Conference 7.286::digital

    Diversity in the context you use it, is a politically correct term for
    quota's. Do I value quota's? No. Do I think that people should be 
    judged only on performance? Yes.

  Note 3943 contains some valuable discussion on this topic.

  I, for one, believe that, at least here in New England, Digital's
  commitment to diversity is all talk and damnably little action.

  And I'm getting pretty tired of reading notes by White (apparently)
  Guys (certainly) telling us how awful diversity is.

                                   Atlant

    Well, I'm a woman (and probably in the minority :) in this opinion),
    and if you ask me "Diversity" is just the P.C. word of the decade.
    
    For the life of me I can't understand why any person would want to be
    hired just to fill a quota.  I get embarrassed when I know a woman is
    hired who is not the best candidate for the job, I've seen too many
    instances where things just didn't work out.  I would think this type
    of hiring would actually set the "feminist" movement back.  Of course
    I have also seen cases where the job done was just fine.
    
    I guess I'm just a little too laid back for all the NOW organizations.
    I figure, sure XXXX group of people have been discriminated against,
    but can we honestly expect the upper level echelon to turn 50% women,
    50% men (as an example) overnite, as some groups seem to want? 
    
    Just my opinion!

    RE:               <<< Note 3965.6 by GENRAL::WILSON >>>
          
>>    For the life of me I can't understand why any person would want to be
>>    hired just to fill a quota. 
    
         You should not be able to understand because nobody wants that.
    What people want is the ability to even be considered for a position,
    and (regardless of qualifications) this has not been happening for 
    a lot of people who have too great an intensity of tan.
    
                                    Greg

    Perhaps,but there ,s also plenty of unqualified people around just to
    fill a quota.Everybody suffers when unqualified people are hired.I dont
    believe anybody's owed a job.

The statistics in the base note are meaningless in isolation.  To even begin
meaningful discussion, you'd have to know how the local community for each
facility divides into these "diversity" categories, and even that would
not tell you what you'd need to discuss the management population, unless you
think that the people who run this company should be selected due to the
color of their skin rather than their management skills. (Then again, given
the erratic quality of upper management at Digital, perhaps it would be an
improvement. :-))

It also seems to me that the author of the base note equates "valuing 
diversity" to "affirmative action".  Digital does claim to be an AA employer,
and I do know of employees who were given a preference due to their "minority"
status (though this was many years ago - I don't know if it still goes on - 
it has never been an issue in hiring decisions I've been any part of.)

Digital does clearly, to me (and to someone I know who has contracted at
Digital and other places for many years), value diversity.  We have people
"from all walks of life" (this goes beyond the popular ethnic categories) and
the company has made active attempts to foster acceptance among its
employees.

Around here (ZKO), we have difficulty finding ANYONE willing to consider working
for Digital, much less having the "luxury" of choosing based on AA goals.

What would the author of the base note have Digital do differently?

				Steve

    I don't believe you can legislate how people think and feel.  I believe
    laws requiring "diversity" are trying to do just that.  
    
    Just yesterday (or was it this morning) the U.S. Supreme court ruled on
    an Oregon case, and in a 6 to 3 opinion stated that in the U.S. (sorry
    to bore you folks not here) the Public School systems COULD force
    "random" sampling of High School "athletes" for illicit drug use.  Now
    is that valueing differences?  What about non-athletes.  What about
    Teachers and Administrators?  And the list goes on.  
    
    It is a clear and avoidable violation of every American's 4th amendment
    Rights... Yet, the supreme court of this land attempts to take over
    parental authority and decree, without balance or equity and without
    regard for diversity, that our kids will have to give up yet another
    right... 
    
    Diversity should derive from the heart and from the mind... not from
    courts.
    
    Education and clarity of thought would be a start.  
    
    tony

re .8;

This seems to be the currently fashionalbe white-boy gripe. Face it, all races
have their incompetents, and some of them get hired and some of these are slick
enough to get promoted.

You come across an incompetent white male and you say "What a jerk. I wonder
whose nephew he is."

You come across an incompetent African-American or woman and you say "Aha!
Affirmative action doesn't work!"

re .13:

And another thing -- statistics show that the NBA practices blatant height
discrimination.

    
    	These arguements will never be resolved until we enforce strict
    quotas for everything based strictly on race, religion, sex, color
    and creed. Throw in mandated quotas for age, political beliefs, and
    shoe size, and, voila - the perfect solution to everything measurable
    whichever way you want to slice it.
    
    	'Course we tried all that with communism, and look where that got
    us....
    
    
    		the Greyhawk

    
    	Just when I though it was covered. Sorry forgot height
    restrictive...
    
    	Please feel free to add your own as we go along...
    
    
    		the Greyhawk

    
    
    and another thing...
    
    I think we hire too many Germans in the Munich office!!!
    
    
    *****
    The issue of diveristy within a company and diversity in a company's
    recruiting process is dircetly correlated to the market place from
    which it selects its new hires.  If the various minority groups
    referred to earlier are not eager to work for Digital, they will not
    apply and therefore the pool of potential candidates is skewed before
    the first interview even takes place.
    
    So I believe, the diversity issue starts outside Digital.  Namely are
    we doing enough to encourage individuals from minority groups to want
    to work for Digital.
    
    Worrying about diversity once people are inside the company is bolting
    stable doors after the horse has fled.
    
    
    David
    *****
    
    
    
    BTW, there are too many French in Paris as well...
    
    

IMO the first sentence in .12 borders on a racial remark...regardless of the
race of the noter...it is a generalization encompassing all white males using
the term 'white-boys' implying that all of us are enganging in 'fashionable
gripe-ing' relative to affirmative action...and the term 'white-boy' itself is
often used in negative context when referring to white american males and is
considered by some (including me) to be a racial slur...

Maybe the fact that I am white and my last name is white makes me a little
sensitive, though....;^)

-Stephen

Diversity is important for communities, this company and the country as a whole.
Diversity has nothing to do with quotas, and is not a "PC" idea.  It's a worthy
goal that should not be dismissed, as is so common today, with a simple-minded
knee-jerk reaction.  The world is more complex than some talk show hosts would
have you believe.

Until every individual has equal access to education, opportunity and jobs,
there is injustice that some will try to fix with quotas.  I don't know how to
fix past and present injustices without creating other injustices.

Paul

                    Only individuals can value diversity.
               Organizations can only hire individuals who do.
    
                                     ---
    
    My group's current vice president a few years back gathered us all
    together to tell us that our organization was "great" because of "its
    diversity" and everyone was here to blow a day of work to celebrate
    that fact.
    
    It seemed to me to be a tremendously silly thing to say. I went back to
    my office and did what I thought made our organization great: designing
    and developing technically innovative products.
    
                                     ---
    
    Basenoter, you are reaching an intelligent audience of professionals.
    
    Raising out-of-context statistics and mingling several issues of the
    ethnicity of Digital's workplace population as bloody shirts does
    nothing, in my opinion, except to lead others to generate megabytes of
    anecdote, speculation, and possible hostility. I am curious as to what
    "learnings" you expect to gain and what aspects of Digital's corporate
    culture you want to modify.
    
    If you can cite staistics to show that your percentages differ
    significantly from the number of sufficiently educated and capable
    adults in the population, weighted for the regions in which Digital
    has operations, in the United States, then do so.
    
    If you can demonstrate systemic bias across several independent
    organizations within Digital that prevent the advancement of capable
    individuals for reasons other than their qualifications, then do so.
    
    If you can explain how a manager can be measured, and more importantly
    how should he be graded and how he can improve his "score", in a
    situation where after posting a job only twelve white males over the
    age of 40 apply, then do so.
    
    Otherwise...well, I'll just hit Next Unseen
    
                                     ---
    
    For the record, I am a white male, non-smoking, unmarried, skinny,
    long-haired, role-playing gamer and engineer who is until relatively
    recently an apartment dweller. I point out the last six items only
    because they are nice "safe" prejudices that people have victimized me
    as a result of being and that I would expect no "valuing of diversity"
    program to ever worry about. (I'll leave it as an exercise for the
    reader to find the seventh "safe" prejudice implied in that sentence.)

In 1989/1990, in the USA, I was trying to hire internally into a couple of
positions, and attempted vigorously to find qualified candidates who
weren't white men, for several reasons: for one, I thought the group needed
greater diversity in order to be more effective at its mission; for ano-
ther, it fitted with my personal beliefs; and finally, qualified candidates
were hard to find at the best of times, and I didn't want to leave it to
chance.  I told this to Digital's internal recruiters.  In fact, in asking
for *any* qualified candidate, I used the words "... and I don't even care
if it's a mammal".

I didn't just rely on Digital's official mechanisms, but went directly to
some of our self-identified internal women's groups and ethnic minority
interest groups to ask for help finding non-white-guy candidates.  They
were no help.  Indeed, in response to my contact with one of the women's
groups, I later found that they had informally investigated me; apparently
they found it suspicious that a white male manager would specifically seek
out woman candidates.

Incidentally, with the help of Digital's recruiters I did succeed in
interviewing, among others, one Chinese and two women.  One of the women
was qualified in my opinion, but when I offered her a job she declined
because *she* didn't believe she was qualified.

I'd do it the same way today.

___Pete

    So let me get this right.
    
    If I apply to you for a job, you'll reject me on the grounds that I am
    the wrong sex and my skin is the wrong colour?
    
    //atp

    Since there are only 15 million of which (slighly) less than half are 
    male that makes us Dutch males practically a threatened minority. I have 
    therefor taken the liberty of being added to the list.
    
  Dutch male,  
  white male, 
  white female, 
  black male, 
  Asian male, 
  Hispanic male, 
  black female, 
  American Indian male, 
  Asian female, 
  Hispanic female  
  American Indian female?
             
>  I'm open to all feedback. I want to be anonymous because I don't want 
>  my gender, nationality, or sex to influence how you respond to the 
      ~~~~~~                  ~~~
  Gets one thinking, doesn't it? 
                                
    
                                

    well here is number 29                                         
    re .0 you should be a negotiator.Very clever trick to draw the enemys'
    fire by putting up the defense in advance-referring to gender/sex as a
    means of saying 'hey,I know you will attack me on this basis so leave
    off and find something else since I am so super-reasonable'
    Mind you,I think that deep down you want us to insult you...
    
    I don't care if you have green skin frankly,I think the very content of
    the basenote is offensive and incompatible with what we are working
    for(discuss..)
    
    So,you have seen loads of notes along the lines of affrmative
    action-the variations on 'lets hire this terminal alcoholic ex truck
    driver as a brain surgeon since we have none in our brain surgeon ranks'
    You have also seen the lists-I want to be considered to be a VP.How
    many Digital VPs live in my village.NONE!
    I live in France.I am English.I am discriminated against-even by
    white-boy Frogs(racial slur?).If I don't like it I can go somewhere
    else because(now read this slowly and stop writing silly notes):-
    
    YOU CAN'T LEGISLATE AGAINST PREJUDICE!
    
    Write it out 100 times and you will get the hang of it.
    BTW - could the basenote be the revenge of the Salvation noter?

Now that I have my PC back on the net, I'll explain what I can.

The base note was deleted after discussion between Corporate Employee Relations,
my management, and myself.  The stance taken by CER was that the information
in .0 was confidential and not to be published in a notes file.

PLEASE BE AWARE, that for the first time ever, a moderator of this conference
was ordered by his management, to reveal the author of an anonymous note.  As
has been stated in the conference guidelines, there is no P&P right to
anonymous noting.  All of the moderators will do what they can to avoid
identifying the authors of anonymous notes, but we will not risk our badges
to do so.

This note has been write-enabled again.

Bob - Co-moderator DIGITAL

It has been brought to my attention that it is possible that the information
formerly in .0 is available from one or more government agencies.

Bob

    I thought the base note was (1) in bad taste, (2) not very productive and
    (3) not very well written and as such probably earned the right
    to be reproduced exclusively in an extinct alphabet of some Neandertal 
    tribe. 
    
    I am also aware that if these criteria were applied consistently this 
    notes file would suddenly become an archeologists' prime research area.:-)
    
    More importantly though, the base noter requested anonymity for reasons 
    of dispassionate "objectivity" - a dispassionate objectivity that I for 
    one found hard to discern in the note itself - leaving me in doubt as to 
    whether the base noter really had an overriding interest in objectivity 
    or was abusing an anonymity privilege for other reasons - a doubt
    apparently shared by others seeing the request to reveal the author's
    name has been made. 
    
    In my opinion, the boundary that was crossed was this (mis)use of 
    anonymity. Anonymity should be limited, in my view, to discussing a 
    concrete instance of a specific situation which directly 
    affects the base noter and not for generic discussions no matter how 
    controversial. And here's something else that one can't legislate but
    should apply: with anonymity comes a special responsibility to 
    produce a note that is in good taste, productive and well written.
    
    Last (and definitely least) charging that the note crosses the boundaries
    of confidentiality is a humourous aside that I suspect only departments 
    whose names begin with Corporate can think up. I believe the charge
    of Gross Irrelevance would have been far more accurate and damaging.
    
    re roelof
    
    
    
    
    
    

    What's being done in the GMA on 14 July to celebrate the historic
    events of that day?
    
    Enquiring minds being curious...

    Carefull,  they will close down for another holiday!  And pretty soon
    they will close all year long because someplace in the world will be on
    holiday.  And that would be bad, wouldn't it?  :)

    Sadly I'm not eligible for the Valbonne Veterans...
    
    But if we can gather in Lincoln, MA on the 17th I'll be available 
    for an Antony Antiquities Anniversaire celebration.  And how will 
    it be if I bring some Bourgogne Aligote?
    
    Nick

        My sincere apologies for the "white-boy" remark. I guess I was trying
    to be cute and managed, instead, simply to be offensive. So much for
    noting with a bad headache.

    I would still like to make the point that blanket assertions about
    AA leading to "less qualified" people being hired and promoted HAS to
    be hurtful to every minority group member in the company since it casts
    immediate doubt as to their qualifications and abilities.

    Secondly, "less qualified" does not automatically equate to "less
    able". Willingness to work hard and a desire to succeed can outweigh
    formal qualifications. There is such a thing a giving someone a chance
    to prove themselves.

    If it makes any difference, the only thing that keeps me from being a
    "white-boy" is that I'm too darned old.

    \dave :^(

    Nice apology .40!  Though your remark did not warrant one you showed
    real class when someone felt offended.  I might use it next time I say
    something regretable (which is more often than I like to admit).
    
    Meanwhile, this entire note series is silly.  The base noter should
    come out of hiding and issue an apology for the questionable premise, poor
    use of statistics and bad writing.    

re Note 3965.40 by WHOS01::BOWERS:

>     I would still like to make the point that blanket assertions about
>     AA leading to "less qualified" people being hired and promoted HAS to
>     be hurtful to every minority group member in the company since it casts
>     immediate doubt as to their qualifications and abilities.
  
        I would guess that the conservative reply to this (which I do
        not share) is that if such blanket assertions are hurtful
        then the solution is to abolish AA.

        (It's kind of like saying that if calling a person who wears
        eyeglasses "four eyes" is hurtful then the solution is to
        abolish eyeglasses.)

        There will always be crude and rude people in this world but
        the last thing you want to have happen is for their crudeness
        and rudeness to be effective in achieving their ends.

        Bob

    -1 is hopefully the last in a long line of progressively silly
    statements....
    
    How about taking this string to Soapbox?

re Note 3965.45 by DPDMAI::EYSTER:

>     America's got a very rich and diverse heritage and history, with no
>     other major country being a melting pot on the scale we've been. 
>     Unfortunately, we're no longer melting, we're dividing.  People who's
>     great-great-great-great grandfather moved here from Scotland are now
>     "Scottish", for Chrissakes.
  
        I grew up in a family of eastern european immigrants, in
        northern New Jersey (quite a diverse area), and it was just
        as you describe 30-35 years ago.  My uncle couldn't talk
        about a person without mentioning their ethnic origin, and he
        seemed to be typical of his generation.

        People who think that ethnic (and racial) consciousness is a
        new development either have short memories or, far more
        likely, are the younger majority of this nation who are being
        misinformed by some of their elders.

        In my experience, the people around me are far *less*
        racially and ethnically conscious than they were in the
        fifties and sixties.

        Bob

    And in case you think this is a topic only at Digital or that you can't
    have fun with something this serious, a recent Dilbert cartoon reads...

    (one of Dilbert's co-workers)  "Mister Catbert, the company is trying
    to force me to use a different kind of computer. You're the human
    resources director. What are you doing to stop this religious
    persecution??!! WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO 'DIVERSITY'??"

    (Catbert)  "The longer you verk here, diverse it gets...  NEXT."

Scott:

  You've got to stop listening to Rush; he's distorting your
  view of what's racist and what's not.

  Here's what I said:

> And I'm getting pretty tired of reading notes by White (apparently)
> Guys (certainly) telling us how awful diversity is.

  Are you not a guy? Are you not white? Are you not of the conservative
  bent? (Your noting elsewhere reveals you, BTW.) So all in all, you're
  one more proof-point confirming me in my weariness. You and I still
  belong to that population cohort that holds 98% of the cards here in
  New Hampshire and probably 99% of the cards in ZKO.

  You have everything to gain (or retain) by destroying affirmative
  action. We hardly ever hear from the folks who stand to lose with
  its destruction. Why? Because, in our community RIGHT HERE, the
  folks who stand to lose are grossly under-represented today. And
  that takes us back to the now-defunct .0 note.

                                   Atlant

    I think what is really happening here is that a lot of us "white guys"
    are getting the following message..."It's not right to let a persons
    background/colour/diversity affect your thinking or your judgement."
    Therefore we make a decision not to see or acknowledge the difference
    and try to see the world as one large group of individuals. One big
    happy family.
    
    Then one of these non-groups stands up and says "Hey, we're different
    and we're going to stick together!".
    
    It leaves us confused and frustrated. Not appalled or angry...just
    wondering if we got the message right. Don't go beating someone up for
    standing up and asking.
    
    You know that if I started a group called White Programmers of North
    America that the nicest thing I'd be called is a bigot. If someone
    starts up Black Programmers of North America they would be "valueing
    diversity". Can I not value my diversity without looking like the KKK?
    
    I thought the message was to NOT have a double standard.
    
    Rob Wall
    
    re .49
    Atlant, if you New Hampshire White Guys were only 40% of the population
    and had 98% of the cards then I'd say you had an unfair advantage. What
    do you suppose the split is there?
    
    [Sorry for ignoring New Hampshire White Girls but I think you get my
    drift.]
    
    [Also my appologies for the "xxx Programmers of North America" and
    excluding all our NNA (Non-North American) friends.]
    
    
    r

Rob:

> Atlant, if you New Hampshire White Guys were only 40% of the population
> and had 98% of the cards then I'd say you had an unfair advantage. What
> do you suppose the split is there?
    
  NH is about 2% minority (Nashua, the city that is home to ZKO,
  is higher, BTW). My informal survey continues to support the
  idea that the professional population here at ZKO is less than
  1% minority, especially if you narrow "minority" down to African
  American and Hispanic, the two cohorts strongly present in NH's
  "minority" population.


> I think what is really happening here is that a lot of us "white guys"
> are getting the following message..."It's not right to let a persons
> background/colour/diversity affect your thinking or your judgement."
> Therefore we make a decision not to see or acknowledge the difference
> and try to see the world as one large group of individuals. One big
> happy family.
    
  Affirmative Action need not be about quotas. It should be
  about taking affirmative steps to recruit from those groups
  that are under-represented in your present population, however.
  Maybe that means recruiting engineers from a wider range of
  schools and regions than we've been. Do our employment ads
  (and yes, we're running ads) run in the "Atlanta Constitution"
  as well as the "Boston Globe"? Do we recruit at Howard as
  well as MIT? How much hiring do we do via "networking" among
  our current employees and how much do we do via cold submissions
  of resumes?


> ...white organizations...

  You've got to understand the subtle distinction here: If you
  form an organization of, say, software engineers here at ZKO,
  *BY DEFINITION*, it will be an essentially white organization.
  There's no need to put up a sign that says "Whites only" because
  there are only a handful of any African Americans or Hispanics
  who would be eligible.

  On the other hand, if African Americans or Hispanics would like
  to see an organization that reflects themselves, they've got to
  state it, otherwise 99% of the organizations applicants will be
  white. This may not be the case in other parts of the country,
  but it is most certainly the case here in ZKO.

  So in other parts of the country, "EngineerNoir" might be less
  necessary and less proper, but here, it would just be good sense.

  The Society of Women Engineers is another useful example; Women
  are still grossly under-represented in engineering, particularly
  as you move away from software and tech writing and move towards
  hardware engineering of all stripes. Until the gender balance
  shifts a little close to the 48/52% split reflected by the
  population at large, SWE is an entirly appropriate organization.

                                   Atlant

    re -1
    
    This is the second reference I've seen to recording "heritage" on
    applications. At first I thought it was a joke. I gather it's not.
    
    For some reason, I think, in Canada it is illegal to require that sort
    of information. Maybe someone can add to the details. I know I've never
    seen any form where it was asked. Lots will ask if you are a canadian
    citizen, but that means nothing (particularly since it usually includes
    "landed immigrant status").
    
    r
    

Re: .53

It's not a joke - and in fact, is required by the US Government on employment
and mortgage and college loan applications.  As Tex says, if you decline to 
respond, the person taking the application is required to make their best 
guess as to the correct answer.

If you really want a head-scratcher, one of the categories is "Spanish
surnamed".

				Steve

re Note 3965.52 by DPDMAI::EYSTER:

> >  hardware engineering of all stripes. Until the gender balance
> >  shifts a little close to the 48/52% split reflected by the
>     
>     Ain't no way to quantitatively measure this unless we determine the
>     percentage of women, Catholics, Vietnamese, etc., capture the
...
>     I fully support a less racially divided society, but find the current
>     system onerous and unhelpful.  

        But then you have to suggest a fix other than *simply*
        abolishing AA.  Abolishing AA may be a part of the fix, but
        simply throwing up society's hands in despair about doing
        anything to combat racism is just *too* convenient (sarcasm
        intended) for the majority.  Of course, since it is the
        majority, that just may be how the story plays out.

        However, I remember a time when our society was
        more generous with its concern for the problems of the
        minorities within it.

        Bob

"Spanish-surnamed" is how they lump together Hispanics of various skin tones.
It has the unintended side-effect of conferring putative ethnicity on adoptees,
wives who adopt their husband's surname, etc.

    
    	After reading the past 15, or so, notes I am becoming even more
    convinced that the only thing government can do effectively is to
    complicate everything to the point that only extremism becomes an
    acceptable condition.
    
    	Maybe Newt is *really* on to something.
    
    		the Greyhawk

re Note 3965.59 by POBOX::CORSON:

>     	After reading the past 15, or so, notes I am becoming even more
>     convinced that the only thing government can do effectively is to
>     complicate everything to the point that only extremism becomes an
>     acceptable condition.
>     
>     	Maybe Newt is *really* on to something.
  
        Of course an alternative interpretation is that *IF* (and I
        agree that that's a big "if") a government program is
        effective in alleviating (even partially) a long-standing
        social problem, there will be powerful forces brought to bear
        by the vested interests to stop that program by any means
        possible.  

        Of *course* Newt is onto something.

        Bob

    or should that read...
    
    Newt is ON something....
    
    rj

    My cut on AA is that it is intended to change fundamental thought
    processes.  
    
    I'm a minority, a chicano with a jewish last name, I like AA because it
    forces people to objectively evaluate a person's abilities. I have seen 
    many a chicano ignored or passed over because the white
    boss/advisor/...  had a  good understanding of what white guys could do
    and a poor understanding of what chicanos could do.  The problem also
    applies to chicano bosses with white underlings.
    
    Why does the above problem occur?  Well, part of the problem is the
    culture mismatch.  The everyday banter, which is a way of communicating
    your abilities, between supervisors and supervisees is more open
    between peoples of the same culture and less so between peoples of
    different cultures.  Thus, one feels more comfortable with the
    abilities of people which have a good rapport with you.
    
    AA forces one to get past this communication barrier factor and justify why 
    one party was favored over the other.  
    
    What I find that is unfortunate is that I hear many anecdotes regarding
    how affirmative action is abused but I hear no commentary about the
    many people it benefited because it enabled them to join mainstream
    work environments and thus asimilate themselves.
    
    Mis dos centavos
    
    David Glaser

    Not that this comment will be very popular, but.....
    
    Every noter and Ron, and person, I might add, is prejudiced in one way
    or another.  Some more, some less.  Some are prejudiced about race,
    some about social or economic class, some about whether or not one
    enjoys sweatbreads.  To deny this is to be dishonest with ourselves.
    
    The solution lies in individual character. 
    
    What we would all like to have happen is someone (read Government) come
    in, wave a magic wand and make the whole mess go away.  But it is
    drastically naive to think that the government can or should fix this 
    problem.  You're talking about legislating attitudes here, and that
    just ain't gonna happen.
    
    Don't cry about quota's, get involved in your community to work towards
    a celebration of cultures and the synergy that they can create when the
    best of each works toward common goals.  You are the government, you
    are the corporation.  It's your job.
    
    I'll get down off the soap box now.
    
    gc
                                             
    

    re .58;
    
    "Hispanic surnamed" was truly a headache when I was involved with EEO
    reporting. You correctly point out how it incorrectly includes spouses.
    It also causes problems the other way - we had a Latina executive at my
    last place who was married to a guy named Schlansky - The EEO police
    gave us endless grief over her being classified as "Hispanic".
    
    The "Asian or Pacific Island" category also leads to some strange
    groupings. We had 3rd-generation Chinese-Americans with  B-School PhDs
    in the same category as the Vietnamese working the production lines in
    East Texas.
    
    Finally, Native American was virtually a voluntary category. Anyone who
    identified themselves as a "Native American" had to be counted as such.
    One comedian suggested we could clear up a lot of our EEO problems by
    having the entire Executive Committee volunteer to be "Native
    Americans".
    
    
    A fine example of a bureacratic mess.
    
    \dave

    re: .64
    
    Tripe???
    
    If it don't make it move, I won't eat it.
    
    gc

    > Finally, Native American was virtually a voluntary category. Anyone who
    > identified themselves as a "Native American" had to be counted as such.
    
    Gee, I was born in the US and consider it my native country.  Doesn't
    this make me a Native American?  (One of the reasons why the forms I
    see lately don't use Natvie American.  Instead they use some other
    words to identify which the group in question.)
    
                                        August G. Reinig

    
>        But then you have to suggest a fix other than *simply*
>        abolishing AA.  Abolishing AA may be a part of the fix, but
>        simply throwing up society's hands in despair about doing
>        anything to combat racism is just *too* convenient (sarcasm
>        intended) for the majority.  Of course, since it is the
>        majority, that just may be how the story plays out.

    AA and EEO are not equivelent sets of laws.  
    
    One, EEO, outlaws racism and sexism (at least in theory), and allows
    suits to be filed to force firms/organizations to start treating all
    people fairly.  It is against the law for Digital to discriminate
    against blacks and women because of EEO ... this has nothing to do with
    AA. 
    
    One, AA, takes proactive steps to fix the inequalities.  These range
    from seeking applicants (going to Gold's gym to find female firewomen
    applciants) ... to trying to fix outcomes (gender biasing tests so
    enough women score high enough to become a fire fighter).
    
    I doubt many people argue with attempts to attract applicants.  It's
    the rigging of the selections that sets people off.
    
    I have two personal tales of woe ... one is being told as a non-vet,
    non-diasabled, white male it was impossible for me to score high enough
    on the civil service exam to even get a chance to apply for a job because
    the minimum cut-off was 102 or 104 (on a scale of 100) ... blacks,
    women, vets, disabled were given "extra points" and hence tested over
    100 ... somehow being told white males need not apply seems like a
    strange way to up hold the spirit of EEO.
    
    Greg
    
    

    Affirmative Action is an interesting things.  I have had a manager at
    Digital who said that he "saw the same reality" as those who consider
    terrorism against whites to be a good idea.

    I've had a manager at Digital who didn't want me in his delivery unit
    because he wanted to further the career of someone with the same ethnic
    origin as himself.  The fact that the customer had given this person a
    chance and the person failed was of no consequence to the manager.  The
    fact that I was able to convice the customer to pay 2-3 times what they
    were paying for other (non-Digital) consultants didn't matter.  I was
    the wrong ethnic origin for this manager.

    I appologize to the proponents of Affirmative Action, but it is merely
    a shield for promoting racism and bigotry.  Racism and sexism should
    not be tollerated, let alone encouraged, regardless of the fancy titles
    we hang on them.  When you differntiate based on race or gender, then
    you discriminate based on race or gender. And I'm sorry, but that is
    wrong.

    -- Dave

>    Tripe???
>    
>    If it don't make it move, I won't eat it.
    
    Ah, but tripe is involved with movements...

    re: .72
    
    Touche~
    
    gc

    What does tripe do?

    re .64
    
    >    Newt (who my jury is still out on) did make the comment that having
    >    AA programs for the underprivileged or poor would be fine, but not
    >    race-based.  I think it's a point.  How to implement it, I don't
    >    know.
    
    
    Maybe if he were to reverse his TAX relief plan, that might be a start.
    
    rj/

    Huh?
    
    gc

    What does tripe do?

re Note 3965.65 by WHOS01::BOWERS:

>     A fine example of a bureacratic mess.
  
        Why is it a mess?  It is a mess only if you assume that the
        answers to such questions must always be right to be useful.

        These questions never were designed to tag individuals
        according to race or ethnicity -- they are intended to
        accumulate aggregate numbers to be used as guides -- and not
        the only guides -- in implementing policy. 

        Which of you doesn't dress according to the weather forecast
        for the day?  You are relying upon a bureaucracy that makes a
        significant percentage of error all the time.  Why do you do
        it?  You do it because it is better than knowing nothing at
        all about the weather.

        Bob

re Note 3965.71 by SWAM1::FLATMAN_DA:

>     Racism and sexism should
>     not be tollerated, let alone encouraged, regardless of the fancy titles
>     we hang on them.  When you differntiate based on race or gender, then
>     you discriminate based on race or gender. And I'm sorry, but that is
>     wrong.

        OK -- let's get down to a practical example.  Let's say that
        you're the new VP of Employment (Personnel?  Human Resources?
        -- whatever) at Digital.

        A couple of questions:

        - how do you even know if your company -- or parts of it --
        is discriminating when it hires? 

        - would you be concerned about the manager who simply hires
        white males because they always seem a little better suited,
        all other things being equal?  (I'm talking about a person
        who in no way is conscious of discrimination, but in whom
        subconscious comfort factors play some part in his
        decisions.)

        -  what directions would you give to your direct reports (who
        presumably manage the hiring practices of some significant
        portions of the company)?  Is it simply enough to say "Don't
        discriminate"?

        Bob

    re .80
    
    In situ, digest.

   > What does tripe do?
    
    It digests (re .83) because when it is where is should be and is alive,
    it is a stomach.  
    
                                    August

re Note 3965.85 by DPDMAI::EYSTER:

        Look -- people do get killed, and major financial losses
        occur (including lost jobs), due to inaccurate weather
        forecasting.  Errors in weather reports cause a lot more than
        getting wet.

        And if you could get off the "government is the problem"
        fixation for a moment, you might realize that there are some
        other problems out there, including societal problems.  Yes,
        society is a mess, and no the problems of society didn't all
        start during the last 40 years as a result of government
        actions.

        We need basic information on society, including information
        on race and employment, as much as we need basic information
        on atmospheric phenomena.  Instead of ridiculing the efforts
        to gather this information, how about suggesting ways to
        *improve* it?

        Bob

 >   These are the same people that brought us Somoza,
 >   Marcos, Viet Nam, harmless Agent Orange, the Bay of Pigs, the
 >   "temporary Income Tax Act", Dan Quayle, nationwide Health Care Reform,
 >   eradicated the Drug Problem, Manuel Noriega on the CIA payroll, Jesse
 >   Helms, the Gramm-Rudman balanced budget...
  
    Dan?

Re: racial/ethnic identity check-off boxes

I am of mixed background myself.  I find the boxes simplistic and annoying to
fill out.  BUT, the boxes do not present any problems for the vast majority of
the people in the US, the information they yield is statistically useful, and
they are simple and inexpensive to implement.  I'd prefer something better, but
I'm willing to put up with them for the sake of the government's efforts at
monitoring discrimination.

Self-identification is significantly better than requiring rigid rules, as was
done in South Africa under apartheid, to determine racial categories.  The
horror stories about people being "told" that they are or are not Hispanic,
white, black, or Native American, are presumably a very small portion of the
total picture.

						Brian

    
>        - how do you even know if your company -- or parts of it --
>        is discriminating when it hires? 

    EEO requirements indicate a need to know the make-up of your work force
    ... otherwise you will lose every EEO case brought forward.  If you
    know the make-up you know situations that need investigation.  This
    question has nothing to do with AA.
    
    
  >      - would you be concerned about the manager who simply hires
  >      white males because they always seem a little better suited,
  >      all other things being equal?  (I'm talking about a person
  >      who in no way is conscious of discrimination, but in whom
 >       subconscious comfort factors play some part in his
 >       decisions.)

    You should be worried because your company is breaking the law if this
    is true ... you will lose EEO cases.  Once again has nothing to do with
    AA.
    
    
 >       -  what directions would you give to your direct reports (who
 >       presumably manage the hiring practices of some significant
 >       portions of the company)?  Is it simply enough to say "Don't
 >       discriminate"?

  If a manager shows a pattern of discrimination I would first confront the
    problem and if that did not work either remove them from personnel
    decisions or can them (depending on intent).  Once again nothing to do
    with AA.  
    
    From a company stand point I would ensure I get a wide range of
    *candidates* (be sure to recruit at Howard, Wellesley, etc).  There are
    two separate problems ... #1 get a varied applicant pool ... #2 ensure
    the selection process is as unbiased as possible.
    
    Greg
    

re Note 3965.89 by MROA::YANNEKIS:

        Please answer -- rather than duck -- the questions.

        I did not preface my questions "answer the following
        questions only if they have something to do with AA".

        How WOULD you know whether your company as a whole or an
        individual hiring manager was discriminating on race or
        ethnicity?

        What policies would you establish and enforce to prevent or
        rectify such discrimination?


>   If a manager shows a pattern of discrimination I would first confront the
>     problem and if that did not work either remove them from personnel
>     decisions or can them (depending on intent).  
  
        But how would you know?  How would Digital know?  (This is a
        practical, in the trenches, question!  Can anyone answer it
        with a practical suggestion?)

        Bob

>    *NO ONE* should be refused employment based on skin color, sex, etc.

	So, what do you reckon to Hugh Grant's chances of being
	refused future employment because of sex ?

re Note 3965.91 by DPDMAI::EYSTER:

>     Anyone feeling they were discriminated against due to ethnicity (we
>     never had *one*, by the by) would have had those sheets made available. 
>     If they were non-Caucasian, scored low, and felt they should have
>     scored high, it would've been EEOC time, I guess.  In any event, we
>     hired the most competent out of the pool and wound up by law of
>     averages down here with a fairly decent mix.
  
        Wouldn't it be rather limiting to say that employment
        decisions must be always be based upon entirely objective and
        quantifiable criteria -- that one could never choose a
        candidate on gut feel, or promise?

        (I think it would be rather sad that if, in order to
        eliminate undesirable subjective criteria in hiring, that all
        subjective judgment were eliminated -- I know that I
        certainly wouldn't want always to be forced to hire the
        person who scored highest on some a priori checklist.)

        And what about the hiring manager who gets only high-scoring
        candidates, black and white, but always chooses the same
        color?  Is that person discriminating in a way that you, as
        VP of Hiring at Digital, should be concerned about?

        Is there nothing else that a company like Digital could do,
        proactively, to reduce the likelihood of a suit on a claim of
        discrimination?   We just have to let it happen in order to
        discover when we're discriminating?  Is there anything we can
        do defensively to demonstrate the EEOC or a court that we are
        probably *not* discriminating?

        What if Digital's goal was somewhat more noble than just to
        avoid lawsuits -- what if we really wanted to avoid
        discrimination *on principle*?  How do we know if our many
        individuals involved in hiring decisions are discriminating?

        What if we really believed that a diverse workforce was good
        business?  What would we do then?  (Or is it just plain
        stupid to believe that?)

        Bob

    RE: .82

>                    -< congratulations on your promotion! >-

    If you were attempting to be sarcastic, you should know that electronic
    media isn't very good about conveying the proper nuances.  And the
    "joke" is even less humorous due to the fact that one could argue that
    the manager who tried to prevent me from joining his unit delibertly
    lost paper work my prior manager had filled out in order to stiff me
    out of a raise (and if my promotion had been 6 months later than it
    was, he would have stiffed me out of that to).

    If it was meant as sarcasm, please add smiley ;^) faces at a minimum so
    that we may give you the benefit of the doubt.

>        OK -- let's get down to a practical example.  Let's say that
>        you're the new VP of Employment (Personnel?  Human Resources?
>        -- whatever) at Digital.
>
>        A couple of questions:
>
>        - how do you even know if your company -- or parts of it --
>        is discriminating when it hires?

    If you're just looking at paper, you can't.  Paper will never be able
    to map to reality.  Either forms will not be all inclusive enough or
    they will be sufficiently long that the entire system will be bogged
    down in paper-work (or the long forms will be filled out in a manner to
    simply satisfy the person the form is being sent to).  In any event,
    forms will never provide you the answer.

    If you're willing to sink the time, energy, and money to really answer
    the question, then one option is to send in actors/shells to job
    interviews with managers when they have an opening.  From a statistical
    stand-point, I don't know how many times the manager would have to pick
    your white male shell before you could brand her/him as discriminating
    (or for that matter how many times in a row they would have to pick
    African American women).  Once certainly would not be enough; when you
    flip a coin, it occassionally will turn up heads.

    In the form an an antidotal answer, a bean counter (who had spent too
    much time in the New England snow) visited a while back.  He stated
    that our group had a "proper" mix of people at the managerial level,
    but we were short of females at the non-management level.  What the
    bean counter (and his forms) failed to take into account was that just
    prior to his arrival, a large percentage of the women chose to change
    career paths.  I don't remember how all of them were distributed, but
    at least 2 went into sales, 1 into financial consulting, and at least 1
    took the mommy track.  <sarcasm on> I guess management should have
    refused to allow any of the transfers (or resignations) in order to
    preserve the "proper mix". ;^) <sarcasm off>

>        - would you be concerned about the manager who simply hires
>        white males because they always seem a little better suited,
>        all other things being equal?  (I'm talking about a person
>        who in no way is conscious of discrimination, but in whom
>        subconscious comfort factors play some part in his
>        decisions.)

    If a manager only hires white males (all other things being equal),
    then they are a candidate for the "shell" test.

    Editorial note:  Why is it that you're only worried about managers that
    hire white males?  Why is it you aren't concerned about going after the
    manager who admited in this note stream that he was actively trying to
    hire anyone that wasn't white-male (all other things being equal or
    not), and thereby admited to discriminating against while-males?  Or is
    the "Equal" in EEO just for show?  Are non-white, non-males more equal
    than others in your EEO equations?

>        -  what directions would you give to your direct reports (who
>       presumably manage the hiring practices of some significant
>       portions of the company)?  Is it simply enough to say "Don't
>       discriminate"?
>

    If one were willing to implement the "shell" test and ensured that
    their direct reports understood the shell test, it probably would sort
    itself out.


    Now Bob, if you will kindly answer a few questions that I have:
        1.  Why is it that you are willing to let slide people who have
            admited to discriminating based on gender and race (as long as
            the gender is male and the race is white)?
        2.  Why is it that an African-American manager at Digital is able
            to publicly endorse those that advocate terrorism against
            someone based on their skin color?  (It was in a relatively
            popular Digital notes conference.)
        3.  Would you be concerned about a manager that simply hires
            non-white males or hires women because they always seem a
            little better suited, all other things being equal?  (Note:
            The person may or may not be conscious of the comfort factors
            that play into her/his decisions.)
        4.  Do you consider discrimination against an individual because of
            the group affliation you can pigeon hole her/him in justifable
            in order to "make-up" for (potential) past discriminations
            against a different individual?  Do two wrongs make a right?

    I know you don't mean to Bob, but so far it sounds like you are
    discriminating based on race and gender.  It just happens to be against
    white males.  I'll repeat what I said in a prior note, discrimination
    against anyone based on race or gender is wrong.  Sexism, racism, and
    bigotry are wrong, regardless of the sex or race of the bigots
    involved.

    -- Dave

    P.S.  An African-American discriminating against African-Americans is
    no better than an European-American discriminating against
    African-Americans is no better than an European-American discriminating
    against European-Americans.

re Note 3965.94 by SWAM1::FLATMAN_DA:

>     RE: .82
> 
> >                    -< congratulations on your promotion! >-
> 
>     If you were attempting to be sarcastic, you should know that electronic
>     media isn't very good about conveying the proper nuances. 

        It wasn't meant to be sarcastic.  In the context of the note
        for which it was the title:  "you have just been
        (hypothetically) named Digital's VP for Hiring -- what do you
        do?"

        (Sheesh -- so many chips, so many shoulders, so little time!)

> >        OK -- let's get down to a practical example.  Let's say that
> >        you're the new VP of Employment 


>     Editorial note:  Why is it that you're only worried about managers that
>     hire white males?  

        It was a hypothetical situation -- I could have easily
        suggested a different one -- it's the same question to me.  I
        think that my note would have been rather tedious and long if
        I had repeated the question for all possible variants. :-)


>         1.  Why is it that you are willing to let slide people who have
>             admited to discriminating based on gender and race (as long as
>             the gender is male and the race is white)?
  
        I'm not sure what you mean, exactly, by "let slide", but if
        it means what I think it might mean, the answer is "I'm not
        willing."


>         3.  Would you be concerned about a manager that simply hires
>             non-white males or hires women because they always seem a
>             little better suited, all other things being equal?  (Note:
>             The person may or may not be conscious of the comfort factors
>             that play into her/his decisions.)
  
        Absolutely not -- it's the same case (with different
        particulars) as one of the hypothetical cases I did give. 
        What would you as Digital VP or hiring do to detect this? 
        What would you do to correct it?


>     I know you don't mean to Bob, but so far it sounds like you are
>     discriminating based on race and gender.  

        How the heck did you get that from what I wrote?  Would I be
        fair to infer from your writing that you are in favor of
        discrimination against non-whites and women?  Of course not! 
        Give me the same break!

        Bob

    My, my...you guys sure do agree loudly.
    
    gc  ;)

>>         1.  Why is it that you are willing to let slide people who have
>>             admited to discriminating based on gender and race (as long as
>>             the gender is male and the race is white)?
>  
>        I'm not sure what you mean, exactly, by "let slide", but if
>        it means what I think it might mean, the answer is "I'm not
>        willing."

    I was referring to .24 by Pete Kaiser where he admitted to actively
    discriminating against white males.  I don't expect you to respond to
    every note in this stream, but I found (find?) it interesting which
    situations you were silent on (.24's discrimination) and which
    situations you think should be investigated.
    
>>         3.  Would you be concerned about a manager that simply hires
>>             non-white males or hires women because they always seem a
>>             little better suited, all other things being equal?  (Note:
>>             The person may or may not be conscious of the comfort factors
>>             that play into her/his decisions.)
>  
>        Absolutely not -- it's the same case (with different ...

    I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you meant to say
    "absolutely yes".

    The key phrase is "all other things being equal".  No amount of paper
    work, forms, or little check-boxes is ever going to reflect "all other
    things being equal."  If you think so, you are just fooling youself.

>        What would you as Digital VP or hiring do to detect this? 
>        What would you do to correct it?

    I thought that I already answered these questions.

    -- Dave

re Note 3965.97 by SWAM1::FLATMAN_DA:

>     The key phrase is "all other things being equal".  No amount of paper
>     work, forms, or little check-boxes is ever going to reflect "all other
>     things being equal."  If you think so, you are just fooling youself.

        If it is "fooling myself" to think that some useful measures
        are practical, then perhaps I am a fool.  I guess that I'm
        not willing to give up on the problem as unknowable and
        unmeasurable in principle.  It seems that so much useful
        information is gathered every day using "paperwork, forms,
        or little check-boxes" that I would be quite amazed that in
        this one particular area none of that is possible.

        (As the Church Lady would say:  "How Conveeeeenient!")


> >        What would you as Digital VP or hiring do to detect this? 
> >        What would you do to correct it?
> 
>     I thought that I already answered these questions.

        (I'm hoping others have suggestions, as well.)

        Yes, you did, and I do agree that sending "shells" (as you
        call them) to test hiring managers by pretending to be
        applicants may be part of a comprehensive solution.  But
        would it be practical to apply this corporate-wide as the
        only test for discrimination?  Would it even be possible to
        apply such a test for discrimination in promotion, for
        example?

        To raise a related question:  if you were in a country whose
        policy was to outlaw such discrimination, would you likewise
        agree that what the government should do is send "shells"
        throughout the land to test for violations?  Would you find
        this more reasonable than simply asking for certain
        record-keeping?

    
>        Please answer -- rather than duck -- the questions.
>
>        I did not preface my questions "answer the following
>        questions only if they have something to do with AA".
    
    I do not believe I ducked any question.  You did not preface your
    questions with those words but I entered this conversation in response
    to other notes with comments like ...  "if AA is outlawed what will you do
    about a company that will only hire whites" ... hence my references to
    AA.
    
    
>        How WOULD you know whether your company as a whole or an
>        individual hiring manager was discriminating on race or
>        ethnicity?

    As I mentioned in .89 I would know the make-up of my workforce.  Which
    implies I would ask (or guess) each applicant and employee to "label"
    themself.  As much as I dislike the need to "label" I like the EEO
    mechanism for atttacking problems and this requires tracking the
    population.  I would do this stressing that the information would not
    be used in the hiring process but to evaluate the results of the hiring
    process to look for possible biases.
       
    
>     What policies would you establish and enforce to prevent or
>        rectify such discrimination?

    Which discrimmination?  There are a million possible issues each with
    their own solution.  I named two ... if a particular manager is a
    problem I would go after them.  If my applicant pool was skewed I would
    actively seek out applicants from the under represented groups ... like
    go to Howard University if not very many blacks were applying.  Name
    another specific issue and I'll name another specifc solution.
    
     
>>   If a manager shows a pattern of discrimination I would first confront the
>>     problem and if that did not work either remove them from personnel
>>     decisions or can them (depending on intent).  
>  
>        But how would you know?  How would Digital know?  (This is a
>        practical, in the trenches, question!  Can anyone answer it
>        with a practical suggestion?)
    
 Track hiring decisions and apply the EEO standards.  I do not know them
    exactly but I would assume statistical signifigance tests are done on
    aberations from the expected mix.  I would also survey applicants who
    were accepted and rejected about the process.
    
    Greg
    

    
    One other thing I would do ...
    
    I would do some research and discover and *publish* what the candidate
    pool population mix is as well as my firm's current mix.
    
    For example, I often here how few women VPs there are but what I don't
    know is how many I would expect. Digital places a premium on technical
    backgrounds (math, science, engineering) and most VPs are at least
    45-50 years old.  What percentage of that cohort group are women
    (technical folks over 45-50 years old) ... I do not know .. and I'd like
    to know ... and I'd guess the number is 5-10% ... if true than,
    although this sounds crazy, if 5-10% of the technical VPs are women
    than a firm is doing a good job of promoting women in those ranks.
    
    I'd love to know if I should be pissed, annoyed, happy, or estatic when
    I look around the halls of Digital.
    
    Greg
    
    
    

    Anyone have a good recipe for Tripe?

I can't let .97 ("Pete Kaiser ... admitted to actively discriminating
against white males"): I did no such thing.  Anyone who thinks so should go
back and read .24 again to see what it *DOES* say, not what someone else
*CLAIMS* it says, for reasons that escape me.

Hint for the casual reader: I was writing about trying vigorously to
enlarge the pool of qualified candidates, not to exclude anyone.  The point
seems to have escaped some people, and I speculate why.  (Perhaps because
of my clumsy writing?)  But I'm certain I said nothing about discriminating
AGAINST anyone, and any suggestion to the contrary is pernicious.

___Pete

    
>    If y'all gotta have someone else tell ya, methinks you're in trouble
>    already, compadre.
    
    Different strokes for different folks.  So Tex, if you checked it out and
    found out 20% of Digital's "technical" VPs were women what would you
    intuition tell you?  That it stinks because it's not near 50% .. or that
    if these VPs are not 12% black that also stinks? 
    
    Just curious,
    Greg                                  

    With the recent attention on .24, I went back and read it.  The
    key thing is that Pete says he set out to *find* *qualified*
    non-white-male candidates.  Assuming that it was his attention to then
    put them into a pool with qualified white male candidates and pick the
    most qualified person (and I read nothing to the contrary), that seems
    a laudable effort (EEO properly applied), even to an AA opponent like me.
    
    If he had said he set out to *hire* qualified non-white-males, that
    would be different -- but that's not what he said.
    
    -Mark

    
>>    Different strokes for different folks.  So Tex, if you checked it out and
>>    found out 20% of Digital's "technical" VPs were women what would you
>>    intuition tell you?  That it stinks because it's not near 50% .. or that
>>    if these VPs are not 12% black that also stinks? 
>    
>    Aw, hell, I re-read the above 5 times and I'm still lost.  My comment
>    was that "if you're relying on someone else to tell you whether you
>    should be happy, you're in trouble".
    
    Tex, my last comment also.  My initial reaction would be very positive
    if I saw something like 50% women in jobs at all levels of Digital and
    something like 10-15% blacks in jobs at all levels of Digital.  
    Because those results would indicate the selection process (given no AA
    hiring) is probably pretty fair.  However I know this initial reaction
    is quite flawed and I do not have the knowledge of how to adjust ..
    that is why I want to know more.  
    
    I know that the percentage of blacks in the greater Boston are is lower
    than average so I would not be surprised if Digital's GMS black
    population is lower than average .. but I do not know how much it is. 
    
    I would guess that Boston's percentage of professional women is higher
    than the national average so I'd expect Digital to have more
    professional women ...but I don't know how much more.
    
    Statements referencing the percentage of the "x" population talking
    about natioanl averages covering all ages can be incredibly misleading
    when talking about jobs like VPs which address a cohort group of the
    population down by age and background.  Given my ignorance of the
    demographics of these cohort group I know my initial reaction often
    runs counter to the actual performance ... I therefore seek out
    additional information so I can speak from a position of knowledge.
    
    Greg
    
    
    

    This note (which, if I get my wish, will be the last note in this
    series for me) is in direct response to private mail threatening libel
    action if I don't re-read .24 and then make a public appology.
    
    I have re-read .24 -- at least 3 times since receiving the private
    mail.  And I have a fault in my inference engine, or in my
    understanding of the English language; or in the way I draw
    conclusions.  For this I offer a true and honest public appology to
    Pete Kaiser for my complete lack of understanding of what he wrote or
    of what he meant.  I publicly appologize for any and all comments that
    I made that were an out-growth of my misunderstanding.  And I publicly
    appologize for sharing my misunderstandings with the rest of the noting
    community and for any disperssions that I may have cast in Pete
    Kaiser's direction.
    
    
    For my own education, so that I may not have such misunderstandings in
    the future, I would like to know how to parse .24.
    
>         <<< HUMANE::DISK$CONFERENCES:[NOTES$LIBRARY]DIGITAL.NOTE;1 >>>
>                        -< The Digital way of working >-
>================================================================================
>Note 3965.24                 Do we value Diversity??                   24 of 113
>DELOS::KAISER                                        26 lines  29-JUN-1995 04:24
>                            -< A true little story >-
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>In 1989/1990, in the USA, I was trying to hire internally into a couple of
>positions, and attempted vigorously to find qualified candidates who
>weren't white men, for several reasons: for one, I thought the group needed
>greater diversity in order to be more effective at its mission; for ano-
    
    My faulty inference engine (for which I profoundly do appologize)
    concluded that a non-(white man) was wanted for the position.  This
    faulty conclusion was derived from "group needed greater diversity" and
    "candidates who weren't white men".  I realize now that I did not
    interpret these phrases correctly.
    
    For my own education (and in an attempt to reprogram my faulty
    inference engine), what (if any) conclusions should have been reached
    at this point?
    
>ther, it fitted with my personal beliefs; and finally, qualified candidates
    
    My faulty inference engine (for which I profoundly do appologize)
    incorrectly concluded that the person was acting upon a personal value
    system.
    
    For my own education (and in an attempt to reprogram my faulty
    inference engine), what (if any) conclusions should have been reached
    at this point?
    
>were hard to find at the best of times, and I didn't want to leave it to
>chance.  I told this to Digital's internal recruiters.  In fact, in asking
    
    At this point my faulty inference engine (for which I profoundly do
    appologize) concluded that "there may or may not have been white males
    applying for the job which may or may not have been qualified for the
    position. (insufficient data)"
    
    It also concluded that "a manager finds it hard to find qualified
    people in general (cross-reference against internal inference engine
    database agrees, finding qualified/reliable people is usually a
    hard thing to do)".
    
>for *any* qualified candidate, I used the words "... and I don't even care
>if it's a mammal".
    
    The first 5 times through, my faulty parser (for which I profoundly do
    appologize) missed the "*any*".  (A request for a new parser has been
    made.  Supposedly someone is going to YACC one up by next week.)

>I didn't just rely on Digital's official mechanisms, but went directly to
>some of our self-identified internal women's groups and ethnic minority
>interest groups to ask for help finding non-white-guy candidates.  They
    
    My faulty parser (for which I profoundly do appologize) tripped on the
    "non-white-guys".  My faulty inference engine (for which I do
    profoundly appologize) concluded "colloquialism, not a slur, ignore it
    and go on."
    
>were no help.  Indeed, in response to my contact with one of the women's
>groups, I later found that they had informally investigated me; apparently
>they found it suspicious that a white male manager would specifically seek
>out woman candidates.
    
    My faulty parser (for which I profoundly do appologize) kicked this bit
    over to my warped sense of humor (which is way beyond the ability to
    appologize for) which concluded "boy, there's irony for you."  Parser
    picked up humor output and said "strike 'boy', could be deragtory,
    leave sentence as <there's irony for you>"
    
>
>Incidentally, with the help of Digital's recruiters I did succeed in
>interviewing, among others, one Chinese and two women.  One of the women
>was qualified in my opinion, but when I offered her a job she declined
>because *she* didn't believe she was qualified.
>
>I'd do it the same way today.
> 
>  --Pete

        Re .114:

    	Dave, did someone really threaten legal action?  I'm sorry to hear
    that.  Just for my protection, I copied .24.  That way I have an
    untainted copy.  I agree that it appeared biased against White Males.
    That may or may not have been the intent, but that's the way it came
    across.  Your analysis and (inference engine) seems to be the same
    model as mine.  I guess I'm now a candidate for legal action.  WELL
    COME AND GET ME!
    	I've been reading this topic with much interest, since I am a White
    Male who has been discriminated against which cost me a business.  I
    don't complain about it, I just live with it and do the best I can.
    	In My Opinion, .24 has STATED he was SPECIFICALLY looking for NON
    WHITE MALE candidates.  That rubs me the wrong way.  We should be
    looking for as many QUALIFIED candidates as we can, leaving RACE, SEX
    and personal feelings out.  The odds are that if only QUALIFICATIONS
    are sought, then a proportional mix of people with those qualifications
    will be found.  The idea that we have to look under rocks to find
    certain types of qualified people is ridiculous.  It is my
    responsibility as a person seeking employment to be where recruiters
    can find me.  If they don't find me, it is my fault.  If they do find
    me, and say that I'm the wrong SEX or the wrong COLOR, then we have a
    problem of discrimination.  IMO .24 sought to find a specific Gender
    and exclude a specific RACE.  Maybe thats not the case, but thats the
    way it was written...  Anyway, .24 should have been looking for
    Qualifications only, and making sure that the position openings were
    well known, IMO.

    Jim Morton

    okay,  I've got some tripe...,  what do i cook it with?  

    Mark,
    	Be a Man and eat it RAW! :-)
    
    Jim Morton

	You want to *eat* it?

	Gosh, just reading through it was enough for me. :-(

	Now, where is the dessert note?

/Chris.

>    Mark,
>    	Be a Man and eat it RAW! :-)
>    
>    Jim Morton
    
    That's assuming you've got the stomach for it of course... :-)

    I profoundly apologize for the previous note and will be keeping a
    copy of it for possible future libel protection.
    
    I apologize to the apologizers and the potential libelees for _this_
    note and lest my not so subtle sarcasm be somehow missed: methinks
    its time for the apologizers and apologees, the potential libellers
    and potential libellees, the unintentional insulters and insultees to
    collectively lighten up.
    
    re roelof

    ...we should all warmly applaud Mike for the wonderful work he
    has been doing for his local library. I myself have just recently
    joined the National Readers Association also...

>    	In My Opinion, .24 has STATED he was SPECIFICALLY looking for NON
>    WHITE MALE candidates.  That rubs me the wrong way.  We should be
>    looking for as many QUALIFIED candidates as we can, leaving RACE, SEX
>    and personal feelings out.  The odds are that if only QUALIFICATIONS
>    are sought, then a proportional mix of people with those qualifications
>    will be found.  The idea that we have to look under rocks to find
>    certain types of qualified people is ridiculous.  It is my
>    responsibility as a person seeking employment to be where recruiters
>    can find me.  If they don't find me, it is my fault. 
    
    To me this issue is at the heart of many inconsistancies and major
    opportunities.  
    
    Many folks say each job should be filled with the best person for the
    job. I don't think many folks who have a financial stake in Digital
    really believe that (and I believe they should not!).  To achieve this goal
    we would need to consider every person on earth qualified for the job. 
    That would be unbelievable expensive and time consuming ... all job
    hunts involve picking sufficient candidates from a subset candidate pool ...
    it is the only reasonable approach.
    
    Given we only consider a subset of the qualified candidates then when
    searching for suffcient candidates the remaining questions are how to
    contact candidates and the implications on the candidate pool such
    contact plans create.  
    
    For example, I got my first job at Digital from an ad in the Boston
    globe.  I was told that they found over 250 qualified candidates from
    that ad so that was the only place they advertised tht job.  It was a
    very efficient job search.  It also virtually ensured that the
    applicant pool from blacks would be quite small as the black population
    in Boston is relatively small.  The ad probably reached a reasonable
    mix by gender given the mix of professioanls in the Boston area. 
    
    If it were my company I would assure that jobs were posted in environment
    where a reasonable number of black candidates saw the ad.  This does not
    necessarily mean exclusively black.  I might be sure to post ads in an
    Atlanta or Baltimore paper also.  This would open to all, increase the
    quality of the overall candidate pool, and almost assurardly increase
    the number of black applicants .. and yes it would cost more.  I would
    also track that these non-Boston ads yielded enough employees to
    warrant the additional expense.
                                                                            
            
>     If they do find
>    me, and say that I'm the wrong SEX or the wrong COLOR, then we have a
>    problem of discrimination.  
    
    I couldn't agree more
    
    
    Greg
    

    Mr. Moderator,
    I expect all of these notes in this file to be preserved with no
    deletetions. I am presently in Federal District Court sueing Digital
    Equip. Corp. for Discrimination based on Gender. I will notify, in
    writing, to Digital`s attorny`s that all of these notes be used in
    Joint Discovery.
    
    Thank you and regards. 

Given the previous reply, I have write-locked this topic.

Bob - Co-moderator DIGITAL