| Title: | What's all this fuss about 'sax and violins'? |
| Notice: | Archived V1 - Current conference is QUARK::HUMAN_RELATIONS |
| Moderator: | ELESYS::JASNIEWSKI |
| Created: | Fri May 09 1986 |
| Last Modified: | Wed Jun 26 1996 |
| Last Successful Update: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
| Number of topics: | 1327 |
| Total number of notes: | 28298 |
The Appalachian Mountain Club (AMC, a North-east based outdoors and conservation
organization) has a monthly magazine called Appalachia. They publish singles
classified ads, and they had a new policy starting from the last issue.
To quote :
Beginning with the Sep 1988 Appalachia Bulletin, the following restrictions
will apply to all ads for the "Wanted" section of the TRADER: Advertisers
may specify their own age and gender, but may not make reference to their
race, religion, physical appearance, or marital status. Advertisers may indicate
whether they are addressing their ads to men or women, but may not specify
a preferred age range, race, religion, physical appearance or marital status.
This policy is intended to reflect concerns expressed by AMC members. Ads not
conforming to the above restrictions will be returned to the advertiser
for rewriting.
Reaction seems to have been mixed. The latest (October) issue published
two letters on the subject. One said "Thank you most gratefully for
establishing your new policy banning discrimination... The personal
choice to discriminate .. is quite rightly relegated to the individual,
not to the public forum..."
The other said "... Do you really believe that marital status and age are
irrelevant to the choice of a potential companion or spouse ? ...
Finding a mate is not an equal employment opportunity.
Are you trying to start a new social order instead of your traditional
interests ? ..."
Any opinions, comments ?
/ Jon
| T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 585.1 | Ok to have explicit specs | RGB::SREEKANTH | Jon Sreekanth, Hudson, MA | Sat Sep 24 1988 12:38 | 7 |
I have to agree with the second writer. On philosophical grounds,
finding a friend, companion or spouse is not an equal opportunity
deal. On practical grounds, one might as well be efficient and
explicitly mention the
kinds of people one has decided would never be acceptable.
/ Jon
| |||||
| 585.3 | COMET::BRUNO | Gregory Bruno | Sat Sep 24 1988 14:39 | 9 | |
The stated ability to specify gender allows discrimination
on THAT basis, so the other specifications should be allowed. I
think it would be more of a clash to actually meet someone and THEN
have them tell you that they don't date your 'type'.
Sounds like these folks had good intentions, but didn't REALLY
think about the way they were going about it.
Greg
| |||||
| 585.4 | you can still ask person for religious preference | VIDEO::OSMAN | type video::user$7:[osman]eric.vt240 | Tue Oct 04 1988 17:32 | 7 |
Even if the magazine disallows specifyingg race, religion in the
personal ad, you can still privately discriminate.
Merely specify your preference in your first contact with the person
who wrote the ad you answer. Or ask them what they are. etc.
/Eric
| |||||
| 585.5 | AMC Backs down | RGB::SREEKANTH | Jon Sreekanth, Hudson, MA | Wed Nov 23 1988 13:55 | 36 |
Update on AMC Ads : The Dec 1988 issue had 4 letters, all critical
of the AMC policy. In the same issue, AMC reversed their position.
"
Since the July/August issue of Applachia Bulletin, when announcement
was made of a more restrictive policy for classified ads appearing
in the wanted section of the AMC Trader, members have written and
called to voice their opinion of the change. While three members
wrote in support of the new policy, the majority called it misguided,
oppressive, useless, offensive, and more. Other members cited the
descriptive ads allowed by the original policy as an excellent forum,
wonderful, and a service to our members. Many of these letters have
been printed in full in the letters section.
The decision in July to tryu a more restrictive policy reflected
objections members had expressed about the original policy. Because
the reponse to the policy change far outweighs the original objections,
the Appalachia Bulletin Committee voted in September to reinstate
the original guidelines, and to separately group the ads in a Personals
column rather than in the Wanted section. The volunteer member
committee, headed by the Councillor for Publications, sets editorial
and policy guidelines for App. Bull.
By setting the Personals apart from the Wanted Ads, the committee
hopes to serve both components of the readership : members who have
asked for and consider the ads a service will be fully served by
the Personals column, and members who prefer not to read those ads
will not need to wade through them to find hiking partners, or members
looking for rare books, or outdoor eqpt.
Beginning with the Jan/Feb issue, advertisers may again include
references to religion, age, race, marital status, and physical
appearance. App. Bull. reserves the rigth to reject Personals judged
inappropriate.
"
| |||||