Conference back40::soapbox

	WOW! 

It's a self-selected sample, no?  Pretty worthless.

    No, it just means there are fewer liberals in the world than there are
    moderates or conservatives.
    
    David Barnicle, a known Boston liberal and government proponent in my
    mind, did a commentary on AA last night.  He thought it was divisive
    and should be based on economics instead of race and gender.
    
    -Jack

    
    ...David Barnicle?
    
    wanna try that one again?

Isn't is Bill Barnacle or something like that?

    Re: .0
    
    So, most people do not believe they were denied a job because of AA. 
    Most people think AA is unfairly blamed for business or professional
    failures.  Most people think AA has been helpful.
    
    Yet most people think AA is bad.  Somehow, it doesn't add up.

Open the door, you dirty . . . .

   oh    ...   we already did that once, didn't we . . . 

    .6  We agree Chelsea. :-) Sheesh!

 Isn't it David Clamshell?

    Sorry...meant to say Mike Barnicle.  Confused the poor slob with David
    Brudnoy!
    
    -Jack

    
    
    No, it's not strange at all Chelsea.  Perhaps most people think it did
    help, but the need is no longer there or, it didn't help as much as it
    was billed to help.
    
    
    Mike

	I may be mistaken, but I think the text of that question about AA helping 
is if it helped in the past OR if it opened the door for women and minorities.

	As for the numbers not adding up - don't blame me, I'm just reporting the
numbers (although I did participate - won't reveal my answers though).

ME

    Re: .11
    
    But most people do not believe it harms, either.  Generally speaking,
    if something helps and does not harm, it's not considered bad.

RE         <<< Note 324.3 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>

>    No, it just means there are fewer liberals in the world than there are
>    moderates or conservatives.

  Well, it means there are fewer liberals accessing that part of Prodigy than
moderates or conservatives. 

>    David Barnicle, a known Boston liberal and government proponent in my
>    mind, did a commentary on AA last night.  He thought it was divisive
>    and should be based on economics instead of race and gender.
    
  David Barnicle is not a liberal. He's often against things liberals stand for
like protections in the Bill of Rights, he's a hawk when it comes to law and
order, he favors censorship, he wanted to shut down the Combat Zone, etc.

  Not exactly conservative either but hardly liberal.

  George

    
    
    Aaahh, I see the problem.  Look at the tense of the word help, Chelsea. 
    In the study it says helped and not helps.
    
    
    Mike

    1.  AA provides disparity of standards.  Applicants are not measured
        the same.
    	- Presupposes a lack of intelligence on minorities...how arrogant.
    	- Causes a wedge between the races by using class envy and lack 
          of fairness in qualifying applicant.
        - Continues to promote race relation deterioration.
    	-Teaches young students they need assistance instead of
   	 perseverance and succeeding through excellence.
        -Promotes a quota mentality...causes suspicion between the sexes
    	 and the races.  Also promotes a mediocre work force. 
    
    2.  AA is illegal.
    
    	-Contradicts the EEOC commission and policies.
    	-Goes against the constitution...contradicting the guarantee of
    	 equal protection.
    
        Hey, you have to wake up with yourselves in the morning...
    
    -Jack
     	

    I think AA was necessary at one point in time; I have mixed 
    feelings about it now.  There are many laws on the books today to
    protect minorities, but IMHO AA has done much to cause problems
    between folks of different races today.
    
    I may have mentioned this in another version of the box, but it
    fits.  A few years ago I was told by my manager that I was enrolled
    in MAP (Management Awareness Program).  It was a year-long program
    that was being used as a starting point to move people into manage-
    ment.
    
    I had/have no interest in managment.  If my manager had taken a few
    minutes to inquire, she would have confirmed that fact (I had in-
    dicated it verbally in group discussions a few times).  I learned
    a lot from the course, but the fact remains that there were 3 FS
    engineers in my group who desperately wanted to be enrolled and they
    were turned down because only so many seats were allotted to each
    organization.  All 3 of these men had also been taking outside
    courses to prepare them to move into management.
    
    After the EEO portion, I knew why I was there; I was a female over
    40.  My manager enrolled me because she was trying to comply with
    an EEO quota; IMO it was patently unfair that I took the place of
    someone who *really* wanted to be there.
    
    Ideally, COMPETENCE/QUALIFICATIONS should be the criteria in this
    one scenario; however I'm not sure that some people wouldn't fall
    back into old habits if AA is repealed.
    
    

	Mondays Globe had an article by Loretta McGlaughlin, former
	editor of the Globe editorial page.

	Some of what she wrote....

	"I personally like the idea of quotas for women - in all places of
	work, government and education and at all levels up to the top.
	Women make up 53 percent of the United States population."

	"A quota for women of slightly more than half of all the jobs
	and the payroll, the promotions, elected offices and political
	appointments sounds like a fair and just distribution to me."


                                  

	.18  oy


                                  

    What it 20% of women in America are illiterate and only 10% of men are
    illiterate.  Should the statistic then be skewed?  See, your falling
    into the same fallacy trap they fell into in the 70's.  By the way, the
    position is to teach English at a school so that throws another wrench
    in the works.
    
    -Jack

    Re: .15
    
    >Look at the tense of the word help
    
    Irrelevant to my point.  Most people think AA _does_ _not_ _harm_. 
    We don't know how many people think AA helps now, as opposed to helped
    in the past.  However, it doesn't matter.  Most people see AA as, at
    worst, benign.  You generally don't see benign classified as bad.

    Re: .16
    
    >Presupposes a lack of intelligence on minorities
    
    Horsepuckey.  AA presupposes a deficiency of education and training for 
    minorities, and worse conditions that contribute to learning (such as
    nutrition and childhood healthcare).

    Re: .17
    
    >My manager enrolled me because she was trying to comply with
    >an EEO quota
    
    Did she tell you that?  If not, you don't know; you merely assume. 
    Assumption is not proof.

    RE.22
                No he was right, it presupposes a lack of intelligence on
    minorities, because a white male growing up in the same neighborhood
    with the same schooling and the same home conditions doesn't get
    special treatment. so, maybe they should just give a hand to everyone
    who grows up in a disadvantaged situation, to level the field for
    everyone.

    Chelsea:
    
    Ray and I gre up in equal environments...same family, income etc.  Ray
    is black and I am white.  Ray applies to work on fire department as do
    I.  Ray scores 78% and I am just fortunate enough to score a 92%.
    Guess what Chelsea, his 78% carries more weight than my 92%.  If that
    isn't the height of racism, then I don't know what is.  Society just
    made a charity case out of Ray and Ray doesn't appreciate it.
    
    -Jack

    In colonial India, the British civil service allotted positions to
    native workers according to religion; the quotas were determined by the
    periodic census.  Before, the religions had managed to coexist in
    relative harmony.  Now, the Sikhs campaigned for years to be counted as
    a separate group, and everyone argued about their quotas.  Now they had
    a pie to fight over, and everyone wanted as big a piece as they could
    manage.  (Why else would the Hindi want to count Sikhs toward their own
    quota?  Not in the name of fairness.)
    
    Of course, the US does not have a history of peaceful coexistence among
    the races.  The fact is, the minorities have _never_ had their fair
    share.  That would explain why they are unwilling to put their trust in
    "fairness" as a way of allocating the pie; past experience has given
    them no basis to trust that things will change.
    
    And _that_ is the primary issue in the whole debate.  Not whether AA is
    unfair, but the continuing inequities in representation and allocation. 
    It is extremely easy to say, "I don't like AA.  It's unfair.  Get rid
    of it."  It is extremely hard to address the problem that AA was trying
    to address.  If you eliminate AA without taking any steps to address
    the original problem, you only create a wider political breach between
    the majority and the minority.  That's not progress.

    Re: .24
    
    >because a white male growing up in the same neighborhood with the same 
    >schooling and the same home conditions
    
    AA addresses the issue by race, rather than by individual.
    
    >maybe they should just give a hand to everyone who grows up in a 
    >disadvantaged situation
    
    Haven't you heard?  We're cutting funding for school lunches for
    children.  Welfare is bad.  We're not spending money on those people.

    Re: .25
    
    >his 78% carries more weight than my 92%
    
    That rather depends on who else took the test, and what they scored.

    RE.26
                I agree with just about everything you just stated, but the
    longer AA keeps going the more people who feel they've been slighted,
    whether real or imagined the more anamosity builds up, so when AA
    is ended and it will have to end sometime, you may have made the
    situation worse. If you listen to talk radio in the boston area and
    they bring up the subject everyone who calls in has a friend, brother
    or knows someone who scored 99 on the civil service exam but lost the
    job to a minority who just barely passed. 
    

    
|   so, maybe they should just give a hand to everyone who grows up in a
|   disadvantaged situation, to level the field for everyone.
    
    Freshman year, two roomates in upstate new york college.  Both grew
    up in similar disadvantaged neighborhoods (one in Maryland, one in
    Massachusetts).  Both went to inferior elementary and high schools.
    Both got in to the upstate new york college through an Affirmative
    Action program.
    
    One roomate was frugal and hardworking.  The other partied and did the
    minimum to get by.  One got excellent grades throughout school.  The
    other did not.
    
    One is still looked upon to this day by "the sons" as an AA hire.
    The other of course, got everything through merit.
    
    One is from Baltimore - and black.
    One is from Southie - and white.
    
    								-mr. bill

    Re: .29
    
    >the longer AA keeps going
    
    So fix the real problem.  To me, that's the one big advantage of doing
    away with AA -- the pressure will build _mighty_ fast to get to work on
    what's really wrong.

    So if i understand what you're saying is that you'd like to see the
    help go to the person who tries and put out the effort to succeed and
    not to person who wants to just get by. I'd love to see disadvantaged
    people no matter what race, or sex get the help they need to succeed,
    if they work hard , after all isn't that the American dream.

RE: .28

> That rather depends on who else took the test, and what they scored.

	Does this mean that 92% is not as good as 78%?  That does not add up.
And we wonder why our kids don't do well in math.

	It does not depend on who else took the test.  The test was there to 
determine the qualifications of the individual.  Therefore, someone who scores 
a 92 on the test is better qualified to do the job than someone who scores a 78.

ME

    
      We should do something about the racist NBA. Too many blacks. Must be 
      due to racism.
    
      Paul
    

    .34  Funny you should come to this conclusion.  A local fan writing
    a rebuttal to an editorial written by Cynthia Tucker of the Atlanta
    Journal/Constitution said the exact same thing!!!
    
    Said proponents of AA can't have it both ways.  Definitely needs to
    be more white players in the NBA :-)
    
    

    Re .6:
    
    > Yet most people think AA is bad.  Somehow, it doesn't add up.
    
    What makes you think it doesn't add up?  There's nothing inconsistent
    in the statistics in .0.  The survey reports how many people think AA
    has been helpful -- but not how many think that helpfulness has
    exceeded its cost (in dollars to implement, in harm done to
    individuals, et cetera).  The survey reports how many people think AA
    is unfairly blamed for failures -- but not how many people think that
    it is fairly blamed for failures.
    
    It is completely consistent for a person to believe that AA is fairly
    blamed for some failures and unfairly blamed for others and that AA has
    been helpful but that its costs and damage significantly exceed its
    benefits.
    
    Hence the result that most people think it is bad is completely
    understandable.
    
    More than that, even if people think it has ONLY helped and not done
    any harm, it is still consistent to oppose AA if they believe some
    alternative would help even more.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Re .13:
    
    > But most people do not believe it harms, either.
    
    Where does it say that?
    
    
    				 -- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    What I would like to know it the "make-up" of those that were polled.
    
    How many "non" whites have access to a pc or that poll.
    
    I would like to see those numbers ..
    
    Sin-te-da

    	re .38
    
    	That's it!  We can give PCs to minorities under AA guidelines!

    Can I git 1....?

    Re: .32
    
    >So if i understand what you're saying
    
    Nothing I've said has implied any such thing.

    Re: .33
    
    >Does this mean that 92% is not as good as 78%?
    
    I have no idea where you came up with this.  THe argument was that 78%
    carried more weight (was not as good as) 92%.  I pointed out that the
    weight given to the 78% depended on other factors.  In other words, I
    was refuting the notion that a 92% is never as good as 78%.
    
    >And we wonder why our kids don't do well in math.
    
    Not to mention reading skills.
    
    >It does not depend on who else took the test.
    
    Sure it does.  For example, if you have several minority participants
    who score in the 90s, it would be very difficult to contrive to have
    the 78% carry as much weight as a 92%.
    
    >The test was there to determine the qualifications of the individual. 
    
    There's a big assumption on your part.  Most jobs involve
    qualifications that can't be measured (or measured well) by a multiple 
    choice exam.  For example, the ability to keep one's cool in an
    emergency, or the ability to soothe annoyed customers.

    Re: .36
    
    >What makes you think it doesn't add up?
    
    I've already explained that part.
    
    >but not how many think that helpfulness has exceeded its cost
    
    Naturally, if you add in more information, the equation changes.

    Re: .37
    
    >Where does it say that?
    
    All premises are based on the information in the note, that being the
    only (somewhat) empirical data we have to work with at this time.

    
    
    > I pointed out that the
    > weight given to the 78% depended on other factors.
    
    	 (78 = 78 = 78 = 78) < 92
    
    	What other factors should there be in a written test?  Gender?
    Race?  Handicap?  Religion, Hair color?  Breast or penis size? 
    
>    Sure it does.  For example, if you have several minority participants
>    who score in the 90s, it would be very difficult to contrive to have
>    the 78% carry as much weight as a 92%.
    
    	But we are making an asumption here, aren't we?  However, I still
    don't see how a 78% carries more weight than a 92%.  But, can I take
    your statement to mean that if the 78% was the best score for a
    minority, then it is easy to we where the 78% carries more weight than
    92%? 
    
>    > The test was there to determine the qualifications of the
>    > individual.
>
>    There's a big assumption on your part.  Most jobs involve
>    qualifications that can't be measured (or measured well) by a
>    multiple choice exam.  For example, the ability to keep one's cool in an
>    emergency, or the ability to soothe annoyed customers.
    
    	I agree that these qualifications are important.  I have no
    problem with this.  However, race was thrown out as a possible reason
    for the persons hiring, and this should NEVER be the case. 
    
    ME

    Re: .45
    
    >What other factors should there be in a written test?
    
    As I feared, you completely lost the context.  Here, let me step you
    through it, slowly and tediously, so hopefully you will crawl off in
    embarassed silence and refrain from bothering me again.
    
    Jack Martin posits two men, one white and one black, taking a test. 
    The white man scores a 92, the black man scores a 78.  He asks why a 78
    should be given more weight than a 92 -- meaning, why should the
    employers take the person with the 78 over someone with a 92.  I
    pointed out that he was _assuming_ that the 78 would always have more
    weight.  If there were several other black candidates, all who scored
    over 78, the black man with the 78 would quite probably not get a job, 
    while the white man with the 92 would.
    
    So, you see, I was not the one who introduced the idea that a 78 would
    count for more than a 92.  I was not even the one saying that a 78
    _should_ count for more than a 92.  Which means you're trying to argue
    against a point I haven't made -- which makes you look kinda silly.
    
    >But we are making an asumption here, aren't we?
    
    No, that's why I used the word "if."
    
    >However, I still don't see how a 78% carries more weight than a 92%.
    
    Ask Jack.  It was his scenario.

    A few years ago, the Boston Fire Department scaled the testing on civil
    service exams to bring parity into the firestations.  
    
    I deeply oppose any kind of gerrymandering of qualifications when it
    comes to the military or any kind of life dependent occupations.  This
    is why I opposed Hillarycare and this is why I oppose Affirmative
    Action...particularly of police and firefighters.
    
    Out with mediocrity and in with excellence.  I'm colorblind!
    
    -Jack

    For what its worth, I automaticly receive 5 points for being a Vetern
    so if I were to get a 92% on the test they would have to add 5% to it
    to make it a 97%. 
    
    Now that should really p*ss you off.:")

    Case in point, a reality:
    
    I have a friend, a USMC Vet, who is in the midst of firefighter
    training.  He has his Firefighter I certificate already, and is working
    on his EMT and Firefighter II certs.  He took the test for the last
    mass-hiring at the L.A. County Fire Dept.  He scored very high, and got
    added points for already having his FF I cert, FF II/EMT in process,
    and for his status as a vet.  It didn't matter.  The six
    highest-scoring women were given the six available openings, regardless 
    of their ranking within the overall group.  This was *announced* at 
    the test-results meeting.   The reason was Affirmative Action
    requirements.  The scores were posted publicly.  Bo (my friend) had
    ranked #3 overall.  The top female ranked #12, if I recall properly.  
    
    Is this fair??  The *purpose* of government intervention in *anyone's*
    hiring practices, including its own, should be *only* to ensure that
    someone who is equally or better qualified for a job is not denied on
    the basis of race, sex, color, creed, etc.! 
    
    I had always thought AA was a necessary evil, until I heard of this
    incident with my friend.  As a woman, I find it highly degrading and
    very inappropriate that members of my sex were given
    preferential treatment in obtaining these trainee positions.  If the
    women were the most qualified, or among the most qualified, then and
    only then should they have been accepted to the Academy.
    
    Of course, the fact that the LAFD then went out of its way to ensure that 
    the women flunked out of the Academy on the basis of physical inferiority 
    is equally degrading, but that's another topic entirely, huh? -:)
    
    M.
    

    Re: .49
    
    This is the sacred cow argument -- whoever is the "most qualified" (in
    the sense of having the highest test scores or the most experience or
    some other easily quantifiable asset) _must_ get the job.
    
    It has never worked that way.  There are plenty of reasons to choose
    someone less qualified, none of which have to do with AA.  These
    include availability, salary requirements, experience in a different
    (but relevant) field, and plain old nepotism.  The important thing is
    that the hired candidate be qualified to do the job.  And not even that
    is a given.  You might want to hire someone unqualified, but with a
    demonstrated ability to learn quickly, to train them in your own
    methods of doing things.
    
    I was hired by Digital to support a database product.  At the time of
    my hiring, I knew pretty much nothing about databases.  I doubt I was
    the absolutely most qualified person.  However, I had done a fair bit
    of support, and I obviously had no trouble learning.  Judging from my
    salary reviews, they were quite satisfied with my performance.

    In my honest opinion I think AA has gone too far the other way. I am a
    very qualified person for several different things in this
    organization. I REALLY think if I didn`t have a female manager, and her
    boss a female and a personnel rep thats a female then I would have had
    a better shot at several positions. It is a real sad day in Mudville
    when I have to file charges in U.S. Federal District Court to prove my
    point.

Does anyone know if'n the proposition in California illegalizing AA have
criminal penalties for discrimination?

That would seem to be one solution with dealing with continuing
discrimination. Put 'em in jail.

TTom

    Re .43:
    
    > I've already explained that part.
    
    No, you did not, unless you intended to imply that believing AA has
    been help, has not denied oneself a job, and is unfairly blamed for
    failures are inconsistent with believing AA is bad.  If you did imply
    that, then the implication is false since there is a consistent
    resolution to the beliefs.
    
    
    Re .44:
    
    >> Where does it say that?
    
    > All premises are based on the information in the note, . . .
    
    Where in the note does it say that [most people do not believe AA
    harms]?
    
    
    				-- edp
    

Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Re: .53
    
    >>All premises are based on the information in the note, . . .
    >
    >Where in the note does it say that [most people do not believe AA
    >harms]?
    
    That is not what I meant.  Perhaps you knew that, and are simply
    playing coy.  Perhaps you just missed it.  Although the statement in
    .43 is a sledgehammer hint:
    
    |Naturally, if you add in more information, the equation changes.
    
    The basenote describes a survey in which people were asked, Do you
    believe AA has caused <negative consequence>?  Most people answered No
    to these questions, which covered the common negative side effects
    attributed to AA.  So, based on those questions, most people did not
    believe that AA caused harmful consequences.
    
    It's hardly my fault that the survey is not complete enough for you.

    Re .54:
    
    > Most people answered No to these questions, which covered the common
    > negative side effects attributed to AA.  So, based on those questions,
    > most people did not believe that AA caused harmful consequences.  
    
    No, the questions did NOT cover the common negative side effects
    attributed to AA.  It cannot be logically concluded, based on those
    questions, that most people do not believe AA caused harmful
    consequences.
    
    One of the questions asks whether the _respondent_ was denied a job
    because of AA.  While it may be a common complaint that AA unfairly
    denies people jobs, that is different from AA denying _certain_ people,
    such as the respondents, jobs.  E.g., if the question had asked "Does
    AA deny people jobs unfairly?", it could have gotten a much higher
    response.  Because this question was not asked, it cannot be concluded
    from the much narrower question "Were you denied a job because of AA?"
    that the respondent does not believe AA causes harm.
    
    The question "Is AA unfairly blamed for business/professional
    failures?" gathers NO information about whether AA causes harm -- it
    tells us nothing about what the respondents would have answered if
    asked "Is AA _fairly_ blamed for business/professional failures?".
    
    Similarly, "Has AA helped?" does not tell us how many people would have
    answered yes to "Has AA harmed?".
    
    So the ONLY question in .0 that asks whether AA has caused harm is the
    single question that asks has it denied the respondent a job.  No other
    question asks what harms the respondent believes AA has caused.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    	.50
    
>    It has never worked that way.  There are plenty of reasons to choose
>    someone less qualified, none of which have to do with AA.  These
>    include availability, salary requirements, experience in a different
>    (but relevant) field, and plain old nepotism.  
    
    	In the case of the LAFD, they are most likely working under union
    	guidelines.  Avaliability?  Not sure how that would be affected.
    	Salary?  Union guidelines set salaries, so this can't be a factor.
    	Experience?  That is addressed in the testing/rating system.
    	(Note that these types of positions give extra points for 
    	vereran status, as was previously described.)  Nepotism?  That's
    	what unions claim to eliminate through strict hiring guidelines.
    
>    The important thing is
>    that the hired candidate be qualified to do the job. 
    
    	This is very true.  The female candidates, though all less-
    	qualified per the rating system than the men that were bypassed,
    	may all have been more than sufficiently-qualified.  What is
    	being complained about here is that the selection process that
    	was in place was bypassed for AA purposes.
    
>    You might want to hire someone unqualified, but with a
>    demonstrated ability to learn quickly, to train them in your own
>    methods of doing things.
    
    	Quite true, but a foreign concept to many union hiring practices.

    Re: .55
    
    >It cannot be logically concluded, based on those questions
    
    Have you ever heard of positing an argument for the sake of argument? 
    Only you would take this whole thing so seriously.  It's really not
    worth the effort -- especially at this late date, when everyone else
    has managed to move on.

    Re: .56
    
    >In the case of the LAFD
    
    Which case is that?  The sacred-cow position is general, not specific.
    
    >Experience?  That is addressed in the testing/rating system.
    
    I said experience in another field.  For example, say you had an
    applicant who had experience on a suicide hotline.  That ability to
    deal with people under stress is useful -- it could even be helpful to
    the firefighting team on their downtime, having someone who can help
    them deal with the job's stress.
    
    >Avaliability?  Not sure how that would be affected.
    
    It wouldn't be.  The question is how it would affect -- affect the
    hiring decision.  If someone is ready to start next week, and someone
    needs to give a month's notice, you might decide to hire the one who
    can start right away.

    Re .57:
    
    > Have you ever heard of positing an argument for the sake of argument? 
    
    Are you retracting your statement that the poll in .0 shows people
    believe AA does not cause harm?
    
    > It's really not worth the effort -- especially at this late date,
    > when everyone else has managed to move on.
    
    Gee, I'm glad everybody else in Soapbox managed to completely solve the
    AA issue and send the solution off to policy makers to be implemented
    and then deleted all their notes leaving no trace.  Meanwhile, those of
    us who missed out on the Great Moving On still think it's a significant
    social issue and aren't aware of any time limit on discussion in
    Soapbox.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Flame on:
    
    If an organization (government or otherwise) sets up a testing system
    to measure the ability or qualification of applicants for a position,
    then the decision to award said position should be best upon the best
    test scores.  Testing is supposed to be a more objective way of
    measuring and analyzing qualifications.  
    
    If that testing system is augmented by a points system (like LAFD awarding 
    extra points for related experience or education, veteran status, etc.),
    then, again, he/she who hath the most points should win, period. 
    
    I repeat -- why bother to have the test, if, in the end, you will
    choose who you please, regardless of test results?!  IMHO...
    
    Flame off.
    
    BTW re: .56 -- I would think that my friend's military training and
    experience (ability to survive in crisis situations, deal *in person* 
    with danger, etc.) would be *at least* as worthy as another person's 
    experience at a crisis hot line.  IMO only, of course... :)
    
    M.

.59>    Which case is that?  The sacred-cow position is general, not specific.
    
    	I thought you were referring to the recent fire department
    	example posted.
    
    	I agree with you that as a general "rule of thumb" the factors
    	you have been discussing are very valid for hiring decisions.

    .61
    
    FWIW, most of us would definitely prefer to have your friend available
    to us if our lives were in danger.
    
    

    Re: .60
    
    >Are you retracting your statement that the poll in .0 shows people
    >believe AA does not cause harm?
    
    No.  I'm saying that statement was not produced as an example of logic,
    but as a way of asking a question.  It had enough logic in it to
    provoke an examination of a certain issue, which is all it needed to
    do.  I'm satisfied with the results.
    
    >Gee, I'm glad everybody else in Soapbox managed to completely solve the
    >AA issue
    
    This is really your day for missing my boat.  What I meant, of course,
    was that we had moved on to other points of discussion.  If you want to
    dally, fine, just don't expect everyone else to lag behind with you.
    
    >aren't aware of any time limit on discussion in Soapbox.
    
    There is no time limit on discussion.  This does not mean that everyone
    is required to discuss anything beyond the limits of their interests.

    Re: .61
    
    >If an organization (government or otherwise) sets up a testing system
    >to measure the ability or qualification of applicants for a position,
    >then the decision to award said position should be best upon the best
    >test scores.
    
    So, students should be admitted to college solely on the basis of their
    SAT scores.  Their grades, their extracurricular activities, their
    application essays should all be irrelevant.  After all, we've set up a
    testing system to measure their abilities, so we should just use that.
    
    >why bother to have the test, if, in the end, you will choose who you 
    >please, regardless of test results?!
    
    They don't disregard test results.  They simply don't regard them as
    paramount.  Test results are one factor of several in the outcome.

    Re .64:
    
    > I'm saying that statement was not produced as an example of logic,
    
    Well, then we agree.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    See?  All that fuss for nothing.

    	NBC did a poll on AA and here are the results:
    
    57% - oppose
    33% - favor
    
    	I guess the rest were undecideds.  As far as I know, no other
    questions about AA were asked.  If they were, the results were not
    reported.
    
    	Also, NBC had a black professor on the news saying that it is time
    to get rid of AA.  He also challenged the Republicans (who seem to be
    leading this charge) to make discrimination a CRIMINAL offense (instead
    of just a CIVIL offense).  This means you could go to jail for
    discrimination.
    
    ME

    How do you prove something like that?  I mean there are ways but for
    the most part, one can justify anything if they try hard enough.  Also,
    if that were to be the case, an employer would make darn sure they
    hired the candidate with the highest test score so they could say,
    "There is no discrimination here.  We hired Polly because she had the
    highest test score."  
    
    -Jack

    .68 Shelby Steele is the man you're referring to... 
    
        very intelligent and grounded individual. extremely poignant point
        made by him around being able to jail someone for stealing his car,
        but it isn't a criminal offense to discriminate against him.
    
        i agreed with every point he made...
    
        Chip 

    Odd that no one raised their voice in protest that someone was given 5
    points for being a veteran -- which is just another form of AA. As
    Chels says, there are a lot of othr worthwhile considerations besides
    the raw test scores -- including, possibly, having a racial balance.
    Who is to say that a couple of percentage points in a test score,
    alone, makes one more qualified?

    Not odd.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    RE: .72
    
    >   -< You expected different? >-
    
    Yes.... as a matter of fact...
    
    My being a veteran should have no bearing on anything re: AA
    
    If I can't get a job on my own merits, then I don't deserve it.
    
    > Not odd.
    
     Only to you...
    

    
    And your raised voice of protest over .49 can be found where?
    
    								-mr. bill

    Sorry, didn't think to respond.
    
    I believe in equality for ALL people.  No giving points away to
    anybody.  Let the fact that they are veterans alone stand on their own
    merit.  
    
    
    -Jack

    
    RE: .74
    
    > And your raised voice of protest over .49 can be found where?
    
    Albeit a little late... try reading .73 again...

	Here's a remark about points for being a veteren.  For jobs that
require serious physical action yet still be able to think clearly, a vet
might do well.  They are most likely be able to be in the physical 
condition, AND they probably have had experience at handling an emergency
and keeping their head at times of an emergency.  Therefore, they get the
points based on (probable) experience.

ME

    	I always thought that applicants were given "extra credit" 
    	for veteran status on civil service exams to compensate for 
    	potential lost education and business experience while in
    	the service.
    
    	Can anyone confirm or disprove this for me?

    
       At any rate, extra credit for what you have DONE is a different
     category from preference for what group you were BORN into.
    
       It is perfectly logical to do either without the other.
    
       bb

    No, AA for vets does *not* go back to WWII.
    
    
    I'll even co-opt your language for a moment, since taking an
    affirmative action for somebody clearly discriminates against the
    other.
    
    Let's look at your "rational" reasons to discriminate against non-vets.
    Komar says that jobs that require physical action or performance under
    emergency situations would be better performed by vets, who of course
    have had physical conditioning training and have faced emergencies.
    Oppelt talks about lost education and business experience while in
    the service.  And of course, Braucher has to flail about that
    discrimination against non-vets is OK because, well, it's different.
    
    Unbelievable.
    
    
    True story.
    
    Two cousins (Joe and George), both work for the government.
    
    One got a job in a national lab.  One enlisted in the military.
    
    Both do *exactly* the same job - computer operations.  Both
    have been doing so for the same amount of time.
    
    Both have faced exactly the same risk on the job - falling
    into a hole in a raised floor.
    
    Both have the same physical condition.  (Good golfers both.)
    
    Both have had almost exactly the same training - paid for by we the
    taxpayers.  They know Vaxes, they know Unix workstations, they know
    lots of IBM.
    
    (You think I'm making this up, don't you?)
    
    
    But you think because one works for a service that happens to have
    big boats that he should be given "points" or "preference" over
    the other.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
      If you think that patriotism does not exist, and that only fools
     would risk grisly death for their country, then vet preference makes
     no sense.
    
      If you think the guys who landed in Normandy did so for fun, or that
     the soldiers in the Gulf War went for the $100/week, then they already
     have been adequately recompensed.
    
      And since you elect cowardly traitor BC to sell us out bigtime, you
     DO think so.  But this position still has the hyppocritical tinge it
     did for Kipling's "making mock of those who guard you while you
     sleep".
    
      And for those who have had a taste of war, the argument will remain
     unconvincing.
    
      bb

re: .80

This is one of those rare times when I agree with you.

re: .81

The last time I checked, serving one's country was a duty, not something one
did expecting AA points afterwards.

Bob - who was born in a year that meant I wasn't called to do my duty

    This may have been addressed earlier in this note, but I don't beleive
    the issue with AA is around any one particular group.  as far as
    veterans are concerned, I can see where, particularly for combat vets,
    a certain amount of latitude might be given.
    
    the critical issue; however, is that AA, as it is being implemented and
    has been used, is simply discrimination.  You can couch in whatever
    platitudes you want, but at the end, it is discrimination.  That is
    what many people object to, and what I object to.  Setting goals, etc
    may seem like a very valid way to address a problem, but as it has been
    run it has served little if any purpose other than to create further
    divisions.
    
    Individuals need to be treated as such and succeed or fail based on
    their own efforts and not fictions created by the government.
    

   <<< Note 324.80 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>
    
    	Typical knee-jerk, bill.
    
    	I was neither supporting noor opposing the idea that I stated
    	in .78.  I was merely stating what was my understanding, and
    	asked for either confirmation or disproof.
    
    	You provided neither, but you did fill up a lot of space!

>    No, AA for vets does *not* go back to WWII.
    
    	Fine, since you seem to know, when did it start?
    
>    Let's look at your "rational" reasons to discriminate against non-vets.
>    Oppelt talks about lost education and business experience while in
>    the service.  
    
    	I did not suggest that it was a valid reason.  I merely asked
    	if it WAS a reason.  You seem to address it as if it were.
    
    	Is it?
    
>    True story.
    
    	Now compare that to a story where Joe goes off to the Viet Nam
    	jungle for two years while George gets deferred and gets to
    	finish his college degree.
    
	Anecdotal examples only demonstrate single cases.
    
    	So back to my original question, is loss of experience/training
    	due to military service a reason for extra credit on civil service 
    	exams?

    OS
    

    Why do affirmative action programs keep Asians out of colleges?  Asians
    do better on average on standardized tests than blacks AND whites, so
    if Asians and whites had the same cut-off scores, more Asians than
    whites would be admitted to college, by proportion of
    applicants/population.  By race-norming the scores, colleges limit the
    number of Asians admitted.
    
    What's the justification for this?  Have whites suffered at the hands
    of Asians, the way blacks are alleged to have suffered at the hands of
    whites, thus giving cause to reserve slots for blacks?  What have
    Asians done, besides being smarter, that justifies denying them
    educations they have earned?
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    
    Yes, edp.  And the same could be said of Americans who are Jewish.
    
      bb

    Personally, I prefer AA to DL, but I can't get any good connections out
    of Atlanta.
    
    Either one's better than a host of others, I don't know what the fuss
    is all about...

    
    SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - The University of Califoria Board of Regents voted
    yesterday to end affirmative action on admissions, hiring and contract-
    ing for the nine-campus state university.
    
    The regents' 14-10 vote was a major victory for forces working to roll
    back AA around the nation, including Califoria's Republican Governor
    Pete Wilson.
    

    
    
    and the demonstrators were out in full force to try and protect their
    Golden Teat....
    

        Ad clipped from a recent Worcester Telegram & Gazette:

It takes all kinds of people to make the news...
There should be all kinds of people to write it!

Are you a minority student in any Massachusetts high school? Do you have an
interest in newspapers as a career? The 10th annual High School Journalism
workshop could be for you.

   [...blah blah blah...]
 
To apply, you must be a minority student in either your junioror senior year
of high school and must be able to type by the time of the workshop.
Completed applications must be received by March 1, so write early for
application forms.

For more information about this opportunity, write to:

Professor Carole C. Remick
University of Massachusetts at Boston
   [...blah blah blah]

My wife heard a similar radio ad last year. An internship at Worcester art
museum was offered for local high school students. After thinking throughout
the ad that it would have been a fun thing to try back when she was in
school, the final sentence or two included, "to apply, you must be a
minority..." Oh. Never mind, then.