races and gender should not be a positive or negative factor. They
shouldn't be a factor at all. See people as people, and not as black, white,
male or female.

>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.

Again: AA and Equal Opportunity are mutually exclusive by definition.

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

Ditto (pun intended)

						- 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.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:61018 misc.legal:20199