Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    The worst thing we can do to a minority is to give them a job that
    they *may* not be qualified for.  Failure is tough.  All applicants
    should be judged on ability to perform the job.  But...if there
    are two candidates with equal skills and ability the job should
    go to the minority.
    
    Like Marge, the law is not necessary.  We can do it on ability!

    			The worst part about this ruling is that
    		the many women who *DO* make it on ability alone
    		tend to be seen (by the "Sour Grapes Brigade")
    		as having gotten the promotions *because* of
    		their sex.
    
    			If "unqualified women" are put into jobs
    		in which they are doomed to fail, our cause is not
    		helped at all.
    
    			*HOWEVER* -- if this ruling means that women
    		who *are* qualified and talented will no longer be
    		DENIED the opportunities to use those qualifications
    		and talents (based on the old Catch 22 "They only
    		hire people with experience, but how do you get
    		experience if no one will hire you?") -- then, it
    		could possibly help women in some cases.
    
    			One symptom of being victims of sexism is
    		the fact that we have to worry about being judged
    		*as a group* by the actions and performances of a
    		few of us.  We also have to worry about how we are
    		perceived by co-workers of the other sex (i.e., will
    		they assume that we were promoted because of the ruling
    		and not because we were the most qualified for the
    		position?)
    
    			The aspects of sexism that prompted the ruling
    		(and the aspects that make it a "seldom win" situation
    		for women) are *worse* than the ruling itself.
    
    			But it is the ruling that will hurt us the
    		most (while the other aspects of the problem are
    		ignored or forgotten.)  That's the hell of it...
    
    							Suzanne...

    
    Unqualified judicial peanut butter.  It seems to be that the backlash
    from this could be "I'd like to hire this woman, but if I could
    end up being forced to promote her before I'm ready or she's ready,
    I'll get someone else.  I don't need the hassle."
    
    Don't see this as any less discriminatory to women than assuming
    they can't do anything.  Now they're assuming they all need a hand
    up.  The zenith in human goofiness.
    
    *Sigh*
    DFW

The ruling did not say that an unqualified woman could be promoted
over a qualified man.  In the specific case ruled upon, both candidates
were qualified -- indeed, by some of the standards, the woman was
more qualified than the man -- and the promotion could, by law, have
been given to any of the top five (seven?) candidates.  The man had
indeed scored two points higher than the woman on an oral test, but
the woman had more experience in part of the job.

In its article on the court's decision, today's Boston Globe noted that
the 6-3 ruling concluded that an employer may adopt affirmative action
plans that specifically take a person's gender, as well as other
qualifications, into account when making hiring and promotion decisions.

Justice Brennan's majority opinion states "An employer seeking to justify
the adoption of an affirmative action plan need not point to its own
discriminatory practices, but need point only to a conspicuous imbalance
in traditionally segregated categories.  Voluntary employer action
can play a crucial role in ... eliminating the effects of discrimination
in the workplace.

Martin

I was upset about this ruling until on a later broadcast I caught the part
about how both the man and the woman scored in the same "very qualified"
category.

So I came away feeling that what the court was talking about was that
gender MAY be taken into account, and employers need not fear lawsuits if
they do this.  But very importantly (and I got this only reading between
the lines and am surprised the press did not point it out), this can only
be done to break ties between otherwise equally qualified candidates. 

- Paul

    Is there anyone who does not realize that working men as a whole
    (qualified or unqualified, motivated or unmotivated, computer
    engineer or maintenance worker) get promotions and raises more 
    easily and consistently than women do?  The supreme court made
    the same ruling for black workers in the affirmative action decisions
    for the same reasons.  When large segments of our society fall 
    behind the rest of the working public it creates poverty pockets
    and inequalities that are inconsistent with a democratic society.
    All working women are not highly educated or motivated or skilled.
    We represent all walks of life and backgrounds.  We all have personal
    responsibility, contributing to or totally supporting our families.
    We need any assistance our government can give us and believe me...
    we wouldn't be getting it if there were not strong statistical evidence
    that we need all the help we can get.
    
    
    

    <--(.1)
    
    "True equality is not when a female Einstein gets granted tenure,
    but when a female schlemiel gets as far as a male schlemiel"
    
    Marge, I presume you misunderstood the thrust of the ruling because
    I can't imagine that you really feel that only the female Einsteins
    should succeed.
    
    						=maggie

    Great news!  Don't react so negatively ...nothing much is going
    to change - board rooms won't be overrun with incompetent females..Like
    cream - only a few (male or female) ever get to the top!!
    
    Batters Up!
    

    What discourages me is that the SCOTUS is convinced
    that two wrongs can ever make a right.

    Ah, but it's not about right and wrong you see?  It's about
    balance and equity.

Associated Press Thu 26-MAR-1987 10:19                     Affirmative Action

26-MAR-87

                               By JAMES H. RUBIN
                            Associated Press Writer

    WASHINGTON  (AP)  -  President  Reagan  today denounced a Supreme Court 
    decision upholding the hiring of a slightly less-qualified woman over a 
    man, saying "obviously, I disagree."
   
    Reagan,  headed  toward his Marine One helicopter for a trip to Andrews 
    Air Force Base, Md., and  a  speech  in  Missouri,  commented,"All  our 
    position  has  been is that they should not allow affirmative action to 
    become a quota system that  is  counter-discriminatory."  "Obviously, I 
    disagree  with the decision, but the court made it and I'm not going to 
    quarrel with that."
   
    He told reporters, in answer to questions, that his philosophy  is  for 
    affirmative  action,  but  said,  "We  shouldn't let affirmative action 
    deteriorate into a quota system.  ... We've now come to a point where I 
    think we can have anti-discriminatory both ways."
   
    Meanwhile, the woman who won Wednesday's  6-3  ruling  said  she  would 
    understand  if the man she overcame for a job, and later in court, were 
    upset by the decision.
   
    "I would be upset by the decision, too, if I were on the  other  side," 
    Diane  Joyce  said  today  from San Francisco on ABC-TV's "Good Morning 
    America" program.
   
    Ms.  Joyce was asked if she felt the plaintiff  in  the  case,  Paul E. 
    Johnson,   had  a  right  to  feel  that  the  decision  upholding  her 
    appointment to a road dispatcher's  job  for  the  Santa  Clara  County 
    Transportation Agency in California was unfair.
   
    "He has a right to his opinion," she said.
   
    The  court  for  the  first  time upheld an affirmative action plan for 
    women.  The justices said employers  may  give  special  preferences in 
    hiring   and  promoting  female  workers  to  create  a  more  balanced 
    workforce, even if the  employers  do  not  admit  past  discrimination 
    against women.
   
    The court has upheld affirmative action plans to help racial minorities 
    in a series of decisions since 1978.
   
    Legal experts and women's rights advocates said the ruling will  expand 
    job  opportunities  for  women  and  help  shield  employers  from  sex 
    discrimination lawsuits.

    The Justice Department, on the other hand, called the ruling  a  defeat 
    for the moral principle that hiring should not be based on race or sex. 
    And the man who filed the case after being passed over for a  job  said 
    he couldn't believe people as intelligent as those on the Supreme Court 
    could rule that way.
   
    Michael McDonald,  president  of  the  Washington  Legal  Foundation, a 
    conservative-oriented,   self-described   public   interest  law  firm, 
    criticized the opinion today on the "Good Morning America" program.
   
    "I think that what the court has done in the decision, quite simply, is 
    to  take  a  statute  that  was enacted by Congress, the Title 7 of the 
    Civil  Rights  Act  of   1964,   that   was   intended   to   achieve a 
    discrimination-free society, and it's turned it on its head," he said.
   
    "What it's done is to read the statute in such a manner that we now are 
    in a  situation  where  employers  are  free  to  discriminate  in  the 
    workplace  on the basis of race and sex....  I think the decision is an 
    outrage."
   
    But Eleanor Smeal, the  president  of  the  National  Organization  for 
    Women,  countered on the ABC-TV show that McDonald is "absolutely wrong 
    in his interpretation."
   
    "The court was very clear in  upholding  voluntary  affirmative  action 
    plans,"  she  said.  "It said that you need to uphold these plans where 
    there was a conspicuous imbalance in segregated  job  categories.   And 
    this  was clearly a segregated job category.  There had never even been 
    one woman hired. In addition to that, she was qualified."
   
    The decision "sends  a  strong  message  to  employers  that  voluntary 
    affirmative  action  is  the  way  to  go to remedy past discrimination 
    against women,"  Marsha  Levick,  executive  director  of  NOW's  Legal 
    Defense and Education Fund said Wednesday.
   
    She said the message for women is, "They have an equal right to compete 
    for advancement and promotion."
   
    "It vindicates our historic position that sex discrimination, like race 
    discrimination,  can  be  remedied  by  the  use  of affirmative action 
    measures," added Judith Lichtman, executive  director  of  the  Women's 
    Legal Defense Fund.
   
    Penda Hair, a lawyer for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, said, "Employers 
    will be among the decision's principal beneficiaries.  (They)  can rest 
    confident  that their plans are legal without having to prove a history 
    of prior  discrimination  -  without  having,  in  effect,  to  convict 
    themselves."
   
    The Reagan administration, which has suffered a string of Supreme Court 
    defeats on affirmative action, expressed disappointment.
   
    Wednesday's   ruling   departs   "from   the   moral    principle    of 
    non-discrimination for all citizens," said Justice Department spokesman 
    Terry Eastland. "An employment decision should not be made on the basis 
    of race or sex."
   
    John  D.    Maddox, a lawyer who argued successfully before the Supreme 
    Court last year in an affirmative  action  case  from  Ohio,  said  the 
    latest   rulings  "firmly  establish"  the  principle  of  preferential 
    treatment to help minorities and women.
   
    With Wednesday's ruling, he said, "There is  much  more  incentive  for 
    employers  to  work  this  out.    It's  now much easier to implement a 
    voluntary program, particularly if you're a private employer."
   
    The ruling came in an appeal by Johnson, who was  denied  promotion  to 
    road dispatcher by the Santa Clara County Transportation Agency.
   
    The  job  went  to Ms.  Joyce, who Johnson said was less qualified than 
    himself.
   
    The court said Johnson, who scored two points higher than Ms.  Joyce on 
    a test,  may  have  been minimally more qualified for the job.  But the 
    justices emphasized that their ruling does not mean unqualified  people 
    will be hired or promoted.
   
    "This  case  will  have  an  impact on all women and I'm very happy for 
    them," Ms. Joyce, 49, said Wednesday.
   
    "I think this is going to  be  a  regrettable  thing  for  the  future, 
    especially (for) Caucasian males," said Johnson, 62, who is retired and 
    now lives in Sequim, Wash.
   
    Brennan, writing for the court,  said,  "Sex  is  but  one  of  several 
    factors  that  may  be  taken  into  account  in  evaluating  qualified 
    applicants for a position."
   
    The transportation agency  "appropriately  took  into  account  as  one 
    factor  the  sex  of  Diane  Joyce  in  determining  that she should be 
    promoted to the road dispatcher position," Brennan said.
   
    But  in  a  dissenting  opinion,  Justice  Antonin  Scalia  said,   "We 
    effectively  replace the goal of a discrimination-free society with the 
    quite incompatible goal of proportionate representation by race and  by 
    sex in the workplace."

    Brennan  emphasized  that  employers should not be forced to admit past 
    bias before taking such steps since to  do  so  would  expose  them  to 
    lawsuits for sex discrimination.
   
    The  Santa  Clara County Transportation Agency adopted its plan in 1978 
    to promote women, minorities and the handicapped.  At the time, not one 
    of the agency's 238 skilled craft positions was held by a woman.
   
    The  plan has a long-range goal of assigning 36 percent of the agency's 
    jobs to women, minorities and the handicapped.
   
    The plan did not specify any past discrimination by the agency  -  only 
    that the women and others were under-represented.
   
                                                     

    As that brilliant lady, Ayn Rand, pointed out, ends NEVER
    justify means.

    Ach. I hate to agree with President Reagan, but I don't like this
    ruling either.

    If they were just ruling that gender could be used in tie-breaking,
    what did they need a court case for? *Something* has to be used to
    break ties; why did this have to go to the Supreme Court? Will there be
    a court case if some hiring manager flips a quarter to do it?
    
    Not only does it go against the grain to promote/hire someone who's not
    the best-qualified, but it's hurting one person to help another. I've
    come to believe that giving priority to any one person simply because
    s/he belongs to a discriminated-against class is wrong. It's clearly
    wrong if Jane loses a promotion to Joe because she's a woman; but if
    Jane gets a promotion over Joe, and he's more qualified, then *he* is
    hurt. What good is hurting one person to help another when *neither* of
    them may have been involved in the problem which set up the
    discrimination. (There I go again, agreeing with the Administration. I
    seem to be listing to the right...Someone stop me...)
    
    What's needed is a way to make up for past discriminations without
    hurting anyone. As I've said many other times, education is the way to
    do it. Treating a symptom (women/blacks/etc not getting a particular
    job) isn't proper; treating the cause (discrimination, people not
    respecting each other, etc) is proper. Maybe we *do* need to teach
    "values" in the schools, but then the question is, "What and whose?"
    (Now I'm agreeing with the fundamentalists who want to ban "Goldilocks"
    from the schools.  Boy, am I in trouble.)

					-- hs

re.15

*Please* refrain from the generalizations "
� As men currently believe they are incapable, the only way to get women ...

I'm a woman, and if the men in my group believe I'm incapable, I'd be *very*
surprised.  I  realize  that  there are men who believe women are incapable,
but  I  would  prefer  that  the (in my experience) false generalizations be
avoided.

- Linda

   I agree with the Supreme Court ruling. 

   First of all, how do you plan to ever get this perfect society that
   doesn't discriminate?  All along women and minorities have been
   discriminated against and often it wasn't conscious discrimination.
   It's easier to hire someone who is like you.  If you take two
   individuals with similar qualifications, but one got a better GPA in
   college, but the other went to your alma mater (sp?), then would you
   not wonder if you prefered the second because you know what their
   education was like?  Is it discriminatory to hire a DEC employee over
   someone outside DEC even if the outside person is more qualified? 

   People hire for all sorts of reasons, and life isn't always fair.  I
   support tilting the scales towards the groups that have always been
   discriminated against.  I think that as more of them get into various
   fields then we can drop the extra weight.  You can bet that the people
   hired will be qualified, since no company wants to hurt themselves.
   All along people complain about having to exceed the qualification of
   their white/male peers to get the same job, now they just have to meet
   it (or be close).   I think too much is made of the 2 more points (out
   of how many?) that the man had.  There are other qualities that could
   have been in the woman's favor that we don't know about. 

...Karen

    I'm of two minds about the decision.
    
    I agree that voluntary affirmative action may be the only way to
    get minorities into positions for which they are *equally* qualified,
    but where subjective factors may have prevented them from being
    hired/promoted in the past.  
    
    But I'm nervous about the backlash.  I've already heard the "token
    woman" statement many times, even in DEC, and having the Supreme
    Court say (or appear to say, which is probably what counts) that
    gender can used as a factor in hiring is going to make a lot of
    people (many in the white, male majority) mad.
    
    Gloria
    

I applaud this decision. First of all, I don't see how we can expect to
achieve an egalitarian society without doing something positive to
counteract the years (centuries, millenia) of unfair discrimination.
Secondly I don't see simplistic rules like "hiring decisions can no longer be
influenced by sex or race" as a good way to solve the problem. The problem
of sexism is complex, and it isn't going to be solved simply, much as we
might wish for a simple solution.

I must say I envy women like Marge Davis who achieved their success only
through their own merits. As a white man I can never take quite the same
pride in my accomplishments. I know that regardless of my wish to be treated
fairly I've been helped along by the system that discriminates against women
and minorities. I've heard this used as an argument AGAINST affirmative
action: it undermines the pride and confidence of the oppressed groups to
know that they might be promoted or hired over equally qualified
non-minorities JUST because of their sex or race. Somehow this
confidence-undermining effect never seems to have bothered the white men who
are most often the proponents of this view. They all seem to feel that they
got where they are through their own talent and hard work, rather than by
denying equal opportunities to others just as qualified. 

Don.

re: .18

Karen:

>   First of all, how do you plan to ever get this perfect society that
>   doesn't discriminate?  

How does discrimination help to end discrimination? If I were denied a job
so that a black or a woman could get it, I'd be angry -- I have not
contributed to the racist or sexist attitudes in society; in fact, quite
the opposite.

>   People hire for all sorts of reasons, and life isn't always fair.  I
>   support tilting the scales towards the groups that have always been
>   discriminated against.  
   
It's not fair to discriminate against white Anglo-Saxon males (or whoever
else has done the discriminating) to make up for past injustices. The group
may have been wrong in the past, but the current members of the group may
be innocent.

I will agree that in this case, where the two people were close in
qualifications that deciding for the woman is fine. As I said in a previous
note, something has to be used to break a tie or close call, but I object
to giving extra weight to a person's sex, race, etc, in other situations.

>   You can bet that the people hired will be qualified, since no company
>   wants to hurt themselves.

That may be true, but I'm worried about the person who wasn't hired being
hurt.
					-- hs

hs,

>How does discrimination help to end discrimination? If I were denied a job
>so that a black or a woman could get it, I'd be angry -- I have not
>contributed to the racist or sexist attitudes in society; in fact, quite
>the opposite.

I'm not endorsing hiring unqualified people over those qualified.  I am,
however, for quotas and other actions that push towards getting more women
and minorities into areas that are predominantly male majority.  It is not
easy for people to be the minority in a certain job classification.  It
is harder to break into that field, and having a company actively encourage
minorities helps get more of them to see that as a viable field of study.
Yes, you want the best people for the job, but there are actually a lot
of "best" people if you look for them, so I endorse looking first at the
women and minorities until things are more equitable.  I also suspect that
not all companies will take up this policy, so I don't think the majority
need worry that all the jobs will get used up.

>It's not fair to discriminate against white Anglo-Saxon males (or whoever
>else has done the discriminating) to make up for past injustices. The group
>may have been wrong in the past, but the current members of the group may
>be innocent.

You're right.  But as I said, I don't think life is fair, and I don't
see that all of a sudden discrimination will dissappear.  I know two
wrongs don't make a right, but what if it makes things better?  I really
don't see any better solutions to the problem.


>That may be true, but I'm worried about the person who wasn't hired being
>hurt.

One of them will get hurt no matter what.

..Karen

re .21 by Don Sharp.

Boy, this is depressing.  Don, don't you see what you are doing to yourself
by yearning for an egalitarian society?  You say you can "never take quite 
the same pride" in your accomplishments, because of the actions of *other* 
people.

You can't make people "equal" by giving unearned rewards.  You are treating 
the symptoms, not the disease.  People are *not* equal except in their 
worth as human beings.  That is, they are equal before the law.  They are 
not equal in training, intelligence, experience, or abilities.  The 
differences come about for any number of reasons, some under the person's 
control, some not.  The differences are nothing to feel *guilty* about 
unless you yourself participated in the opression of those less fortunate.

Ayn Rand was quoted before, "the ends NEVER justify the means".  I'll quote
her again: "Egalitarianism is an evil doctrine."  It demeans the good, the
successful, precisely because they *are* successful. 

Am I ever in for it now.

- pd

    I think this issue has two sides.  I am more comfortable with my
    position but on this issue I am not adamant.  I believe the most
    qualified individual should get the job.  I would not want a job
    that was given to me for any other reason.  I would imagine that
    it could create some real pressure with peers as well as reporting
    relationships.
    
    There have been some real strides in education that I approve of
    though.  I believe very strongly in providing education for minorities
    that may not test as high as other students.  I believe very much
    in scholarships for minorities.  I believe we should go out of our
    way to provide minorities with skills that will make them the best
    candidate for the job.
    
    Joyce

    Some day in the not too distant future, a less qualified
    (Black, Hispanic, Vietnamese etc) will be hired over a
    more qualified woman. That's the day you'll see this
    decision for what it really is - another DAMN bad
    precedent.

  This is a tough issue because we have two laudable goals that are in
  conflict.  One goal is to end discrimination, period.  The other is to
  enable everyone, regardless of race, gender, national origin, etc., to
  go as far as s/he is capable of going. Both goals are vitally important
  but apparently unreconcilable given a starting position of society as it
  is today. 

  To hear people the people who have *indirectly* benefited from past
  discrimination (like me) say, "Discrimination is wrong and we shall do
  it no longer" rings a bit hollow.  Imagine, if you will, a footrace in
  which some of the participants were forced to run with one foot in a
  bucket.  If at some point after the start of the race, it is decided
  that such handicaps are wrong, the only right thing to do is to start
  the race over.  Something is terribly wrong if the front-runners get to
  piously say, "Yes, these handicaps were immoral and wrong but I'll keep
  my two-lap lead anyway." 

  So, how do we start the race over?  I think we can do it with rulings
  along the lines of the one just made by the Supreme Court.  However,
  it should be made *very* clear, in the rulings themselves, that:

   - These laws shall *never* be construed as allowing an unqualified
     person to get a job.  They apply only to choices between qualified
     people.

   - Such "handicapping" is not a good thing; it is merely the lesser of
     two evils.

   - These rulings shall have the force of law only until such time as the
     minority percentages in the workplace match the minority percentages
     in society, within, say, 20%.  (Ok, this number is arbitrary.  We should
     not require an exact match between the workplace and society because
     there may be good reasons for individuals to choose not work in a
     given job.)

  So, we can end discrimination today and make permanent the results of the
  past centuries' discrimination.  Or we can continue to discriminate for
  awhile, this time being fully conscious of the discrimination and the
  reasons behind it.  

  This is a big country and it will take all the brains and talent we have
  to run it in the coming years.  I want *everyone* with such abilities to
  be able to use them to the utmost.  This can't happen unless everyone
  believes that their chances are as good as anyone else's.

  JP

    re: .21
    
    thank you, Don.  Being of a more extremist conviction than most,
    it is surprising and rewarding to me to find a man who is aware of 
    how the system works.  It may be true that many individual white,
    Anglo-Saxon, Protestant males alive today have done nothing
    explicitly oppressive to women as a class, but they are the 
    constant beneficiaries of an evil and oppressive system.
    Since this system defines WASP males as the social
    norm, it is easy for them to view their accomplishments as
    being the result of their own individual efforts.  They
    don't see the ways in which the culture has placed them in
    a context where they have the freedom to function that way,
    at the expense of a huge underclass that provides the
    backdrop for that freedom.  How many powerful men would be
    where they are today if they did not have women in servile
    roles, cooking their food, raising their children, cleaning
    their clothes, answering their phone, typing their memos?
    Do all these women perform these tasks as the result of
    free choices?  How many secretaries chose that employment
    over being nuclear physicists?  How many wives and mothers
    really chose to stay home and clean up after a sick baby
    over being Secretary of State?  

    What are the moral obligations of someone who realizes that
    he constantly benefits from a position of privilege, the position
    of being accepted by default as a full, free member of a society,
    a member whose ability to make choices is so broad because so
    many others are being denied the opportunity to compete for them?
    The men in this file who claim to be innocent have the same
    complicity in the system as the plantation owners of the American
    south, as the philosophers of ancient Greece who were free to
    develop fine ideals about democracy because 85% of their population
    were not free.  I think the first step is to acknowledge that
    one occupies a position of privilege, and then use it as 
    best you can in the cause of justice.  You cannot undo
    the past, you should not deny what you are, but you can work
    for a better future.  
    
    Lest I be dismissed as a completely foaming-at-the-mouth,
    man-hating, molotov-cocktail throwing radical, let me mention
    that I am a parent of both a male and a female child, and I do
    not want to see either of them denied the realization of
    their full potential as human beings.   I do not want either
    of them to be a slave to another's ambition, but neither
    do I want either to be an exploiter of others.  I simply want
    them to be fully human, and to have a many choices as possible
    in their lives.
    
    I'm putting on my asbestos suit, fully expecting that if one
    throws molotov cocktails, one will get flamed...
    

    While reading newspaper reports of this Supreme Court ruling last
    night, I remembered something about democracy being the "greatest good
    for the greatest number." Balancing that is that the rights of the
    minority have to be protected.
    
    As has been discussed here before, when all discrimination is ended,
    we'll all be better off. I suppose that in that light, discriminating
    against members of the in-favor class for the benefit of the
    less-favored class is acceptable if it will help even the score.
    
    Does that mean that I'm changing my "vote" on this question, and now
    supporting affirmative action? I don't know. Maybe I'll just dislike it
    less.

    			After reading the ruling again myself last
    		night, I've come to realize that what the Supreme
    		Court is really doing is *protecting* employers (who
    		want to voluntarily impliment Affirmative Action)
    		from white males who would otherwise file lawsuits
    		claiming that *they* are being discriminated against.

    			The other important point is that the Supreme
    		Court has clearly stated that these employers do *NOT*
    		have to leave themselves wide open for other lawsuits
    		by saying that they are trying to make up for the
    		sexual/minority discrimination that they have been
    		guilty of in the past.
    
    			The one message I seem to be hearing from 
    		*some* white males is:  "Yes, I agree that women and
    		minorities have suffered, but it was not my fault.
    		I agree that we should end discrimination, but not
    		if it means that *ANYONE* [woman or minority] will
    		enjoy even the tiniest edge over me in the workplace.
    		Even though I, as a white male, have had an enormous
    		edge over women and minorities my whole life -- if
    		we are going to fix that, it's not fair to ask me
    		to not only relinquish the edge but to have others
    		now have the most minute edge over me.  It's simply
    		asking too much of me.  I didn't start discrimination,
    		but by God, I certainly will not stand still for having
    		it directed towards me in even the tiniest amount. 
    		If they can't find another way to be equal, then let's
    		leave things the way they are."
    
    			There are no easy answers to any of this.  I'm
    		not trying to say that *all* or even *most* white men
    		feel this way, but I think that if I had been born into
    		the "advantaged class," I would find *myself* a bit
    		hard pressed to not only give up the edge, but to find
    		that others now had a slight edge over me.  I can think
    		of all sorts of ways I would justify my position, but
    		the bottom line would be, "I don't want to trade places
    		with the oppressed classes -- not even a *little* bit!"
    
    			It's a pretty human reaction, really.
    
    							Suzanne...

    Thanks to all of you who entered thoughtful responses here.  A couple
    more things I'd like to add, although someone has probably said
    them already in a different way.
    
    1) It is too bad that a ruling like this is necessary.  Someday
    I'd like to see it reversed only because women in sufficient numbers
    and percentages are occupying these positions and the ruling is
    no longer necessary.  (perfect world theories and all that...)
    
    2) How would I feel if I was given a job over a white male who was
    equally qualified for a job?  I guess I would feel okay, not great.
    I'd certainly take the job.  But if I was offered a job over black
    person because management did not want a black person hired, I would
    refuse the job.  How many white males who benefitted from the past
    inequities did this?  See the difference between the two situations?
    
    A bit off the subject:  I was talking with a couple of women the other
    day and we felt that a certain *personality-type* (reads: personality
    type of white American male WASP) is more likely to be promoted
    over another type (reads: any other personality type - female, black,
    whatever).  Although in general people do not get promoted unless they
    are competent, we felt that many fully-qualified, competent individuals
    who do not posses that one particular personality-type do not get
    promotions, raises, etc. when they should be getting them.  Females,
    of course, can possess or learn to adopt this personality-behavior in
    order to get ahead.  An analogy:  the few token blacks in South
    Africa who are in relatively high (compared to other blacks in South
    Africa) government positions.  They've bought into the "system".
    I also recognize that somewhite males do not have this "personality
    type" I am talking about.

    	-Ellen

White, Black, Male, and Female are not personality types.

Being conditioned by society to act like a white female is. Or rather,
what you get from that conditioning. Are you quibbling with terms, making
some sort of statement, or really not understanding the jist [sp?] of
the statement?
	Mez

    I'm reminded of a situation in the A.F. in which I was up against
    a woman for something, I don't even remember what it was, but I
    knew from the start that she was more qualified than I was and I
    had already given up the battle.  I was picked over her.  I not
    only refused it, but I raised holy hell with my supervisor over
    it.  In the end, she got it.  
    
    In '69, my father needed to hire a paperboy and the Rocky Mtn News
    had put out an order that the person had to be black.  He was forced
    to hire the first black man who applied.  After about a month, the
    man quit delivering the papers and just tossed them into a dumpster
    because he knew that he didn't have to do the work, he was black.
    My father had to fight just to get rid of him because he was black.
    Hopefully society has learned from those times.  This was obviously
    a case of hiring a totally unqualified person simply on the basis
    of his race.  This doesn't apply here, but I hope that it doesn't
    turn into a similar situation.
                                                            
    I remember A.F. women being hired as aircraft mechanics to fill
    a quota.  They weren't strong enough to carry their tool box.
    
    When I interviewed for this job, I was up against 2 other people.
    I never saw either one of them.  I was told that one was a woman
    and both were fresh out of college.  I had 10 years experience but
    no college.  If the woman was equally as qualified as I was, she
    might have been turned down because she was a woman, but I would
    never have known it.  If I hadn't been told, I would never have
    known that she was a woman.  Even if I *had* known that she was
    a woman, I didn't know her qualifications.  I couldn't say that
    she lost because she's a woman.  There is a mentality that if you 
    don't like someone's looks, sex, color, hairstyle, etc., then you 
    can dream up something to justify not hiring them.  How can we tell
    if this is the case?  I can't.  
    
    In a way, I'm for the decision, provided they are equally qualified.
    On the other hand, if it devolves into hiring just because the person
    is a minority, then its wrong.  That's still to be seen.
    
    Spence

    	Very interesting that one point has not been brought out in
    all this discussion (either here or in Soapbox (which I have been
    *timidly* watching but not replying to :-)).
    	
    	This *is* a two-edged sword.  It also says that all things being
    equal between to candidates, if the group is overwhelming FEMALE
    the MALE can be given the tie-breaking vote.  
    
    	Why hasn't this been brought up?  Because the only fields that
    Female dominated are one like Nursing, Teaching and Secretarial
    fields; low_paying fields that no man in his right mind would fight to get
    into.  :-) 
    
    	As long as it is only a tie-breaker, I see no problems with
    using this to help even out the "Scheme" of things. 
    
    	Nota bene:  I am *extremely* against quota systems that require
    me to be hired even if I am less qualified.  I would not accept a job
    offered to me on that basis.  
                  
    tlh
    

    I think the Supreme Court made a good descision, especially since
    my grandfather took part in making a similar decision back in the
    thirties...

    The incoming governor was a Democrat, and had made it known that
    he intended placing Democrats in [most] key positions, and that
    he would repeal the [then new] Civil Service law to do so.  The
    outgoing Republican governor brought together a group of Democrats
    and Republicans, including my grandfather, to salvage what they
    could of Civil Service.

    They discussed, wrangled, and munged their way through to a result
    acceptable to both governors:  The governor could select from any
    of the top three scorers on the Civil Service exam for the position.
    The Democrats felt sure that there would be a fellow Democrat up
    there, and the Republicans felt sure that any of the top three
    candidates would be good enough to do the work well.

    <esc>[?451h
    A measly two points on an ORAL exam and this guy thinks it makes
    him the only possible candidate for a job?  Yeesh.

    And my first, dark, pessimistic thought is that they were essay
    [subjective] questions, and were scored by another male Caucasian...
    <esc>[?451l

    C'mon!  If a Caucasian male comes that close to getting a particular
    job, there'll be another job for him just down the pike.

    							Ann B.

    I think that one way to interpret the court's ruling (as heard on
    NPR) is that if 25% of the *qualified* applicants for a particular
    position are of a particular group, yet only 5% of that group are 
    represented in that position, then it is NOT discriminatory to
    consciously favor a member of that group over all the others.
    
    I agree with the court that no one's rights are being denied, nor
    is anyone being given unfair advantage. 
    
    I disagree that this has anything to do with "Affirmative Action".
    
    Sm

    There was an interesting article in the Boston Globe Saturday. 
    Harvard sociologist, Charles Willie, said it is a myth that white
    males have been qualified all along.  He added:
    
     
    "Among all the people in the highest occupational categories -
    administrators, executives, managers - white males have the lowest
    median education of all race and sex groups.
    
    "Black females in these highest occupational categories have the
    highest median education among these groups.  They are followed
    by white females, then black males and, lastly, white males."
                            
    
    He also said there wasn't evidence "that either women or blacks
    are hired with lower qualifications.  That's a myth that the white
    males have perpetrated upon our society to disguise their own lack
    of qualifications for positions they hold."
    
    He said that affirmation action was never talking about unqualified
    people.
    
    There was lots more in the article, but these points stood out.
                                                                   

    re .40:
    
    of course white males will appear to be the "least" qualified among
    the current working population. The fact is that a minority has
    to be immensely OVER qualified before 'e' gets the job.
    
    (and didn't somebody else already enter those statistics?)
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    
    When I first heard about the ruling, by listening to the evening
    news shows, radio, etc. I disagreed with the idea that a less qualified
    person (regardless of race, sex, marital status, age, etc) should be
    promoted over a more qualified person.  But, when I was thinking
    of less qualified,  it implies to me a lot less experience, much lower
    test scores, and other obvious differences in qualification. 
    
    I don't agree with quotas, though I realize that something needs to be
    done to even out inequalities. I just don't know what. I don't agree
    with the idea of putting unqualified people in slots just because of
    quotas (whether hard or soft). Some of the reasons have already been
    stated - it may set the person up for failure, which can then be used
    as a "see...we tried it....it didn't work, so we are not going to try
    that again..." arguement. And face it, knowing that someone with
    less qualifications got promoted over you (or someone else) can
    create a lousy work environment. In some cases the person who did
    get promoted is really being set up to fail.

    But now, what I hearing/reading now is that the candidates had minimal
    differences in qualifications. Infact, in reading the qualifications,
    the woman had more hand's on experience vs. a lower 2 point spread on
    oral exams. So now I COMPLETELY AGREE with the decision, as in stand up
    and applaud!!! 
    
    What really irks me now is WHY THE HELL WAS IT REPORTED IN THE MANNNER
    IT WAS? (in my heart I know why, but it still bugs me). It wasn't a
    decision concerning an unqualified woman vs and more qualified man, it
    was a decision concerning similarly qualified candidates.  Not only
    does that reporting do injustice to the decision, but how many people
    out there are now going to be even more put off when looking at
    candidates for jobs? Or just give more ammunition to the narrow-minded
    that still exist who think women are exploiting the situation (as in
    those that tell me "...if women were qualified for the top management
    positions, they would already be there...." AHHHHHH!) 

    Whenever someone loses a job/promotion, there has to be a certain
    amount of sour grapes (whether we admit it or not). And how many times
    have we discovered that a minority must be so over-qualified for a job
    to even be considered? It seems that when two equally qualified
    candidates go up for something, and the minority gets it, the cry of
    "reverse discrimination" is the first thing shouted, rather than
    admitting that they just lost to another candidate...
    
    Oh well....