Conference 7.286::digital

    What the hell is "affirmative action?"
    
    Laurie.

Is .0 a direct quote?

If so, Julia Machaelson sounds like a bigot. 

Alan

re: .1

>    What the hell is "affirmative action?"
    
Well, it is a program by which employers try to make up for years and years
of discrimination against minorities, be it women, hispanics or any other 
non-white male group. The employers 'make up' for this discrimination by
basically giving preference to any 'minority' over a white male in the
cases of employment and promotions. That is, when all things are equal.
If the white male is really the most qualified then he should
receive the job/promotion but, it is contended by white males that it
never is the case that the white male is perceived as the better candidate
and that employers give said jobs/promotions to less qualified minorities
just to look good to the government.

This program has been active for the last 20-30 years, I wonder just how long
affirmitive action needs to be in place before everyone is placed on an
even playing field. Or, can we even think of completely making up for passed
sins.

- George

    A typical bigotted reaction.  Her statement that Bush and company are
    trying to figure out how to stay in power is garbage.  Affirmative
    Action was an interesting little LBJ/60's/flower power social
    experiment, which has totally failed.
    
    ANYONE can make it in this country without the government's assistance.
    It is an absolute crime to place whites in an unfair competitive
    position because of the perceived ills of the past, which none of us
    had a thing to do with.  One of the positive effects of the current
    supreme court flavor is that these garbage laws will gradually bite
    the dust in favor of true equal opportunity for everyone.  In this
    context, I define equal opportunity as the jobs going to the best
    qualified...period.

    I am all for caring about my fellow woman/man irrespective or race 
    creed or colour... Its ability and application that counts above all
    else...But could we concentrate our activities on surviving first, so
    that we are in a position to achieve equality for all.
    
    

	The explanation of Affirmative Action given in .3 is at variance
	with my understanding of AA.

	My understanding is that AA means that, when hiring for a particular
	position, the hiring company will go out of its way to ensure that
	prospective applicants who are members of identified minority
	groups are made aware of the opening, and then encouraged to apply.

	This, so that instead of getting 10 applicants for a job, 9 of
	which are white males, the company might get 15 applicants,
	9 white males and 6, rather than 1 members of a minority
	group. 

	Once to pool of applicants is identified, the selection is based
	strictly of qualification.

	A affirmative action is with respect to obtaining qualified applicants,
	not toward the actual selection.

						Tom_K

   Re:<<< Note 1838.6 by TOMK::KRUPINSKI "I'm voting for 'REAL CHOICES' candidates in the DEFCU election" >>>

I think your understanding might be considered correct by many
very likeable people.  In the real world, the statistics about
how many of X minority you have employed at Y level will be used
to condemn your company as guilty (or suspect) of
discrimination.  In the face of this, many managers will bend
over backwards to be sure they won't be cited.  This can lead
to the reverse discrimination that some fear.  How reasonable
people think about AA doesn't really cut much ice.

fwiw,

Dick

	Dick,

	I would argue that the behavior you describe is not AA, but is,
	in fact, discrimination. Not "reverse" discrimination, but
	just plain discrimination. Discrimination is discrimination is 
	discrimination.

				Tom_K

White men have long benefited from affirmative action.

    
    	re .9
    
    >White men have long benefited from affirmative action.
    
    	Explain, please. Because I must've missed out on the benefits...
    

    
    Re: .6
    
    Tom,  What you describe is/was the original intent of affirmative
    action, but in some cases when actually implemented they developed and
    hired to a quota so as to avoid any accusation of discrimination.  Back
    in the middle seventies where my parents live they held open a new
    position on the local police force until they could fill it with a
    black man.  The black man who was hired lasted about six months because
    it became quickly apparent to him why he was hired so rumor had it that
    he told them what they could do with their job and left.
    
    Just a month or so ago, there was a report on NPR about the many
    minorities, mostly black, who were hired into positions for which they
    weren't qualified or weren't ready and just left to languish because
    the only intention was that they be the local "token".  These were very
    often capable people who with the right help/mentoring could have
    become very valuable employees.
    
    fwiw,
    Steve
    

   Re:<<< Note 1838.8 by TOMK::KRUPINSKI "I'm voting for 'REAL CHOICES' candidates in the DEFCU election" >>>

   Tom,
   
   I agree with you.  Unfortunately, in this era, it is not
   politically correct to be as candid as you are in your
   evaluation.  There are also persons who, in theory, would
   benefit from such "AA" programs, but oppose them for the
   condescending attitude they imply towards minorities.  That
   is another issue, but one which I sympathise with too.  The
   "token" X is not receiving any favors when his/her talents
   are ignored because s/he has the "right gender" or the "right
   color" or the "right kind of surname".
   
   Dick

What .11 relates imho is still going on to some degree.
My town has hired a minority to fill a position in the police dept.
I believe that it is a Ma. state law or a common law enacted by each
city/town that states that civil service employees must reside in the town
that hires them. Well, not only does this police officer not live in my 
town (yes, there are other of this minority in my town) but, he doesn't
even live in my state. Now THATS affirmative action at work!

I dont want to call into question his qualifications, he may very well
be qualified, BUT, I strongly suspect that he got the job only because
he was the only minority who applied.


I'd like to know what out of the ordinary things are/were done to 
recruit minorities, if Tom K's belief is correct.

I mean employers either put an ad in the papers or they used a head hunter.
do minorities read different newspapers and use different head hunters?



- George

    My dad (a professor at a state university) told me about a white guy
    there that found a way to take advantage of the AA system they have in
    place there.  Apparently, the university places ads in minority
    publications (Jet? - I'm not familiar with them).  This guy had his
    name legally changed to an ethnic name and applied listing the
    minority publication(s) as the source for the contact.  I think it was
    for minority grants.  It worked.
    
    A bit of a side track, but while I attended I paid full tuition and got
    a student loan to help on the side.  Even as a TA I didn't get a
    tuition break.  More than one student figured I was being pretty stupid
    about it.  There were apparently many students that applied for and got
    grants by simply lying on the application forms.  True, the lies could
    be verified.  But, the simple fact was that hardly anybody bothers to
    verify the data on a grant application.  At least, back then they
    didn't.  This was about seven years ago.
    
    
    Steve

     Don't be fooled into thinking that by removing this particular form of
Affirmative Action, fairness and equality would result.  The default situation
is not overall fairness but frequent discrimination in favor of the majority.

     With all of its faults, the form of Affirmative Action which benefits the
minority is better than the default situation.  Use Digital as an example.  
Even with Affirmative Action in place, you can't swing a dead cat without 
hitting a dozen white males.  Without some deliberate action such as
Affirmative Action, qualified people (who happen to be minorities) at Digital
would be as rare as honest politicians.  Face it, even though Digital (as
a corporation) tries to be fair, there are a lot of managers working for Digital
who don't see things that way.

     By working to make the term "quota" a hot, emotional issue, certain people
are basically saying "Give me facts to prove that the hiring policies are
racist, but...don't use any numbers....and if you can still prove it, we will
hire some qualified minorities...as long as it doesn't put any majorities' jobs
at risk."

     This Affirmative Action thing is not perfect by any means, but it seems to
be the best thing that anyone has been able to come up with.

                                     Greg

> Without some deliberate action such as
>Affirmative Action, qualified people (who happen to be minorities) at Digital
>would be as rare as honest politicians.  Face it, even though Digital (as
>a corporation) tries to be fair, there are a lot of managers working for Digital
>who don't see things that way

	You seem to be implying that the great majority of hiring managers at
	Digital are racists who hire minorities only because the law requires
	it. Do you really believe that? Why would you work at such a place?

			Alfred

BTW: As an elected official in my town I greatly resent the "rare as honest
politicians" cracks. Most of the politicians I know are very honest. 

    What follows is my experience of "affirmative action" during the early
    '70s, while working for the Social Security Administration.  I had a
    close up view of well-intentioned government policy running amok.
    
    CASE ONE:
    
    I joined SSA as a "Benefit Authorizer" (BA) trainee along with 20 other
    recent college grads.  To get into SSA, one typically had to score
    above the 95th precentile on a standardized national test open to all
    college grads.
    
    In talking amongst ourselves in training class, we became aware that
    several of us had gotten into SSA with scores in the 75th to 85th
    percentile range.  Further inquiry of the low scoring members revealed
    the following:
    
    One young Irish-Italian chap from South Philly had majored in Spanish
    in college.
    
    A woman whose father was a corporate executive in Latin America and had
    been raised there, and was fluent in Spanish.
    
    A middle aged Swiss woman was married to a Doctor who had a practice in
    Mexico City where she had learned Spanish.
    
    A young man with an Hispanic surname, whose mother was a PhD (not
    disadvantaged) and who did not speak more than a few words of Spanish,
    had the lowest score on the admission test.
    
    CASE TWO:
    
    The Union representing the filing clerks and key-punch operators
    demanded an upward promotion path to the Benefit Authorizer positions,
    even though they only had High School education.  They were given a
    test every year, and the top 10% (regardless of their scores) were 
    allowed to enter the annual BA training program along with the 95+ 
    percentile achieving college grads.  These individuals were 100%
    minorities.
    
    A substantial portion of my time at work as a BA was spent _undoing_
    the "work" of these individuals (all BAs are "responsible" for the
    prior two actions taken by previous BAs).  Numerous little old ladies
    incorrectly received notices that their SS benefits were being
    terminated, for example.  My performance rating directly suffered.
    
    CASE THREE:
    
    My boss was a minority woman, and her boss was a minority man.  In our
    department were numerous white males and females who had been passed
    over for promotion.  Because minorities are not evenly distributed
    around the USA, areas with high concentrations in the workforce must
    overpromote minorities to make up for the parts of the country where
    there are few minorities.  I determined that I would have to move from
    Philly to Wyoming if I expected to be promoted!  Both my boss and her
    boss were very competent, by the way.
    
    UPSHOT:
    
    I started working on my MBA at night and left SSA as soon as completion
    was in sight.
    
    Carter
    
    
     
    

    
    re:-
    > Even with Affirmative Action in place, you can't swing a dead cat
    > without hitting a dozen white males.
    
    	Not sure where you work but this is true for many places in N.H.
    outside of work.
    
    	Isn't one of the gauges of success in an A.A. program that the work
    mix in a given area is roughly equal to the population mix in the same
    area ???
    
    	Ray

    >Julia Machaelson, affirmative action officer and Valuing
    >Diversity Manager, Digital Equipment Corp.:  I, personally,
    >believe affirmative action is necessary.
    
    Ed Chaban, UNIX Software Consultant, Digital Equipment Corp.:
    I, personally, think UNIX support is necessary.....
    
    Hell, do you expect Julia to say anything else?  How can she keep her
    job if AA goes away?  
    
    -Ed
    

Why do Julia Machaelson's comments in .0 make her a bigot?  The
short quote there seems to me to say:

    1)	Affirmative action is necessary
    2)	Many people see affirmative action as a scapegoat, and are
	opposing affirmative action to further their political goals.

Why is that bigoted?

				- - Steve

   <<< Note 1838.20 by LJOHUB::BOYLAN "Hee'm verminous, but hee'm honest" >>>
    
    Someone that was REALLY Politically Correct and had set their cortical
    vigilance on Bigotry Scan COULD grab your "Hee'm" as a slur on Hispanic
    speech patterns.
    
    karl, also a UN*X minority person

    re: .17
    
    and this is one of the main problems with AA as implemented..
    
    AA rightfull assumes the world is not "fair"
    
    AA then helps pass legislation to enforce AA
    
    Now according to AA, it makes everythin "fair" so
    people who could never before qualify for a job are now magically
    qualified...
    
    the only problem with this is since 1964 when all this began,
    the US has as a powerful "industrial" nation been losing out
    all the time to other nations who let the "cream rise to the top"
    instead of making the world "fair" for everyone....
    
    my 2 cents

    <<< Note 1838.16 by CVG::THOMPSON "DCU Board of Directors Candidate" >>>
               -< had no idea there were so many racists around >-

>>would be as rare as honest politicians.  Face it, even though Digital (as
>>a corporation) tries to be fair, there are a lot of managers working for Digital
>>who don't see things that way

>	You seem to be implying that the great majority of hiring managers at
>	Digital are racists who hire minorities only because the law requires
>	it. Do you really believe that? Why would you work at such a place?


     OK, Alfred, care to tell me how you made the leap from "a lot of managers"
to "the great majority of hiring managers"?

                                      Greg

RE:    <<< Note 1838.18 by VICKI::DODIER "Food for thought makes me hungry" >>>
      
  >    	Isn't one of the gauges of success in an A.A. program that the work
  >  mix in a given area is roughly equal to the population mix in the same
  >  area ???
   
          Yes.  That is my point.  Even with Affirmative Action in place, the
     negative effect on the population of white males might even be considered
     negligible.  However, the removal of the safeguards could reasonably be
     expected to devastate the population of minorities.

                                        Greg

    RE:               <<< Note 1838.22 by TRLIAN::GORDON >>>

    >Now according to AA, it makes everythin "fair" so
    >people who could never before qualify for a job are now magically
    >qualified...
    
          Now THAT is a crock.  Most every time an Affirmative Action opponent
     chooses to describe a beneficiary of the program, they tend to be 
     unqualified people.  I'll tell you what...for every unqualified beneficiary
     of Affirmative Action, I can show you at least one white male who also
     was not qualified for the position he got.  Only, in his case, there
     is no outcry because the individual hiring manager made the decision
     rather than a corporate policy.  "Old Boy Networks" are a way of tilting
     the playing field to one's advantage, too.

          Another shocker for you: there IS such a creature as a QUALIFIED
     minority, and Digital has a nice crop of 'em.

                                       Greg

    I know this is difficult, but let's not try to discuss
    merits/experiences/opinions of affirmative action programs.

    I think what is far more important, if they are true, are
    the statements made by Digital's affirmative action officer. 
    In particular the statements:

         ...- that the white population will be in the minority...

    This statement is false. I believe the statistic she means to quote
    is that by the year 2000 white men will be a minority in the work force.

    And especially:

         ...they are fearful.  They are trying to figure out how whites
         will maintain power in the year 2000 and beyond....
    
    Here I believe she is saying that white males who disagree with
    affirmative action are against it because they do not want to
    share "power" with minorities. If Digital's Valuing Diversity Manager
    really believes this, it is an outrage.

    				One (white) man's opinion,

    				Ed

So, ignoring AA and whether it is a good/bad/indifferent thing, does anyone
want to discuss the real issue of:

>         Julia Machaelson, affirmative action officer and Valuing
>         Diversity Manager, Digital Equipment Corp.:  

as what might seem an official Digital spokesperson, saying:

>         people are fearful.  When they look at the demographics and
>         they see what the United States will look like in the year
>         2000 -- that the white population will be in the minority --
>         they are fearful.  They are trying to figure out how whites
>         will maintain power in the year 2000 and beyond.  

And that is supposed to be valuing .... What???????

    Julia Machaelson, personally, is entitled to place her personal opinion
    in the Boston Globe or PEAR::SOAPBOX.
    
    If she's not involved in the debate here, what's the point?

    Of course Julia Machaelson is entitled to her opinion.
    However, as Digital's Valuing Diversity manager, she must
    be held to a higher standard, especially in a public forum
    such as the Boston Globe. 

    I find her opinion of white males insulting. Perhaps I'm
    misreading something, but I'd like to hear some other
    explaination for her quote.

    					Ed

    Perhaps she was quoted incorrectly.  It has happened before. How about
    somebody calling her and verifying the quote.  If she has been quoted
    incorrectly, then she should have the Globe print a correction.

       <<< MORO::FLSRV$USER:[BEELER_JE.NOTES]VALUING_DIVERSITY.NOTE;1 >>>
                             -< VALUING_DIVERSITY >-
================================================================================
Note 49.3                   Can Diversity Backfire ?                      3 of 4
VORTEX::BASLIN::RYAN "Think spring!"                 45 lines  26-MAR-1992 09:18
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
	Personal perspective: I'm a white male - I've personally 
	never felt the least bit threatened by any kind of AA 
	program, and have trouble seeing any reason to be 
	resentful about them. Despite any official AA programs, 
	in practice (in the US), white males still automatically 
	get the respect members of other groups have to work hard
	at to earn.

	On the wider issues: First off, let's distinguish between
	the concepts of Valuing Diversity and Affirmative Action.
	What the former is about is that it is better to build
	teams that represent diverse backgrounds and points of
	view, and to help the individuals on those teams understand
	enough about their differences to get the most out of
	their diversity. I don't think that's really what .0
	is talking about. Affirmative Action is more along the
	lines of "group X is under-represented in the workforce,
	so make specific programs to get more members of group X
	into the workforce". I think that's the issue here.

	In considering the "backlash" effect of AA (as in "reverse
	discrimination" lawsuits), it's important to keep in
	mind the eventual goal - that people are judged by their
	ability to do the job, not by their race, gender, etc. Now,
	AA by definition runs counter to this principle - it requires
	that attention be paid to things that in an ideal world
	don't matter. The reason it exists is that we started from
	a point where things were terribly out of whack, and they
	were not going to spontaneously improve at any more than
	a snail's pace. AA was a "jump-start" - the purpose was
	to introduce give the historical victims of discrimination
	a foothold. I believe this was necessary, and it has
	accomplished that goal. There has been some "resentment"
	among some white males, but all-in-all that's better than
	the alternative - continued near-total segregation.

	But, to reach the eventual goal, at some time AA has to go
	away. There has to be a point where the progress towards
	true equal opportunity is self-sustaining, when we can
	throw away the crutches and make it the rest of the way
	without them. The tough question is, how do we know when
	we've reached that point? Are we there yet? If not, how
	much farther is it?

	Mike

RE: .23

>>>would be as rare as honest politicians.  Face it, even though Digital (as
>>>a corporation) tries to be fair, there are a lot of managers working for Digital
>>>who don't see things that way
>
>>	You seem to be implying that the great majority of hiring managers at
>>	Digital are racists who hire minorities only because the law requires
>>	it. Do you really believe that? Why would you work at such a place?
>
>
>     OK, Alfred, care to tell me how you made the leap from "a lot of managers"
>to "the great majority of hiring managers"?

    Really no great leap. If "a lot" didn't mean a significant or great
    majority it wouldn't be a big problem because the majority of
    reasonable managers would keep the others in check.

    			Alfred
                                      Greg

    Re .20:
    
    > Why is that bigoted?
    
    The two statements you paraphrased are not bigoted.  These statements
    made by Julia Michaelson are bigoted:
    
    	"They are fearful."
    
    	"They are trying to figure out how whites will maintain
    	power in the year 2000 and beyond."
    
    	"So, what we are seeing and hearing is fear of job loss; fear
    	of loss of income; the inability to buy homes."
    
    I think the attribution to Julia Michaelson must be a mistake, because
    Digital's "affirmative action officer" would never have said anything
    so bigoted, or even almost paranoid.
    
    
    				-- edp

    
    .... is still discrimination.

    What's the problem with people expressing personal opinions that they
    believe "whites fear ...", "blacks fear...", etc. to the Boston Globe?
    
    The opinion is labeled as a personal opinion and I think it's poor form
    to discuss a person's opinion when they've not been "invited" to the
    debate.

    
    	re -1
    
    	The problem with a company official expressing a personal opinion
    	to the press should be obvious, unless those opinions are in strict
    	concert with the official company line on the topic in question.
    	She has every right to express her opinion as a private person;
    	but as a company exec her comments need to reflect the opinion of
    	the company.

    I also have trouble with Digital's AA manager holding those personal
    opinions, assuming the Globe reports them accurately.

>    The opinion is labeled as a personal opinion and I think it's poor form
>    to discuss a person's opinion when they've not been "invited" to the
>    debate.
    
    	Julia Michaelson knows this topic is here. I sent her a copy of
    the base note yesterday. She replied to that mail this morning. She's
    been "invited."
    
    			Alfred

    re -1 .... it shouldn't be too difficuly to determine that because
    she obviously holds these "opinions" (read also biases), it should
    come as no big surprise that the prevailing attitude within the
    Valuing Differences organization towards white males is one of a
    calculated insult.
    
    I'm still amazed that the VD organization has survived all the purges
    the rest of us have been going through.  Talk about pure, useless,
    non-productive overhead.
    
    ......of course, if you want to see REAL, calculated, semi-official
    discrimination within Digital, there is always the case of the over-50
    white male employee........

    RE: a lot back...
    
    So, "Affirmative Action" is another example of American inability to
    call a spade a spade, It also displays the American inability to use a
    perfectly good, existing phrase to say something, and the American
    habit of making up a new, meaningless one instead..
    
    What you mean is "positive discrimination". We have that in the UK too.
    It must be the word "discrimination" that people object to. Well,
    whatever you call it, as a previous noter said, discrimination is
    discrimination, is discrimination. It doesn't matter whether it's for
    someone, or against them, it's still wrong.
    
    Laurie.

    re: .25
    
    there are many well qualified minoritys, but it is interesting that
    many many minority businesses would rather not hire minoritys because
    their experience has been they aren't enough that are qualified...
    
    the real problem is our education system, our students today are
    not challenged, the teachers unions in this country are doing to
    education what unions have done to the auto industry....
    
    just my 2 cents..

    Hmmm.  I gather it is bigoted to even report the results of national
    surveys?  For there have been surveys which Michaelson's statements
    echo.  "Time" did a major article on the subject some time back.
    
    						Ann B.

    Since we're in to reality and pointing out inconsistencies and
    inaccuracies: 
    
    >>there are many well qualified minoritys, but it is interesting that
    >>many many minority businesses would rather not hire minoritys because
    >>their experience has been they aren't enough that are qualified..
    
    Qualifies as a bigotted statement using the same brush that has tarred
    the oh-so-beknighted AA spokesperson. 
    
    Once the accusation begins to fly around, it is almost impossible to
    control it or avoid being smooshed by it.
    
    John H.

    re: .41
    
    I agree that our educational system is in shambles, but I wouldn't lay the
    entire blame on the teachers or their unions.  (I deploy unions.)

    RE: .41
>>    the real problem is our education system, our students today are
>>    not challenged, the teachers unions in this country are doing to
>>    education what unions have done to the auto industry....
    
    What AA intended and what it does are two different things.
    It intended to fix the causes of the imbalances, but all it does is
    hide the real problems and tries cure only the symptoms of
    discrimination.
    
    The real problem is that the American education system does not work
    hard enough to give all students an opportunity to compete for jobs
    on a level playing field.  In the past, a certain segment of the
    population got better educations.  When they got into business they
    wanted to hire people who were also educated.  In the past, that meant
    people who *had* a chance for a decent education; minorities weren't
    in that category.
    
    Nowadays, some people want a quick fix to that problem by hiring
    minorities to fill jobs even if they are less qualified, but they
    didn't want to spend the extra money in taxes to provide a better education
    to those same people when they were kids.  As a result, American
    businesses are not getting the best qualified people for the jobs.
    Is that better for this country?
    
    Some people say that, without AA, some highly successful minority
    businesses might not have had a chance to succeed.  That is true.
    What AA should be doing is making sure those minority businesses have
    a *equal* opportunity to prove themselves, not give them a freebie that 
    they don't have to work for.
    
    It upset me in college to see some minorities get unfair advantages
    over me, just because they made a big deal of their racial status.
    I know of one woman who was Chinese and was a member of the *Black* 
    Student Alliance/Association/Club.  She got ridiculous amounts of aid
    (her family had alot more money than mine) because she made a big deal
    of her racial background.  She flunked out during sophmore year anyways
    because it was too tough for her.  She had been brought in during the
    summer because they had to give her remedial classes to bring her up to
    speed; even then, she got half-paced courses so her workload was
    smaller.  Was *that* fair?  What about the other students didn't get
    in because their roster spot was reserved for someone who was not
    qualified?  What about the rest of us who had to compete in school with
    regular workloads?  That woman got a 3.0 average while I didn't even
    come close.  While I was lightyears ahead of her in education and
    ability, her prospective employers will see her better grade point
    average.  *That's* not fair.  It also hurts the people it's suppose to
    help.
    
    B.

   Re:               <<< Note 1838.45 by NAPIER::WONG "The wong one" >>>

To continue the "shoot yourself in the foot" rathole...

   Here in Puerto Rico, as you might imagine, Spanish is the
   majority language and English is spoken by a sizeable
   minority (many of whom are bilingual like me).
   
   Well, our governor and his political party, who feel like a
   minority, even though they are (locally) the majority,
   decided to rescind the 50-year old law that established
   English and Spanish as _both_ official languages.  Now only
   Spanish is an official language.  
   
   So far, that seems reasonable.  But guess how it is applied?
   
   If you are a native speaker of English, you can get an
   exemption from the new law without blinking an eye, but if
   not, then you have to get prior approval from the government
   to submit building plans, etc in English.
   
   So native speakers of Spanish who have not mastered Spanish
   as a "technical language" must pay for translaters to prepare
   acceptable documents while the monolingual Anglo may pass that
   expense on to the government.
   
   Go figure...
   
Dick

	Re: .33 BEING::EDP

>>	These statements made by Julia Michaelson are bigoted:
>>    	"They are fearful."
>>    	"They are trying to figure out how whites will maintain
>>    	power in the year 2000 and beyond."
>>    	"So, what we are seeing and hearing is fear of job loss; fear
>>    	of loss of income; the inability to buy homes."

	So JM claims that _some_ whites, believing that they will be
	be in a minority in just 8 years time, are fearful of their
	jobs, income, and so on being taken from them by groups that
	are currently minorities.  Right?


	Is JM's claim, in your opinion, BEING::EDP, true or not true?
	(Note carefully that she talks about _some_ whites, not _all_ 
	whites).

	Jim

The problem with Ms. Michaelson's comments is that it exemplifies all that is 
wrong with AA and programs of that ilk. The wrong is the institutionalization of
racial identification.

Her remarks imply a prejudice toward white males. She thinks of people in terms 
of the group they belong to. I would not be a bit surprised if she assumed, on 
meeting any white male, that he is "fearful" of losing power. And this assumption
would be based solely on the color of his skin.  Sounds like bigotry to me.

As has been remarked, AA was meant to be a means to an end. That is, it was meant
to try and start the process of overcoming the results of centuries of anti-black
bigotry. This is an admirable goal. But, after a while AA becomes part of the
problem.

It's sort of like driving car. You have to start in first gear, but,
if you don't shift up after a while you'll tear your engine apart.  AA was first
or second gear. I think we forgot to shift up and are now close to red-lining the
tach.

Alan

Re: .21

>     Someone that was REALLY Politically Correct and had set their cortical
>     vigilance on Bigotry Scan COULD grab your "Hee'm" as a slur on Hispanic
>     speech patterns.
>    
>     karl, also a UN*X minority person

Why, I suppose that someone who was hypersensitive to colloquial language
could, in theory, interpret that as a Hispanic speech pattern - which
would, however, be pretty bizarre, considering the origin of the quote!

				- - Steve

     
    So we have gotten to the point where having a steady job, a steady
    income, and a home = "maintaining power"!
    
    All you hard working homeowners out there should be ashamed of
    yourself!!

    I haven't re-read all 50 responses, but was it mentioned anywhere
    what race the Lady is herself?  That might help us understand why
    she is saying these things.

    Re: .-1
    
    Errr.  Uhh.  Hmmm.  I don't think that is a PC question.	:-)

    
    Re:-2
    
    Obviously, you've never heard of Thomas Sowell.
    
    -Ed
    

RE:    <<< Note 1838.32 by CVG::THOMPSON "DCU Board of Directors Candidate" >>>

>>  OK, Alfred, care to tell me how you made the leap from "a lot of managers"
>>  to "the great majority of hiring managers"?

>    Really no great leap. If "a lot" didn't mean a significant or great
>    majority it wouldn't be a big problem because the majority of
>    reasonable managers would keep the others in check.

         If the majority of "reasonable managers" was unaware of the problem
     or was hesitant to believe that the problem existed, the big problem 
     would still remain.  

          Furthermore, it is bad form to rewrite someone's argument and then 
     ask them to defend your new version.

          I said "a lot".  I mean "a lot".  

                                     Greg

    re: .43
    
    that's what I though when I heard it a few months ago on NPR from
    a minority business leader in one of the southern states who if he
    had continued to hire minoritys said he would have had to go out
    of business...!!

Re: .26, .27, .29, .30, .33, .35, .37, .39, & .48

Please go back, read the entire quote in .0 once more, and
consider the possibility that, while the actual words quoted
from the Boston Globe are open to misinterpretation, Julia
Machaelson's point may have been that a number of politicians
are using divisive, racist tactics to pursue their political
ambitions, taking advantage of the fears of some of the American
population.

It's not clear from the quote, as constructed, whether or not
the sentences beginning with "Some people are fearful." are
subordinate to the preceeding sentence.

				- - Steve

>          I said "a lot".  I mean "a lot".  

	Fine. What's a lot? How many racist managers do you think there are
	at Digital? How many do you know personnally? I don't know any managers
	who hire based on sex or race. But then I've only worked here 10-12
	years.

			Alfred

RE:    <<< Note 1838.57 by CVG::THOMPSON "DCU Board of Directors Candidate" >>>

>How many racist managers do you think there are at Digital?

     That is a ridiculous question, but I can say that they are not as rare
as they ought to be.   

>How many do you know personnally?

     I have encountered one, out of the eight managers I have worked with at
Digital.    

>I don't know any managers who hire based on sex or race. 

     You may not be aware of it, but it is highly likely that you DO know such
a manager.

>But then I've only worked here 10-12 years.

     Totally irrelevant.  You could work here your entire life and be blind to
what it going on around you, as long as you don't have to deal with it.

                                        Greg

    RE .56

    I understand what you are saying. I guess the quote could 
    be interpreted as you suggest, but it is certainly not obvious to
    me. You believe the statement is meant to say that it is the 
    politicians who are afraid of losing power. 

    Three things still bother me.

    The first is the misstatement of fact - that whites will be the
    minority in the year 2000. Perhaps just a misquote on the paper's part.

    The second, is that if she is aware of this conference, why has
    she not posted a correction/clarification here?

    Third, as her job is AA manager, one would think that she would
    have a prepared statement of her views on AA ready at all times.
    Such a statement would not be as ambiguous as the one released to
    the Globe.

    						Ed

	More government bureaucracy is exactly what we don't need, so I
	admit to a certain disdain for the Congressional view of AA.

	But does anyone question that real, malicious prejudice exists,
	or that it has some palpable connection with who gets which job
	when?  It does, and it does.

	We may quibble forever over precisely how successful AA is here
	at DEC and elsewhere, but I think we should ask whether any new
	remedies are coming down the pike which work better to offset a
	clear and persistent evil among us.

	If the price we pay for AA is an occasional incompetent of some
	minority group offered a job, that seems to me no more nuisance
	than having the occasional white male incompetent in similar or
	equivalent positions.  And yes, we do have the occasional white
	male incompetent even at DEC, if that matters.


			Charlton Allen [a white male]

    re the issue of whether DEC has/had any managers who hired based on
    sex....and have I ever run into one....ABSOLUTELY!!
    
    I know of at least two situations where I have been personally involved
    where female managers staffed their organizations with women...to the
    open detriment of any male trying to break into these organizations.
    One of 'em actually told me she was trying to correct past wrongs and
    provide opportunities to as many women as possible.
    
    Mind you, there was nothing wrong with these organizations.  They ran
    as good or better than the more "balanced" similar organizations, but
    there was a very clear "no sailors, dogs or males need apply" sign on
    the door.
    
    Right now, as we speak, a group of over 50, white male instructors at
    the U of Colorado is sueing the school for sex and age discrimination
    because much younger female and minority prof's are being hired for
    more money that these guys get after 20 years.  The UofC says it is
    necessary to pay the high salaries in order to get the females they
    want.  At least they are openly discriminatory.

       How many of the people reading/inputting to this note have taken the
    time to go to their personnel office and read the AA plan for their
    site? Maybe the time has come to do away with AA, but I don't think so. 
       
       

    That plan ought'a be worth about as much as the average DEC job
    description.

AA and EEO is one of those nightmares you wake up from only to realize that 
it really did and does happen.

After having spent 12 or so years of honorable service in the Marine Corps 
it is quite disconcerting to see a single female with tatoos on her 
forearms and who was thrown out of the same branch of service (after two 
choppy years) given preference in hiring. 

I don't want to seem like I am "fussing" but there is a large measure of 
injustice in American business due to Affirmative Action and Equal Employment 
Opportunity programs. From my perspective here is how I understand it . . .

America believes in "equal justice under law." Our system of jurisprudence 
is designed to be equitable and fair. However, because justices interpret 
laws differently all kinds of abuses creep in. AA and EEO is one example.

Minorities and women compose a large portion of voters in this country. 
They can put a candidate in office or take him out. Politicians and lawyers 
are, therefore, sensitive to their opinions. In fact, minorites and women 
now compose more than half the American workforce. Enter EEO and AA.

Apparently a large segment of minority and women voters are interested in 
better jobs, wages and promotional advantages. No problem, who isn't. But 
their interest is tainted with illigitimate means to attain their end. They 
want jobs without the benefit of the qualifications to obtain and maintain the 
position. They want promotions without merit.

To do this they play with numbers saying, "Only 8% of American engineers 
are minorities or women." Businesses reply, "Well, we only give engineering 
positions to those who qualify." Minorities and women come back with, "We 
cannot meet the criteria because we are not allowed the benefit of equal 
education and training." 

First there was forced bussing. Little black school children pile on buses 
in their black communities and are shipped to predominantly white communities 
to get an education. Result: education standards in the predominantly white 
community schools are *lowered* to graduate the academic nightmare they 
inherited. Black minorities, statistically speaking, do not fare well in 
academics. That's not racism. That's just some cold, hard statistics.

OK, so now blacks realize they cannot get that engineering position by 
meriting it so they go back to the old line, "We cannot meet the criteria 
because we are not allowed the benefit of equal income to move out of our poor 
communities that breed academic failure." 

Politicians are in a fix. *If* they respond, "We are not going to give you 
unfair advantage in hiring, wages and promotion just to give you more 
money," *then* first, there is a high probability that a riot will occur, 
second, they aren't going to get needed votes. The former is, perhaps, far more 
paramount in importance to a politician than the latter. Hence, EEO and AA.

The right thing to do is to say, "Sorry, we don't buy that. There are 
plenty of examples of immigrants who arrived on Ellis Island penniless, 
were forced to live in little hovels and tin shacks around Manhattan but 
who earned their way into American affluence." 

What's right is not necessarily a vote grabber. So . . .

*Hidden* quotas for white males have been filled with technical positions 
that are non-negotiable. You cannot make computers without a hand full of 
people who *really* know what they are doing. So all the non-technical 
positions are filled with less qualified women and minorities and I've got 
to compete for wage quotas with them. Frankly, it's disgusting (not to 
mention unjust).

Now here I am with a B.A. and an M.A. in a wage class 2 job making a base 
pay of $10.00 an hour. I cannot compete because I am white and I am male. 

I have obeserved that many minorities occupy higher salaries in areas like 
Training, Quality, Personnel and various other non-technical positions. 
From my perspective, as the guy whose got the Health Department checking on 
his rat-bitten child in a trailer that has literal holes in the rotted 
through flooring, I'm ever so slightly disappointed.

Certainly there are those minorities and women who qualify for positions 
and promotions. I agree with the AA and EEO statements that I see posted on 
the notice boards. But what is posted and what I have seen are two 
completely different ideas. The document is good and just and right. The 
interpretation and implementation of that document is a very good example 
of much of what fills the congressional record: double talk.

John

>The right thing to do is to say, "Sorry, we don't buy that. There are 
>plenty of examples of immigrants who arrived on Ellis Island penniless, 
>were forced to live in little hovels and tin shacks around Manhattan but 
>who earned their way into American affluence." 

EXACTLY,  we could ALL benefit from this example rather than try to blame
some societal 'quirk' on our own failures.  Being Americans (the USA type),
we have the right to be DIFFERENT!  I don't want to be treated the same as
everyone else and I don't want everyone else treated the same as me.  That's
what makes this whole system so great, we all have equal opportunities, we 
can either choose to get off our backsides and do something with ourselves or
we can sit back and blame our predicament on someone else.  I also don't buy
this 'poor minority from the wrong part of town so please give me a break'
stuff.  There are plenty of examples of people from these parts, white/
minority/male/female/whatever that have succeeded to blow the theory full of 
holes.

Sorry, I realize this probably belongs in SOAPBOX, guess the topic just 
hit a nerve.

Brian (usually read-only and probably will continue to be after I get
       FLAMED for this :^}  ).

    Thank you, gentlemen.  Without your information, I would never have
    known that twelve years in the Marine Corps made one the ideal
    candidate for any position in Digital.
    
    						Ann B.

    Well, I personally feel that seeing something associated with the 
    military on a person's resume should carry a LOT more weight than
    they're sex or color.  
    
    This topic hits a raw nerve with me ... AA has *very* little to
    do with "equality" ....
    
    Jerry

    Mr. White,
    
    All right.  Both the man and the woman in .64 had military backgrounds.
    
    Why was the white man more qualified for the non-military job?
    
    							Ann B.
    
    P.S.  I happen to think that anyone who uses "they're" when meaning
    "their" should not be considered for any job requiring literacy.  Do
    you feel differently?

    RE: -1's P.S.
    
    Know, eye dew knot.  8^)
    
    RE: -1 and the military ...
    HE had 12 years of service with the military (a job).  She had 2 years
    with the same "company", and her service record is questionable.  If we
    were measuring 2 men, or 2 women, or 2 snapping turtles, with similar
    records, which one would you hire ?
    
    Jerry
    
    

    Jerry,
    
    Yes, you've made it obvious that you think that an ability to
    communicate clearly is unimportant for white men, such as yourself.
    
    Since we're not hiring someone to do pushups or kill people, I
    would hire the individual with the best qualifications for the
    actual job.  That someone did not do well in the military does
    not mean that someone will not do well in civilian life.
    
    Suppose that someone had been sexually harassed until she left her
    former job?  Does that say more about her or about her employers?
    
    Now, why didn't the author of .64 list his actual skills?  Could
    it be...?
    
    						Ann B.

>    Jerry,
>    
>    Yes, you've made it obvious that you think that an ability to
>    communicate clearly is unimportant for white men, such as yourself.
    
    	Classy.  A guy uses the wrong word and you generalize about his 
    	opinion for a white man's need to communicate clearly.  Sheesh, 
    	your arguments are great, but your delivery sucks.

    Re: Note 1838.66 by REGENT::BROOMHEAD
    
    Hi Ann,
    
    You're reply is revealing.
    
>   Thank you, gentlemen.  Without your information, I would never have
>   known that twelve years in the Marine Corps made one the ideal
>   candidate for any position in Digital.

    First, it demonstrates an ignorance of the kind of discipline and
    training required for just plain old hard work. Something most
    employers desire.
    
    Second, it demonstrates an ignorance of the kind of loyalty that
    employers also demand of prospective employees.
    
    Thirdly, it illustrates good old fashioned bias.
    
    John 

I think the whole problem is that any time a person gets turned down for a job,
promotion or raise, they almost never have any way of knowing the real reason 
(or reasons).

If you see someone of minority standing get turned down for a job for reasons
that are obvious to you, then it might not sound like it's very grounded in
reality when that person claims discrimination.  Then again, it might be that
you noticed that reason solely because you were scrutinizing them more than 
you'd have done with a member of the approved majority.  Then again, only the
person making the hire/promote/raise decision really has any way of know for
sure what the real reason is, and quite often, they haven't thought about it
enough past the gut reaction point to really understand their own motivation.

It also cuts both ways.  It could be that a white male is turned down for a job
on his own merits, but he might feel that it's reverse discrimination.  As a 
matter of fact, if the person in charge of the decision is unable or unwilling
to tell the guy the real reason, he might even blame his decision on AA, just as
the nearest convenient legal excuse.  It's easy to do:  It diverts the whole
coversation on a common theme, it leaves the employer relatively unexposed (in
any legal sense), and it totally bypasses challenging the candidate on issues
that might have to do with his competence or social skills.

For a person of minority to say "The only reason I didn't get the job is because
I'm XXX", is for that person to avoid having to examine whether there are any
more personal issues that they have control over.  It is certainly possible, and
has been demonstrated in the past that being "XXX" is a common reason for not
getting hired, but just leaving it at that still precludes the possibility of
the candidate growing or otherwise correcting legitimate concerns an employer
might have.

By the same token, for a white male to say "I didn't get the job because of
reverse discrimination" might be true (and it has been demonstrated in the past),
but it also eliminates any threat of that person examining themselves to see if
there's something they can do to make themselves more hireable.

One thing is for certain:  If someone really is a superstar, all the quotas and
AA, or even discrimination aren't going to really matter.  If the employer 
thinks he's got a hot enough candidate, he'll overlook just about anything.
(Then again, he might use the discrimination or AA as an excuse for paying less
once the person's in the job.)

People have very often suggested to me that some of my difficulties in the work
place might be due to me being a woman.  Or, maybe they're discrimination 
against one of the many other attributes of the person I call "me".  The trouble
with that suggestion is that it's entirely useless.  What I'm really interested
in is whether or not there's something I can do to improve my relationship with
my employer, or whether that's even worth the effort or possible.  Yes, it might
be due to some bias on his part, but finger pointing on my part certainly isn't
going to help that any.

    Re: Note 1838.69 by REGENT::BROOMHEAD
    
    Hi again Ann,

>   All right.  Both the man and the woman in .64 had military backgrounds.
>   
>   Why was the white man more qualified for the non-military job?
    
    May I answer this question for Jerry?
    
    The young lady in question drove trucks in the Corps. She may have been
    a very good driver but she had a bad habit of cussing out her
    authorities. She was dishonorably dischaged. Two weeks after my first 
    interview with DEC (an operator's position in manufacturing) she was 
    hired as an operator. I was not. 

    Fourteen months later DEC hired me after I had spent that entire period as 
    a contract with good recommendations from all of my supervisors (little 
    sick time, lots of overtime, good work habits, etc.). 
    
    In the meantime the young lady in question had a bad habit of failing
    to show up for work. She was moved to another area. Perhaps management
    thought a change of scenery would be good for her. It had little
    effect. She was fired. 
       
>   P.S.  I happen to think that anyone who uses "they're" when meaning
>   "their" should not be considered for any job requiring literacy.  Do
>   you feel differently?
    
    I went back and checked my note (.64). The error you ascribed to me does
    not exist. I don't think I would consider you for a position requiring
    proofreading skills. But, who knows, you may test well and I would hire
    you anyway :)
    
    John

    re .75
    
    I agree.  I think the biggest single difference between winners and
    losers in this world is whether they assume that their success or
    failure depends on themselves or on others.  Certainly there is bias
    and discrimination, but you don't improve yourself by focusing on it.
    You improve yourself by taking obstacles as challenges and overcoming
    them.
    
    fwiw,
    
    Dick

RE: Note 1838.73
>> Currently, there is a pro-white, pro-male bias in this country, and
>> therefore in this company. 

There is?  How come I missed out on it?

At this point in time, white males need to be clearly superior, clearly
more in need, or clearly more qualified in order to get any type of
benefit over another person, whether it be a job, a scholarship, whatever.

Just once, I'd like to see a poster touting "The Society of White Male
Engineers" in someone's office.  How long do you think it would last?  I 
have seen posters in DECcie's offices touting just such a group for the 
opposite persuasions, and find it to be very offensive because it excludes 
me based on my race and sex. I'd also like to see a "Male only (of any 
color) Marathon". It is now PC and highly encouraged to organize your 
own special interest group and exclude others as long as you're anything 
but white and male.

At what point when white males are the most discriminiated against does 
someone declare that we're now "even" and call a truce?  Discrimination
of any type is wrong, including that which is now occuring on a regular
basis against white males. 

    Yes, really.
    
    People have been tested in their job skills, across many, many
    different jobs.  The result?  White men scored lowest, black men
    came next, then white women, with black women having the best
    job skills for each job held.
    
    Does these mean white men are incompetent clods?  No.  It means
    (I hope) that they are promoted promptly to a new level as they
    deserve it.  But it equally means that the other categories of
    people are *not* promoted promptly when they deserve it.
    
    It may build my character to struggle for something you get handed
    on a plate, but that doesn't make it fair.
    
    Somewhere, in the depths of one of the notes in this conference
    about that re-evaluation (what was it called?) back in the mid-80's,
    is a casual acknowledgement that it revealed a heavy pro-white-men
    bias in this company, one that would have been too expensive for
    the company to have even tried to overcome.
    
    There's also note 638.51.  (That reference I could find.)
    
    						Ann B.

.80>People have been tested in their job skills, across many, many
.80>different jobs.  The result?  White men scored lowest, black men
.80>came next, then white women, with black women having the best
.80>job skills for each job held.

Interesting. Could you post a reference please?

Thanks-

Lee Roth    

    >>         <<< Note 1838.80 by REGENT::BROOMHEAD "Don't panic -- yet." >>>
>>                           -< Because you're in it. >-
>>
>>    Yes, really.
>>    
>>    People have been tested in their job skills, across many, many
>>    different jobs.  The result?  White men scored lowest, black men
>>    came next, then white women, with black women having the best
>>    job skills for each job held.

    Ann,
    	Do you have any figures to back up that statement, and what are the
    sources for those statements.  It is not polite to state such a view 
    without facts.  You might be challenged.

    Jim Morton

    Re: Note 1838.78 by PULPO::BELDIN_R

    Dick,
    
>   I agree.  I think the biggest single difference between winners and
>   losers in this world is whether they assume that their success or
>   failure depends on themselves or on others.
    
    Were this topic on winners and losers or something like success and 
    failure I suppose your point might be relevant. In this topic, at this 
    point, it seems rather to be a smoke screen to hide some very real and 
    very glaring inequities.
    
    The rhetoric does not do away with the problem, it aggravates it.
    
    John

John,
	Consider that most managers want to hire the best person anyway.  If
they don't then they will be less productive.  The company may even loose
money.  They might even consider layoffs.  UHHH!!!!!  NAH, no connection.

	Its true, we get what we deserve.  If you hire for other than quality,
than that is what you get.  It doesn't matter if if the best qualified is
a tomato, you hire the tomato.

Jim Morton

    I don't know about hiring, but Personnel can and did veto some TFSO
    selections based upon EEO/AA concerns.
    
    Bob

    It's a little too generalized to say that there is an across the board
    cultural bias towards white men.  There may still be a trend in business 
    hiring and promotion, but certainly not across our entire culture.  As a 
    case in point, look at the statistics regarding the success rate of white 
    men in child custody battles.  Lots of bright, financially stable white men
    lose their kids to obviously less qualified women.  Why?  Gender.
    Are moms inherently better parents?  Hardly.
    
    Discrimination is a crime, even if the victim is unlucky enough to
    belong to a group that is stereotypically viewed as favored.  "Reverse
    discrimination" is a misnomer.  It's all the same, regardless of the
    victim's race, gender, religion, sexual preference, or whatever - it's
    just discrimination.  If EEO/AA policies favor one person over another
    based on issues irrelevent to their ability to perform the job, then
    it's unfair to everyone.
    
    tim

       Well, I'll try to keep this short, but guess what?  You're all
    right....well, a little bit at least.  That's the problem with 
    generalizations, they over look the individual.  Unfortunately, I've
    become so pessimistic about the human race that I think there will
    always be serious prejudices and bias'.  What bugs me the most is the
    fact that I live in a world where there was ever a need for AA laws
    because of our own stupidity.
       Personally, I had to apply for six different jobs (over thirty
    interviews) internally to get the entry level position I have now in
    Engineering.  And more than one manager has told me..."Sorry, I had
    couldn't hire you, it was an AA thing".  Well, who knows maybe they
    were lying to make me feel better.  Either way, we're pretty screwed up
    as a race (human). BTW, it took me seven years to get out of production 
    and into the job I have now.
    
                                                        Capt. Scott

     I found Mr. Leabeater's logic SEVERELY wanting.  He blames his failure
to gain the position he thinks he deserves on others, but leaves no 
responsibility to himself.  He talks about "these blacks" who have higher-
level jobs as if he can certify that none of them actually qualified for their
positions.  He certainly can not do that.  In hard economic times, minorities
are often blamed by those who feel sorry for themselves.  The hard fact of 
the matter is that these people would have just as much competetion from 
members of their own race if the minority people were not there (both qualified
and unqualified competetion).

     In the illogic, people are able to convince themselves that a creature
called the qualified, competent employeee (who happens to not be caucasian)
does not exist.  This makes it easier for them to criticize AA/EEO.  Reality,
however, shows that there are a large number of minority employees who are
feeling as mistreated as Mr. Leabeater...highly qualified and underemployed.
Perhaps, they might be wiser not to blame it all on the "old boy network" 
(caucasian male AA/EEO).

                                        Greg

    I really didn't want to get into this, but I feel like I have a right
    to my own opinion.  
    
    I am a white female, 6 1/2 year Air Force veteran with an Honorable
    Discharge in Dec 1975.  Went to tech school on the GI bill (thank you,
    Uncle Sam, but thank *me* for earning it!) and worked my butt off for 
    a 3.98 average.  
    
    How did I feel then?  I felt like I was as good as anyone and that I
    deserved the best I could get.  I believed in working for what I got
    and I believed that I did the work.  Naive, huh.
    
    How do I feel now?  Well, reality sets in after awhile.  After you
    realize that even after a 15% raise that you are not making the same as
    the male grad that was hired the same month you were, FAR FROM IT.  
    After realizing that you could never be (nor would you really want to 
    be) part of the 'good ol boy' network and after you realize, after 
    all these years of work and trying to make the right moves that the
    good pay you thought you made was only good "for a woman".
    
    Some things never change, regardless of what you've done.  There's
    always that thought in the back of your mind, "Am I being taking
    seriously?  Am I being ignored?  Am I being used?"  It's *not* 
    paranoia, it's real.  So, sorry, I don't have much sympathy for most
    of the crying going on in this topic.  That's life.
    
    It's a man's world, after all, and if a woman got a break and didn't
    make the most of it, that's life, too!
    
    					Kathleen
    
    P.S.  I checked my spelling, but you can go ahead and recheck it if it
    makes you happy.

    Near as I can tell, we're coming closer to "equality".  That is,
    somebody in every race, gender and sexual preference suffering from
    some form of discrimination.  I am glad to be an engineer.  To quote
    Mark Steinkrauss (former chairman of the DCU BoD) as overheard to Jim 
    Rice (a high-paid attorney "representing" DCU) prior to a meeting with
    a small number of disgruntled DCU shareholders last year, "Remember,
    Jim, these are engineers.  They don't care who you are."
    
    Steve

    I'll tell you what.  I have three degrees, but no military service.  I
    am white, male, and over fifty.  I am earning 40% less than people who
    joined the organization 10 years later than I and have only one degree. 
    I understand the business better than anyone, but I have this annoying
    habit of not biting my tongue and I am not very humble (as you may have
    noticed).  I'm not part of the *network* nor do I want to be.  I
    rejected it twice when it was offered to me.  Those who are part of the
    network have all kinds of problems I don't have.  I don't envy them any
    more.
    
    Sure there's an old boys network!  There always has been and there
    always will be.  My grandmother told me about the old girls network in
    the DAR.  Not much different.  The *out*'s will always envy the *in*'s
    unless they come to realize that the cost exceeds the benefit.
    
    Relax, there's more to life than work and promotions. 
    
    	"There are three things which are real: God, human folly, and
    laughter.  Since the first two pass our comprehension, we must do what
    we can with the third."
    
    		Aubrey Menen in THE RAMAYANA
    
    imho,
    
    Dick
    

    RE: -1
    
    Well put !  
    
    Jerry

    >> <<< Note 1838.93 by RAVEN1::JERRYWHITE "Where's my DEC cadet handbook
    >>?" >>>
    
    >>    RE: -1
    
    >>    Well put !
    
    >>    Jerry
    
    Only as an example of the typical mawkish condescension offered for
    centuries by "haves" to "have nots" as rationalization of status quo.
    "I'm not doing anything, it's the universe." 
    
    Such nonsense. 
    
    Why should women or ethnic minorities grin and bear it when us white
    men feel perfectly empowered to squeal like stuck pigs every time some
    one tries to get a fair piece of the pie?
    
    John H. 

    I am all for *anyone* getting a "fair piece of the pie".  Judge them on
    merit, not color or sex.  Unfortunately, that is *not* how AA works.
    
    Jerry

RE: Note 1838.94

>> Why should women or ethnic minorities grin and bear it when us white
>> men feel perfectly empowered to squeal like stuck pigs every time some
>> one tries to get a fair piece of the pie?
   
I have no problem with everyone getting a fair piece of the pie, and am 
all in favor of it.

The problem is, that under the cover of AA and EEO, some people now want 
more than a fair piece of the pie to make up for what they feel are the 
injustices that our forefathers committed against theirs.

Preferential treatment is discrimination against those not being preferred.

You know, with my previous reply, I may have left the impression that I'm 
against AA.

That would be a rash assumption.

Discrimination does exist, and I have no problems believing that it exists here
at Digital.  Do I have proof?  No, not really.  No more proof than anyone can
offer me that it doesn't exist here at Digital.  I also believe that there may
be multiple instances of "reverse discrimination" here at Digital.  Do I have
proof?  No, but then again, no one's offered me any hard proof to the contrary,
either.

It's the nature of the beast that you just don't know what a person's motivations
are, and for that matter, the person may not be aware of his own motivations.
What makes a person take that extra hard look at that one resume, and is he
searching for good news or bad news?  Who knows?

What really gets me is how everyone wants it both ways.  How many times have
you heard a white male say "Well, they offered me the job, but I know I'm less
qualified than that minority candidate, so out of fairness, I'll step aside"?
(Answer, for me, only once.)  How many times have you heard a member of a
minority say "Well, the only reason they offered me that job is AA, so out of
fairness, I'll step aside and let the more qualified candidates in"?  (Answer
for me: never.)

Nearly everyone I've met is willing to accept a job, even when they know it's
being offered for the wrong reasons.  With one exception (and the exception was
a minister, so I guess I'd sort of expect that from him), my experience is that
a person will not only accept a job, knowing that there's not a level playing
field, but they'll even go out of their way to make sure they don't find out
that this is the case.

So, why is it that the job candidate doesn't cry foul when they're the 
beneficiaries of some discriminatory action, but that they're the first in line
screaming "Unfair!" when they're on the other end of the stick?  If you're
willing to live with the benefits of some sort of discrimination, then you
should also be willing to live with the downsides.

That's sort of the point of AA, isn't it?  The people it attempts to "help" have
been living with the downsides for some time now, and for that matter, are 
probably still dealing with some of the downsides.  It attempts to help that
out.

Of course, the white males, who were benefitting from the downsides for so long
generally had no complaints until AA came along, then they start shouting "No
fair!".  No, it isn't fair.  But, it's never been fair.

It's also not fair that when I get a new job, it doesn't matter how good I
am or how smart I am, because I have to waste a half a year or a year proving
to everyone that my hiring wasn't AA based.  White males don't have to prove
themselves, and may even get more than the benefit of the doubt, with the
assumption that "If he got hired with all this AA going around, he must really
be smart".

AA may be unfair, and it may even have its downsides for the people who it
attempts to benefit (as in the above paragraph), but as long as a minority
employee gets paid less (on the average) for the same job, or gets passed over
more often for the promotion, I'm not going to feel a heck of a lot of sympathy
for those who cry about how they *MIGHT* have been passed over because of AA.

As for our friend from the Marines:  Why wasn't he hired first, or why was that
woman given preference over him?  Well, since he's still working here and she
isn't, I guess that preference was a sort of fleeting thing.

Assuming that they intereviewed with the same person, maybe she could schmooze
an interviewer better.  Assuming different interviewers, maybe she just talked
to someone with lower standards.

Maybe she appeared smarter.  Maybe he appeared dumber.  Maybe she seemed more
enthusiastic, maybe he didn't.

Maybe she came a whole lot cheaper, and the company was less willing to pay his
higher salary.

If interviewing for different jobs, maybe they saw her as a better fit.

Maybe there was AA based discrimination at work.

But, much of that doesn't matter now, because evidently the guy got to keep his
job, and if we believe what we've read here, the woman got fired all on her own
merits.  Mistakes are made, but to take what's been said here at face value, the
mistakes have obviously been corrected.  When do we stop crying "Victim"?

    Re.: Note 1838.90 by EVMS::K_COLLINS 
    
    Kathleen,
    
    But that *just* the point! Apparently you have been wronged. I don't
    need to check your spelling, I'm not prejudging and I'm not addressing
    the irrelavent (i.e. grammar). Nor am I going to sit back on my laurals
    and bleat a Stoic "fate," roll over and play dead. People can change.
    People *will* change if they want to and, by the grace of God, are
    allowed to.
    
    The Supreme Court and Congress have not allowed change here. It's too
    costly for them. An open conference like this, however, can bring about
    those circumstances which allow change for the better. If Washington
    gets the message that we want *real* equality then change can occur.
    
    John 

    Everyone is out to cover their (did I spell that right ?) own butts. 
    Minorities have every right to scream "foul" for past injustices.  But
    I can't help but think that a program pushing equality according to
    MERIT as opposed to equality in numbers due to race and sex, that this
    problem wouldn't exist, or at least, it wouldn't be as severe.  AA
    provides a shield for minorities who choose to abuse it.  That gives
    *every* minority a bad name, and reason for them to have to prove
    themselves in the work place.  Hire according to merit and NOTHING
    else, and this goes away.  And don't cry about minorities not having
    opportunities for education either.  That's not much of an issue
    anymore.  Everyone has the ability and option to set their own course.
    
    Oh John ... I beleive you meant "laurels", not "laurals".  How do you
    ever expect to advance, if you can't spell.   8^) x 30,000 
    
    Jerry  

    
    RE: .100
    
        Careful John. You're quick to castigate Ann for failing
    to provide sources, yet you turn around and quote "a Washington
    editorial writer" to support your position. If I said that
    "former Marines have an unusually high incidence of bed-wetting"
    would I be any more credible because I'm " a Shrewsbury technical 
    writer"? I'd like to see both of you cite credible sources for 
    your facts, instead of just telling us that someone said so.
    
    >>     Making up only 12.2% of American population they occupy 46.9% of
    >>American state prison populations.    
    
        This could easily be interpreted to mean that blacks are more
      likely to be arrested and/or prosecuted than whites who have
      committed the same crime(s). Statistics only mean something when
      they're correctly interpreted. There is nothing here to indicate
      that blacks commit more crimes, only that they make up a large
      proportion of the prison population. 
    
    
    RE: .7?
    
         I know a number of ex-marines, and I can't say that I've
      noticed that they're any more loyal or display any more dis-
      cipline than the rest of the people I know.
    
    
    
                                                     Steve
    
                                                          

================================================================================
Note 1838.99    Affirmative Action according to Julia Michaelson       99 of 101
RAVEN1::JERRYWHITE "Where's my DEC cadet handbook ?" 16 lines   5-JUN-1992 12:35
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>    Hire according to merit and NOTHING
>    else, and this goes away.  
    
    	Jerry how do we make sure that racist attitudes are not involved
    	by people doing the hiring?
    
    -pat
    
    p.s.  can we please get off the grammar/spelling cracks now?

    That's the 64 million dollar question.  If we could answer that one,
    the mods could delete most of this topic.  Years ago, there were
    numerous suggestions made in SOAPBOX on how this could be done.  But,
    the only real way (I know this will sound crazy, but) is for *everyone*
    involved to be realistic (even if it hurts) and "do the right thing". 
    "Right" meaning right from a moral standpoint.  It won't happen in our
    lifetime, and that's sad.  And since no one really has *the* answer,
    people will continue to try and better themselves, in any way possible.
    It's a warped survival instinct.  Racism and sexism both stink.
    
    I was watching an OLD movie not too long ago that had Andy Griffith as
    a PFC.  The base had some female officers, which was pretty new to the
    military then.  Once he got over his shock, he began to look at the
    stripes on her arm, not her curves.  He saw an officer, now a lady
    officer.  Wouldn't it be nice if we all could do that ?
    
    Jerry

        Folks, I received at least one complaint about this note.  Could
        we all take a breather?  And calm down?  This seems to have gotten
        pretty far off the original topic.  And at least some of it just
        seems to be personal bickering.
        
        If you don't calm it down, the topic will be write-locked.
        
        Thanks!
        
        Tom

Not inflamatory:

Re: I forget.

My name ain't Ann, and I wasn't asked for statistics.

Were you addressing me, or Ms. Broomhead (this is not a spelling crack, but
I'm horrible with names, and sincerest apologies if I got it wrong)?

Just curious.

Re: .-1

	The responses are in reference to .80 (Ann Broomhead).

Larry

Re: Note 1838.80 by REGENT::BROOMHEAD

>   People have been tested in their job skills, across many, many
>   different jobs.  The result?  White men scored lowest, black men
>   came next, then white women, with black women having the best
>   job skills for each job held.
        Hi Ann,
    
    You mentioned some facts here concerning white men being the
    least qualified for their present positions. You've neglected to
    provide your sources. Could you provide them for us please?
    
    While we wait I thought I might provide us with some statistics which
    are more objective in nature.
    
    James J. Kilpatrick, a Washington editorial writer, has said that
    racism is no longer the biggest threat to blacks. He states that Black
    America's house is on fire and that the evidence is plain to see:
     
    1. More than half the black babies born in America are born out of
    wedlock, largely to adolescent mothers who lack the knowledge and the
    resources to get their youngsters off to a decent start in life.
     
    2. Illicit drugs, sold by blacks to blacks, are turning entire
    communities into disaster areas.
     
    3. Academic failure, including the deliberate rejection of academic
    exertion as unacceptably "white," is producing a generation of black
    Americans woefully unprepared for the increasingly technical demands of
    the work place.
     
    4. The leading cause of death among black youth is homicide, most of it
    involving blacks killing blacks. I just read the front page article of
    the June 3, 1992 edition of USA Today. The Detroit homicide rate which
    "affects mostly black boys and girls in cities" has jumped 252% from
    1980 to 1988.
     
    He calls the emphasis on racism a "distraction" and I agree. He equates
    the emphasis on racism to attempting to find racist villains rather
    than with effecting cures to the above ills in the black community.
    Meanwhile blacks on the jobless roles and welfare remain inordinately
    high. Making up only 12.2% of American population they occupy 46.9% of
    American state prison populations. 
     
    When the Supreme Court granted employers the right to discriminate
    against *white males* to effect "equal opportunity" and "affirmative"
    action no white communities complained that they could not get justice in 
    this country. No neighborhood in Culver City, Long Beach, Pasadena or the 
    San Fernando Valley took up a march and began to kill innocent black 
    bystanders. They did not loot and burn down their communities.
     
    We ought to be able to see through all the media hype and the twisted
    emphasis of Washington and get down to the truth of a thing. This
    topic, I think, is just one example of how easy it is for a large
    corporation to ignore business sense and retain government contracts.
     
    John

    re: .100
    
    Without complaining about the sources or numbers, which should be able
    to be borne out by common sense and observation, I agree.
    
    I would also suggest self-imposed dialectic difficulties - no way I'd
    hire someone I can't understand, nor someone who appears totally
    hostile.
    
    Don

    It's pretty easy to prove that discrimination exists at this company
    and in everyday life.  Probably every reader of this notesfile comes
    into daily contact with people whose jobs are Very Male or Very Female,
    meaning that there are few of the opposite sex doing the same thing. 
    Is it desirable to have some jobs staffed overwhelmingly by one sex?  I
    think that affirmative action programs operate on the premise that more
    equal proportions are desirable, and it's worth taking steps to make it
    happen.  The second part of the premise is what people here are griping
    about.  What the men here also object to is that women want action on
    higher paying jobs, the same jobs that are today Very Male.
    
    Digital seems to be doing better than most places in breaking sex and
    race stereotypes on the job, based on personal observation.
    
    Regarding J. Kirkpatrick, he is a conservative Washington columnist. 
    At the risk of straying too far from the topic, .100 neglects to mention
    the availability of jobs to these black people having so many other
    problems.  There are some serious problems of cause and effect in
    Kirkpatrick's analysis.  I'll stop here as this is not SOAPBOX.
    
    Wes Plouff

re.103 
>    the only real way (I know this will sound crazy, but) is for *everyone*
>    involved to be realistic (even if it hurts) and "do the right thing". 
>    "Right" meaning right from a moral standpoint.  It won't happen in our
>    lifetime, and that's sad.  And since no one really has *the* answer,
 
    Jerry, waiting for people to magically become moral is not a viable
    solution. A real solution is to make it _impossible_ for prejudice to 
    enter the hiring process. This is easily accomplished by using 
    double-blind decision-making*. Then the moral aspect becomes irrelevant.
    								----------
    
    * I have two candidates. I interview them, somebody else interviews 
    them. (Ideally, this other person should be of a different gender
    or ethnic group than mine.) Results of the interviews, along with 
    resumes, are sent to personnel. My personnel rep sends them out, with 
    personal information removed, to another personnel rep, whom I don't 
    know. That rep submits them to a manager in a function similar to mine, 
    (who is not known to my personnel rep,) who makes the decision. 
    

        Re The following;

>>                 <<< Note 1838.97 by FIGS::BANKS "This was" >>>
>>
>>
>>It's also not fair that when I get a new job, it doesn't matter how good I
>>am or how smart I am, because I have to waste a half a year or a year proving
>>to everyone that my hiring wasn't AA based.  White males don't have to prove
>>themselves, and may even get more than the benefit of the doubt, with the
>>assumption that "If he got hired with all this AA going around, he must really
>>be smart".
>>
    Hi FIGS::BANKS,

    	Excuse me for not using your first name, but it wasn't in the note.
    I am a white male.  It appears that you aren't.  What makes you think
    that white males don't have to prove themselves?  The grass always
    looks greener on the other side!  Well it ain't...

    	Don't get me wrong.  I have never had a problem getting the job I
    wanted.  Then again, I have very good presentation skills.  I am very
    qualified at what I do.  I am energetic.  I have had many letters from
    past employers and customers to back me up.  So getting a job was never
    a problem.
    	BUT, in every job I have had to PROVE myself to my employer.  I
    have had to EARN my managers and peers respect.  I have had to watch my
    back.  I have had to do the best job I could.  I have NEVER had an
    easy job where my color or sex changed the rules to favor me.

    	In these times of EEO and AA, I am more likely to be laid off than
    a minority.  How do I protect myself.  I do the best job I can...  I
    make it worth my managers while to keep me.  That's how its done...

    	I implore you not to think that whites or males have it easier.  We
    don't.  I could tell you many a story where I have been discriminated
    against.  I am sure you can do the same about yourself.

    	Now back to EEO and AA.  I would rather be discriminated by an
    individual who is a bigot, than have the government make a non bigot
    discriminate against me or anyone else.  It is WRONG for the government
    to tell anyone to discriminate.  Plain and simple.

    Have a good day,
    Jim Morton

    Re: Note 1838.105 by FIGS::BANKS
    
    I apologize and I have corrected the note and extracted the correct
    portion of the note to which I was replying. My one year old was fussing 
    and I had him on my knee while I was looking up the reference. He
    really likes keyboards and wanted to bang away on the thing. Sorry, I
    was distracted (no excuse, I know).
    
    Regarding the moderator's note. I hope that I have not come across too
    harshly. Please let me know off-line and I will correct my response.
    Electronic communication is a skill I have not yet mastered and I hope
    you will be patient with me.
    
    Regarding the statistics (.100). I've checked some of these in my
    almanac (1990 Rand McNally World Almanac) and they are legitimate. As
    for USA Today, well, I trust they're quoting their sources properly and
    that their sources are reliable. Still, questioning the statistics
    doesn't really address the issue either. There is a margin for error
    but I think that we can safely say there is a clear problem here which
    AA and EEO will not change. You cannot legislate morality. I think we
    are quick to harp on Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority but tend to ignore
    Washington's use of the same tactics.
    
    John

    Re: Note 1838.108 by KALI::PLOUFF
    
    Wes,
    
    First, let me say that I like working for Digital. I enjoy my job and I
    think our management has been pretty fair with me lately (as fair as
    they are allowed to be anyway). I want to keep my job and I'd like to
    think I could "get somewhere" in Digital. 
        
    In the workplace all of us can be polite and say kind things and avoid
    controversial topics. That is as it should be. We ought to do that. But
    here, in this topic, Digital has provided us with a marvelous forum to
    address a problem - and there is a problem.                  
    
>   Regarding J. Kirkpatrick, he is a conservative Washington columnist. 
>   At the risk of straying too far from the topic, .100 neglects to mention
>   the availability of jobs to these black people having so many other
>   problems.  There are some serious problems of cause and effect in
>   Kirkpatrick's analysis.  I'll stop here as this is not SOAPBOX.
    
    This was stated previously but I'd like to mention it again (and I
    don't think you are straying at all). What was the "cause and effect"
    relationship that culminated in the *success* of so many of those who got
    off a boat on Ellis Island? Where does your model fit there? Suppose we 
    take up the life story of that great emancipator Abraham Lincoln? 
    
    Circumstances don't make people. Circumstances demonstrate what they
    already are. A thief isn't a thief because he steals. He steals because
    he is a thief.
    
    It is your precise string of illogic that Kirkpatrick is addressing and
    which you and so many others are using to forward AA and EEO. Down here
    in the trenches we are not buying it. We cannot afford to.
    
    It is easy to sell AA and EEO to American business. They want
    government business and they want tax breaks. But American business is
    not down here where we are. I'm the guy who, without the benefit of
    overtime and miscellaneous income (i.e. tax returns), makes $22,880
    dollars a year. To own a home I've got to put my wife to work and send
    my children off to day care. If I had wanted the day care worker to
    raise my five boys I would have married her.
    
    No, your logic does not pay the bills for my 700 sq. ft. trailer and it 
    does reward me for my education (B.A., M.A.) nor my efforts to be a good 
    employee (talk to my supervisor - RAVEN1::DARCY).
    
    Wes, I'm not mad, really. But corporate America has been sold a bill of
    goods and purchased to themselves a lot of undocumented problems. I'm
    just going on record as a spokesman for those who are silently stewing or
    who have too much to lose to say anything. I think you can see that I
    have little to lose Wes. 
        
    John
                                     

    Re: .112
    
    >> Circumstances don't make people. A thief isn't a thief because he
    >> steals. He steals because he is a thief.
    
    Wonderful sounding sophistry.
    
    A layed-off parent who steals to feed his kid after unemployment and
    other aid is exhausted.  He is a thief by the circumstances of being
    forced to steal.  He does not steal because of some moral failure.

    Re: Note 1838.113 by SSDEVO::EGGERS

    Hi SSDEVO::EGGERS,
    
    You've made an invalid point.
    
>   A layed-off parent who steals to feed his kid after unemployment and
>   other aid is exhausted.  He is a thief by the circumstances of being
>   forced to steal.  He does not steal because of some moral failure.
    
    I suppose you are saying that McDonalds refused to hire him (he's 
    overqualified perhaps). Maybe you mean that he applied for an
    engineering position (he's undereducated). Just maybe he broke his leg.
    It mended poorly and now he had to hobble from storefront to storefront
    pleading for someone to take him on.
    
    C'mon. Let him tell *that* to the judge. Besides, it doesn't address the
    point. There are clear injustices fostered by EEO and AA. The point I
    was addressing when I used that "sophistry" was this: Ellis Island
    immigrants and Abraham Lincoln did not steal when things got tough.
    Real tough. They stuck their nose into the wind and worked hard. 
    
    They shined shoes, they sold apples on the street corners, they
    borrowed books and the brains that were in them, they earned their
    living and by it they earned people's respect. EEO and AA strip away 
    the self respect an man ought to earn for himself. AA and EEO tells a man 
    he can't make it on his own. He needs the dole, he doesn't have what it
    takes.
    
    Listen. I've *seen* what it does to a man down here. It makes him
    complacent. It makes him think that he doesn't have to work for a
    promotion because there's always some quota to be filled and he's the
    man to fill it.
    
    I've seen two men, one white and one black, both hired to do the same
    job at the same time. I've seen the white man show up on time, work
    hard, produce little scrap, here every weekend and late into the night
    to make an extra buck. And I saw the black man show up late
    continually, skimp on his work, get literally kicked awake in his chair
    by the shift manager, cause plenty of scrap and then I *saw* his paystub 
    one day when he left it out. He made significantly more than the white 
    fellow did (down here .75 is significant).
    
    Now I liked the black man. He was a good young man. He had a great
    sense of humor and was very easy to get along with. We sat together and
    talked about little things, like the weather, and big things, like God.
    But he was given an advantage he did not merit and it made his white
    coworkers angry.
    
    Both of them are gone now. Ironic, they were both TFSO'd at the same
    time. I wonder who received preference when they were hired for the jobs
    they are at now?
    
    John

    If your scenario of getting a job were in fact available to
    100.0000000000% of people, I might agree with your homily. There are
    people, perhaps not a large number, who fall into extreme
    circumstances.  That small number of people makes your homily invalid
    even if the rest of your comments are generally true.

    Leave the homily out, allow for some exceptions, and your comments
    might become something more than extreme ranting.  I'm very certain
    there are real examples of what you cite.  What I don't know are the
    percentages.

     There is always illogic in cases in which someone cites a situation
involving a small number of individuals and asserts that this is the general 
situation with no proof of that.

     For every such scenario he can present, another can be cited in which the
races are reversed.  He has proved nothing.

     Certainly there are those who have taken unfair advantage of Affirmative
Action, but the assertion that they are the majority of DEC's Black employees is
both unsubstantiated and highly unlikely.  Likewise, there are many people who
have taken advantage of the old boy network or hiring managers with racial
biases.  For some reason, however, they do not suffer the same derision which 
is reserved for the other version of AA/EEO.

    The assertion has been made that black people who do not do their jobs 
will not be fired.  That is the easiest assertion to disprove of all.  
Personnel, if they chose to do so, could easily list those people who have 
been removed for job performance issues, and I'm certain that the races each 
have their share of representation on that list.

     Someone mentioned that some TFSO activity had been altered due to race.
That is true, but one must consider the reason for that.  In some locations, 
the groups of people selected for TFSO (or volunteering for it) were 
disproportionately comprised of one group or another.  In extreme cases, the
company acted to correct the situation.  That included groups other than Blacks.
In one case, some outflow control was applied to males (including Caucasian 
males) over the age of 40.  Digital was a practitioner of the overall concept 
of diversity long before the government stepped into the matter.

     Mr. Leabeater likes to analyze the problem with the Black community and
uses the stereotype that Blacks are amoral, criminal, lazy and generally
not so bright.  There are too many of our coworkers around us every day that 
show the foolishness of those beliefs.  Indeed, one of his "statistics", that 
of the number of Black males in prison, indicates the broad swath of racism 
rather than the negative qualities he insinuates.

     It is somewhat ironic when someone who is complaining about making $10
per hour cites historic situations in which "respected" people shined shoes
and sold apples to make a living.

     To give a view from the "dark side": 

     1. Removing AA/EEO would not result in this idyllic "fairness" to which
        people refer.  It would simply result in more of another kind of 
        "unfairness" which is strongly in force even today.

     2. Current AA/EEO practices STILL allow many qualified minorities to be:
        passed-over for hiring; passed-over for promotion; fired with little
        or no justification (particularly if they are not familiar with 
        grievance procedures); considered impossible to trust (without 
        justification); never allowed to actually be a part of the team; 
        stuck in a perpetual loop of proving their skills; etcetera...
        etcetera...etcetera.  Fortunately, it also allows some to do their 
        jobs well, be paid reasonable salaries for their work, and go home 
        feeling satisfied and appreciated.

     3. Black Digital employees look around them and see white males over-
        whelmingly dominating all managerial and top technical positions in
        the company as well as most other positions, but still have to justify 
        what little ground they occupy to the one-in-a-thousand white male 
        who feels that he should have their job.

     Being Black is not for the faint of heart.

                                        Greg

    Re.: Note 1838.115                                                    
     
    SSDEVO::EGGERS,
     
    Yet more problems with your approach.
     
    >    If your scenario of getting a job were in fact available to
    >    100.0000000000% of people, I might agree with your homily. There are
    >    people, perhaps not a large number, who fall into extreme
    >    circumstances.  That small number of people makes your homily invalid
    >    even if the rest of your comments are generally true.
     
    First, you assume that the scenario of getting a job (i.e. looking) is
    not available to "100.0000000000% of people". Wrong assumption.
     
    Second, those who "fall into extreme circumstances" have other programs
    available to them. AA and EEO is not for people who "fall into extreme
    circumstances" in my understanding. It is for those who want a job and
    who happen to be either a minority or female. If being minority and
    being female are those who "fall into extreme circumstances" I suppose
    you have an argument. But not with me. I don't buy it.
     
    Third, if we are talking about, as you say, a "small number of people"
    then we don't need AA and EEO. Mainly because minorities and females
    don't happen to be a "small number of people."
     
    EEO and AA makes your exception of a "small number of people" the rule
    for *all* minorities and females. Tell me that is "equal" to the vast
    majority of those who are truly more qualified to obtain and be
    promoted for a position but now who are negatively impacted by EEO and
    AA's hidden quotas. That "small number of people" of EEO and AA makes
    far more people suffer than it helps. Tell me that is "affirmative"
    legislation.
     
    Yet further problems:
     
    >    Leave the homily out, allow for some exceptions, and your comments
    >    might become something more than extreme ranting.  I'm very certain
    >    there are real examples of what you cite.  What I don't know are the
    >    percentages.
     
    If you consider those of us who agree with the points I have made and
    who are opposed to AA and EEO "extreme" and "ranting" then that is your
    opinion. You are entitled to it. But it does nothing to enhance our
    view of AA and EEO. I've not heard a good argument for its existence
    yet.
     
    Percentages. That's simple. Request that every American business make
    public their very well hidden quotas for hiring and promotion. We'll
    get a pretty good idea from that, but don't hold your breath.
     
    Hidden quotas. A relative of mine works for personnel in Proctor and
    Gamble's office in St. Louis. She has told me of the quotas for
    American Businesses. She's mute though. She has a job to keep. 
     
    Tell me, SSDEVO::EGGERS, if American Business thinks AA and EEO is
    perfectly fair and right and just why don't they give us the
    percentages? What are they hiding?
     
    John

    Wonderful, you've all passed the audition, and we'll see you soon in
    PEAR::SOAPBOX where public policy and political issues are discussed.

    re: .116
    
>     Someone mentioned that some TFSO activity had been altered due to race.

    I think you mean me, but you are quoting me wrong.  I said that
    Personnel overruled some TFSO selections based upon EEO/AA criteria. 
    The last time I checked, EEO/AA criteria are not just race.  It also
    includes sex and religion for starters.
    
>That is true, but one must consider the reason for that.  In some locations, 
    
    I have yet to hear a valid reason for it.  The employees were told that
    the involuntary TFSO would be based only upon performance.  Since
    personnel had veto power over the selections and used EEO/AA criteria
    rather than performance, it means that some poor performers kept their
    job and some good performers lost theirs.  The good people who were let
    go, suffered the loss of their job, and now Digital suffers because
    poor performers were not let go as was supposed to happen.
    
    >Being Black is not for the faint of heart.
    
    Neither is being a woman, or half black and half white.  I know.  I'm
    married to such a woman.
    
    Bob
    
    
    

Re: .110

Of course you have to prove yourself.  Everyone does.  And, I have no problems
with proving to my employer that he made a good decision in hiring me.  The
part that really toasts me is the part about convincing my coworkers that there's
a possibility that I might know what I'm talking about, not because I'm new and
they aren't sure of my abilities, but because I'm new and people are assuming 
that I'm an AA case.

Yes, I do start a rung down on that ladder, just because there's this perception
that I might have gotten my job for reasons other than those based on my own
merits.  It doesn't do me a bit of good to dwell on this point, as I've said in
previous notes, but it'd be silly for me to pretend that the pattern doesn't 
exist when it clearly does.

Re: .I forgot

Of course, it's easy to find an example of a pair of people to bolster your
point.  But, the presentation still bothers me.

For instance, if I'm driving down the road with a bunch of other people in the
car, and some other driver cuts me off, due to inattention on their part, I
hear one of two responses from the other passengers:

1) Look at that jerk!
2) Women drivers!

Doesn't take too much figuring to deduce what physical attributes evoke which
response.  And, that's the point.  One response is specific to the person, and
the other generalizes across the whole group.

If you find someone at work who's lazy, for whatever reason (AA or being in the
Old Boy Network), it's all about that specific person being lazy, and the only
thing that AA or OBN has to do with it is to provide that person a vehicle by
which they can be lazy and get away with it.  

    re .116
    
    To correct the record.  You said, "Digital was a practitioner of the
    overall concept of diversity long before the government stepped into
    the matter."    I completed my first EEO report for the federal
    government on 17 November 1956, while a manager at Aerojet-General
    Corporation, Solid Rocket Plant, Sacramento, California.  How long
    before that was Digital a practitioner of diversity?
    
    Daryl
    

       
       
       RE: .121
       
       Daryl, there's a difference between studdies and practice
       (women in the military, persons of color in the military,
       etc, etc, etc....)
       
       		

    >The employees were told that the involuntary TFSO would be based only 
    >upon performance.  

     Really?  Who told you this?

     There were several other criteria involved in the involuntary TFSO 
     selections, including whether or not the POSITION was needed.  This 
     fallacious premise makes the rest of your note invalid.

                                      Greg
                                      

    re.122
    
    It was not a study.  It was a report to DOD so that we could continue
    to recieve funding on several DOD contracts.  I had to show positive
    action that I had interviewed minority candidates for open
    requisitions.  I also had to report on efforts to reach minority
    candidates, demonstrating how we were reaching minority candidates
    through advertising in minority newspapers, placing advertisements in
    community centers and in non-English mediums.  If that isn't practice,
    then I don't understand studies.
    
    Daryl
    

    re: .123
    
    > Really?  Who told you this?
    
    My manager.  That's the reason the entire field went thru the
    performance appraisal fire-drill last year.
    
    > There were several other criteria involved in the involuntary TFSO 
    > selections, including whether or not the POSITION was needed.  This 
    > fallacious premise makes the rest of your note invalid.
    
    Not what I was told, so this fallacious premise makes the rest of your
    note invalid :-)
    
    Bob
    

    

    re: .125
    
    Well, I can tell you that the "April Suprise" PA's were NOT used for
    TFSO selection unless they happen to have been in cycle (meaning you
    were due for one anyway).
    
    Al
    

    re: .126
    
    Don't you mean March??? (Gee, how time flies when you are having
    fun:-()
    
    Since there appears to be differing versions of how TFSO selection was
    supposed to happen and did happen, Al could you explain:
    
    1) What you were told was to be the selection criteria.
    
    2) What was actually used as the selection criteria.
    
    Thanks,
    
    Bob

    I am for AA & EEO.
    
    For an example: When I was hired back in 84 I had to go to a 
    multicultural workshop. This was supposed to teach cultural 
    differences. I'm of hispanic decent on my fathers side. On the
    first day in this group the lady running the show wanted to 
    devide us up into 4 groups. black male, white male, black female,
    white female. Someone in the group then asked "...are you black 
    or white?" The lady replied before I had a chance."...She's only
    half white so that makes her black."
    
    My eyes are wide open!

    re: .128
    
    Anthropologically incorrect, as Hispanic would make you caucasian, ergo
    white (actually mostly pink through light brown).  Your example, alone,
    should show the blind (not colour, blind, mind you, just blind)
    stupidity of bureaucratic thought.  And from such thought must come
    [possibly] well-intentioned but generally stupid programs like AA.  
                                          
    
    Don

I cannot keep this in...

The U.S. government SHOULD take affirmative action to achieve equal
employment opportunity, (as well as equal educational opportunity), where
it doesn't exist.  I don't see how anyone can argue that equal access to
jobs and schooling is bad for the country and society as a whole.  It
makes us all feel that it is worthwhile to join the system, rather than
fight it.

As with so many other things in the U.S. today, the direction of AA/EEO
programs, by corporate and government managers, is along the path of least
resistance.  That is, rather than go to the trouble of justifying their 
recruitment and hiring results with good documentation they simply make sure
employee demographics matches the demographics of the political-geographic
unit (country-state-city-whatever) used by government to measure progress and
compliance.  This approach requires less work, management is presented with
a half-made decision (a fully made decision would be even better), and it
matches just about every other business/government process requiring a 
management decision, ie. by the mostly-unprocessed-and-nonpondered-over numbers.

Perhaps the U.S. Administrative and Legislative branches could tinker with
the programs to make sure they achieve what they are intended to achieve, less 
socially destructive discrimination.  Perhaps AA/EEO Administrators could
simply educate America's managers on how it's really supposed to work.  Maybe
it's working fine enough right now and we're all 'hepped' up because certain
people running for political office can't resist the opportunity to divide the 
opposition.  One thing is clear, if you've been personally wronged by the 
AA/EEO programs you're definately part of the working class which is about as
meaningful as it sounds.  Which is to say, don't blame AA/EEO for your troubles.
There are other evils far more worthy.


Dennis

Re: .130:

Very interesting.  Hadn't thought of that, but I can sure see tons of truth in
it.  Thanks for the education (seriously).

    Granted, AA/EEO has it's flaws.  But look at it in "another world".
    
    In my life before Digital, before computers, (15 years ago), I
    worked in the carpenters "union".  One day EEO came to the site
    and informed the forman that the "numbers" were out of sync.  He
    was forced to fire 2 white guys and hire 2 minorities...or EEO 
    would shut down the job until he did.
    
    

I've heard the argument "don't blame AA/EEO for your troubles" before. 
Julia's statement to the press in .0 was quite similar: "All these worries 
are causing people to take a second look at affirmative action and they are 
blaming their problems on it." Hmmm.
 
I suppose many of the examples cited in this note (e.g. -1) are just 
"exceptions" or "isolated cases," perhaps "deviations" to the 
"demographics" of AA/EEO. Baloney. 
 
To say in one breath that AA/EEO attempts to ensure that "employee 
demographics matches the demographics of the political-geographic unit used 
by government to measure progress," and that such a method is "socially 
destructive discrimination" and, further, that some people have been 
"wronged" by it, and then to turn around and say that we are not to blame 
our troubles on it, is some backwards thinking indeed!
 
It's unequal, it is not "affirmative" and it certainly is denying one 
person an opportunity he merits to give another person an opportunity which 
he does not.
 
If this type of thinking is predominant in leadership circles in this
country that same leadership is *authoring* racial tension and strife. They 
are furthering racism not obstructing it.
 
Dump EEO/AA altogether. Come up with something else by a different name and 
return to the old idea of equal justice under law. That is a solution. 
AA/EEO is not a solution, it is a part of the problem.
 
As for us down here where it is hurting AA/EEO grates on everything the 
constitution guarantees and good work ethics demand.
 
John

     ...and the endless cycle continues.  Some will criticize the snot out
     of AA/EEO, but nobody has come up with an effective alternative.  The
     standard wish from them is no safety valve at all - relying on the good-
     ness of hiring managers' hearts.  Which, of course, will eventually lead 
     back to the state we were in before this all began: minorities will (more 
     often than is currently true) be relegated to menial low-paying jobs,
     regardless of qualifications, and the good jobs will all go to caucasian 
     males.  Experience, education and personal qualities will mean nothing 
     if your tan is too intense (moreso than is already the case). 

     ...and the same people who wish to remove all means for minorities to
     compete in the job market will criticize minorities for not working to
     better themselves.

                                           Greg

    Re: Note 1838.134 by IMTDEV::BRUNO

>    ...and the endless cycle continues.  Some will criticize the snot out
>    of AA/EEO, but nobody has come up with an effective alternative.  The
    
    Better to have no alternative than an unfair alternative based on
    hidden quotas and not on merit. Currently "experience, education and
    personal qualities" (using your words) mean nothing to the white male
    who does not fit the quota.
    
    To presuppose that there needs to be some safeguard, any safeguard, 
    regardless of how unjust it is, is to propagate the very kind of
    discrimination you are seeking to eliminate. It is hypocrisy.
    
    John 

        Re :
>>                   <<< Note 1838.135 by RAVEN1::LEABEATER >>>
>>
>>    To presuppose that there needs to be some safeguard, any safeguard, 
>>    regardless of how unjust it is, is to propagate the very kind of
>>    discrimination you are seeking to eliminate. It is hypocrisy.
>>    
>>    John 
>>
    John,

    	I couldn't agree more.  I think I mentioned in an earlier reply, 
    that I would rather be discriminated by an individual employer because
    he/she is a bigot, than have the LAW force an employer to discriminate
    against me because I am WHITE MALE (Oops! I said the W and M words).
    	I think this is getting a lot of WHITE MALES mad.  Just because I
    am White and Male, I have to take a back seat, and am more vulnerable
    to layoff, and less likely to be hired, and this being forced on me by
    Policy.  This is nothing more than forced discrimination, and I am
    personally getting tired of it...
    	Go ahead and flame at me, I am just tired of this so called
    "Making Up For Past Prejudices".  No one can make up for those past
    mistakes.  Why hurt me or anyone else for someone else's mistakes?

    Jim Morton

    Joe,        
       just check out todays employment figures - both on basis of 
    female and race. I hardly think that what you'll find is 'past'
    misjustices... 
    
    As a white male you'll find your average wages for example are
    30% higher than most counterparts... Yes there are a few black and
    women who will be up there with you - but that is what they are - a
    few.        
         
    If you get bumped for a job on equal merit, then I'm sorry for you.
    But I suspect that if a few centuries of racism and several millenia of
    sexual discrimination had not taken place that you would have lost the
    job anyway.               
                              
    And besides, why look at it from simply YOUR point of view - 
    Why don't you think how the large groups of victims of US capitalism
    (not White Males neccessarily - Colin Powell and Clarence Thomas are
     up there ) feel when their chances of getting a job or education are
    non-existant...           
                                                                           
    Personally I'd prefer to work in a mixed environment, than an exclusive
    All White, All Male Club, even it were artificially created                                              
                                                                           
    Anyway - the problem is that there are not enough jobs to go around -  
    and for that blame Bush and Clinton and Co. - Not those who fought     
    for 10 years or so to try and get a slice of the declining American Pie
                                                               
    Winton                                                     

    None of us has any facts that are worthy of the name to bear on the
    issue.  The law is defective because it presumes that it is possible to
    make the "equally qualified" judgement unambiguously.  That is not
    true.  I know of no position in Digital or any other company that one
    can define the requirements for the job and measure the qualifications
    of the applicants precisely enough to make the "equally qualified"
    judgement anything other than an opinion.
    
    Since that is the case, the only defense an employer has is some sort
    of quota system within "job categories".  But that ignores the number
    of applicants within each of the "applicant categories".  
    
    But the problem is not Digital's alone, it affects every American
    business subject to the AA/EEO laws.  We probably should move the
    discussion to somewhere else unless someone believes that Digital has a
    unique problem here.
    
    fwiw,
    
    Dick

RE:                 <<< Note 1838.135 by RAVEN1::LEABEATER >>>
    

     Aw jeez, who peed in your Cheerios, Leabeater?  This topic's been
     dead for two months.  

     First off, having no failsafe in place is more unfair than having
     a slightly flawed one in place.  By that, I mean the impact on the 
     groups affected by a lack of Affirmative Action would be massive,
     as opposed to the small percentage of people negatively affected by
     the presence of Affirmative Action.

     ...and once all of those nasty little dark-skinned people are no
     longer allowed to compete fairly with you for a job, you'll still be 
     whining about not making as much money as you THINK you are worth.

                                     Greg

    I am stunned by some of the comments in here.  Scanning the conference
    this afternoon I happened upon this Note, and seeing the name of
    someone I recognized in the title, I went back and read a few of the
    early comments.  Then I did a dir 1838.* to see if Julia Michaelson did
    indeed have a response.
    
    Interesting that with 139 replies, she did not ... even though she
    seemed to be the recipient of a lot of abuse from people who obviously
    do not know her.
    
    I will not attempt to speak for her ... I only had to deal with her
    once, in a very painful personnel situation.  But the very notion that
    she is, as some of the earlier replies put it "bigoted" really makes me
    angry.  She handled my situation with skill, compassion, and an air of
    professionalism and fairness that many folks in positions of authority
    in this company could stand to adopt.
    
    Incidentally, I'm a white male.  And the situation had nothing to do
    with EEO or AA.  Apparently her job involves a lot more than just those
    things.
    
    A lot of the people who replied to this note should learn not to judge
    someone they don't know so harshly, particularly when their judgements
    are based solely on comments taken out of context from a newspaper article.
    
    ... Bob
    

    I maybe late with this reply but I could not help responding to some of
    the vicious personal attacks that are going on here...with probably no
    knowledge of the person directly except for their views in NOTES, or
    how they spell (or misspell). 
    
    I am appalled!!! I agree with .140, I do not know Julia M.  I may agree
    or disagree with her views on AA/EEO but I have NO RIGHT to personally
    attack her or the ones that defend her or her views.
    
    Let's get with it people, trying to better a policy or a process or
    make our company better, more efficient and profitable is one
    thing...but personally attacking fellow Noters who don't know each
    other from the Man (Person) in the moon had better stop!
    
    Ron

    FWIW.......
    
    I just checked ELF and found no Julia Michaelson listed.
    
    Chet

FWIW.......
    
Not all people that work at Digital are in ELF....

    
    	RE .141
    
    	Please note that many of us were (and still are) critical
    	of her actions, not critical of her person. My complaint
    	was not with Julia M. but with a public statement made
    	by Digital's AA/EEO manager. If I said anything offensive
    	to her as a person, I am sorry.
    
    					Ed
    

>>           <<< Note 1838.143 by GENRAL::KILGORE "Utah desert rat" >>>
                                   -< So... >-

>>FWIW.......
    
>>Not all people that work at Digital are in ELF....


Ah, but she WAS when this string was started.  Hmmmmmm

    RE: .143
    
    >Not all people that work at Digital are in ELF....
    
    ...and quite a few who are no longer work at Digital.
    

	I know of some people that have been gone for over 6 weeks and ELF 
still lists them. I wonder if they are really still considered part of DEC
for the 9 weeks ?

	-Steve-

    I know someone who left DEC 4 years ago and is still listed in ELF.
    
    Do not ever totally rely on ELF.
    
    Jim C.
    

For 9 weeks I think you are considered an employee, with esentially no rights,
as you are still paid weekly.  Look at the department the have moved to for
a clue.

    
    
    re: .148
    
    have you told anyone who can fix it???  i would think a quick note 
    to your elf admin. would be able to rectify it.  i'm not inferring that
    systems such as elf need to be policed/maintained by the general
    populace, but at the same time, if people aren't told about things
    like this, they'll never know anything is wrong...
    
    
    jim

       Isn't ELF supposed to be used now that we no longer get updated DEC
    phone books? You'd think that they'd try to keep it up to date. 
                                              Denny

    Hello,
    
    I work in the ESC Network Applications support group; one of the
    applications we support is ELF...
    
    The information displayed in ELF originates in the Employee Master
    File, maintained by the Personnel organization for Payroll issues,
    among other things, so it is kept up to date, but from reading this 
    string, it appears that ocassionally some errors go undetected for
    a while.  I am particularly curious about the person who's been in
    ELF for 4 years after departure - please send me more information so
    that I may investigate.
    
    Thank you,
    Diane Wessels
    JETSAM::NETAPPS
    

    I'd hate to think that, possibly, someone's been drawing a paycheck for 4
    years after they left.

    Ok, will do. I'll send some mail. Just checked again and the person is
    still listed. I have brought this to my management, personnel, etc
    and nothing has been done. It's not a big deal but does seem rather
    odd. BTW - The person is not in the EMF.
    
    Jim C.
    
    

    Being listed on ELF but not being an employee IS A BIG DEAL.  That
    system drives the access to internal support at the Customer Support
    Centers and if they are listed on ELF, they are treated as a DEC
    employee and provided direct support through the INternal Support
    Group.  I can only wonder what other systems are driven by ELF, but it
    IS A BIG DEAL.  If we do not get a listing for them on ELF, they do not
    get direct support.  This includes contract employees.

.141>    Let's get with it people, trying to better a policy or a process or
.141>    make our company better, more efficient and profitable is one
.141>    thing...but personally attacking fellow Noters who don't know each
.141>    other from the Man (Person) in the moon had better stop!
    
	    Ron: you've got it all backwards -- it's easier that way!

    .152
    
    I looked into ELF after reading your note and found that we also have
    an employee long since departed, listed in ELF.. I contacted our HRO
    dept. and passed on your e-mail address.  Seems they are having
    problems getting information updated on there.  Our DTN's are listed
    incorrectly as well.  You should be hearing from them soon.
    
    Suzan

    So why shouldn't contract employees get internal support? In many parts
    of Europe at least, there are large numbers of contractors providing
    technical support to the business, writing software, managing projects,
    etc. etc. They may not have a badge number, but the job they perform,
    and the service they provide is just as important to Digital. In some
    circumstances, they are more committed, and more highly skilled than
    the permanent employees they supplement and/or work for.
    
    Remember, in Europe, contractors are technical consultants, not floor
    cleaners.
    
    Laurie.

    re: .158
    
    Only because we have no on-line way to verify employment.  Remember that we
    are responsible for insuring that the folks we are supporting have
    either paid for it (customers) or are DEC employees.  If we can't do
    that, they don't get service.  But this has turned into a rat hole on
    the original rat hole about the original subject of this note ...
                                             

    Ok, but that doesn't solve the problem. Something's broken.
    
    Laurie.

    re: .157
    
    DTNs are updated by sending mail to ICS::DIRECTORY or DIRECTORY @PKO.
    When requesting a change in your DTN, your badge number must be
    included.  If an individual is changing locations, s/he sends this
    message; when my group moved from PKO to LKG, one person handled the
    task for the group.
    
    Since replying in this string, I've heard the comment that since the
    directories are published less frequently, it would be nice if DTN and
    site code correlations were posted in VTX - I tried "VTX DTN" and
    learned that they are.:
    
    			   DIGITAL Telephone network codes
                                List dated:  05-Sep-1992
    
    
            1  Algeria            18 Israel              35 Singapore
            2  Australia          19 Italy               36 Spain
            3  Austria            20 Ivory Coast         37 Sweden
            4  Belgium            21 Japan               38 Switzerland
            5  Canada             22 Korea               39 Taiwan (ROC)
            6  Czechoslovakia     23 Luxembourg          40 Thailand
            7  Denmark            24 Malaysia            41 Turkey
            8  England            25 Mexico              42 USA
            9  Finland            26 Netherlands
            10 France             27 New Zealand
            11 Germany            28 Northern Ireland
            12 Greece             29 Norway
            13 Hong Kong          30 Philippines
            14 Hungary            31 Poland
            15 India              32 Portugal
            16 Indonesia          33 Saudi Arabia
            17 Ireland            34 Scotland
    
    
    re: .160
       
    I am investigating why some people did not get removed from ELF upon
    their departure from the company; until there is an official response
    and fix, please notify me if you are aware of anyone who should no
    longer appear in ELF.  I will verify their departure and delete their
    entry.
    
    Thanks,
    Diane Wessels
    CTHQ::DWESSELS

    re:161
    
    
    The mail message to ICS::DIRECTORY appears to have no effect on ELF or
    on the phone directory - at least that was my experience the last time
    the phone directory was published.  As far as I could tell, no one ever
    read those mail messages or did anything with them.
    
    It would be better to have ELF accept the employee entry for DTN, as it
    once did, rather than passing the data through yet another pair of hands
    that will drop it.