Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    	Please explain what you mean by "to right past wrongs."
    
    	Are you talking about leveling out opportunities for people
    	in our culture, or are you talking about making someone
    	"pay" for things done in the past.
    
    	The two concepts are drastically different.
    

    	By the way, if you ARE talking about "leveling out opportunities
    	for everyone," then the concept of "how far back should we go"
    	has no meaning whatsoever.
    
    	The concept of "leveling out opportunities for everyone" can
    	only apply to today (although it was indeed caused by things
    	that happened in the past.)
    
    	So, again, please explain your meaning.  Perhaps your ideas
    	about "righting past wrongs" include none of these two concepts.
    
    	I'd really like to know.
    

    
    	I was referring to the phrase you mentioned in
    	note 316.26 about "correcting for past injustices".
    
    						Hank

    	RE:  .3
    
    	Yes, Hank, but my whole point in bringing up that phrase was
    	to point out that there is a possible/quite_likely misunderstanding
    	that goes along with it.  
    
    	You jumped all over me when I suggested what that phrase
    	meant to you, so now I am asking you.
    
    	What does that phrase mean to you?
    
    	Thank you.

    
    	I don't know how much  more simply I can express this.
    	The phrase "correcting past injustices" within the context
    	of a discussion on AA means to me that discrimination is being
    	employed as a means of correcting discrimination that took place
    	in the past. And as I stated, I do not support discrimination
    	under any pretense. 
    
    	Think of all of the injustice and discrimination that
    	has taken place in this country during its' history.
    	The native american indian; no-one has been treated worse.
    	The Black american population; I'm ashamed to think of how they
    	were treated, segregation, treated as property.
    	Women; second class citizens through much of our history, hell, 
    	       they had to fight for the vote.
    	Irish americans; remember the signs "Irish need not apply"?
    	Italian americans: My grandfather came over on the boat, called
    			a wop, greaseball, denied jobs and opportunities.
    	Japanese americans; interned during the war, lost their freedom
    				and their possesions.
    	Gay and lesbian americans; suffer persecution daily for who they
    	are.
    	Spanish americans, Puerto Rican americans, god, the list goes
    	on and on and on. SO very many people have (and do) suffer(ed)
    	at one time or another. How in the world do we correct all of these 
    	past and present injustices?
    
    	I just don't know if we can without causing more.
    	
    	It just seems to me that all we can do is guarantee that every
    	single american will be afforded an equal opportunity, a level
    	playing field, the right to be treated equally with everyone else,
    	from here on out and that discrimination will no longer be
    	tolerated. 
    
    	P.s. I do hope that I haven't offended anyone with what I have
    	written above. Tell you the truth, I have more questions
    	than answers regarding this topic.
    						Hank

    	RE:  .5
    
    	Ok, Hank, so you are suggesting that we just say that we won't
    	tolerate discrimination anymore (and, I gather that you would
    	like to see this said without any policy like AA to back it
    	up.)  Please correct me if I am wrong about this.
    
    	Ok, consider the following possible scenerio:
    
    	Similar to the experiment I spoke about in 316.26, a manager hires
    	two white males over two women when the next two reqs come up
    	-- the first man gets the job because he has experience instead
    	of just education, and the other man gets the job because he
    	has an education instead of just experience (and the mgr feels totally
    	satisfied in his mind that he was unbiased, and merely hired
    	the two most qualified candidates.)
    
    	Then, the following year, he does the same thing (and whatever
    	women or racial minorities that he USED to have working for
   	him slowly go off to other jobs.)  So, for the next 5 years
    	or so, he only has white men working in that particular position.
    
    	When one of the men he is grooming for a manager slot starts
    	to watch him, it unconsciously becomes the norm that white men
    	are hired for this job (so now, we have a second generation
    	manager who seems to find that all the "best candidates" are
    	white male.)  And he tells *him*self that he was not biased
    	at all.  He feels that he was simply choosing the best person
    	for each opening (not realizing that he had an unconscious
    	tendency to think that white males "looked better" to him
    	than anyone else.)
    
    	Multiply this by millions of employers (and remember that since
    	we are on the "honor system" without AA, it is up to each
    	individual manager and/or company to decide if the hiring managers
    	hired white men because they were better or because white men
    	just ALWAYS seem to "look better" to those managers than anyone
    	else.)
    
    	Pretty soon, with white males once again having so many of the
    	best jobs, it becomes easier and easier to hire only white men
    	because they will end up getting all the best experience from
    	having been favored in hiring over the past several years.
    
    	Once again, women and minorities are locked out (and the hiring
    	managers believe to their deepest of hearts that they hired
    	everyone fairly and completely without bias, although every
    	single candidate they ever seem to like happens to be a white
    	male.)
    
    	How would you solve a situation like that?  Can you honestly
    	tell me that someone could stop hiring bias towards white males
    	even if s/he didn't even realize that s/he had it?

    	RE:  .5
    
    	Oh, by the way, in response to your question earlier about "how
    	far back do we go..."
    
    	It is an indisputable fact that this country was founded without
    	including women as among the citizens who were allowed to vote.
    	That fact is part of my heritage as a woman.
    
    	It is also a fact that the Women's Movement (to get women the
    	vote) started around 1848, yet it wasn't until 1920 that women
    	were able to vote (and in some European countries, women waited
    	a couple of decades LONGER than that.)
    
    	I don't hold any currently living person responsible for that
    	state of affairs (back in history) nor do I want anyone to do
    	anything to make it up to me that my sex had to go through that.
    
    	I just want women (along with other minorities) to have the
    	chance to walk on some sort of level ground with the majority
    	when it comes to employment/educational/economic opportunities.
    
    	If you can suggest a way to do this so that well-meaning people
    	who don't realize that they have hiring biases will have some
    	sort of formal guidelines that will help them learn about their
    	biases (and at the same time, keep minorities from dying out
    	at the workplace completely,) then I'm all for it.
    
    	While I trust *YOU* (and many others that I have known) not
    	to keep minorities out of the workplace again, my trust doesn't
    	extend to our entire culture yet (especially when I keep seeing
    	racial and sexual prejudice flourishing today even WITH the
    	presence of programs like AA.)
    
    	The promise that everyone (meaning every employer in our culture)
    	would just magically stop all workplace discrimination forever
    	because we all just say it will be so is not enough for me right
    	now.  I don't believe that a promise like that could be kept
    	without someone keeping an eye on it.
    
    	Maybe someday, but not just yet.  (That's my opinion.)

    I think that I am hearing a rather pessimistic view of the business
    world.  There are at least 2 ways to view this situation.  One way
    has already been stated - the extremely pessimistic view.  Another
    way would be the extremely optimistic view of saying that no bias
    will ever occur no matter what.  Humans being as they are, I would
    profess that we will probably be somewhere in the middle.  I am
    certain that at times there will be discrimination against a particular
    person, whether that be a woman, black, white, or whatever.  After
    all, how many times has a woman manager hired a woman over a man
    because of the same reasons stated earlier?
    
    I think what needs to be done is to establish as much anti-bias
    in the workplace as possible.  Maybe hiring could be done by more
    than one person.  After all, isn't this why personnel is supposed
    to be involved?  To help minimize bias?
    
    Yes, there will be subjective feelings as a result of interviews.
     It is here that people should try to show their strong points and
    minimize their weak points.
    
    So, while humans are far from being perfect, I think that in the
    end we will do what is right.  I don't believe that we will ever
    see the world go back to the practices of past generations.  Too
    much has happened since then.  Also, I don't believe that JUST BECAUSE
    A PERSON IS A WHITE MALE HE SHOULD BE ASSUMED TO BE BIASED.  For
    that attitude, I feel sorry about the people who espouse it.
    
    Ed..
    

    	RE:  .8
    
    	Ed, I feel sorry for you if you keeping seeing that assumption
    	where it doesn't exist.
    
    	Honestly.
    

    
    All in all, I guess I *am* rather pessimistic about the business
    world when it comes to talk of reform or self-correction.  Not
    because "business is inherently bad" or "the system doesn't work"
    but because business *is* people.  People tend to act in terms
    of their perceived self interest.  People also have a strong tendency
    to seek out homogeneity.  The perceptual inertia is so great among
    large groups of people, that it often takes either long periods of
    time, or drastic social dislocations, to change the way a group acts.
    I don't know if AA is the best solution, but I'd hate to see it
    abandoned without something more substantial than vague plans of
    self correction and a trust that people will do what's right.
    
    Ron

     I don't think that there is any totally fair way to prevent
    discrimination. AA causes discrimination. Lack of AA does not preclude 
    discrimination. There is simply no way to prevent someone from getting
    the shaft. Minorities think that white males should get the shaft.
    White males think everything should be left alone, under the thought
    that eventually things will even out.
    
     Coming up with percentages of jobs that have to be filled by certain
    minorities based upon population does not take into account interest.
    
     I don't like the idea of AA, because it means that less qualified
    people get jobs, thus making our society less productive. It also
    promote worse feelings between the majority and minorities who are
    hired. Even in cases where a woman or minority _was_ the most qualified
    individual, they have to deal with the fact that their co-workers
    will say "xxx only got the job because of AA."
    
     I don't know how we are to deal with the lack of equality of job
    opportunity. I don't believe AA is the answer.
    
    The Doctah

    RE: .13, your last sentence sums it up. You are saying that the
    AA applicant is less ideal; does that mean less qualified than the
    "Wasp" applicant? The problem with EEO? AA is that the two terms
    are mutually exclusive. Equal Opportunity means that the only
    judgemental factor should be your ability or job performance PERIOD!
    AA allows less qualified individuals to get ahead (if they were
    equally qualified, than EEO would cover it, and AA would be
    unnecessary). You can't interlectually have both. Either employment
    and advancement are judged on merit ALONE, or some form of discrimina-
    tion is used.
    
    Eric

    But hiring decisions are seldom so clear cut. Very often the
    people competing for the same job have different strenghts and
    weakness and the hiring manager has to make a subjective decision
    between them. What AA means to me is if a person who is
    otherwise qualified to do the job, but lacks some factor, the racial
    or ethnic or gender make up of the individual can also be considered
    as one of the factors involved.
    
    Bonnie

    	RE:  .14
    
    	> AA allows less qualified individuals to get ahead (if they
    	> were equally qualified, then EEO would cover it, and AA would
    	> be unnecessary.)
    
    	That simply isn't true.  AA is necessary in areas where employers
    	seem to always think that white males "LOOK BETTER" (despite
    	their actual qualifications) than minorities because of the
    	belief that white males simply ARE BETTER (performance-wise)
    	than minorities.
    
    	In the only case where I have seen AA, the minority candidates
    	were EVERY BIT as qualified at hiring time as the white males,
    	but there is no way in hell that a single one of the minorities
    	WOULD have been hired if the hiring managers had not been forced
    	to do it.
    
    	As it turned out, every single one of the minority hires performed
    	better than their white male counterparts (and the group supervisor
    	openly confessed surprise about this to everyone, and went though
    	an extreme attitude change about minority workers as a group.)
    	(This was in the mid-1970's.)
    
    	I'm sure that AA is no longer necessary there because the hiring
    	managers can now SEE the talents/abilities of minority applicants.
    	
    	It was only necessary as long as the hiring managers there were
    	still blinded by prejudice.  Now that they aren't that way anymore,
    	plenty of minority candidates get hired (on their own merit.)
    
    	If not for AA, it never would have happened.  If only EEO had
    	been present, the hiring manager could have said, "Well, I
    	interviewed all the candidates and only the white males were
    	qualified in my opinion, even though education, etc. was pretty
    	much the same among all the candidates."

    
    	What of the current policy of civil service exams (in Mass.
    anyway), where a minority applicant is allowed to be given a passing
    grade for a score lower than that of a non-minority applicant ????
    Since this applies to anyone qualifying as a minority, it would
    seem to be highly discriminatory against the non-minority applicant.
                                                             
    Paul C.

Re:< Note 317.17 by BUFFER::PCORMIER "No good deed goes unpunished" >
    (about civil service exams)

    Yes. I would say that's discriminatory against the non-minority
 applicants. Although I recognize it as discriminatory, I'm not
 sure if I consider it _wrong_, though. (I have mixed feelings about
 EEO/AA.)

    But how about this one: when my mother took the post office exam,
 minorities were given bonus points, so that, as you explained earlier, they
 could get a passing grade for a score lower than that required for
 a non-minority applicanty to pass. Since the exams were competitive
 (the X highest scorers would be hired), a black man who scored 10
 points less than a white man could end up with a higher final score,
 and be hired over the white man, who had, in fact, performed better
 on the test.
 I'm sure that those of you opposed to AA would call this unfair.

 But one of the "minorities" who were given these bonus points were
 veterans. How do you feel about that? Are you still opposed to the
 preferential treatment?

 How does this differ from preferential treatment for racial minorities?
 You might argue that the veteran has served his country, so we owe him
 something--but aren't you people complaining that the MOST QUALIFIED
 person should get the job? Clearly, if that's so, then you wouldn't
 want a veteran to get a bonus to his exam score, either. Right?
 (Remember, he's likely to be a WASP.)

 Disclaimer: I'm playing devil's advocate here, and am not attacking
 veteran's benefits/priviledges, of which there aren't enough to make
 up for what veterans have sacrificed.

I like AA because it works in getting us towards the goal of having a
certain percentage of the population represented in close-to-a-certain
percentage of all levels of employment. (Or whatever percent the
minority represents in this society.)  If people really do believe
that the races are equal, then I don't understand arguments against
leveling out these percentages, since an equal percentage of wommen,
black people, asians...will be "the cream of the crop" that should be
running the company.  No? 

I also like the idea of getting rid of AA once the numbers have 
equaled out.  I don't see where that is such an unreasonable request.

The problem with the argument that I am hearing that getting rid of AA
will allow the "best" candidate to get the job is that there is still
so much inequality in the numbers of minorities in high positions in
major companies.  (Just take a look at the Vice Presidents of major
companies in this country.)  If we get rid of AA at this point,
wommen, blacks, hispanics...will not have accumlated enough experience
to be as "qualified" on paper as white people who have been in the
areas of the company that remained unaffected by AA. 

I guess I don't think that we should abandon AA until we have
something in place to do the same thing better.  AA is working.  And,
though there is some injustice involved, I don't see white people
doing without jobs for very long as a result.  (The possible exception
being in the public service jobs: firemen and firewomen, policemen and
policewomen, etc.) 


							--Ger

    At any given location, the balance of people in a company may not
    necessarily reflect the population demographics in general because
    of the variety of diverse talents in the job pool. AA only tries
    to ARTIFICIALLY balance a work force. It is also a good excuse when
    some do-gooders don't like how job demographics look, regardless
    for qualifications. Supply education at the beginning, and the job
    market, via EEO, will balance itself out, without artificial means.
    
    A major case in point a few years agoo in NYC was involving the
    Firefighters physical test. It involved carrying a 150 lb. dummy,
    and was called discriminatory because a larger number of female
    applicants failed than male, so the dummy was lightened. Considering
    that 150 lb. is a reasonable average for a person (even DMV likes
    it) and also considering that part of a firefighters job may be
    rescue, is it right to make the requirements easier, just to achieve
    a population balance, but at the risk if victim safety? If I'm in
    a fire and need to be rescued but because of an AA-type program,
    the firefighter can't rescue me because I'm too heavy, that will
    make me feel real good while I'm dying in a fire!
                                                     
    Eric

>    At any given location, the balance of people in a company may not
>    necessarily reflect the population demographics in general because
>    of the variety of diverse talents in the job pool. AA only tries
>    to ARTIFICIALLY balance a work force. It is also a good excuse when
>    some do-gooders don't like how job demographics look, regardless
>    for qualifications. Supply education at the beginning, and the job
>    market, via EEO, will balance itself out, without artificial means.

I disagree.  EEO only works once the people get into the company; AA 
is an attempt to get them into the company.  The two can only work 
together.

Also, is AA any more "artificial" than white men hiring 98% other 
white men from their college fraternities?  I'm not saying that all 
white men do this, but it certainly has been known to happen.  I think 
someone said it best when they mentioned that people tend to go with 
what is most familiar and comfortable.  Many white people (not all) 
feel familiar and comfortable with other white people of their own 
gender.  I see that as being just as much an "artificial" altering of 
the work force as AA.   

I also have a hard time finding pity for white men who are, in my 
eyes, possibly inconvenienced by AA.  "Inconvenience" just does not 
compare to economic lock-out due to racism and sexism.  White men can 
handle it.  Or has sacrifice for others who have not had an even break 
in the past very non-Eighties?  Maybe it will come back in the 
Ninties.

>    A major case in point a few years agoo in NYC was involving the
>    Firefighters physical test. It involved carrying a 150 lb. dummy,
>    and was called discriminatory because a larger number of female
>    applicants failed than male, so the dummy was lightened. Considering
>    that 150 lb. is a reasonable average for a person (even DMV likes
>    it) and also considering that part of a firefighters job may be
>    rescue, is it right to make the requirements easier, just to achieve
>    a population balance, but at the risk if victim safety? If I'm in
>    a fire and need to be rescued but because of an AA-type program,
>    the firefighter can't rescue me because I'm too heavy, that will
>    make me feel real good while I'm dying in a fire!
                                                     
This is a good example.  I am a firm believer that no issue is black 
and white.  I agree that it doesn't seem right to expect women to 
be firefighters if they can't do the job.  However, there might be a 
compromise here.  Firefighting encompasses a lot of stuff that doesn't 
include 150# lifts.  Maybe there can be a rule that there must be 
someone who passed the 150# test working with a person who didn't.  
Or, maybe the person who can't pass the 150# test should only work the 
hoses and not enter the house where bodies may have to be carried out.
I dunno.  I'm just saying that there can be creative compromises 
employed without effectively locking women out of the fire department.

Another example happened in my plant.  A security guard was 
complaining because a female security guard asked him to walk an 
employee to her car at night.  The woman security guard did not feel 
safe walking back to the building alone at night.  The male guard 
thought this was "her not doing her duty" and "asking for special 
treatment."  

In the strictest sense, he was right.  But it seems silly to me to 
prevent women from being security guards at DEC because they don't 
want to walk people to their cars at night.  That's less than 1% 
of their job duties.  It seems to me that the men and the women 
security guards can work together to get the job done.

With some caring, creativity, and team work, I think that it can work.
I think it's a goal worth working towards.


						--Ger

    RE: .21, if walking someone to their car is part of the job
    description, then its part of the job, regardless of your sex!
    When I was wioth the Police Dept. in Long Island, I was a training
    officer and treated all new officers equally, but also expected
    the same back. If you want the job, you have to do ALL parts of
    it.
    
    As far as "minorly inconvenienced" by AA programs, thats a crock
    of s&^t!I've worked in companies where AA was used to promote
    unqualified individuals so the numbers looked good to the gov't.
    Not getting a deserved promotion because AA said that there weren't
    enough (whatevers) at a particular level is bull and is as much
    descrimination as not getting a job because of your color. The ONLY
    deciding factor for a job should be your qualifications PERIOD!!!!
    Anything else is social manipulating by an elite group of governmental
    bureaucrats or petty liberals.
    
    Eric

>    As far as "minorly inconvenienced" by AA programs, thats a crock
>    of s&^t!I've worked in companies where AA was used to promote
>    unqualified individuals so the numbers looked good to the gov't.
>    Not getting a deserved promotion because AA said that there weren't
>    enough (whatevers) at a particular level is bull and is as much
>    descrimination as not getting a job because of your color. The ONLY
>    deciding factor for a job should be your qualifications PERIOD!!!!
>    Anything else is social manipulating by an elite group of governmental
>    bureaucrats or petty liberals.
    
Sorry, Eric, but I still see it as a minor pain in the butt.  What I 
mean by this is that, even in this paragraph in your note, all I hear 
is complaining about something that was given to someone else as 
opposed to complaints that you didn't get your share.  I think that 
you, Eric, probably have gotten your share, and, if you are an 
appearingly strate white male, you've probably gotten it with a minimal 
of hassle.  Maybe, just maybe, you got turned down because of an AA 
quota, but you're getting yours anyway, no?  

So what's the big deal?  What's really the complaint here?  Despite
all the "logic" about reverse discrimination, could it be that AA
just, on a gut level, pisses you off?  Why, when you are still getting
yours with a minimal amount of hassle, are you upset by AA? 


						--Ger

>.21>I disagree.  EEO only works once the people get into the company; AA 
>.21>is an attempt to get them into the company.
>    
>    	I disagree.
>    
>        EEO is Equal Employment Opportunity and, at least in principle,
>    pertains to the hiring, not promotion phase of a career.
    
Maybe you are right.  I will have to do some homework on this one.

The only dealings I have with EEO have been in the areas of harassment 
and differential treatment, which can only be dealt with once the 
people are employees of DEC.  I don't think that "principle" counts 
much, in that EEO and AA are government dictated, with DEC having the 
option to extend EEO and AA beyond the government regulated groups.

...but, as I said, you may be right.  I'll look into it.


						--Ger

 What you see as a minor inconvenience for a straight white man, would be
absolutely unacceptable to happen to any minority group, in your view. 
As such, it is obvious that you feel that you are entitled to preferential
treatment due to your self-described 'minority' status. You feel that Eric
is getting what YOU consider to be his share. The fact that he may have been
denied his actual due because of discriminatory legislation bothers you not
at all, because of his race, sex, and (percieved) sexual orientation. Thus you
are without doubt a bigot.

 The Doctah

    Re: .24 by Ger. Last paragraph.
    
    Though your questions weren't directed toward me I'd still like
    to express thoughts on them. 
    
    The way I see it is that AA, though implemented with the best
    intentions is nothing more than federally mandated discrimination
    using the same criteria for it's implementation that it claims
    it is trying to redress. If it is to continue, I feel it has to be
    addressed in a much more specific manner.
    
    Things I wonder about.....
    If two men, one black, one white, emigrate to the US, is the one with
    black skin entitled to benefit from AA while the one with white skin
    is not?
    
    If I have two children, one boy, one girl, should the girl grow up
    and benefit from AA while my boy does not. Or, if I have two
    boys, one grows up strate, one grows up gay, should the gay boy
    receive the benefit of AA?
    
    Jewish Americans suffer discrimination to this day, 
    are they included in AA? If not, why not?
    
    As I alluded to before, Irish/italian americans were denied all 
    opportunities when they arrived in the US. 
    Why aren't they spoken for in AA rulings?
     
    These are just some of the questions I wonder about when I
    consider the ramifications of AA. It seems to me that we either
    have to classify and assign some sort ot AA qoutient to damn near
    every citizen in this country or simply do our best to insure
    equal opportunity from here on. 

RE  Me being a bigot.  

I'll think about that.  I certainly don't _want_ to be.  So I'll take 
another look at my values to see if anything needs adjusting.


RE  AA and reverse discrimination

I dunno.  I think that I am having a hard time communicating because a 
lot of this is clear in my gut but isn't clear in my head yet.  On a 
gut level for me, AA feels right.

I also don't think that I communicated my idea about "minor
inconvenience" very well.  I apologize to anyone I pissed off in my
attempts to get a grip on all this jello.  Sincerely...

First of all, I am not a believer in implementing philosophy in any 
kind of pure fashion.  To me, life is too complicated, and there are 
too many variables to have one "code" that can be applied to 100% of 
the people I meet on a day to day basis 100% percent of the time.  

"Don't discriminate!"  Sounds good to me!  "AA discriminates since, 
from two equal candidates, the non-minority will be rejected on the 
basis of racial/gender status."   Hmmmm.  I can see that point!  
"Therefore, AA is bad and should be done away with now."  Ummm.  Nope. 
Something is wrong with this picture for me.  It does follow a linear 
logic, but it doesn't "feel" right to me, and it doesn't seem to 
address the forces at work that caused governments to implement AA 
(racism and sexism).

What I was trying to say before is that there is a big picture that is 
trying to be adjusted.  The big picture is that, before AA, minorities 
and women were systematically being locked out of employment in 
certain areas, regardless of ability.  Also, there are communities 
within this country that are suffering terribly (in general, not all 
members of these communities).  How can we, as a community, help out 
those subcommunities that are less fortunate?  Would it be possible to 
just give them money?  (Nah, that destroys incentive, right?)  Maybe 
we can give qualified individuals an open door into a company.  That 
way, the individual will have to perform and can work his/her way into 
economic security, and maybe, if enough individuals can do that, 
the prosperity will return to the impoverished community.  Granted, it 
is not a perfect scheme (will some "unqualified" minorities slip in?  
will they be judged on the job according to quotas or according to 
merit or according to both?), but it's a pretty good plan (IF one 
believes that helping the less fortunate is a worthwhile goal).

Also looking at the big picture, I realize that the people from the
more fortunate communities (often referred to as "strate, white
males," though it can include others) are being asked to help.  (To
me, "fortunate" means not, as a group, having been judged unfavorably
based on their race or gender.)  They are being asked to support
reasonable quotas so as to help some of the poorer communites to get
back on their feet.  To do this, it may mean waiting one more cycle
for that promotion.  It may mean having to take a second choice for
job instead of the first choice (who chose someone to fill a quota). 
It may mean interviewing a little longer, since some slots were filled
on quota. 

Looking at the big picture, I have to ask myself, are the members of 
the more fortunate communities being hurt badly by AA.  The only 
conclusion that I can come up with is that, with the exception of some 
policemen and women and some firemen and women, no, there aren't many 
cases of these people looking for jobs for years, cases of these 
people falling into poverty due to AA, cases of these people having 
their lives severely limited due to being "locked out" of a certain 
class due to race or gender.  I don't see it happening.  I see these 
people "making it" in very large numbers, in a percentage that still
is greater than their percentage in the general population.  I do see
some hassles (what I was trying to refer to as "minor
inconveniences"), but I don't see ruination caused by AA.  If it's
there and I'm not seeing it, please help me to see.

(I chose to call out policemen and firemen, since I have heard of 
white men being locked out for years at a time.  It seems to me that 
in those areas, it would be a good idea to lower the quota.)

So, to me, it comes down to a question of pure philosophy ("It's wrong
to discriminate, period.") or to a question of sacrificing so that
members of poorer communities can get a better break than members of
those groups have gotten in the past.  My choice seems clear. It is
more important for me to take a proactive stance against racism and
sexism than it is for me to be 100% "right" in a philosophical
discussion regarding "discrimination."  Me being "right" about AA
being discriminatory is not going to do diddly squat for the
communities that just aren't making it.  Me supporting AA will help
(it ain't perfect, but I do believe it has been helping). 

So that is what I was trying to get at when I was asking previously, 
"what's really going on here?"  In my experience, people don't usually 
debate heatedly unless there is a personal and emotional tie to the 
discussion, right?  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I haven't heard any 
"I had to look for a job for a year because of AA" stories from the 
folks who dislike AA so much.  So, if you folks haven't really been 
hindered by AA and if AA is helping a lot of people from less 
fortunate communities, why is it so important to be "right" about the 
reverse discrimination issue?  Is there any other reason why AA stirs 
up so many passionate feelings in you?


							--GEr

PS  AA has never included gay men and lesbians.  I am not in favor of 
    adding us to AA.  We are already in top positions in all 
    companies.  All I would like to see is the improvement in the
    environment so that it will be safe for these gay people to
    be 100% themselves at work, if they so choose.  That can be 
    done without AA, in my opinion.

    re .28, Gerry-
    
    First, I want to mention that I've been impressed by several of
    your recent notes here and I appreciate the time and effort you are
    putting forth to communicate.
    
    Second, I've been wrestling with, yet avoiding, making a decision
    about AA for quite awhile; the ramifications are complex and the
    issue, important.  Your note has helped me clarify what is good
    about the intentions of AA; and also, has helped me to understand
    why AA makes me uncomfortable.  For your assistance in helping me
    to realize these things, I must offer my thanks.
    
    Now for the unpleasant news.
    
> So, to me, it comes down to a question of pure philosophy ("It's wrong
> to discriminate, period.") or to a question of sacrificing so that
> members of poorer communities can get a better break than members of
> those groups have gotten in the past.  My choice seems clear.
    
    I don't agree with the question posed this way.  The word which
    crystalized my resolve was your recognition that AA implies the
    "sacrifice" of one group (of individuals) for another.  When it
    is a government mandate, I find this enforced sacrifice to be a
    fundamental threat to liberty for anyone; it sets an awful precedent.
    
    Who will the government pick for the next group sacrifice?
    
    While the goals, to combat racism and sexism, or to give an
    impoverished community a chance to work its way up, are admirable,
    I find the methods to be an attack on the meaning of freedom and
    liberty, and thus to undermine what built the successful community
    in the first place.  This is the crux:  AA, as you have described
    it, sacrifices individuals for the good of the collective.  Such
    a tactic tears great gaping holes in our rights to be individuals.

    > ... but I don't see ruination caused by AA.  If it's there and 
    > I'm not seeing it, please help me to see.    
    
    By permitting government bureaucrats and politicians the power to
    compel "sacrifices" of "strate white males", we have undermined the
    rights of all.                            
    
    > ... people don't usually debate heatedly unless there is a personal
    > and emotional tie to the discussion, right?
    
    Right.  I have never before discussed AA in this forum, to my best
    recollection.  But when I realized the implications of your viewpoint,
    I realized I DO, and we all do, have a personal tie to this issue;
    I have tried to respond to this sanely and rationally per your example;
    and as you have also done, I invite any to show me what I'm neglecting.
    
    Thanks for a civil discussion.
    
    DougO

 Re Ger

 You seem to be very willing to have members of other groups sacrifice for the
betterment of minorities. I agree that with Doug that the biggest problem with
that  philosophy is that the government gets to decide who sacrifices. It is 
a very dangerous precedent.

 You look at things from a group perspective. It is much easier to do. What you
fail to realize (or at least, acknowledge) is that the groups don't pay a 
family's bills. To you, because you don't know of the individuals involved,
it is ok the Joe Pete gets deprived of the promotion he has worked for and 
deserves, because he happens to be a member of a group which has historically
done better than other groups. That  is not reassuring when it comes time to pay
the mortgage. 

 I have seen one particular case of where AA was a direct contributor to 
inefficiency and poor work. When I first entered the real world after college,
I happened to be employed by a defense contractor. Also employed in my group
was a black woman. Her credentials were inferior, but that didn't bother me.
She did not do very much work, but that didn't bother me too much. What did
bother me was her attitude. She felt she was "special" because she was a perfect
candidate for AA. She was thrilled that, by being a black woman, she could
fulfill two quotas at once. She had the title of engineer, she was paid like
an engineer, but she didn't do the work of an engineer. She was content to
do everything on paper. She never set foot in the lab. She took the longest
lunches in the group (quite a feat, considering the average was 1.5 hrs), she
was the last one in in the morning, and the first one to leave in the afternoon.
But she knew there was nothing anyone could do- because she could just charge
"discrimination." She didn't stick around long. She got another job. The job
description was hysterical. What it basically amounted to was she would play
all day, after getting a heavy raise. It was obvious that she wasn't being 
hired to do any real work- she was hired to fulfill a quota. Having known
other people in the other company, I inquired about her. She hasn't changed a 
bit. She has been placed in a phantom position- one where she can't screw
up anything. And she's incredibly overpaid. I realize this is just one case,
but it's this kind of abuse of the system that pushes my hot button.

 I guess the point is that you are really no different than the people who
caused the kinds of programs like AA. They could follow the argument that
minorities should have access to better jobs. They understood that performance
alone shopuld be an employees' judge. But they couldn't make that leap of
faith to bring themselves to allow minorities into THEIR department. Sure,
minorities should get some good jobs, but can't they get them somewhere else?
This is a direct analog of your attitude as presented in the following quote:

>It is more important for me to take a proactive stance against racism and
>sexism than it is for me to be 100% "right" in a philosophical
>discussion regarding "discrimination." 

 Thus it is apparent that you can understand that discrimination is bad, and
there shouldn't be any, unless it benefits you. That's why I called you a 
bigot. Even though you are not the classical bigot, you show that even those
subjected to bigotry and who claim they oppose it are capable of supporting
it when it suits their agenda. Don't let it get you down- people are not
naturally heterogeneous  in their dealings with "different" people [as has been
seen throughout history.] 

 I'll be honest- I am not perfect either. There are occasions when i find that
my thoughts are colored by prejudice. It is difficult to fight- but I am trying,
and I think- succeeding (most of the time). What I would like you to realize
is that when you are subjected to someone who holds a prejudiced view about
you, you are seeing a person who is reacting to his natural feelings, much like
you. Whenever you think about how it's ok to discriminate against the 
"majority" because you feel they still get their share, remember how you feel
when someone thinks it's ok to discriminate against you because you are homo-
sexual.

 The Doctah

ps- Although I sometimes use "emotionally charged words," my intent is 
(generally) not to inflame. I usually intend to use the annotation, rather
than the connotation of a word. Note: this disclaimer does not apply when 
the  target of said word(s) is not trying to keep the discussion on an
intellectual level.

	RE:  .30
    
    	> RE:  Ger
    
 	> Thus it is apparent that you can understand that discrimination 
    	> is bad, and there shouldn't be any, unless it benefits you.
    	> That's why I called you a  bigot. 
    
    	Mark, Gerry does NOT belong to any group that benefits from
    	AA, which means that he does NOT benefit from any kind of program
    	that employs anything related to quotas.  (As he has stated
    	before, he is a white male.)
    
    	As for using quotas for gay men and lesbians, Gerry has stated
    	that he does NOT favor the use of quotas since many members
    	of the gay community are ALREADY EMPLOYED in all the highest-
    	paying areas.
    
    	Therefore, your use of the term 'bigot' was in error (if your
    	explanation above about why you used the term was meant
    	literally.)
    
    	No flames here.  Just thought the error warranted a correction.

    When I sometimes use emotionally charged words, my intent is
    (generally) to inflame.  However, I won't resort to such tactics in
    this note, since it would lower the intellectual level of the
    discussion. 
    
    The computah programmah, the butchah, the bakah, and the candlestick
    makah.

    I have stayed out of this version of this conversation. Now I'd
    like to add my 2 cents.
    
    First I do believe all discrimination is wrong. I hired as a college
    hire was brought in on a discriminatory program - only people out
    of college 6 months or less could qualify.
    
    If I were going to promote someone I would want to promote the person
    doing the best job. I do not want to give away a promotion for some
    political reason.
    
    I think most of "us" who believe AA is not a good implementation
    of a good idea also would not promote a white male over a minority
    becasue he is a white male. I think people who do believe in AA
    feel that with out it there will be no justice in the world.
    
    Maybe I am being to idealistic, I hope not.
    
    
    mike
    

Just a few thoughts:

	o  People have been talking about the "government" as if it
	   were some monolith that we have no control over.  "It's not
	   _my_ fault!  The government did it!!!"

	   In my opinion, the government is us.  If the elected 
	   officials are not doing things that we like, we have the
	   power to elect someone else.  Granted, it isn't very often 
	   that we use that power, but the power exists nonetheless.

	   Until the eighties, there must have been enough support
	   for AA that people chose to reelect politicians who 
	   "created" AA.  Although passive, that is support.

	   Actively or not, "we" the people of the United States
	   created and supported AA.  (At least, the majority of
	   us did.)  Granted, we have the right to withdraw
	   our support, but I don't think we should deny our past 
	   support and pawn it off on some nameless, faceless
	   "government."

	o  I am not protected by AA.  I would sacrifice a promotion 
	   for one year to help AA.  Who knows?  Maybe a promotion
	   of mine has already been postponed for AA???  And I didn't
	   suffer in any significant way.  I was "inconvenienced."
	   Big deal.

	o  Individual cases of abusing the system can always be 
	   brought up, like the black, woman engineer example 
	   mentioned.  To me, that means that the system needs 
	   adjusting, not dismantling.  What's that saying about
	   the baby and the bathwater?

	o  Several of the notes suggested that I favor "sacrificing
	   the person who is a member of the majority."  No, I favor
	   legislating that "that person make a sacrifice."  To me,
	   there is a big difference.  To me, "sacrificing the person"
	   is destroying her or him.  Waiting one extra year for a 
	   promotion or having the person go for 3 more interviews is
	   not "sacrificing the person."  That person is surviving 
	   quite well, as far as I can see.  I still have not heard
	   any horror stories about how AA has ruined white people's
	   lives; I _have_ heard stories about how AA has given 
	   qualified people a foot in a door that had been previously
	   slammed shut.  (For instance, the Boston Globe did a report 
	   on the recent Supreme Court decision overriding quotas for
	   minority contracting; they interviewed a local contractor
	   who feels he would not have his successful business today 
	   if it weren't for that quota.)

	o  It would be interesting to poll the people most affected by
	   AA: the minorities involved.  I would bet that support for
	   AA would run 80%.  I have no statistics to back that up, 
	   but that is my gut feeling.  

	   What does that say?   Are they all people out to "cheat the
	   system"?  Maybe if they tell their stories, we could better
	   tell if the minority communities are benefiting.

	o  It would be interesting to talk to DEC's Personnel people.
	   Does DEC "like" AA?  Why or why not?  Is it benefiting the
	   company?  Most people I've worked with in Corporate 
	   Personnel claim that diversifying the workplace will only
	   help DEC.  They claim that in our attempts to become a
	   truly international company, diversity is not a luxury, 
	   it's crucial.  That's not "touchy feely" stuff; that's 
	   bottom-line, dollar productivity, despite the small
	   percentage of qualified "cheats" that might slip in.

	o  In groups that I've worked in, we try very hard to work
	   according to AA principles.  The lesbian and gay group 
	   that I work with has done really well on male/female
	   ratios, and we are just now trying to increase the number
	   of people of color in our group.  We are also trying to
	   increase the number of bisexuals in our group.  It is 
	   hard, but it is worth it.  The diversity will help us
	   all to learn and to be more effective with a larger 
	   and larger group of people.  Our productivity will
	   increase.  We are focused on the qualifications of the
	   "group" as opposed to the qualifications of individual
	   candidates.  In a synergistic workplace, the group counts
	   far more than any individual strengths that we might have;
	   hey, no matter how talented I am, I can't do it alone.


End of rambling.  :-)

I'd like to enter a note on "what it is like growing up as a
minority," but I don't have the time right now.  I get the feeling
that some people don't understand why minorities don't "pick
themselves up by the bootstraps and get on with it."  Well, growing up
a minority puts things in ones head that make it difficult (and, in
individual cases, impossible) to "pick oneself up."  But more on that
later.... 


						--Ger

    Since entering my previous response (.29) I've had a long conversation
    with someone about it; apparently I didn't emphasize the context
    within which I view AA strongly enough, and I'd like to correct
    any lingering misunderstanding.
                                                      
    First, I view government with suspicion and mistrust.  There is
    ample basis for this viewpoint in American history and western
    civilization and indeed, throughout the world; it has to do with
    distrust of individuals who seek power over others.  Some may have
    pristine motives and some may do good irrespective of their motives:
    but as a class of people, I don't trust those who seek power.  My
    view of our republic is that it was founded by those who shared
    such suspicions and that their single greatest concern was maintaining
    the liberty of individuals against government encroachment.  It
    is OUR job to ensure that such liberty as we have left is maintained
    against a government that ever more surely tightens its grip against
    our rights to do as we will.
    
    It is within this context of concern for the preservation of individual
    liberties that one should interpret my earlier message regarding
    AA.  AA, to me, is a specific means, a program, an approach.  It 
    involves the selection of groups which are historically demonstrably
    under-represented in fields of privilege, enrichment, and/or power,
    and seeks to correct this group imbalance by directly favoring
    individuals belonging to those groups at the expense of other
    individuals (who belong to other groups).
    
    The goal: correct the group imbalance.
    The method: sacrifice some individuals for others.

    The implied sanction, that government has a legitimate role in picking
    some individuals to sacrifice for the needs of others, is a direct
    blow against freedom for ALL.  Did I say "implied"?  Gerry went 
    so far as to state it explicitly:
    
     >	o  Several of the notes suggested that I favor "sacrificing
     >	   the person who is a member of the majority."  No, I favor
     >	   legislating that "that person make a sacrifice."  
    
    This is disastrous.  It grants even more power to those power-hungry
    legislators at the expense of we, the people.
    
     >                                                       To me,
     >	   there is a big difference.  To me, "sacrificing the person"
     >	   is destroying her or him.      
    
    To me, there is no difference at all.  Once your legislature has
    the power to dictate ANY sacrifice of ANYBODY, then ALL are at risk.
    What matters whether they destroy you this year or save part of
    your hide to be sacrificed "next" year?  You live at their sufferance.
    You have lost FREEDOM.

    > Most people I've worked with in Corporate Personnel claim that 
    > diversifying the workplace will only help DEC.  They claim that 
    > in our attempts to become a truly international company, diversity 
    > is not a luxury, it's crucial.  That's not "touchy feely" stuff; 
    > that's bottom-line, dollar productivity, ...
    
    ONE HUNDRED PERCENT AGREEMENT.  Its crucial; its necessary for survival
    in the international arena; its great corporate policy; its successful
    business principles at work.  But it should NOT arise from government
    mandate, but because its the right thing to do.  This is so obvious
    now and I will be the first to admit (thanks to that long conversation
    Friday night) that we owe this recognition to the AA programs which
    forced diversity in the first place.  I'm not condemning the goals
    or hiding from the partially successful results that AA has earned.
    It is not a total failure.  But as a government policy, it is
    fundamentally flawed and dangerous to our liberty, and I hope to
    see it gone, soon.
    
    DougO

    
    	I wonder why, since the Congress felt strong enough about righting
    past wrongs to pass the AA laws, do these same laws not apply to
    our election processes ?? It seems that there are a disproportionate
    number of white men in Congress, as compared to the general population.
    Why would the Government (represenatives/senators) be exempt from
    meeting the same AA goals as the rest of the employers in the US???
    
    
    Paul C.  	 

    re: .37
    
    I'd hazard a guess that the reason is because those officials are
    elected (vs. hired).
    
    Steve

    Why is the Government exempt from those laws?  Permit me to explain
    a little bit why I'm distrustful of politicians.
    
    You mentioned "(representatives/senators)" as "government".  They
    are only one of three branches of the government, of course (the 
    legislative branch.)  Their job is to write the laws.
    
    In the past several decades, while the legislative branch has passed
    numerous laws reflecting the social mores of the times, for example,
    Affirmative Action; Ethics in Government; Equal Opportunity; etc,
    they have always exempted THEIR branch from compliance.  Its not
    only senators and representatives where minorities and women are
    underrepresented (which, as Steve pointed out, is due more to the
    voters and the political parties), it is among their staffs as well.
    Does anyone maybe understand why I distrust power-seekers?  Forcing
    laws upon the rest of us from which they exempt themselves!
    
    The other branches of the government ARE forced to comply, that
    is, AA and EEO and the Ethics Act apply to the executive and judicial
    branches.  The Civil Service and The Military Forces are especially 
    active with AA programs.
    
    DougO

 >No, I favor legislating that "that person make a sacrifice." 

 Great! You really made it easy for me to disagree with you. That position
is absolutely absurd. Legislate that people make a sacrifice? And who do
you think gets to pick who makes a sacrifice? And how do you think you'd
feel if those that choose decided that homosexuals or blacks or chinese HAD 
to make a sacrifice. If you personally want to make a sacrifice, fine. But
don't volunteer anyone else. Then it isn't a sacrifice. It's oppression.

> they interviewed a local contractor
>	   who feels he would not have his successful business today 
>	   if it weren't for that quota.)

 Duh. Gee, if I started a business knowing that x% of government business
was going to come to me by law, it'd be pretty hard to screw it up, too.
I've never met a guy who disliked the goos that laid golden eggs either.
Why didn't the Globe do a report on a white male owner who went out of business
in part or totally because of the set asides? Guess it wouldn't support their
liberal agenda.

 The Doctah

RE .40

Okay, okay.  No need to throw Duhs at me.  I'll think about what you 
said, I promise.  I also don't expect everyone to agree with me.  I 
also admitted that most of my support comes from the gut and not from 
logic; I am a believer that feelings are as valid as logic, and that 
the two need to be used together.

(*sigh*)

I'm reminded of a quote in a song by the Clash:

"You have the right to free speech...as long as you are not dumb 
enough to actually TRY it!!!"

I am not free.  In my opinion, if anyone thinks that they are, I think 
that they are deluding themselves.

I have sacrificed to the legislators my "right" to drive 90 miles an
hour.  I have sacrificed my "right" to kill other people when they 
piss me off.  My "right" to having consensual sex with a consenting 
male adult is sacrificed by the legislators in 30 some-odd states.  
I have sacrificed my "right" to use pot.  I have sacrificed my "right" 
to form a monopoly.  I have sacrificed my "right" to a every job that 
I am most qualified for and my "right" to every promotion as soon as I 
have earned it.  (Note that this is not the same as sacrificing "a job" 
and "a promotion.")

All of these "sacrifices" are legislated by our government, a
goverment that we elect and can control with our votes (though often,
through apathy, we let them do what they want).  The general idea of
all of these legislated "sacrifices" is that there is an attempt at
creating a civilized community where people can live the most free
lives possible (not 100%, though).  Most people feel that laws, which
require "sacrifice" of some "freedom," are in the best interest of
bettering the community.  For instance, we would have a better, safer
community if people "sacrificed" their "right" to drive as fast or
slow as they choose. 

I'm sorry.  We aren't free.  We don't live in a vacuum and our actions 
are affected and affect others.  It's a lot more complicated than 
that.

Folks might also have noticed that some of the legislated sacrifices 
are dynamic; they change, come and go.  In the Twenties, the 
government asked us to sacrifice drinking.  We didn't like that idea 
very much.  Now, due to pushback from the voters, it is legal to 
drink.

My point:  If folks disagree with me that AA effectively works for the
overall good of the United States community (that it would be good to
assist the minority communities in this way), then fine.  I can handle
that. Really.  I will agree to disagree.  And, as is the case with any
of our dynamic laws, we can change them if they don't work. 

What I object to is the vehement opposition I am hearing to
"sacrificing" some "personal freedom" for the "common good."  (Heck,
that's what laws are all about.) This line of reasoning makes no sense
to me.  We sacrifice for the common good by obeying laws all of the
time.  And not all of them are as clear cut as murder or theft. But
it's just this one particular sacrifice that you object to. 

Why? 


						--Gerry

    I have been reading this note and can no longer keep quiet.  This
    has gotten me to the point that I cannot believe anyone would actually
    advocate the intentional hurting of another person.  Before I begin,
    please Mr. Fisher, stop referring to yourself as a minority.  If
    you are using your being homosexual as a classification for being
    a minority, then you are incorrect and should refrain from such
    classification.  I have no moral or legal obligation to assist
    homosexuals as I might for minorities.
    
    With that said, let me continue on.  I have long been an advocate
    of giving ALL people a fair shake.  I don't believe that it is any
    more fair for a white person to be denied a promotion than it is
    for a black person to be denied a promotion.  For anyone to attempt
    to tell the white person "oh don't worry about it.  We want you
    to sacrifice yourself to help this other person" is absolute b*llsh*t.
    How can we, as a society, condone such behavior?  How would we be
    any different than we were in the sixties and before?  The only
    difference would be the group being discriminated against.
    
    A comment was made about the Supreme Court ruling on minority
    contractor bidding.  I agree 100% with the Supreme Court.  It is
    no more fair to favor a small minority company than it is to favor
    a small white company.  To intentionally require 10 or 20 or whatever
    percentage be given to a company JUST BECAUSE IT IS MINORITY OWNED
    is wrong.  There are no ifs, ands, or buts about it.  It is absolutely
    wrong.  Of course, the ultra-liberal Globe would naturally write
    such a slanted article as to show that the minority contractor would
    be hurt.  But how do they know that?  If the minority company has
    the best price and service available, then they will get the contracts.
     If not, then they deserve to go out of business.  It is simple
    business.
    
    I would never want to see the election and democracy practices of
    this country changed to require that a certain percentage of our
    ELECTED representatives be a particular race/sex/etc.  To do this
    would pervert the intent of democracy.  If a particular group does
    not feel it is adequately represented, then they have the ability,
    as do we all, of fielding a candidate for office.  As long as that
    candidate is not going to espouse radical or ultra-liberal doctrine,
    then I will give them a fair hearing and choose on the basis of
    who I feel will do the best job.  THAT IS THE PROCESS.  Work within
    it or stop complaining.
    
    I have much more I could say, but I don't want to monopolize the
    conversation.
    
    Ed..
    

    Re: .41
    
    Gerry, as a white male who supports AA, I want to thank you for calmly
    stating the case on its behalf.  I would suspect that many females and
    minorities, upon reading this topic, would get the impression that all
    white males are reactionaries, if it weren't for those such as you who
    are willing to stand up for those programs which provide opportunities
    to those who would otherwise be denied them. 
    
    However, I don't feel that there is any need for you to apologize for
    the idea that AA is a sacrifice, for the simple reason that AA does not
    constitute any sort of sacrifice for while males.  One is not
    sacrificing if one provides opportunities to people who are morally
    entitled to those opportunities anyway.  Therefore, white males give up
    nothing with AA.  By defending a non-existent "sacrifice", you let the
    opponents of AA define the issue in their own terms. 
    
    Nevertheless, Gerry, I appreciate your efforts in support of AA in this
    conference.  Keep up the good work. 
    
    -- Mike

    I feel that their should be a complete legal elimination of
    discrimination of all kinds. Their should be no privilage granted
    for sex, race , color or religion. In my opinion any affermative
    action program promotes the continuation of discrimination.
    Judge Scalia(U.S Supreme Court) said reciently "turnabout is
    not fair when it comes to discrimination". and i agree 100%
    with that. their should also be penitiles for any discrimination
    which is based on sex, race, color or religion , and bye the way
    age. The person who is most qualified should get the job or 
    promotion. If their is a tie from a qualification point of view
    (rare in my opion) then the put the two (or more)contenders names
    in a hat, and draw the winner, anything else is not fair. How does
    one correct for past injustices. By eliminating future injustices,
    or monitary reimbersment but not by penilizing someone else who
    had nothing to do with the orgional problem. 

    
    We may be making progress on this too.
    Here in Boston a research study showed that black/african americans
    are being discriminated against when applying for mortgages.
    I applaude this study and now, with what may be concrete evidence
    this discimination will hopefully be stopped, those guilty of
    it punished, and those who have always conducted themselves
    correctly can continue to conduct business without being punished
    for the "crimes" of others.
    
    P.s. Ger, though I don't always agree with your point of
    view, I'm glad you took the time to enter your replies.
    They were nevertheless thought provoking for me. 
		
    							Hank

    re .41, Gerry-
    
    Remarkable- you keep coming back with a sane and reasonable answer
    no matter how provocative and abusive some people have gotten.
    Highly commendable, Gerry (and Doctah, knock it off!  You just permit
    folks like Mike Valenza to label you reactionary and dismiss you,
    and anyone like me who happens to partially agree with you!  This
    is NOT the 'box.)
        
    > The general idea of all of these legislated "sacrifices" is that 
    > there is an attempt at creating a civilized community where people 
    > can live the most free lives possible (not 100%, though).  Most 
    > people feel that laws, which require "sacrifice" of some "freedom," 
    > are in the best interest of bettering the community.
    
    When those laws apply equally to everybody.  When they are intended
    to protect EVERYONE.  But NOT when they permit legislatures to pick
    some to sacrifice at the expense of others.  My second note included
    the phrase, "as much freedom as we have left", I know we aren't
    perfectly free.  It is in my interest to "sacrifice" my rights to
    drive 90 if EVERYONE else is also affected.  Upon that basis, then,
    I see an absolute criterion for evaluating laws:  Do they apply
    to all, equally?
    
    If we may quote The Clash to each other, "Here is a man who would not 
    take it any more!"  When my government is actively picking and choosing
    some for sacrifice...'nuff said.
    
    DougO                                                

    in re .42 Given that less than half of the men and women in society
    are homosexual that makes them members of a minority. Gerry is
    perfectly correct to refer to himself as a member of a minority.
    Bonnie

    Re: .47
    
    Not to contradict Gerry's position, but Bonnie, if one takes your
    definition of a minority literally, each of us can legitimately claim
    to be a member of a minority.  You just have to choose your 
    qualifications carefully.
    
    I support Gerry's claim, though, as the group with which he is 
    identifying himself, has, in the past as well as the present, been
    actively discriminated against, and, as he eloquently points out,
    is often singled out in legislation as having "fewer rights" than
    others.  (Consider the laws against homosexual couples being
    foster parents, or school teachers, etc.)
    
    However, Gerry also correctly notes that homosexuals are not
    significantly discriminated against in the world of employment,
    and thus he doesn't consider himself a beneficiary of EEO/AA
    (the topic under discussion here).
    
    I suppose I should recognize that Gerry hardly needs any help
    explaining himself from me or anyone else here.
    
    
    As a member of the oppressor class (tongue firmly in cheek here),
    I don't object to the goals of EEO/AA programs, though it is far
    too easy to take specific cases and make them to look reprehensible.
    Unfortunately, government interference tends to take the "blunt 
    instrument" approach, because that's the only thing they can wield
    effectively.  We might prefer that they use a scalpel instead,
    but this world is just too complicated for the government to do
    "exactly the right thing" in all cases.  If anyone wants to make
    better, more effective suggestions, I'm sure your congresscritter
    would be more than happy to hear from you.
    
    				Steve

    I agree with the previous reply, .47.  It is possible for almost
    anyone to identify themselves as a minority.  What I object to is
    the characterization of homosexuals as a minority mostly because
    their lifestyle is one of choice, not necessity.  A black or woman
    is that way and can not change (without extreme difficulty).  A
    homosexual has made a moral decision to be the way he/she is.  I
    have no obligation to support that decision, and indeed do not.
     I would not discriminate against the person because of their moral
    decision, but nor do I believe I have an obligation to protect that
    person from any possible discrimination they may encounter.  After
    all, if I decided to dress in the wackiest of clothes, would you
    as a group protect me from discrimination?  Would I be considered
    a minority worthy of AA or EEO?  I think not because the clothing
    decision is mine, and I have the option, if I so choose, to conform
    to the clothing standards of the majority.
    
    This note was not intended to be one of are homosexuals a minority.
     I apologize if I brought it down that rathole.  This is just my
    opinion.
    
    Ed..
    

    Re: .47
    
    Bonnie, less than half the men and women in American society
    are Jewish?
    
    Should that give us Jews minority status, and let us qualify
    for AA/EEO programs?
    
      Alan

    in re Steve and Alan
    
    Thankyou for the corrections, I agree that my objection in
    re minority was not as clearly stated as it could have been.
    
    and Alan, it is true, as you well know that Jews have experienced
    mega discrimination, even in the area of jobs in the not so far
    off past, even if they aren't currently in a situation that
    qualifies for AA/EEO.
    
    Ed, not to rat hole this discussion any further, but I strongly
    suggest you read some of the currently research on gender identity.
    (There is an article on the subject copied from Parenting magazine
    in the parents notefile which is quite good.) The experts on the
    subject are pretty darn near unanimous in stating that homosexuality
    is not a choice or a lifestyle but something that is a combination
    of genetic, hormonal, and early psychological influences. 
    
    Bonnie

    Bonnie, the next time you go on an interview wear your contact
    lenses and verrry high heels.
    
    If you get an offer, then you'll know that you had been discriminated
    against because of your height and myopia (or are you presbyopic?). :-)
    
      Alan

Who was the person who spoke about (forgive me if I get this wrong) 
creating better educational opportunities for members of minority 
communities as a way of producing "qualified candidates" for top jobs? 
That was a good alternative to AA in my opinion.  Maybe we can shift 
the line of reasoning in this note to ideas about how to help minority 
communities without the legislated discrimination in employment that 
so many people find objectionable.  If there is a better alternative 
developed and available, heck, let's get rid of AA and go for it...


RE  Homosexuality

It's a huge rat hole.  

I started another note for this topic.



						--Ger

re: Doctah, knock it off...reactionaries...

 I apologize if I have brought SOAPBOX style tactics into this discussion.
Having been under considerable stress lately (final stages of my wife's
overdue pregnancy), I may have neglected to notice which forum my responses
were entered in. However, the baby is here (girl, 8lbs 1oz) so problem solved.

 Gerry has occaisonally made assertions which  I disagree with. I have sometimes
attempted to show the fault in his premises by using a pedagogical technique
known as "the next logical step." It is probably this which some dislike, as
I usually skip a few intermediate steps and get right on down to the really
outrageous logical extensions.I will try to limit this activity in the future.

 The fact is that AA is legal discrimination. No one who knows anything about
AA can dispute this fact. What is disputed is whether such legal discrimination
is defensible. Advocates of AA claim that it is ok because the ends justify
the means. Opponents claim that discrimination is discrimination. 

 I find that the "ends justify the means" is a dangerous precedent to set.
Who knows where this attitude can take us. While I support the idea of what
AA is trying to accomplish, I don't think that AA is the right method to
achieve it. AA fosters race distrustand further escalates racial problems
by allowing unqualified candidates to enter positions above candidates who
are better qualified. Unless you have seen this in action, it is difficult to
comprehend the depth of the problem. Having seen what happens when an 
ridiculously underqualified candidate becomes the group manager for workers
of another race who know infinitely more about the job at hand, I cannot
believe that people think it's worth it. Workers who work for incompetant
people despise their bosses. Add to this the fact that one of their buddies
deserved a promotion due to meritorious actions while a new minority candidate
slips into power due to a personnel mandated quota, and you have an explosive
situation. End result- additional racial problems, vastly reduced productivity
and a manager who is roundly despised by all who work near him. The guy 
eventually succumbed to the pressure, and left the company. At what cost
to the company and the individuals involved did AA benefit someone's idea
of fairness?

 The Doctah

>However, the baby is here (girl, 8lbs 1oz) so problem solved.

Stress aside, it doesn't sound like a problem at all.  It's wonderful!

I wish you, your family, and the baby girl much health and happiness.


							--Ger