From: roby@brahms.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 02:10:20 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.174145.22132@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> tcanham@kilroy.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Tim Canham) writes:
>In article <1992Nov11.074838.8909@nntp.uoregon.edu> eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson) writes:

  [earlir comments from other poster deleted to save space]

>>Quit your whining over affirmative action, go to class, get decent grades,
>>and grow up.  I am sick of beating you guys of "Merit" and having some lush
>>of a frat boy cry 'affirmative action' because he finally has to compete on
>>a level playing field.  If you want to end affirmative action, work for
>>justice--even when you will not benefit from its application.
>>
>
>This is a fine piece of writing and you should be commended for your fortitude
>and courage, and those who acted the way they did should be removed.  No
>question or argument.  I don't think, however, that you could characterize 
>most of us as "lush of a frat boy".  The complaint and I have also seen it,
>is against the side of affirmative action that pulls in underqualified 
>minorities under an arbitrary quota system, and then holds them to a lower
>standard of productivity because of a fear of retaliation and screams of
>"Racism!" and "Discrimiantion!"  I work for a prestigious company and I am
>proud of the ass-busting effort I made to get here.  I have 3.8+ friends who
>were turned down for it.  Yet I see minorities (a few, not all by any means) 
>who screw around in full sight safe in the knowledge that they are safe.

And if you looked a little harder, you would see the whites who screw 
around also (a few, not all by any means).

>I have no problem competing on an open market on my own merits for jobs
>with anybody, regardless of their race or whatever.  I have never 
>discriminated against anybody, but it angers me that you would be 
>discriminated against because you are a woman, but it also angers me that I
>have an automatic disadvantage because of affirmative action.
         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I think your "automatic disadvantage" is far tinier than you think and 
is easily offset (to me, anyways) by the greater justice of an AA 
quota system over a default (and often unintentionally discriminatory) 
quota system.

Let's compare disadvantages under an extremely simple, but still 
illuminating scenario:

Arguments against AA often mention the case where candidates are equally 
qualified (even though these are actually quite rare).  Let's assume 
180 whites and 20 blacks are equally qualified for the same 100 positions 
in a job run by white employers.

I will assume that in a society where most people grow up working and 
playing with people of their own color, that there is a natural 
tendency for an employer to choose an employee of the same color, 
all other things being equal. 

Without an AA quota system, we get the "default" quota system, where the 
white employer will choose only whites.
So the chance of a white getting the job is: 100/180 = 56%.
The chance of a black getting the job is:      0/20  =  0%.

Now with an AA quota system that says the work force should reflect the 
population, 10 of the 100 jobs are set aside for blacks.
So the chance of a white getting the job is: 90/180 = 50%.
The chance of a black getting the job is:    10/20  = 50%. 

Your "automatic disadvantage" has changed your job chances from 56 to 50%.
(Mine, too.)  I can't see this as a BIG problem.
The "automatic advantage" given the blacks by incorporating an AA quota 
over the old unwritten quota has changed their job chances from 0 to 50%.  

Although this example is extremely simple in concept, the numbers should 
give a reasonably fair idea of how job chances have changed due to 
AA quotas.

It seems to me the second quota system is more fair to more people than 
the first unwritten quota system.  I choose AA for fairness (and I am 
white and male).

>What is the solution?  I guess right now we have a problem with an imperfect
>solution.

Well put.

One place to start (for the long run) is to enforce non-discrimination 
in real estate.  Every year or two, I read a newspaper account of how 
reporters undercover go house-buying with equal credentials.  The houses 
in some neighborhoods are always available for white customers, but the 
same houses have "already been sold" when black customers show up.

If we can't even live together, how do you expect employers to hire, 
on a fair basis, people they don't even want to live with?  I think 
some hiring guidance is necessary in a residentially segregated society.

I think AA quotas offer a *tiny* disadvantage to whites (like me), which 
I am willing to live with, since it also resolves a *huge* disadvantage 
that have been heaped on others through past and present discrimination.
The system may not be perfect, but it's more perfect than people left to 
their own devices.  The greatest good for the greatest number.

I do not think the *tiny* disadvantage suffered by whites under AA is 
a valid argument for restoring the *huge* disadvantage suffered by 
others.



-- 
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*