Conference turris::womannotes-v2

	Mr. Duke was also a candidate for Vice President on the
	Democratic ticket in last years NH Primary. He didn't
	get many votes.

	Clearly, Mr Duke has seized upon a number of legitimate issues
	of concern to a large number of people, and has used them
	to build his candidacy. Unfortunately, he may simply
	use such a campaign to build a platform from which
	he can run his true agenda. What troubles me more is this:
	We know about Duke, and his past, so we can keep an eye on 
	him. But what about someone who harbors similar views, but
	keeps them to themself, and reveal their true agenda only
	after being firmly established in power?

	It is possible that a benefit can come from this.
	Remember a few years ago, when a follower of Lyndon LaRouche
	won an unexpected victory? ( I think it was in a Democratic
	Primary in a midwest state) The action focused attention
	on what was happening, and what LaRouche and his followers
	stood for, and as a result, you don't hear much about
	them winning elections any more.

	Clearly, the people of America are becoming more and more disgusted
	with the results of the Liberal politicians that have
	occupied many State Legislatures and the Congress for the last 25 
	years. It is unfortunate that a crop of Conservative leaders has 
	not surfaced to take the moderate ground between the Socialists 
	of the Democratic Party, and Fascists like Duke. The blame for 
	this is squarely on the leadership of the Republican Party. Unless 
	freedom loving Conservatives offer an alternative to the liberal 
	left, I fear that people like Duke are going to fill the vacuum.

						Tom_K

    	One thing I've noticed about David Duke when I've seen him
    	speak (whether he is giving a speech, answering questions
    	at a press conference, or being formally interviewed on
    	a TV program) -- he uses the words "we," "whites," and
    	"Americans" synonymously (as if the only Americans he
    	recognizes are white people, and as if he thinks that ALL
    	whites agree with his agenda.)
    
    	Conservatives often speak about "the American people" as if
    	only a bunch of Democratic politicians are Liberal (while the rest
    	of the country is strictly conservative.)  I disagree with that.
    	It seems obvious to me that the main reason Democrats have the
    	majority in Congress is that there are a heck of a lot of
    	people in this country who believe in what they represent.

    	It is my opinion that KKKlansmen realize that while they will
    	never get the_kinds_of_crimes_against_blacks_that_they_are_
    	famous_for enacted into law, at least they can work against blacks
    	within the confines of politics by joining the system and
    	helping with the movement to abolish programs like Affirmative
    	Action (while smiling like David Duke and insisting that they
    	just want equality for everyone, like David Duke is saying now.)
	Well, actually, what he said on TV tonight was that he wants 
    	"equality for WHITES, I mean, for EVERYONE!"  (Little slip there.)
    
    	Most conservatives say that their desire to abolish Affirmative
    	Action has nothing to do with an attempt to hurt blacks and
    	other minorities, and I believe many/most of them are being 
    	completely sincere when they say that!
    
    	However, it makes me want to ask conservatives:  If YOUR agenda
    	and the KKK's agenda can be accomplished (at least partially)
    	by the same EXACT set of proposed laws, doesn't that make you
    	want to sit back for a minute to think about the true consequences
    	of your agenda?
    
    	The Ku Klux Klan seems to believe that "their day" has finally
    	come (and that mainstream America is ready and willing for
    	Klansmen to take off their robes and hoods to join our culture as
    	political leaders AND as the standard-bearers of "HONESTY" in
    	America.)  David Duke said on television tonight that most
    	politicians in Washington feel the same way that he does about
    	minorities (and that they cut minorities down in the confines
    	of their offices.)  David Duke claims that at least HE was willing
    	(as a Klansman and as the wearer of a Nazi uniform in a photo
    	taken in college) to be HONEST about where he stood.
    
    	All I can hope is that conservatives will take another look
    	at their agenda (and where it will lead.)  If the laws that
    	conservatives seek are the stuff that KKKlansmen's DREAMS are
    	made of, it ought to make at least a FEW folks in the Republican 
    	party want to stop and give some thought as to where they are 
    	going (I would think.)

    RE .2
    
    SORRY, that sorta stuff doesn't fly with me.
    
    I do not believe in affirmative action. I have been the victim of
    it. I and a fellow worker once had a dispute with an employer. We
    were starving on $2.00 an hour. We took our dispute to the Federal
    Labor dept in Manchester, NH. They told us point blank: " If you
    were a .......... (you know all the descriptions) that we could
    help you, the employere would be in trouble..., but because you
    are ....... we cannot help you"
    
    	Think about this. Is this equality? If you think so, I have
    some items you might be interested in buying...

    I could hate minorities because of this, but I don't. I hate a law
    that says not everyone is equal. I can really understand how the
    black and other discriminated minorities felt.
        
    I am not a KKK member, and their actions are abhorent to me. But
    they, like Lyndon LaRouche will pick up on a wrong or injustice
    which is 'unspeakable' in our society and because of the hypocricity
    (sp) in our society will attract followers.
    
    To link the conservative ideas with the KKK or Lyndon is something
    that is done very often to discredit conservatives.
    
    You can understand why this is 'a hot button' with me.

    
    Steve

    	RE:  .2
    
    	> To link the conservative ideas with the KKK or Lyndon is
    	> something that is done very often to discredit conservatives.
    	> You can understand why this is 'a hot button' with me.
    
    	You realize, of course, that it was David Duke who linked HIMSELF
    	with conservative ideas (as an openly former KKK chief.)  This
    	is not a link that was "created" by Affirmative Action supporters.
    
    	Setting aside the arguments for or against Affirmative Action
    	for a minute (since we've covered those arguments a good number
    	of times in this conference...)
    
    	Do you think that David Duke has compromised the movement to
    	abolish AA since he has such well known connections with White
    	Supremacy groups, or are you saying that conservatives such
    	as yourself will be willing to embrace him because he claims
    	to espouse the goals that conservatives seek?
    
    	Do you think that his past (and present) involvement with white
    	supremacy groups should be ignored?

    	(By the way, David Duke used the promise of "no new taxes" to
    	attract voters.  Now that he is in office, his main agenda seems
    	to be to abolish Affirmative Action.  CLEARLY, White Supremacy
    	groups have a vested interest in seeing this happen.  Again,
    	I'd like to ask:  If abolishing AA is a clearly desirable goal
    	for White Supremists, doesn't that indicate that such an agenda
    	is seen as being harmful to blacks, and other minorities, by
    	groups such as the KKK and the NAAWP?  If those groups think
    	that the abolishment of AA will be harmful to minorities, can
    	you admit that it is possible that such actions WILL be harmful?)

    I think the worst message that this election sends out is that it was 
an *election* by (a very slim margin, but) the majority of the voters in 
David Duke's district.  There was another 'conservative' candidate running 
against Duke (Treen, I think?).  I believe that the conservative issues, if
it boiled down to *just the issues*, were represented by BOTH candidates.  
So what voter mentality is exhibited, when a CHOICE of conservative 
candidates is given, and the winner by majority is one with David Duke's 
past?!  I can't help but feel that part of the reason Duke won the election
was *because* of his past, and to me this is a very frightening statement
from the people of this district in La.


~robin

    
    There was a feature on NPR last night about Duke. It seems the
    Republican party is very upset about his election, and are looking
    for ways to void the election results (something about his having
    lied about his residency status). Evidently even they don't want
    to be associated with such an extremist. 
    
    I have mixed feelings about it. On the one hand, anything that makes
    the Republican Party look bad and reveal their true (IN MY OPINION)
    colors, I'm in favor of. On the other hand, what if this guy actually
    has success in promoting his agenda?
    
    With regard to the issue of linking Conservatives and racists, it
    seems to me the Conservatives have done that for themselves. What
    do you expect when you get a President who tries to keep the '65
    Voting Rights Act from being renewed? What do you expect when you
    have a Republican party that takes full-page Spanish language ads
    out warning that if you attempt to vote you may go to jail?
    
    Roberta
               

>    	However, it makes me want to ask conservatives:  If YOUR agenda
>    	and the KKK's agenda can be accomplished (at least partially)
>    	by the same EXACT set of proposed laws, doesn't that make you
>    	want to sit back for a minute to think about the true consequences
>    	of your agenda?

 You know, Suzanne, I am surprised that you would ask such a question. Put the
shoe on the other foot, for a minute.
  <However, it makes me want to ask liberals: If YOUR agenda
and the socialist's agenda can be accomplished (at least partially)
by the same EXACT set of proposed laws, doesn't that make you
want to sit back for a minute to think about the trus consequences
of your agenda?> 
Do you see how silly that sounds? You can take any arbitrary group, and state
that some of the ideals of the mainstream are shared (at least partially) by
the radicals. No kidding. That's part and parcel of being on one of the wings.
It matters more how close to the body you are, and less which wing you're on.

 You raise some important points regarding liberalism and conservatism that
have been previously discussed at length, although in a different forum.

 I am a moderate conservative. The problems that I have with liberalism are
that charity is mandatory, people do not carry responsibility for their own
actions (biggest point, to me), by making everyone support everyone else-
we make it more difficult for the borderline people to make with no assistance,
foreign policy is confused, and government is entirely too large and too
intrusive. Add to this the fact that most liberals feel that we are all idiots
and are unable to make intelligent decisions on our own so they MUST pass laws
to prevent us from hurting ourselves, and you have the makings of a government
with such elitism that I cannot bear to sit and allow it to happen.

 Many complain that conservatives are elitist. If that charge could be at all
substantiated, it would have to be that they are economically elitist. I feel
that they are not elitist simply because they do not mandate that the workers
of our country must provide for the lazy or unwilling. I feel that they are
trying to burden each individual family as little as possible, so that each 
family will have the best chance of making it on their own. On the other hand,
we have a group of politicians who feel that we are not intelligent enough
to decide whether we wish to wear seatbelts, so they make a law that punishes
those who disagree with them on this issue. Arrogance. I Know what's best for
you. BS!

 The Doctah

    	RE:  .7
    
    	> You can take any arbitrary group, and state that some of the
    	> ideals of the mainstream are shared (at least partially) by
    	> the radicals.
    
    	Ok, let's talk specifically about the KKK, then (since that
    	is the radical group who now has a former chief in mainstream
    	politics.)
    
    	The prime objective of the KKK is to hurt minorities (and to
    	promote the white race as being better than other races.)  Agreed?
    
    	They methods they use to accomplish these goals have been such
    	things as segregation, discrimination, intimidation, torture,
    	and murder.
    
    	Now, one of their former Grand Wizards (who is still connected
    	to White Supremacist group "The National Assn for the Advancement
    	of White People") has joined the system.  As an elected official,
    	he will now be able to use the abolishment of Affirmative Action
    	as the method to achieve their prime goal of hurting blacks.
    
    	Since groups like the KKK are the undeniable EXPERTS on harming
    	blacks in this country, do you think they would choose the agenda
    	of abolishing Affirmative Action unless they felt that such
    	actions would, indeed, serve to harm minorities?
    
    	Or do you now believe that White Supremacist groups have changed
    	their agenda to be "equality for all" (as David Duke now claims)?

    re: .7
    >of our country must provide for the lazy or unwilling. 
    
    Are you saying that all poor people are that way because they
    are lazy and unwilling to work?
    
    
>    decide whether we wish to wear seatbelts, so they make a law that punishes
>those who disagree with them on this issue. 
 
    After the seatbelt law was discarded in Massachusetts, the insurance
    companies came out with a statement of how much the average driver's
    insurance would increase with the law gone. So much for the
    conservatives' alleged fiscal responsibility.
    
    
    Roberta

 A couple of points:

 I think that there are several ways to "hurt" a segment of the population.
One way is to stop preferential treatment that they are currently getting. 
Was it "hurting" white men to stop the preferential treatment they were giving
each other? No. And stopping AA is the same deal- the "hurt" comes from losing
preferential status.

 You see that anything that a KKK sympathiser does wrt minorities is in
and of itself bad. While I abhor the KKK and am disgusted with their policies,
if they came out against a seat belt law- I'd still agree with them on that.
The fact that they happen to agree with many who say that AA is in fact legal
discrimination does not really lessen the impact that much. If they said that
the downing of Pan Am flight 203 was a bad thing- I don't think too many people
would change their minds just to be contrary to the KKK.

 Duke's impact on AA is going to be minimal. He was elected to the Lousiana
STATE legislature, thus his impact on federal programs is going to be nil.
In addition, he is one of many in the legislature- his ideas will not prevail
in and of themselves unless there is a majority in agreement with him. I hope
that he will be seen as the crackpot he is, and summarily discounted.

 On a particularly annoying note, it is much to the consternation of the 
Republicans that only last year Duke was a DEMOCRATIC candidate for VP in
NH (and got nowhere).

 The Doctah

    	RE:  .10
    
    	Mark, the point is that Affirmative Action is not just any random
    	issue that the KKK has chosen to back.  The treatment of blacks
    	and other minorities is their PRIME issue!  It is the reason
    	they were formed in the first place.
    
    	It might be pertinent to mention here that groups like the KKK
    	existed LONG before programs like Affirmative Action.  White
    	Supremacist groups hated and wanted to kill minorities LONG
    	before minorities had any real rights or opportunities.
    
    	While the KKK can never hope to get cross-burning legalized,
    	they are doing what they CAN do to furthur their agenda of
    	causing harm to blacks.  Abolishing Affirmative Action fits
    	right into their plans for social reform regarding minorities.
    
    	Why is that so difficult to see?

    The KKK kills blacks. They do not merely discriminate against them.
    They polute our youth with racist garbage. (I.E. the skinheads)
    This type of racism spreads faster than a computer virus. I'm not
    talking about AA or politics, I'm talking about hatred. These right
    extremist groups are growing. I fear for my children's futures. 
    
    Question: What can we do to stop them?
    
     Kate (A Democrat who suggests being called a Socialist an insult)
    
    P.S.Can we keep on the topic please.(You know who you are)
     

    	By the way, David Dukes official response to Jewish and Black
    	groups who have mentioned their concern about his being elected
    	is "They have nothing to fear from me."
    
    	Meanwhile, I have seen him personally state that perhaps there
    	should be laws (once again) that allow whites to run restaurants
    	where blacks are not allowed.
    
    	It makes me wonder what he means by "They have nothing to fear
    	from me."  (Does it mean that he does not intend to burn crosses
    	on their lawns, blow up their churches, or lynch random members
    	of their race/religion?)
    
    	The words have taken on a very ominous tone (especially with
    	the smile that goes along with the words when he says them.)
    

    I'm not  really  surprised  that Duke won. This country has a long
    history  of  intolerance (starting with the Pilgrims), and racism,
    anti-Semitism and anti-Catholicism have long been mainstays of the
    KKK.

    In national   politics,  Nixon's  "southern  strategy"  which  the
    republicans  have used since 1964 has been to appeal to racists in
    the  south.  The  south  was  solidly democratic until Kennedy and
    Johnson supported civil rights in the early 60's and the south has
    been  solidly  republican  ever  since. Reagan was endorsed by the
    Klan  in  1980,  and Bush had to fire some staffers when it became
    public  knowledge  that  they were neo-Nazis in the last election.
    The  attempts  by Reagan and Bush to distance themselves from Duke
    must  be  looked at in this context. They like what Duke says, but
    can't publically admit that they support a KKK member.

    The fact that the "southern strategy" has worked succesfully means
    that  there  is  a  lot  of  racism in the south, and when someone
    manages  to  make it a little less overt people will vote for him.
    I'm  bothered but not surprised. All this election does is to make
    clearer the continued existence of neo-nazis in this country.

--David

    
      Senator Byrd (former Demorcratic majority leader) and one of the associate
    justices of the Supreme Court (I forget which one) were also members
    of the KKK.
    
      I'm against AA. It is a racist policy. Where I differ with David
    Duke and the KKK is that they would eliminate AA for minorities,
    but would encourage it for whites. If AA is used to "help" monorities
    or to "help" whites, it is still the same thing: racism.

	Addendum: I mentioned that Duke was on the Democratic Party ballot 
	in the NH primary for VP. I was pretty sure that he was also on the
	Democratic Party ballot for President, but I wasn't positive, so I 
	didn't mention it. Last night on "Crossfire", Duke made several
	references to his appearance on the Democratic Party Presidential
	ballot, so that confirms it.

	Last night I saw Duke on two National New programs - Crossfire,
	and Nightline. I think this explains why the Republican Party
	decided to attack Duke by backing his opponent rather than attacking
	Duke directly. By attacking Duke directly, that would simply have
	drawn more attention to him. If Duke had lost, he would get any
	attention at all. But by openly attacking him before the election,
	that would have given him lots of attention.

	One point made earlier in this Topic - Duke is a well dressed, good 
	looking, smooth talking and charismatic man. His opponent had the 
	charisma of a used toothpick. Pity the electorate places so much
	value on such things.

						Tom_K

I can't understand why some people are so "surprised" that he won. For
the last few years there have been several assuaults on minorities.
Physical assaults as well as legal assaults. There has been a
resurgence of the KKK. The skin-heads are pretty popular. We had a
president who got on national televsion and said some horrible things. 
We had a president who wanted to support a, for all practical purpose, 
a segregated school.  It only follows that a Klansman would run and
effectively win legislative positon.  It is like the last frontier.

Duke is right. The only difference between him and many of our
influential politicians, is that he is "man" enough to be honest about
his thoughts. So what's all the heming and hawing about?
    

re: .17

Indeed, the party that based much of its presidential election campaign on
the prison furlough of a black man who subsequently raped a white woman
deserves the support of people like Duke.

Martin.

re .2

	I might make the same parallel between the Liberals and Communists.

	But ideas should stand or fall on their merits, regardless of who
	espouses them. A good idea is a good idea whether it is put
	forth by Liberal or Conservative, Communist or Fascist.
	If a Racist says the sky is blue, my agreeing doesn't make
	me a Racist. To suggest otherwise is absurd.

re .4

	Yes Duke linked himself with conservative ideas. But what was
	the reaction of true conservatives? It was to disassociate themselves
	from the man and his agenda. Lyndon LaRouche calls himself a Democrat.
	Should all Democrats be judged on what LaRouche does or says? I
	would argue that they should not.


re .6

	What is racist about the actions you mentioned?

re .9

	When fiscal restraint is at odds with personal freedom how can
	anyone even think of selling their freedom for a few dollars?

re .11

	Why do you regard being called a Socialist an insult? In point
	of fact, the Democratic Party is the Socialist Party of the US
	at least since the days of FDR. To suggest otherwise is to deny 
	reality. Socialism is an honorable philosophy. One that I don't 
	particularly agree with, but several nations have Socialist 
	governments and/or prominent Socialist Parties.

re .13

>	(especially with the smile that goes along with the words when 
>	he says them.)
    
	I know what you mean, Kind of reminds you of Jim Wright...

						Tom_K

>    Are you saying that all poor people are that way because they
>    are lazy and unwilling to work?
 
 Certainly not. I don't know anybody who would make such a ludicrous statement,
well, damn few. :-) I am saying that to help the people that need help is ok, 
but to be forced to subsidize the lazy or unwilling is nonsense. Keyword =
need.

>    After the seatbelt law was discarded in Massachusetts, the insurance
>    companies came out with a statement of how much the average driver's
>    insurance would increase with the law gone. So much for the
>    conservatives' alleged fiscal responsibility.
 
 First of all, that issue had nothing to do with fiscal responsibility and you
know it. It had to do with governmental intrusions on private and personal
choices. It seems to me that your position on another private and personal
choice is consistent with my position of being able to decide for MYSELF
whether or not to wear a seatbelt and when. I don't imagine you find any fault
with the insurance companies for this, huh? Yes, of course they NEED the tallest
buildings in any city.

 The biggest reason why insurance companies wanted to raise the rates was 
because of tort laws, liability and huge sums awarded to just about anybody
who had a misfortune. But that is the subject of another note.

 The Doctah

    RE: .18 Martin, that is a racist note. The race of both the freed
    killer and his victims is not relevant to what happened. It was just
    as wrong for him to be out and do what he did if he were white, black 
    or green. Your note suggests otherwise or I don't understand why you
    make issue of his color. Most of the stuff I saw didn't give out his race.
    (Except for rare pictures.)  Only the Democrats made a
    big thing about it. I always got the impression that they felt that
    Horton should be forgiven because of his race. Racism appears to
    be far more common among liberals then conservatives these days.
    The difference is that liberal racists are prejudiced against
    whites and conservative racists are prejudiced against blacks. The
    other difference being that liberal racists have more power to
    legalize their racist policies.

    RE: AA back a few. People should understand that many people believe
    that AA hurts minority and non minority alike. Those of you who have
    not been it's victim appear not to understand that being the victim
    of racism tends to create a backlash that ultimately hurts the
    oppressor. Somehow you expect blacks to fight racism but for white
    males to accept it. Well I have news for you, white males do not
    enjoy being discriminated against. AA is ultimately anti-black and
    anti-female and pro discrimination.

    RE: base note. I tend not to trust this Duke person. I support the
    Republican steps to disassociate the party from the man. Let him prove
    himself through deed rather then talk. Only wish the Democrats had
    the same nerve to stand up to their 'Dave Dukes' the same way.

    		Alfred

    
    re: .20
    
    When my insurance rates go up because of your so-called right to
    kill yourself by driving, that is not a question of freedom of choice.
    That is fiscal irresponsibility and reactionary ideology masquerading
    as freedom of choice. 
    
    YOU used the words "lazy and unwilling". 
    
    Roberta

    Back to the point.
    
    The KKK proclaiming to be anti Affirmative Action seems inane. We
    all know what the KKK was doing long before the Affirmative Action
    program came to fruition.  
    
    The KKK stood in unholy rightousness, calling themselves Christians
    before AA. They will certainly not stop at its abolishment.
    
    Kate
    

    This is clearly a topic with considerable potential for polarisation
    and generation of heat rather than light.  Please remember that no
    matter whether we're liberal moderates or conservative moderates, we
    *all* lose whenever extremists win.
    
    Let's be cool. 
        
    						=maggie

    Quote from TIME dated 2/20
    
    "Duke, who says he heads an oufit called the National Association
    of the Advancement of White People, still has the same address and
    phone number as the local KKK headquarters".
    
    A wolf in SHEEPS clothing!!

RE .22

    Why was his note racist in your opinion? 

    The race of both parties, victims and perpetrator, should not matter.
    But in a country wherein the rape of a white woman by a black man is
    more severely penalized than the rape of a black woman by a black or
    white man, or a white woman by a white man, it does matter. Why is
    there difference in punishment, we should ask ourselves. If I am to
    call a spade a spade, I would say that the advertisements which showed
    the black culprit against the white victim, appealed to an age-old
    subliminal fear among some white people. It goes all the way back to
    slavery - "black men rape white women." 

    On the other hand, the Democrats are not angels. They were losing the
    battle during the elections. I believe that under normal circumstances
    the Democrats won't have given a hoot about those advertisements. 0
    Horton should not be forgiven for the crime he committed. But I think
    that for them to choose that particular criminal, a black one who raped
    a white one, was quite striking. Brings back to mind "ring the alarum,
    ring the alarum, a black ram is tupping your white ewe." 
    
    Karen

    Agree with .10 on probability that Duke will have minimal affect
    on AA overalll since he is an elected *state* official.  Louisiana
    has a history of being very racist, and it is not too surprising that
    there are enough people who remember the *good old days* of segregation
    and discrimination to vote for him.  (* * not intended to project
    my personal beliefs, but some of my southern friends and family)

    If I am not mistaken, Louisiana has had some quarrels with the issue
    of Asians in their fishing industry.  The Asians have had an uphill
    battle for fishing rights and have had to deal with massive 
    prejudice due to their different methods (which work well) of working.
    
    Although Duke's edge is AA, I have a sneaky feeling that in all
    likelihood, it isn't just Blacks that he is aiming for.  There has
    been a large influx of Asians and Spanish-speaking peoples into
    all areas of the south.   In many small Parishes of Louisiana, there
    just is so much work available and at the least $, and often those
    minorities will work at them when whites will refuse---but the whites
    will *still* holler discrimination, etc.
    
    Duke, LaRouche, the Skinheads:  all appeal to the least common
    denominator.  Those who have an axe to grind due to perceived personal
    insult, those who feel "oppressed" but haven't the wherewithall
    or the gumption to hustle their own duffs to get ahead through
    education and hard work, are among the many who will be reached
    by those people.  
    
    Short of shooting them, I figure that those of us who disagree with
    Duke and the others will have to do more than write notes.  We will
    have to write our elected officials, work in community projects
    with interracial groups, and in general *do* something besides watch
    them on TV.
    
    Marilyn 

>    When my insurance rates go up because of your so-called right to
>    kill yourself by driving, that is not a question of freedom of choice.
>    That is fiscal irresponsibility and reactionary ideology masquerading
>    as freedom of choice. 
    
 Calm down, Roberta. First and foremost, your rates have not gone up one
penny due to the repeal of the seltbelt law. Not one penny. The simple fact
is that the insurance rates are set by the state. The insurance companies
used what's known as a scare tactic "Your rates _will_ go up by $xxx." Those
that pay attention to the news know that they industry asks for n% raise in
rates, but are only granted a m% raise. Thus their allegations that seltbelt
mandates save the consumer money are misleading at best, fraudulent at worst.

 Nonetheless, you bring up the point that freedom of choice that costs taxpayers
more money is fiscal irresponsibility. That is the most dangerous statement
I've ever heard. It seems you support the reduction of freedoms to control
expenditures, and voluntary ones at that. I suggest that you reevaluate why
you feel this way. There are alot of people who find that freedom of choice
is worth alot more than money. Take the abortion issue. Should it be stopped
because it costs us more to allow women the choice? I thought so...

 The Doctah

fyi- I wear my seatbelt 99% of the time because I think it makes sense, not
because the government tells me they'll use my non-use of seatbelts to bolster
the public coffers.

    Karen I believe that Martin's note (and yours to some extent) indicates 
    that you believe that white people react more strongly against black
    criminals then white. I believe this is not true and that saying so
    perpetuates racial stereotypes. You both also appear to believe that
    Horton was picked because of his race. This is a fanciful allegation.
    Rather he was picked because his was both the most visible (local
    papers played it up big time long before the election. I read about
    it almost daily but was unaware for months of either sides race)
    example of someone wrongly freed. It was also a classic example of
    Dukakis' arrogance, self-righteousness, and of his administrations
    willingness to institute a high level cover-up. Also his was a major
    crime while free of a release program. I believe that the Republicans
    adds would have been no less effective if Horton had been white and
    his victims black. I believe that to say otherwise is an unfair
    and invalid racist attack on white Americans who I believe have
    come farther then most liberal politicians are willing to admit.

    It stands up there with one Democrats saying, as he did, that
    because a small group of people in the deep south voted for Duke
    that it shows that most white Americans are racist. That is pretty
    much the message he seemed to be giving on TV last night. This
    kind of thing is going to perpetuate racist feelings through self
    fulfilling prophecy.

    			Alfred

    
    Wearing seatbelts is not an infringement of your rights any more
    than any other law. All laws are curtailments of your rights to some
    degree. Therefore, according to your logic, all laws are dangerous.
    To carry your note to it's logical conclusion, all laws should be
    abolished. 
    
    The insurance companies claim is not fraudulent. Granted they will
    do and say everything possible to get a rate increase, but this
    doesn't make everything they say false. It is a fact that if there
    are more fatal accidents, which is certainly the case without a
    seatbelt law, insurance companies have to pay out more money, thus
    giving increased impetus to a rate increase. If you can't see the
    common sense of this then you are blinded by your ideology.
                      
    Re: .26  I didn't call anybody's note racist.
    
    Last but certainly not least, Mark, with respect to your admonishment
    to "calm down" I want to point out that this
    is not the first time that infuriating "calm down" attitude has
    been displayed by a man in this file, and I for one am damn sick
    of it. (Now I'm REALLY not calm).  As I said in note 437, I don't
    appreciate the implication that if a woman pushes her point
    aggressively she is an hysterical female while it a man in the same
    situation is considered articulate and strong. "Doctah" my *ss.
                                                  
    I never thought I'd say this, but dealing with the men in this file is
     turning me into more of a radical feminist every day. 
    
    Roberta

    RE:.29
    
    Alfred, Do you think the television stations acted irresponsibly
    by reporting the story or did another politician act irresponsibly
    when he seemed to slander all white people? I didn't see the news
    last night.
    
    Surely you don't suggest we (all Americans) let this man get elected
    without question and outrage! 
    
    Kate
     
    

re .29

Perhaps, what I'm saying perpetuates racial stereotypes. This is a way 
one of the ways I will learn.

The judicial system apparently reacts as though there is a difference
between the black criminal and the white criminal.  By this I mean
that it would appear as though black criminal receives harsher
punishment than his white counterpart. I believe a study was
conducted a few years ago (I can't remember, could have been last
year) which suggested that the most severe penalties are indeed for
Black on White crimes. The least severe is Black on Black. (I would
bet that the majority of black men who currently sit on death row
committed crimes against whites. That is just speculation my part, 
though. I wonder how many white men on death row are there because of
crimes committed against blacks or minorities.) 

Horton was picked because of the furlough problem. Agreed. What I am 
saying is that Horton not only served as a logical example, so to 
speak, he also appealed to the sub-conscious. Have you ever heard 
about a two-edged sword? That was Horton. 

I disagree with you when you say that the Horton ads would have been 
just as effective had he been white and his victims were black. I 
disagree with you because had he been white he would not have appealed 
to some of the inner fears some people have. 

Another interesting aspect of the Horton case, was that those ads were 
primarily focused in the deep South. The deep South, up the the 60's, 
strung Black men on trees for looking, merely looking, at a white 
woman. While to some of us we only saw a criminal, to many others the 
ad conjured up all kinds of other interesting images, images which 
won't have been conjured up had the criminal been white. 

Whether Bush deliberately chose Horton, I don't know. But I don't buy 
the "it didn't carry another message" story.

Alfred, can we talk? Can you look me in the eyes and tell me that you 
don't think that there are some whites in America who are fearful of
black men? That there are some whites who do indeed think of blacks as 
lascivious and threatening, sexually threatening?

But alas, we digress. 
    

    RE: .31 I think the politician acted irresponsibly but then I believe
    this particular politician has made a career by making whites
    'prove' that they are not racist by supporting him.

    I don't think outrage at Duke's election is unwarranted at all. I've
    said I support the Republican party efforts to disassociate themselves
    from him. On the other hand you can't say that what one backwater place
    does in one election means that all of the US would do the same. You
    also have to accept that if a racist is elected legally (and there is
    some doubt that Duke was and that should be followed up) that he has
    to be allowed to serve. This will give this man a chance to show what
    he really is. Has he changed? Perhaps and perhaps not. Over the next
    term of office we'll all get to see and I don't doubt for a minute that
    he will be watched closely. He he acts the way his detractors and I
    expect then his constituents will either vote him out or be proved to
    be as bad. What do we do then? I don't know but it will be a sad day
    for all good people if it happens.

    			Alfred

    [taken from the net with permission from another noter]
        
    This is from the Washington Post, reprinted in San Jose Mercury News,
    Sunday, February 19, 1989:
    
    METAIRIE, LA. - Republican David Duke, former imperial wizard of the Ku
    Klux Klan, was elected to the Louisiana Legislature on Saturday night by
    the voters of this virtually all-white New Orleans suburb.  His victory
    by 227 votes embarrassed national GOP leaders, who swiftly revealed
    plans to disavow Duke with what was call "the political equivalent of
    excommunication."
    
    Duke, 38, president of the National Association for the Advancement of
    White People, a reconfigured version of the Klan, narrowly defeated
    conservative Republican John Treen, 63, in a special election that
    attracted extraordinary national interest for its sociological and
    political implications.
    
    Despite the chilly, wet weather in the New Orleans area, voters in the
    tiny 81st House district came out in record number.  Nearly 78 percent
    of the registered voters cast ballots, exceeding the turnout in
    presidential years.  With all of the districts 34 precincts reporting,
    unofficial tallies showed Duke pulled in 8,459 votes to 8,232 votes for
    Treen.
    
    Duke prevailed despite unprecedented national intervention by national
    GOP leaders in a run-off election involving two members of the same
    party.  Both President Bush and former President Reagan campaigned
    against him, and Republican Committee Chairman Lee Atwater, who has
    announced an attempt to bring more black voters into the party, sent a
    team of political operatives here to help Treen.  Atwater feared that a
    Duke victory would undo the GOP minority recruitment effort before it
    got off the ground.
    
    After learning that the effort had failed, party officials in
    Washington announced that Atwater would hold an executive meeting of
    the Republican National Committee this week to condemn Duke and deny
    him any form of party aid or assistance.
    
    "David Duke is not a Republican," Atwater said Saturday night.  "He's a
    pretender, a charlatan and a political opportunist who is looking for
    any organization he can find to try to legitimize his views of racial
    and religious bigotry and intolerance."
    
    Local interest in the race intensified in the final days as the
    symbolic meaning became apparent.  Jefferson Parish Registrar of Voters
    Sam Altobello said that the phones in his office "were ringing off the
    hook with people who don't live in the district but want to vote." 
    Most of the callers, he said, wanted to vote for Duke.  Journalists
    from as far away as Britain and Japan were here Saturday night to
    record the results in what Loyola University political science
    Professor Stan Makielski called a race "unlike any other in American
    political history."
    
    There are only 21,457 voters in the House district, which includes
    parts of the unincorporated suburb of Metairie in Jefferson Parish,
    where income levels range from high to lower-middle class.  The area is
    essentially a "white flight" enclave that grew when whites left New
    Orleans after the schools desegregated a generation ago.  There are 46
    registered black voters in the district.
    
    Duke says he quit the Klan 10 years ago, although his work number has
    the same listing as the Klan in the local telephone directory.  His
    white power organization's newspaper is filled with anti-black and
    anti-Semitic articles.  Klan organizations around the country collected
    money for Duke.
    
    Treen's campaign was centered on an effort to remind the voters of
    Duke's past:  the speeches he gave and uniforms he wore, first as a
    neo-Nazi follower of George Lincoln Rockwell, then as the imperial
    wizard of a branch of the Klan.
                                                             

    	Well, getting back to the question that I posed in the basenote
    	about what David Duke's election will do to the movement to
    	abolish Affirmative Action, etc.
    
    	In my opinion, this election is the worst possible blow to
    	the anti-minority movement that conservatives could ever have
    	feared might happen.  David Duke is an instant celebrity, and
    	he has hopes that his new "superstardom" will give conservative
    	Americans the opportunity to show how much they agree with his
    	anti-minority views.
    
    	Although many, many conservatives DO agree with 90% of what
    	David Duke is saying, I don't think that elected members of
    	the Republican party are going to want to join forces with this
    	man to work on their common agendas (because of his background.)
    
    	If David Duke could allow himself to go back to his life of
    	near-obscurity, the anti-minority movement could go on as it
    	was before (gathering more and more support.)  As it is, this
    	man obviously ADORES being in the spotlight (as negative as
    	it sometimes is.)  There is no way that he will be content to
    	step back for the sake of his cause.  I believe that he has
    	become too attached to his own celebrity status to give it up
    	(even though he is HURTING his favorite cause.)
    
    	Even though he is only a state representative, he seems to feel
    	that he is in a position to affect the future of Affirmative
    	Action, which means that he intends to use his instant fame
    	to promote that cause.  The more he does, the more difficult
    	it will be for conservative politicians to back him.
    
    	I hope that he is allowed to stay in office and to run the
    	campaign against Affirmative Action.  I think he is the best
    	person to represent the true ramifications of that movement.

    The following response is from a member of our community who wishes to
    remain anonymous at this time. 
    
    						=maggie
    
    ===================================================================
    
    
    Hello, All: 

    I have followed this topic with great interest, as I have the events
    that caused it to be started. 

    After reading and rereading the entries made to this topic, I feel
    compelled to make a few comments. I am making them anonymously for a
    variety of reasons, chief among them being that I am Black. My being
    Black, in theory, shouldn't matter, but from experience I have learned
    that many Whites are willing to discuss racial problems among
    themselves but are unwilling to hear what Blacks have to say about
    racial policies which ultimately effect Blacks. I expect that many who
    read what I have to say here will come up with thousands of reasons why
    what I am saying is foolish, unrealistic, or just plain wrong. The need
    to justify my "wrongness" will, for the most part, be emotional. Again,
    I speak from experience. Since my career in this company may at some
    point in time depend on some of you, I feel that it is best that I
    remain anonymous. 

    The following is my opinion only. It is intended to give my impressions
    and perspective on the matter which you all have been discussing. 


        

    In general, the discussion in this topic has been very educational. It
    is not educational in terms of the facts presented, but in terms of the
    attitudes and ideas that they indicate. Essentially, those who are
    participating in this discussion are focusing on many emotionally
    charged issues, but are failing to deal with the real issue here. This
    discussion has, in my opinion, degenerated into a discussion of why
    certain laws and racial policies should be continued or abolished. It
    has also become a kind of battle between Conservatives and Liberals. 

    This discussion is not dealing with the real implications of the Duke
    victory:  that White Supremacists are capable of gaining real political
    power in this country. 

    Blacks have seen this kind of pattern before: Whites having
    philosophical and political battles with other Whites over what to do
    with Blacks. Blacks rarely are allowed any say in the matters
    discussed; their input has been ignored, trivialized, or punished more
    often than it is listened to. For Blacks, the outcome of such battles
    has usually been bad. 

    
    
    

    There has been considerable discussion of "Liberalism", and
    "Conservatism" in relation to Duke's election. In keeping with today's
    attitudes, Democrats are associated with Liberalism and Republicans
    with Conservatism. Somewhat negative statements have been made about
    both parties from relating the KKK to Conservatives to calling the
    Democratic party socialist. These negative statements are insults (This
    includes calling Democrats socialist, Tom_K.  Anyone who understands
    the philosophy of Socialism will see that it is fundamentally different
    from that of the Democrats. In .19 you are guilty of the same error
    that you said Suzanne made in .2). I say here that these insults are
    not only inappropriate, but untrue. I speak as one who is neither
    Republican nor Democrat (I'm an Independent), and who has studied the
    philosophy of both the KKK and the Socialists. 

    I will go further and say that the party that Duke ran in is of little
    consequence. Racism is not a function of political parties; no one
    party in this country has a monopoly or even a majority of racists. The
    only difference between the parties as far as racism is concerned is
    style. The styles of the different parties can be determined by their
    records. Conservatives have a record of seeking to re-establish the
    status quo that existed before the Civil Rights Movement. Liberals have
    a record of trying to create artificial mechanisms which, in theory,
    will assimilate "underprivileged" and "culturally deprived" minorities.
    Both parties consider Blacks and other "nonwhite" minorities as being
    inferior to the White "mainstream". The difference is that Liberals
    seek to assimilate those who they consider inferior into the
    mainstream, while Conservatives seek to re-establish a system which in
    theory recognizes innate equality, yet in practice excludes anyone who
    is perceived to be inferior. 

    I am not saying that all Whites in this country are racists, though
    certain aspects of American culture may suggest this. I am saying that
    racism is so ingrained in our culture that even those with the best of
    intentions are influenced by it. Consider: Blacks in this country have
    been struggling for equality since the period of Slavery, yet White
    Americans as a group did not even acknowledge that there was a struggle
    until the 1960s. This means that from the 1700s to the 1960s, Whites
    have had a set of attitudes and ideas about Blacks that had little to
    do with reality. When you consider that the greatest enemy of the Civil
    Rights movement in the 1960s was race hatred and intolerance, which
    changed into a major backlash in the 1970s, which is currently
    metamorphosing into ignorance (how many people today REALLY know the
    history of the Civil Rights Movement?) and indifference, how can anyone
    say that equality has been attained or that racist attitudes are held
    only by small groups of extremists? The Civil Rights Movement was
    successful in removing most obviously racist laws from our country, but
    ten years of relative success against racist laws did not change 200
    years of racist attitudes. Before the '60s, racism was open and a part
    of everyday American life -- from Black stereotyping in movies and
    plays to lawful and/or sociological segregation to insulting images of
    Blacks in art and even to products sold by famous companies which bore
    racially insulting names which DEC policy forbids me to repeat here. 

    Some of the more obvious racism has been removed from the public eye,
    but nothing has been done to change the attitudes that caused it.
    Whites still perpetuate the same attitudes, tell the same jokes, and
    have the same beliefs about Blacks that they did 100 years ago. The
    difference today is that the attitudes are expressed more subtly, the
    jokes are told more privately (for now), and the beliefs are not often
    consciously acknowledged. If a white person is not publicly a racist,
    his/her beliefs are almost never expressed in front of Blacks. 

    What I am trying to say is that whether you are Republican or Democrat,
    Conservative or Liberal, Black, White, Hispanic, or Vulcan (;-)) you
    grew up with racism, you learned racist attitudes in school, you watch
    movies which often perpetuate racist attitudes, and you are part of a
    social and political system with racist attitudes built into it. To the
    degree that you are unaware of or indifferent to racism, then your own
    world view will be influenced by the idea that Whites are right and
    everyone else is inferior. The Whites in Louisiana have consciously
    acknowledged and accepted this idea, and voted for the person who they
    felt represented them. 

    Duke could have run as a Democrat, an Independent, a Libertarian, or he
    could have made up his own party. He still would have won. 

    He won as a Republican because, quite frankly, the racial attitudes of
    many Republicans are closest to the attitudes of the KKK. I said
    closest, not the same. David's statements in .14 about the Republican
    relationship to racists are factual. Further, since Reagan was first
    elected he has been attempting to get laws passed which would
    effectively negate all the laws which have protected Blacks since the
    Civil Rights Movement. I don't mean just Affirmative Action. I mean all
    laws, including certain laws which made the old Jim Crow laws
    impracticable. Those who have difficulty believing this should look
    over some of the things Reagan tried to do in the years 1981 - 1983.
    You may also want to closely examine the racial attitudes (that were
    exposed by the Senate) of some of his more conservative Supreme Court
    nominees. Though it is unfair to say that Republicans are all Klan
    sympathizers, the fact still remains that the Republican party has
    become the party of choice not only for White Supremacists but for any
    white person who is less than tolerant of different religious, moral,
    or philosophical ideas. I predict that there will be more victories by
    extremists within the Republican party for this reason. 

    Don't be too complacent, Democrats. In the late 1800s, the party of
    choice for Jim Crow racists were the Democrats. By the 1890s, they had
    totally defeated the Populist Movement of Radical Republicans -- a
    movement that was disturbingly similar to today's Rainbow Coalition. 


    
    
    Much has been made in this discussion about Affirmative Action as an
    issue. Affirmative Action has become a "hot" topic all over America,
    causing violent disagreements and a great deal of polarization. For
    this reason alone, I sincerely question its value. Affirmative Action
    has done more to promote White racism against Blacks than anything else
    in this country. 

    I stated before that Conservatives have consistently sought to
    re-establish the status quo that existed before the Civil Rights
    Movement. During this century the Republican party is the Conservative
    party (they were extremely liberal during the 1800s!), so the anti-AA
    sentiment seems to be expressed more by Republicans than anyone else.
    The great argument against AA by Republicans is that it promotes
    discrimination against Whites by Whites. In fact, some people (even in
    this notesfile) have come close to accusing pro-AA Whites of loving
    minorities more than their own race! I find such accusations amusing,
    because they imply that Whites who are attempting to assimilate
    Nonwhites into a society that is designed to exclude Nonwhites are
    seen, on some level, as enemies of their own race. The concept of White
    traitors who help Nonwhites is a cornerstone of the philosophies of the
    Ku Klux Klan, The Aryan Nation, the American Nazi Party, and the other
    (over 100) White Racist groups in this country. 

    I say again: it is unfair to say that all Republicans are Klan
    supporters. I am not saying that here. Not all Conservatives are
    acknowledged, conscious racists. I am only trying to say that the
    racial attitudes of many of them are "in sync" with the attitudes of
    White Supremacists. They are in sync because many Conservatives are
    unwilling to deal with the reality of racism in this country. Even
    during the Civil Rights Movement there was a move among Conservatives
    not to acknowledge the problems that the Movement was attempting to
    address. 

    A close study of Conservative reactions to the Movement shows that
    Conservatives fought hard to cling to the 200+ year old images of
    happy, subservient "darkies" who, if left uncontrolled, would become
    useless, criminals, or even savages. It was the "radicals" (mostly
    Black but many were White) who spearheaded the Civil Rights Movement.
    Whites who participated in it or supported it were also "radical" and
    "liberal". Conservatives didn't want to deal with racism then, and it
    appears that the majority of them don't want to deal with it now.
    Conservatives are not all racists, but they are the people whose
    support will be sought by racists because of their unwillingness to
    deal with the causes and effects of racism in this country. The
    Conservative stance against Affirmative Action is just another aspect
    of the mind-set that leaves Conservatives open to infiltration by
    racist and other intolerant groups. 

    At the same time, however, Liberals (who in this century are the
    Democrats) are demonstrating racial attitudes that are different from
    the Conservatives, but are no less devastating to Nonwhites. The
    original intent of Affirmative Action was to create conditions where
    Blacks (and later Women and other minorities) would have the
    opportunity to get the kind of education previously "reserved" for
    White males and MOVE THEMSELVES into economic positions that were
    previously unavailable to them. Unfortunately, the implementation of AA
    became another form of Welfare that was demeaning to the intelligent,
    ambitious minorities it was supposed to help. 

    Worse, it was tried before. In the 1870s, the Radical Republicans tried
    a similar form of treatment to try and integrate the freed slaves into
    the southern economy. There was a point in time when Blacks were in
    state legislatures, in colleges (W. E. B. DuBois graduated from
    Harvard), and owned businesses. Former slaves even voted, for a few
    years, and owned property. White backlash in the late 1870s and '80s
    eventually brought about the Jim Crow laws in the south and the benign
    neglect and disenfranchisement that occurred in the North. What
    happened with the "AA" of the 1870s is happening now. 

    Underneath the implementation of Affirmative Action is the idea that
    Blacks normally wouldn't be able to meet the standards of traditionally
    White schools, or wouldn't normally be qualified for certain jobs.
    Consequently, quota systems were established which (A) subtly told
    Blacks that Whites still considered them inferior and worthy only of
    handouts, and (B) strengthened the position of White racists by
    creating resentment among Whites who are not racists. Claims of
    "reverse discrimination" may be in sync with the ideas of the Klan,
    but they are an inevitable result of a subtle, misunderstood form of
    racism which has had negative effects on some Whites, but is primarily
    directed toward Blacks. 

    Do not misinterpret me. I acknowledge that Affirmative Action has done
    much for Blacks. I would not be where I am now if it weren't for some
    of the programs formed for "culturally deprived" Black high school and
    college students. Unfortunately, I have to live with the stigma of
    being Black despite the hard work I've done and the qualifications I
    have developed. Since I entered the "High Tech" field (and I've worked
    for many companies before DEC), I have had to deal with a perception
    among my White coworkers that I was only able to get a position through
    some Affirmative Action program (which usually the company I was
    working for didn't have!). The belief that Blacks do not have the
    ability or the discipline needed in High Tech is very prevalent. Unless
    I can prove otherwise, Whites have often assumed that I am an
    underqualified Black who got his/her job as a handout. The knowledge
    and experience I have gained, the fact that I am a workaholic (how's
    that for breaking a stereotype? ;-)), and the fact that I have
    accomplished a great deal for employers I have worked for are facts
    that are often missed, ignored, or forgotten. I am Black, so therefore
    I am naturally inferior, and I need Affirmative Action to get anywhere.
    Conservatives get angry that this underqualified Black got where he/she
    did.  Liberals feel good that Affirmative Action helped this
    unqualified Black to become "moderately competent". 

    But this Black person gets angry at Liberals as well as Conservatives,
    because though he/she made use of some programs to get his/her
    education (since at the time they were his/her only means of getting a
    decent education), the fact is that he/she got where he/she did mostly
    through his/her own hard work. 

    The point I am making here is that many promoters of Affirmative
    Action, the way it is currently implemented, are as racist against
    minorities in their own way as many of those who wish to eliminate it.
    While I do not reject Affirmative Action, I suggest that before its
    fate is decided that both Liberals and Conservatives should carefully
    examine the effects of its existence *and* the effects of its absence.
    Affirmative Action should be examined with a full awareness of the
    reality of Racism in this country and to what degree AA (or its
    replacement) reduces or balances the effects of racial discrimination. 


    
    
    One can easily get the impression from things I save said in the
    previous sections that I am anti-Liberal, anti-Conservative, and to
    some degree, anti-White. This is not the case. The central point I am
    trying to make is that regardless of the political inclinations of the
    people who have replied to this topic, no one has really addressed the
    issues raised by the Duke election. 

    The issue is not whether or not Affirmative Action should be abolished.
    Affirmative Action is a side issue which, as I have tried to indicate,
    can be endorsed by racists or condemned by racists. 

    The issue is not whether or not Conservatives are racist simply because
    White supremacists have chosen Conservatism as their vehicle of
    expression. The "disgust" so many "mainstream" Americans may or may not
    feel toward Liberal politics is also not the issue. As I have tried to
    indicate, racism against minorities exists equally among Liberals and
    Conservatives. This, too, is a side issue. 

    The issue certainly has little to do with such things as the validity
    of seat belt laws and their effect on insurance rates. 

    The issue, as I see it, is racism. Race hatred. Racial intolerance. And
    how much we each, as individuals, are willing to allow racism to
    manifest. 

    A former member of the Ku Klux Klan and an obvious White Supremacist
    has won an election to a state legislature. This despite the fact that
    the most popular president we've had in years endorsed his opponent.
    This sends a message: that at least in one part of the country people
    are willing to support racism. 

    The fact that this man may be a charlatan whose effect on Affirmative
    Action may be minimal is of little consequence. His victory will
    encourage others. If the "mainstream" of America is not racist, other
    attempts should fail. Quite frankly, recent events haven't convinced me
    that all racists will fail to achieve real political power in this
    country. And despite what some of you may believe, White racists have a
    real chance to reinstate the kind of lawful discrimination and
    terrorism against Nonwhites that they engaged in in the past. 

    Granted, "mainstream" Republicans are distancing themselves from Duke.
    But though Republicans are not necessarily racists, they have proven
    themselves to be at best insensitive to the realities of racism. 

    No one who has replied to this topic seems willing to make real
    discussion of the fact that racists have won a victory here. This
    scares me more than the victory does. For the past ten years Blacks
    have been trying to say that racism is alive and well in this country,
    yet Whites have been laughing them down and ignoring them. Racism has
    been growing strong in this country and "mainstream" Whites have been
    denying it. Now, a White supremacist has won a public victory (FYI: he
    is not the first one), and Whites here are reacting the same way:
    outrage because he is a racist yet still not willing to face the real
    implications of his victory. How can I, as a Black person, trust the
    Whites around me? How do I know that "mainstream" Whites don't
    privately support Duke while publicly condemning him? 

    As a Black person who has experienced the effects of racism all my
    life, I will fight racism in all its forms, whether it is racism
    against Whites, Blacks, Orientals, or ;-) Wookies. That is my
    commitment, because I know from personal experience how demeaning
    racism is. 

    In the 1920s, the Klan almost completely dominated American politics,
    mostly because "mainstream" Whites were willing to tolerate them.
    Hitler came to power in Germany partially because of economic
    conditions, but mostly because moderate Germans were unwilling to stand
    up to him. Now, racists are gaining power again. And Whites are still
    unwilling to face that fact. 

    Racism will flourish if "mainstream" America becomes racist. It will
    also flourish if "mainstream" America is not racist but does not make
    the effort to combat it. So I reiterate: the issue here is how much
    each of us is willing to acknowledge that racism is flourishing, and
    how willing we all are to fight it. This notesfile probably is not the
    best place for this kind of discussion, but I contend that if you folks
    are going to discuss the Duke victory, I really think you should have
    the courage to discuss the real issues involved. 


    
    This was longer than I had originally intended, but I have said my
    piece. I apologize if I've offended anyone, but I don't apologize for
    saying what needs to be said. 

   This is my first and last statement in this topic. I expect a great deal of
negative feedback about this entry, but you won't be hearing from me again.

 re: .36

 You make alot of points in your reply. As I read them, at times I wanted to
say "Yeah," other times I wanted to say "sh*t." All in all, a well written 
and thought out piece of work which I hope you are proud of. While I do not
necessarily agree with everything you have said, you have provided all of us
with alot of food for thought, as well as a much needed minority perspective.

 The racism you speak about is probably not making as big a comeback as you may
fear, at least I hope not. I don't think you'll be seeing any Jim Crow laws
in the near or even distant future. It seems to me that any law which 
discriminates solely on basis of race is unconstitutional- thus a fear about
what might be passed seems to be unwarranted, but again, my perspective is
that of a white male.

 While there may be alot of old school racists in Louisiana, I find it hard to
believe that such a candidate would have much luck up north. In fact, the same
candidate lost in elections in my state. 

 Just as we non-minorities are affected by racism, so are you. I mean this to
say that your viewpoint regarding the effects of racism are colored by the
fact that you have been on the receiving end, just as our viewpoints are colored
by the fact that we have been largely unaffected by overt racism against us.
I think it goes both ways. I think that we tend to underestimate the effects of
racism while you (may or may not) tend to overestimate its effects. I am 
certainly not invalidating your perspective here, just trying to get you to see
that your viewpoint may have an inflated sense of the effects of racism since
you have been hurt by it.

 Your note certainly gives up pause; the fact that you feel it necessary to
enter it anonymously more so. It is a shame that you are unable to speak your
mind without fearing recrimination.

 I am also dismayed by the fact that you choose to 'hit and run.' I would
really like to get a dialogue going; it would be of benefit to all. I have
a number of questions to pose to you, but it seems as though they have as much
chance of getting answered as in the 'boxes' gun control note.

 I would like to know one thing, though. You say that AA does more bad than
good. I agree. What would you propose that would make things better for blacks
and other minorities while at the same time precluding cries of reverse disc-
rimination? While I have thought about it, I haven't come up with a good
answer. So where do we go now? The ideal is to have no racism; how do we
accomplish it? Please feel free to contact me via e-mail. I will keep anything
discussed confidential and protect your identity.

 The Doctah

Before I say anything, I want to preempt any accusations by stating that
I don't mean to make the quintessential liberal error of trying to 
defend or speak for .36 (although being a New York Jew
it's hard not to let my condescension-genes take over  :^)   ). 
I'm just responding to LeVesque.

> While there may be alot of old school racists in Louisiana, I find it hard to
>believe that such a candidate would have much luck up north. In fact, the same
>candidate lost in elections in my state. 

Doctah, this reminds me of a Dick Gregory line from the 60's:

	"The only difference between the North and the South is that
	in the South, they don't care how close I get as long as I
	don't get too big. In the North, they don't care how big I
	get as long as I don't get too close."


>racism while you (may or may not) tend to overestimate its effects. 
>I am 
>certainly not invalidating your perspective here, just trying to get you to see
>that your viewpoint may have an inflated sense of the effects of racism since
>you have been hurt by it.

Yes, certainly. Having been the victim of racism, if .36 could just 
step back, he/she would see that racism hasn't effected him much at all.

I can't stand this anymore. I'm going back to jazz-notes.

Roberta                         

    	RE:  .36
    
    	Thanks very much for your thoughts on this topic!
    
    	I agree with you that racial (and sexual) prejudice still run
    	rampant in this country (and is not limited to any one group.)
    	
    	There is probably a tendency to play down that particular fact
    	in this conference because of the "backlash" that is almost
    	inevitable when someone from a minority group speaks openly
    	about prejudice/bigotry.

    	These days, the only people who seem to feel comfortable using 
    	words like "bigot," "racist," and "sexist" are members of the 
    	majority (*SOME* of who use them the most freely when referring
    	to causes that support minorities.)
    
    	I also agree with you that Affirmative Action has its down side
    	for minorities.  As a woman in a high-tech field, I've had my
    	share of moments (mostly before DEC) where my education, hard 
    	work and talent were assumed to be negligible because people
    	assumed that I had unfair breaks because of my sex.
    
    	That's how and why I learned to become a workaholic.  It took
    	so much extra effort to prove that I was there on my own merit
    	that I had to drive myself into the ground for even a HOPE of
    	breaking even with white men whose ability was never questioned.
    
    	Unfortunately, workaholism is almost impossible to stop once
    	a person has had to do it for a good number of years, even when
    	the original need for it has passed.
    
    	HOWEVER!  As difficult as programs like AA have made our lives,
    	I agree with you that we'd have been worse off without them.
    	Without AA, the vast majority of professions in this country
    	would never have opened the door to any of us.  Period.
    
    	I'm not black, but I know what it's like to break into a field
    	where the perception is that only men are capable of performing
    	the work that is required.  I know all the subtle ways that
    	employers and employees can let you know that your gender is
    	regarded as inferior in the work place.  Yes, it is pervasive
    	in our culture, it is frustrating, and YES, our culture strongly
    	resists having to deal with it!  You are absolutely right!
    
    	For both racism and sexism, our culture responds by denying
    	that it exists.  AA *has* made it worse in some ways, but I
    	think that ANY move we could possibly have chosen (to make
    	things better for minorities) would have made them hate us
    	all the more.
    
    	So we started out being hated, and we are now hated worse (but
    	at least many of us are enjoying opportunities while being
    	hated.)  I don't know how anyone else feels about the two
    	options, but as for myself, I'd rather have opportunities and
    	be hated, than simply be hated.
    
    	Affirmative Action is not the best solution, I agree.  There
    	does need to be something that addresses the real problems of
    	racial/sexual/religious intolerance that exist in this country (so
    	that the government won't HAVE to force employers to give
    	qualified people of different color/gender/etc. opportunities.)
    	
	Duke's winning is a victory for racists, but -- (perhaps I am being
    	overly optomistic here) -- perhaps it will be a chance for more
    	people in our country to become AWARE of the extent to which
    	racism/sexism permeates our lives.  Perhaps enough people who
    	are prejudiced, but who don't realize that they are, will find
    	the election of an admitted white supremacist to be a strong
    	enough "message" to stop and think about their own feelings.

    	As old as the Civil Rights movement is, the Womens' Rights 
    	movement in America dates back to at least 1848.  (In Europe,
    	I believe that there were conferences on Womens' Rights in
	the late 1700's.)  
    
    	We've been fighting these battles for a long time, and we need
    	to look at the issues as openly as you have suggested to avoid
    	having our descendents wait another several hundred years for
    	real progress.
    
    	Thanks again for your contribution.

	re .36

	I must protest that the moderators have seen fit to allow
	me to be attacked personally, as a member of a political party,
	and as a believer in a political philosophy from an anonymous 
	source. I will not dignify it with further reply.

						Tom_K

    re .36
    
    Please don't let this be the last time we hear from you.  You have
    a valuable perspective and comment to offer, regardless of whether
    we agree with everything you say.
    
    I'm not going to add my voice to the "I've been hurt, too," comments
    that undoubtedly will follow your note.  We've all been hurt,
    because as has already been pointed out in this topic, prejudice
    (whether racial, sexual, religious - you name it) diminishes ALL
    of us.
    
    And that's the real tragedy behind the election of an admitted racist
    to public office in the United States and the continued bigotry
    that invades every corner of our globe.
    
    Karen
                                          

    I've heard lots of analysis. Loads of opinions and a ton of side
    topics mentioned here.
              
    Question:(for the second time) What are we going to do about it?
    Only Marilyn gave me advice. She said write letters and join inter-
    racial community groups. What else can we do to diminish racism?
    It is better to light one candle...etc..etc..etc.. Sorry. I didn't
    mean to preach.
      
    Kate
    
    

    Re .37, well, as you stated, your perspective certainly is that of
    a white male.  I found it rather patronizing of you to tell the
    writer of .36 that he/she (?) should be "proud" of what he/she wrote.
     It sounds like the sort of thing you might say to a  second grader
    or, maybe, to someone you didn't consider to be quite on your level,
    you know what I mean?  Personally, I don't think it would be possible
    to overestimate the effects of racism.
    
    I agree with Suzanne about the need for Affirmative Action.  There
    is no doubt in my mind that without Affirmative Action there probably
    wouldn't even be any black or female engineers in DEC or anywhere
    else today.  Not because they weren't qualified, but because they
    weren't allowed.
    
    I found .36, to be very interesting, and I agree that racism is
    still rampant in the United States (as is sexism).   Thinking about
    it makes me want to throw-up, but I don't know what to do about
    it, and it scares me.  (Whenever I think about fighting racism,
    I imagine myself being beaten to death by some honky southern cop!)
    
    Lorna
    

>I found it rather patronizing of you to tell the
>    writer of .36 that he/she (?) should be "proud" of what he/she wrote.
 
 Gee. That couldn't be because you are personally prejudicial against me.
Nah, couldn't be. Personally, I don't think your impressions of something not
adressed to you belong in this topic, especially when they're wrong.

 The Doctah

    re .44
    Nothing is private when you write it in a conference. Everything
    becomes anyone's buisness. Sorry.
    
    _karen

    Re .44, of course, I'm *not* prejudiced or what was it, "prejudicial"
    against you.  I am not prejudicial against you!  (I personally don't
    care much for the first name "Doctah" but other than that.....)
    
    Anyway, I am glad that you didn't *intend* to be patronizing.  It
    did *sound* patronizing to me, but I'm glad my impression was wrong
    :-).
    
    Lorna
    

    re .36,   well said
    re .43    That is inexcusable slur against southern white policemen.
              What kind of hatred or stereotypical images do you harbor
              to say something like that?
    
    doug

Re Anonymous:

    I wish things were better, so that you didn't feel a need to
    enter your note anonymously.  :(  It tells me, as a sometimes
    (often? cringe) unaware white woman, that I have work to do.

    Thanks for expressing yourself.  I learned a lot. 

    -- Linda

    <--(.47 resp. .43)
    
    Lorna's old enough to remember Bull Connors, Doug.  Images like
    that don't fade very easily.
    
    						=maggie

re: .43:
    I agree with Suzanne about the need for Affirmative Action.  There
    is no doubt in my mind that without Affirmative Action there probably
    wouldn't even be any black or female engineers in DEC or anywhere
    else today.  Not because they weren't qualified, but because they
    weren't allowed.

"any" might be a bit of an exaggeration.  When I was hired in Dec in 1972,
the other local PDP8/PDP11 specialist was a woman, and I was replaced at
my previous job by a Dec-consultant who an ex-development manager who moved
to Sweden when she married the District Manager (Dec needed a temporary
waiver to hire her).  We also had a woman sales engineer in 1973.  I can
recall a half-dozen women in software support in Europe in the early 1970's,
and about the same number in Maynard.  While this seems like a tiny number,
you should realize that there were about 50 PDP-11 specialists *total* in
Europe.  For example, Dec Switzerland had two women in software support
roles, and did not hesitate sending them to Swiss banks and other bastions
of "male-dominance."

I.e., there were women engineers -- and women managers -- in Dec before AA.
On the other hand, AA certainly didn't hurt matters, and might have made some
of the secretary->programmer career paths easier to justify to management.

Martin.

    re .30:
                                                       
    > All laws are curtailments of your rights to some degree.
      
    Not true. A law aginst murder is a protector of everyone's right
    to life. No one has a right to kill. Perhaps what you mean is that
    all laws are a curtailment of _freedom_. But while a law against
    murder cab be considered to curtail one's freedom to kill, it is
    really intended to protect one's freedom to live.
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /

       Hyperbole, hysteria, and histrionics notwithstanding, we should
       neither close our eyes to Duke and others of his ilk nor should we
       exaggerate their appeal.  The former can lead to their absorbing
       power; the latter can lead to a false bandwagon effect.
       
       Racism is present nearly any time that you have more than one
       ethnic group -- I don't know of any place where it doesn't exist,
       in the US, in eastern and western Europe, throughout Asia, and in
       Africa.  Politically, though, an open appeal to racism seems to be
       able to bring very limited success. In France, Jean-Marie Le Pen
       is openly racist -- he wants to deport North Africans and has said
       that the German death camps were a "trivial detail" of WWII.  He
       was able to win a few parliamentary seats in the areas where N.
       African immigration is heaviest, but his popularity peaked and he
       was roundly trounced in national elections when people came to
       recognize exactly what he stands for.  Closer to home, openly
       racist candidates like Louise Day ("you know where I stand") Hicks
       in Boston and George ("a man's home is his castle") Murphy in
       Maryland have shown that their local appeal evaporates as the size
       of the electorate increases.
       
       The key is education.  The Dukes, the Le Pens, the Hicks' should
       not be allowed to hide behind the smokescreens they try to erect.
       Neither should their popularity be exaggerated -- the Chicken
       Littlesque rhetoric that would propel Duke to 1600 Pennsylvania
       Ave does little except encourage a bandwagon.  David Duke, who got
       way less than 1% of the vote a year ago when he ran in New
       Hampshire, has won a narrow victory for a legislative seat in a
       state known for its foul politics.  The suggestion that Duke and
       his racism are acceptable to most people is wrong; unfortunately,
       though, like any Big Lie it can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. 
       
       --Mr Topaz
       
       p.s.:  This reply was originally posted as a response to a
       note that suggested that David Duke had become an "international
       celebrity", and that Duke's alleged popularity would encourage
       him to run for Governor and even national office.  The noter,
       for reasons best known to herself, chose to delete her words.

    	After a rather disconcerting week in the news, hopefully
    	the day-to-day reports about David Duke will die down now,
    	although we would all be wise to keep a sharp eye on the
    	political future of this man.
    
    	It was reported yesterday that journalists from as far away
    	as Japan were on hand to cover the events that occurred	
    	in Louisiana over the past week (and it was also reported
    	on CNN last night that Duke supporters advised the press that
    	David Duke will most likely be running in the Louisiana
    	Governor's race in two years.)
    
    	Thanks for an interesting discussion (and I'm glad we were
    	able to avoid, albeit narrowly at times, the usual ratholes
    	and arguments that often occur in topics like these.)

    I haven't finished reading these replies, but I just heard
    on the radio that David Duke has been formally exercised (sp)
    by the GOP and that he will receive no financial or technical
    assistance from the group.
    
    Dorothy

    Re .57, "Well, the other result has been a rise in race resentment
    by white."  I disagree that Affirmative Action has *caused* a rise
    in race resentment.  I think whites have merely used it as an excuse
    to voice race resentments that they have been harboring for centuries.
     I view Affirmative Action as the price that white men have to pay
    for having had all the power, good jobs, and money for years.  If
    white men hadn't been forced to share, a large percentage of them
    never would have.  They would have continued to refuse to see the
    advantages they were born with in a white, male dominated society,
    and continued to claim that the reason they (white men) have most
    of the positions of power and most of the money is because they
    deserve it, because they worked for it, maybe even because they
    think white men are more intelligent than women and men of other races.
     Something had to be done to make up for the natural advantages
    that most white men are born with (in varying degrees) compared
    to blacks, hispanics and women.  I for one am sick and tired of
    hearing white men whine about reverse discrimination. 
    
    Lorna
     

	Discrimination is discrimination is discrimination. I resent
	being punished for something I didn't do.

						Tom_K

    >I disagree that Affirmative Action has *caused* a rise
    >in race resentment.  I think whites have merely used it as an excuse
    >to voice race resentments that they have been harboring for centuries.

     You may have a point. Probably some whites do use AA as an excuse to
    resent minorities. More whites view ANY discrimination as intolerable,
    whether said discrimination is supported by legislation or not.

    >I view Affirmative Action as the price that white men have to pay

     It is obvious that you feel it necessary for today's generation of white
    males to pay for the sins of other white males. In point of fact, many
    of the white males who you see fit to pay have no ties to discrimination
    whatever, not even through ancestry. Thus making all white men pay for the
    sins of a few is not only unfair, but contrary to the tenets of the
    constitution where a) all men are considered equal and b) one is presumed
    innocent until proven guilty.

    >I for one am sick and tired of
    >hearing white men whine about reverse discrimination. 

     As long as reverse discrimination exists, white men will complain about it.
    You seem to have no problem with the "whining" of minorities regarding
    discrimination. Only when discrimination occurs against a group which you
    feel "deserves it" do you feel that complaints regarding discrimination are
    "whining." Sauce for the goose...

 The Doctah   

    re .60, when women and blacks complain about discrimination they
    have the entire history of this country to back them up.  What you
    see as reverse discrimination, I see as evening things up, the way
    they should have been to begin with.  
    
    Lorna 

    
    Being a black female engineer, I hesitated to write about this topic,
    but I think I must. Discrimination against minorities have always
    existed and will always exist. Now, presently, the white male HAS
    affirmative action in that they have the power. In the majority
    of cases, THEY do the hiring etc. and they know each other. Their
    friend calls them and say..Can you hire my son, he's graduating
    from college......, and that's it!
    Minorities do not have that advantage. Now, for those who are
    saying that it's affirmative action, I will explain what AA is
    supposed to be as explained to me by a white personnel person
    in DEC. If 2 people come for a job, 1 minority and 1 WM, and the
    hiring manager is equally satisfied with both of them..that is 
    they both have the qualifications and the personality for the
    job, and it comes down to just a random call as to who to pick,
    DEC encourages the hiring of the minority. Normally, the hiring
    manager would automatically pick the WM.
    When I graduated form college, I went to an interview with a white
    girlfriend. She had a 2.9, I had a 3.1..same school. I served on
    the E.E society, she did not. She got the job, I did not.
    As i said the WM is still enjoying AA, and I think that maybe for
    minoritied, AA should be changed to EQUAL CONSIDERATION (EC).
    Now, go ahead and flame me. I have no intention of writing on
    this topic again. I have been mostly read only in this file
    anyway.
    
    D.
    

    
    One other thing, I forgot to mention. I read that a survey was done
    by the BUsiness magazine of FOrtune 500 companies of the qualifications
    of their top executives. The results were revealing. For their
    position, the MOST qualified for the position they held were
       Black females, then
       White females, then
       Black males,   then
       White males.
    
    In other words, a white male may get promoted after 4 years, it
    would take a black or white female 7 years to get that same
    promotion.
    
    D.
    

    Statistically, how hurt has the white man been by AA? Has his
    unemployment rate gone up? Has his pay gone down? How about his
    standard of living? I doubt it!
    
    Kate

    The unemployment rate has gone up amongst minorites, there is a biggg
    difference between wages paid to minorites vs majorities (there is a
    difference between black women and white women). The only thing which
    has gone up due to AA is the whining. If AA were truly detrimental to
    Whites, minorities still won't be far under-represented in the
    workplace.  Now, if AA was truly the reverse discrimation I hear you
    say it is, many many more Blacks would be enrolling in colleges than
    they are today, since AA would bring them in even if they were not
    qualified. But I see no evidence of this. 
    
    For those who argue that AA brings in the underqualified minority into
    the workplace, I say that for each underqualifed minority there are
    several underqualified majority. We can't say that AA was the cause of
    the underqualifed majority being given a shot at the job. What is the
    cause of that? Yes, discrimination is discrimation is discrimation.
    But what about those majorities who are underqualified? Let's talk
    about them. Let's talk about what got them their place. 
    
    _karen    

    I heard  an  interesting  note on the news late last week: A state
    senator  (I  think  in  Mass.) has introduced a bill to compensate
    slaves and their decendants for the unpaid work they did. The bill
    is  based  on  the  reparations  that were paid to Nisei (Japanese
    Americans)  who  were  "detained"  in  World War II. I don't think
    anyone  (including the author) expects the bill to pass, but it is
    an  attempt  to  educate  people  about the reason for affirmative
    action programs.

--David

    
    
    When you all finish with your charts and surveys, your quotes and
    disclaimers, your pending legislation and undigested history, you
    still propose to discriminate against a segment of the population
    based on race and gender.
    
    Tell me when you finally catch your tail.

    First you get to show me *with numbers* how it would be "discriminating
    against..." men to have the demographic percentages of the workforce
    match the demographic percentages of the population.
    
    Or did you entirely miss the concept that AA et alia are intended
    to apply to QUALIFIED people?  And the fact that they have been
    so applied?
    
    							Ann B.

The following reply is from a member of this community who wishes
    to be anonymous.
    
    Bonnie J
    comod
    
    ------------------------------------------------------------------
    
	re; discussion of AA....

	I certainly won't argue regarding the treatment of
	black/african americans and women throughout the history
	of our country but it also seems to me that many subsets
	of the "white males" have also suffered greatly at one time
	or another.

	Irish american males, "white males" suffered horrible discrimination
	when they emmigrated here; remember Irish-need-not-apply.
	Italian americans males, now considered "white males", also
	suffered from discrimination.
	Jewish american males, "white males", likewise were disciminated
	against. Polish americans, etc, I'm sure there are more. 
	
 	I ask you, where should the distinction take place?
	How shall we decide? Is it fair to include the above in the
	description "white males" or should we simply be very specific
	and target WASPS?

    If the author of .69 thinks about it, the author will realize that
    Irish women, and Jewish women, and Polish women were also discriminated
    against.  It may even occur to the author that the discrimination
    against them hasn't ended.
    
    						Ann B.

>Note 461.68 by the ever discriminating REGENT::BROOMHEAD "Don't panic -- yet."

>    First you get to show me *with numbers* how it would be "discriminating
>    against..." men to have the demographic percentages of the workforce
>    match the demographic percentages of the population.

    Numbers do not match qualifications.  Numbers prove nothing.  There
    are more men in executive positions that women.  Men must be more
    qualified, yes?  Pah on your "numbers".  They are the delight of
    none but the most bloodless liberals.  74% of the people think this
    to be true.
        
>    Or did you entirely miss the concept that AA et alia are intended
>    to apply to QUALIFIED people?  And the fact that they have been
>    so applied?

    Which is it you want?  Numbers? or Qualified People?  Do Qualified
    People include White Males?  Or have they been on top too long and
    so it's time to righteously kick their ass a bit?  (all in the name
    of fairness, they assure me...)
    
    Demographics?  Hey, now that you've got it worked out so that the
    46% whites go to school with the 27% blacks and the 13% hispanic,
    and, yes, add a dash of say 7% asian and 7% "other" (my favorite)
    the facts are, that while the numbers are good and the educators
    are happy, the kids can't read, couldn't find America on a map if
    you used white-out on the rest of the globe, and STILL don't like
    each other....   but, hey, we can't have it all.
    
    Discrimination is wrong.  Keep juggling your numbers, and keep braying
    aloud your proclamations of fairness to those in your brave new
    world who would accept it, but I call it what it is...The Big Lie.  

    Demographically yours, 

       If AA has discriminated against so darned many white males why
       are there still so many more of them in the higher paying
       positions? Come on, where are all these jobs you think you were
       denied? Or is just that any woman or minority that has a job
       today has taken it from a white male? Does it not count that many
       of us beat out a white male fair and square without AA? I'll
       match my resume and performance against any man in my position. 

       At any rate, I don't think AA is helping any more. It has become
       the grand rallying cry to those trying to keep us in our place.
       They will use it to prove to themselves that we wouldn't be here
       if qualifications counted and as long as it exists they will say
       we are only here because of it.

       Well get ready guys, we aren't going to go back to the kitchen
       whether or not there is an AA. We have as much right to this
       world as you do and we'll fight to keep it. liesl

    	RE:  .73
    
    	.58> by white."  I disagree that Affirmative Action has *caused*
    	.58> a rise in race resentment.  I think whites have merely
   	.58> used it as an excuse
    
    	.73> With all due respect, I have seen it firsthand in friends,
    	.73> relatives, and even co-workers.  I doubt that they are
    	.73> coincidentally choosing to cite the same phony cause.
    
    	Mike Z., I find it interesting and humorous that you would want
    	to keep making such a point [the word "brag" removed at your
    	request] about having friends, relatives and co-workers who "resent"
    	minorities in an age when one of the worst insults that a member
    	of the majority can hurl at a minority is the accusation that
    	the minority "resents" white males.
    
    	When minorities appear to "resent" white males, it is a horrid
    	and shocking sin.  When white males "resent" minorities, it is the
    	minorities' fault (for allowing Affirmative Action to have
    	been voted by WHITE MALES to help minorities.)
    
    	Unbelievable.
    
    	.58> Something had to be done to make up for the natural advantages
	.58> that most white men are born with (in varying degrees)
    	.58> compared to blacks, hispanics and women.
    
    	.73> If my 'born with natural advantage' is intelligence, you
    	.73> have NO BUSINESS telling me that I cannot compete on
    	.73> EQUAL TERMS with any other job candidate.  To deny me
    	.73> that ability is unfair...
    
    	How *telling* it is that you assume (as a white male) that
    	one of your "born" advantages is intelligence.  
    
    	On the contrary, my dear Zarlenga, one of your born "advantages"
    	is that our culture is so bigoted/racist/sexist that you are
    	ASSUMED to be intelligent (by virtue of your white skin and
    	your male sexual organ) until you prove otherwise by opening
    	your mouth.  (Nothing personal, of course.)
    
    	Even *WHEN* ignorant white males open their mouths sometimes,
    	our culture is willing to *assume* that they are intelligent
    	despite considerable evidence to the contrary (if the man is
    	white, rich, and is part of the "club.")  Dan Quayle is a
    	perfect example of this phenomenon.
    
    	The assumption that white men possess more intelligence/ability
    	and/or talent is bigotry, pure and simple.  Affirmative Action was
    	started as a way to COMBAT bigotry (NOT yesterday's bigotry,
    	but the considerable bigotry that exists TODAY and is evident
    	every single day in Digital's Notesfiles.)
    
    	.61> when women and blacks complain about discrimination they
    	.61> have the entire history of this country to back them up.
    
    	.73>  Big deal.  The next time a white woman discriminates
    	.73> against a black woman, how about if YOU, a member of that
    	.73> evil group of tyrants is made to suffer as just punishment?
    	.73> After all, all that matters is that SOME (even innocent)
    	.73> members of the oppressor's group be punished.
    
    	Big deal?  Hundreds/thousands of years of discrimination rates
    	a "big deal" from you when the victims are minorities, but OH
    	BOY, a couple of points' disadvantage on a civil service exam
    	and white men call it "punishment" and "discrimination" (and
    	wail to the heavens about how badly they are treated)!
    
    	Affirmative Action is *****NOT***** punishment.  Quite frankly,
    	there *IS* no punishment on this earth that could possibly make
    	up for the atrocities (including slavery/torture/murder) that
    	some white males have put others through in our country's past.
    	The thought that a minimal effort at providing a couple of
    	opportunities for minorities qualifies as "punishment" is
    	the height of arrogance on the part of some members of the white
    	race.  
    
    	The implication, as I see it, is that being forced to "share"
    	America with non-whites (and other non-American Americans) is
    	a fate worse than death for some whites and is *considered* by
    	many to be FAR, FAR, FAR, FAR, FAR WORSE than the kidnapping/
    	enslavement/intimidation/discrimination/torture/murder of millions
    	of women and minorities could EVER be (since members of the
    	white race are so much more intrinsically valuable as humans
    	than anyone else could possibly be.)

    	Affirmative Action is not a punishment, nor is it a sacrifice,
    	nor is it discrimination.
    
    	Our country used bigotry/racism/sexism to build a country where
    	the phrase "all men were created equal" left OUT more adult
    	human Americans than it INCLUDED.  It was only right for the
    	government to make some attempts to correct for the *EFFECTS*
    	of that bigotry in some way (even though it is obviously
    	impossible to change the minds of individual bigoted citizens
    	on a one-by-one basis.)
    
    	Our country had an obligation to correct for the effects of
    	something it did that was very wrong, and I'm glad that they
    	made at least SOME attempts to do this.
    
    	Since our country was FOUNDED on racism/sexism/bigotry, it
    	would be completely unrealistic to expect majority individuals
    	to abandon their great affinity for such practices.  Bigotry
    	is something we will all have to live with for a long time
    	in this country, unfortunately.
    
    	Rather than encourage the anti-minority movement that is gaining
    	momentum to furthur the current oppression of minorities, we
    	should address the problems of bigotry/racism/sexism that runs
    	rampant in this country (and do something about those problems
    	for a change.)

    	RE:  .76
    
    	> Do I "keep making that point"?  Excuse me, then, I thought
    	> this was the first time I actually explained what my sources
    	> were.
    
    	Ok, then, I'll go back to using the word "brag," Ok?  Since
    	you "made the point" of writing an entire reply requesting that
    	I not use the word "brag," I thought it would be simple to
    	oblige you.  Obviously, I was mistaken.  
    
    	>> How *telling* it is that you assume (as a white male) that
    	>> one of your "born" advantages is intelligence.
    
    	> I never claimed that white males are more intelligent...Perhaps
    	> you missed the "if [the born advantage is intelligence]"...
    
    	No, I didn't miss it.  Neither did I miss that you took your
    	"if" on quite aways down the road (enough to start you talking
    	about fighting to the death for your rights, etc.)  Your little
    	"if" got drowned in the conviction of the rest of your rhetoric.
    
    	> AA is bigotry.  I do not deny that the motives are noble,
    	> only that the methods are inconsistent with the motives.
    	> Bigotry to prevent bigotry!  How ironic indeed.
    
    	No, the irony is that after thousands of years of taking bigotry
    	and discrimination to a ZEN level in our culture, some white
    	males are so gutless and unimaginative that the only thing that
    	they have been able to think of to "fight off" attempts to correct the
    	effects of long-standing cultural bigotry is to claim that minimal
    	attempts at providing a few minorities with opportunities constitutes
    	the same kind of bigotry and discrimination that white males
    	have turned into an institution in this country (and elsewhere.)

    	It would be hilarious if it weren't so pathetic.
    
    	> Jesus, well, if I'm gonna pay for my ancestors who enslaved
    	> blacks and kept minorities down, well...
    
    	You don't listen very well, do you?  You are NOT being asked
    	to pay for anything, unless you consider the "sharing" of
    	America with non-white men and women to be some kind of personal
    	price.
    
  	> IU [sic] can be like you and say "It don't [sic] matter that
    	> this person did it, just that his ancestors did it". [sic]
    
    	Mike Z., I realize that you wrote this late at night while in
    	a hurry, so I won't jump all over you for the extreme bastardization
	of my grammar, thoughts and ideas.  Don't let it happen again,
    	though.  :-)
    
    	> ...Understand?  I doubt it, but a lightning bolt may just
    	> strike you and turn on the light so that you can actually
    	> try to imagine the situation from a white male's perspective.
    
    	Mike Z., don't YOU understand?  Women and minorities are bombarded
    	with the "white male perspective" every damn day of our lives,
    	decade after decade.  In our culture, that's the only perspective
    	that counts.  We've heard it and heard it to death.
    
    	Didn't you know that?
    
    	> If our country has the obligation, why does AA only pertain
    	> to a SUBSET of "our country"?
    
    	Affirmative Action is not about the punishment or correction
    	of past injustices (of which there are too many to list here.)
    	It's about correcting for the *EFFECTS* of past injustices,
    	which means that it concentrates on helping groups that had
    	succeeded in being LOCKED OUT of certain professions.
    
    	If you could stop thinking in terms of "punishment" and start
    	thinking of "providing opportunities for those who have been
    	almost completely LOCKED OUT," there might be some hope for
    	your eventual comprehension of this issue.
    
    	> If you chose to deny what I say, that's your decision.  I'm
    	> not obligated to help you if you refuse to listen.  
    
    	Mike Z., *I* have been trying to help *you* (to understand!)
     	If you won't listen to ME, then I am not obligated to continue
    	trying to help you (and I won't.)
    
    	> So be it.  Soon I will just stop trying to show you what's
    	> wrong and I'll let nature take it's course.  If my state
    	> elects a KKK governor, I won't be the one to lose out.
    
    	Oh, really?  You're Catholic, aren't you?  The KKK hates
    	Catholics almost as much as they hate anyone.  (Seriously!)
    
    	Mike, am I supposed to be grateful for your insulting tone
    	and remarks (on the basis of the fact that I, as a minority,
    	should be thrilled that a member of the majority has condescended
    	to "help" me?)
    
    	Give me a break.  If you want to debate with me, don't insult
    	me by threatening "not to help" me anymore if I'm not grateful
    	that you took the time to bitch at me.
    
    	If your state elects a KKK governor and you don't think that
    	EVERYONE will lose because of it, you are worse off than I
    	thought.

    	RE:  .79
    
    	.76> ...Soon I will just stop trying to show you what's wrong
    	.76> and I'll let nature take its course.
    
    	.79> That time is now.
    
    	Mike, if you're unwilling to debate this issue furthur, I can
    	certainly understand.  However, it was never in your power
    	as an individual (any more than it is in my power or any other
    	person's power as a voting American citizen) to ALLOW "nature
    	take its course," *OR* to have it NOT take its "course" (as
    	a matter of personal decision.)

    	Some white males have a tendency to talk to minorities as if
    	their status as a member of the majority entitles them (white
    	males) to be treated as if they are in personal CHARGE of the 
    	cultural forces that shape the destinies of women and people of
    	color.  
    
    	Hopefully, your comments about how you would soon "let nature 
    	take its course" were not meant to give that impression.
        
    	> It is not worth the aggravation for me to try to do you a
    	> service by pointing out what I perceive to be the cause of
    	> the current state of affairs.
    
    	Well, apparently you missed the fact that *I* was trying to
    	do YOU a service by helping you to understand things from
    	another perspective.  Oh well...

    Is this the right time for a cool-down period?
    
    						=maggie

 Suzanne, you have a number of valid points. I don't understand why you dilute
them by making false statements such as "AA is not discrimination." AA IS
discrimination and you know it as well as anyone else. You are certainly
intelligent enough, as is obvious from your articulate replies, to realize
that AA is simply a Machiavellian concept design to correct a serious problem.
The end is to eliminate discrimination from being a factor in regards to
economic opportunity, and housing etc. The means is to force businesses to
hire a certain percentage of minorities into their work force, regardless of
qualifications.

 The effects of AA are multiple. Minorities have made significant inroads into
job areas where they previously were "locked out." That is a good result. 
On the other hand, AA has also hurt minorities. Any minority that was already
qualified has had their qualifications diluted by AA, in the sense that 
coworkers (not only white males) often feel that they only got the job because 
of AA. It also raises race resentment due to the priviledged treatment of
a few (so it's different than the classical case, but the play doesn't change
because the actors are different). But you know all that. You choose to ignore
or dismiss it as unimportant because of your ideals. That's your right. But the
negative effects are just as tangible as the positive effects, whether 
acknowledged or not. 

 One of your points which makes alot of sense is that in the absense of AA,
minorities would never seem "qualified" to a white male manager. In some cases,
maybe even alot, that is more than a distant possibility. In the absence of AA,
something will have to be done.

 I realize that in saying we want a "level playing field," we are hoping for
something that little chance to be effected without some sort of punitive 
mechanism for those who refuse to renounce bigotry. There will always be bigots.
What we must strive to do is to minimize their effects, as well as to minimize
their numbers. I don't believe that AA will do much to minimize the numbers of
bigots. It may curtail some of the more obvious effects. But there will continue
to be an attitude of distrust for both the system and the individuals should
AA continue. There is a certain critical mass which will never be exceeded as
long as AA exists. I think that the critical mass which AA can reach could be
far exceeded by education and a lack of discrimination. In legalizing 
discrimination, we show by example that all discrimination is not unacceptable.
We show that the government has the power and right to dictate what kind of
discrimination can be exercised and against whom. This bothers me, and I think 
it ought to make you a little uneasy as well. If, as the "majority," white men
get together and act as a single political group, we could in effect elect
legislators that could change the scope and target of legalised discrimination,
perhaps to your detriment.

 In my mind, you can coat discrimination with all of the sugar you want; it 
remains discrimination. I certainly would not expect the beneficiary of said
discrimination to accept that it is wrong in their own case. So your 
protestations about the correctness and rightness of AA does not leave me a bit
surprised. On the other hand, knowing your political leanings, I can take your
position with a grain of salt (as you do mine). In the long run, we both want
the same thing: equality. I think you have a hard time believing that one of
the "priviledged" would want to lower his stature and become equal with everyone
else. The fact is that we are equal. So there is no lowering to take place. 
There is a stop to the charade that some people are intrinsically more valuable
than others that needs to occur. Many of us white men who have something to
lose (priviledged status) realize that there is more to gain (a more peaceful
and prosperous world) and so still support steps to spawn the equality that
deserves to exist. We want equality. You want equality. We differ on the means
to acheive equality. It is in our mutual best interest to find as much common
ground as we can to effect equality. Continuing to bicker about how to acheive
our goal makes the goal get lost in the shuffle- the end result being that the
goal takes longer to attain. 

 It may give us personal satisfaction to ream out the opposition and take a hard
line towards solving the problem. Unfortunately, while the tug of war continues,
the problem continues uninterrupted. When we are all done showing each other how
hard line we can be, then we can combat the problem. It seems most unfortunate
that two factions that want the same end can enervate the struggle for that end,
while the opposition (those who wish to continue to practice bigotry) giggle
under their breath, and laugh heartily at our internal strife.

 The Doctah

    Re .82, I completely disagree with you.  The way I understand AA
    it is meant to help *qualified* minorities get jobs that they otherwise
    would not have gotten due to prejudice, due to the fact that most
    white males prefer to hire other white males to perpetuate their
    white male power structure.  I didn't realize that AA was meant
    to help unqualified minorities obtain jobs.  
    
    I can't recall any black managers I have ever worked with or for at DEC
    who didn't have equivalent degrees to white managers.  If anything,
    they were men and women who would have gone much further by now
    had they been born white.  The same with women managers of any color.
    
    I can't think of any black or minority people I've worked with a
    DEC who couldn't handle their jobs, and who seemed to have only
    gotten them because they were minorities.  
    
    (However, I do think that being Puerto Rican may have helped the
    young woman who empties my waste basket everyday get her job.  She
    seems to be able to handle it alright, tho, if it comes to that,
    and even manages to smile and be pleasant.)

    
    Doctah, you make a claim that everyone really *knows* that AA
    is discrimination.  Well, I DON'T think AA is discrimination.  But,
    when I hear white men call it discrimination, I can't help but wonder
    if deep in their hearts they just aren't afraid to live in a country
    that isn't clearly dominated by a white male power structure.

    Lorna
    

    
    Re .82:
    
    With regards to your statement that AA was meant to help minorities
    get jobs regardless of qualifications. That is NOT TRUE. PLEASE
    check with ANY authority on AA, whether in DEC personnel or call
    the Labor Bureau..or somewhere official in your state and ASK them
    what is the definition of AA. They will tell you that hiring
    unqualified personnel is NOT a part of AA policy.
    
    I think that if more white males understand this, they will be
    less antagonistic.As i said earlier, a survey was done by an
    independent institution of FOrtune 500 companies, and the LEAST
    QUALIFIED for the position they held were the WHITE MALES.
    The most qualified were black females.
    
    NO-one wants the hiring of people who cannot do the job. DEC is
    NOT going to hire a minority as an ENGineer if they do not have
    a college degree from an accredited college. I know of a case
    where a minority with a Master's degree and 4 years experience is
    getting less money than a WM with a BAchelor's and 3 years.
    
    PLEASE, it is NOT the hiring of unqualified minorities, but just
    equal consideration.
    
    WHy is the WM so scared of being accessed on an equal level with
    everyone else??? But, then seeing the results of the survey by
    the Fortune 500 companies mentioned above, I think that I can
    understand why.
    
    The only jobs that I see minorities are being hired more are as
    janitors, cleaners,nurse aides...i.e jobs that no GOD-fearing
    WM will take anyway.
    
    D.
    
    

 I have been taken to task for referring to various pieces of legislation which
promote the hiring of minorities through use of quotas and/or reduced 
eligibility requirements as Affirmative Action. If Affirmative Action does not
include these other devices whereby a certain percentage of your workforce
must be minorities, then I apologize for using incorrect terminology. I was
under the impression that "equal consideration" was covered by EEO (Equal
Employment Opportunity) and Affirmative Action described the devices whereby
companies would be forced into hiring minorities regardless of qualifications.
If I am wrong about the terminology, I beg your forgiveness. In any case, my
points should just be read with the understanding that the complaints are
against the artificial devices, not equal consideration. I invite equal
consideration, as a worker and as an investor.

The Doctah

    Simply put, Mark, "Affirmative Action" is just what it says: an active
    effort to change the workforce from the traditional one in which males,
    typically but not invariably WASPs, held the great majority of
    high-status white- & blue-collar jobs, white women held most of the
    poorly paid clerical and administrative jobs, and people of color were
    relegated to the low-status, poorly paid blue-collar jobs.  
    
    Now, what does it mean to "act affirmatively"?  That varies with the
    current state of the organisation.  
    
    If the organisation is already in good shape, then AA isn't needed
    because it's obvious that EEO has been the working reality for some
    time.
    
    If the organisation has a typical history, then AA might consist of
    managers consciously taking the current composition of their workforce
    into account when deciding between equally-qualified candidates.  And
    maybe advertising more widely for candidates than just the local
    paper.
    
    If the organisation is in worse-than-usual shape, then AA might mean
    giving preference to any qualified candidate who can contribute to EEO
    balance in the organisation, regardless of the qualifications of
    applicants who would worsen the imbalance.  For example, any male
    qualified and applying for a secretarial position at DEC would be in a
    very good position resp. AA I should think, since the vast majority of
    secretaries here now are women.
    
    If --and only if-- the organisation is one in which this sort of racist
    and sexist stratification is implacably entrenched, then the federal
    EEO office or the courts might impose a quota on hiring, promotion, and
    assignment and tell senior management that they must do it all by the
    numbers, advertise here here and here, submit full paperwork on all
    applicants and decisions, the whole nine yards.  To the cries of That's
    going to cost too much money, the feds typically turn a cold shoulder.
    Tough bananas, bubele, maybe next time you'll obey the law.  There have
    been *very* few cases where such action has actually been taken, fear
    rumors to the contrary notwithstanding, and those cases have been
    exceptionally blatant. You can read about them in the EEO case
    literature.  Now, did those few companies forced to implement quotas
    hire unqualified people to meet them?  Maybe, but that's *their*
    business if they want to go down the plughole rather that practice
    sound management; those were the people they would have to live with
    for maybe forty years, no excuses! 
    
    
    That's what AA is, Mark.  Taking positive action to balance the
    workforce rather than hoping for a different outcome from the same old
    processes. 
                                                             
    						=maggie

    At last, a lucid explanation of AA and EEO.
    
    Thanks, Maggie.
    
    Karen

    	RE:  .85
    
    	>  If I am wrong about the terminology, I beg your forgiveness.
    
    	You are forgiven.  Just don't let it happen again.  >;^)
    
    	> In any case, my points should just be read with the understanding
    	> that the complaints are against the artificial devices, not
    	> equal consideration.
    
    	Your points are rather moot, Mark, because the programs we have
    	been defending have almost nothing to do with the kinds of devices
    	you've mentioned (except in the minds and rumors of some panicky/
    	angry white males.)
    
    	Thanks very much to everyone (especially Maggie) for helping
    	to set the record straight about this issue.  

    RE: .87 A good and clear explanation Maggie but I hope you don't
    feel that it says that hiring based on race is wrong because the
    opposite is the case. It clearly, with polite and gentle words 
    explains that making a hiring decision based on an applicants 
    color is right and correct. I'm afraid that I was brought up
    believing that two wrongs don't make a right. Perhaps one day I
    will believe that the ends justifies the means or that sometimes
    it is ok to discriminate based on race or sex but that day is some
    time away I hope. I've never picked a friend, hired/recommended someone
    for a job, or based any kind or evil deed based on someones color or
    sex. No matter who tells me (KKK or WOMANNOTES moderator) me it's ok 
    I still have trouble accepting discrimination.

    		Alfred

    PS: I'm not saying that any individual here is the same or as bad as
    the KKK just that in one case both groups (KKK and AA supporters)
    appear to advocate racial discrimination in hiring. To prove otherwise
    you'd have to show where Maggies description of AA is wrong.

re: Maggie

 Thank you. That's not at all what I have been lead to believe AA was. 

re: Suzanne

> Never thought I'd see the day, Mark, but thanks!
           
 I have no problem admitting when I make a mistake. (Fortunately, it doesn't
happen that often :-) :-) ;^)

 Nonetheless, Alfred has a point in that two wrongs do not make a right. When
do you think AA will have been enacted for "long enough" to make the playing
field level? Hasn't AA outlived its usefulness yet? Will we ever be able to
compete fairly? When you're done with "The Prince," can I borrow it? :-)

 The Doctah

    	RE:  .90
    
    	Alfred, your argument is faulty.
    
    	You have chosen an emotionally-charged word as a label for
    	a group of actions (and then have built your objections around
    	the erroneous word, instead of reality.)
    
    	There's no point in making that kind of fallacious argument
    	if you cannot get the responders to agree to your choice
    	of erroneous labels.
    
    	I disagree strongly with your use of the word "discrimination"
    	in this context, and would like to see you try to make any kind
    	of case at all for your views without leaning on this erroneous
    	term.

    	P.S.  .90
    
    	> I've never picked a friend, hired/recommended someone for
    	> a job, or based any kind or evil deed based on someones
    	> color or sex.
    
    	Alfred, didn't you base your choice of spouse partly on sex?
    	(Or were you "open" to the idea of dating/loving/marrying a
   	man, but only just HAPPENED to end up married to a woman?)
    
    	If you've only dated/loved/married women, then your actions
    	could be called "discrimination" (by your definition.)
    
    	> No matter who tells me (KKK or WOMANNAOTES moderator) me it's
    	> ok I still have trouble accepting discrimination.
    
    	No, you don't.  You practiced it (by your definition.)  Please
    	explain the discrepancy between your belief system and your
    	personal actions.  Thanks.

    <--(.90)
    
    Alfred, what AA says is that it is no longer fair to only give credit
    for being WHITE or MALE.  Race and sex have *always* been factored in!
    
    An applicant for a good job got 25 points for being white, 25 points
    for being male, anywhere from +5 to -25 points for being asian, -25
    points for being black, -50 points for being native american, and -15
    points for being female.  Fifty years ago, a jew got -50 points in any
    gentile environment.  Today there are many places where a person who
    uses a wheelchair for mobility also gets anything from -25 to -100
    points. 
    
    People have *ALWAYS* been hired based on race, sex, religion,
    appearance and all those other "comfort factors", Alfred.  And even
    with AA it's *still* easier to get a good job, or a senior promotion,
    or a good assignment if you're white and male.
    
              					=maggie

         
        After reading through the past 92 notes (and things really 
    fell into a rathole at about .60), the concensus seems to be:
    AA is a "form" of discrimination. Dictating hiring preference
    between two EQUALLY QUALIFIED persons IS discrimination. AA 
    was ( and is ) necessary. AA HAS helped. AA will ( probably )
    still help. AA WILL NOT STOP discrimination. No matter how effective
    AA is, there is no guarantee that the injustices that exist(ed)
    will ever go away. There IS the possibility that AA could actually
    serve to INCREASE discrimination, or (at the very least) give anti-AA
    forces something to rally on.
         The question remains: when will AA no longer be 
    useful. Please DO NOT SAY "when all discrimination in the hiring
    place ceases". We then have to decide: Who will be the judge of
    that and when/how often/what criteria will they use? Will it be
    a numbers game, where AA is reinstated for whatever minority is
    slipping in the executive/wage/sheer-numbers game? Whatever happended
    to discussion of the base note?      
    
    doug
    

The word "discriminate" carries with it strongly negative connotations, but
still applies if you ignore them and look at the dictionary definition.

No choice of any kind is made without discrimination: you discriminate among
the various alternatives. That is, you "draw a clear distinction between" the
various alternatives.

If I'm hiring, and all the applicants are white males, I won't hire all of them
just because they're all white males. I'll make a choice based on a balance of
considerations, including qualifications, suitability (which can go beyond 
qualifications to include things like perceived interest, references, etc.),
and so forth. This process "discriminates" against those who fit the 
considerations less well than the individual selected.

It's seldom the case that some quantifiable number can be attached to each
candidate which clearly defines his or her "qualification" for the job, thus
making absolute ranking possible. And this is (as I interpret things) how AA
tends to fit in (where it's appropriately applied) - as one form of tie
breaker among closely-ranked candidates. Those candidates not selected are
still "discriminated" against, but not in any pejorative sense, just as they
would be in the all-white-male case. (As Maggie's reply demonstrates, this is 
only one element of an overall AA program, anyway.)

No pot-shots please - I'm not an AA expert - this reply deals with the
semantic nature of the word "discriminate", and doesn't seek to add any new
insights into the AA process itself. (About that abbreviation, by the way:
doesn't it sound like those hired under AA should drop by the Betty Ford 
center?)

    
    I apologize for only reading 78 replies.  I will also state
    that I will try to remain calm.  I would like to address
    just two things:
    
    1.) For those of you who deem AA as such an important factor
        in today's private sector...  All I hear are vagueries
        and suppositions.  Can any of you *cite an exact case
        with _all_ the facts that would _clearly_ indicate an
        example of reverse descrimination*  This isn't the first
        time I've asked for details concerning this (check the
        note that deals with this subject explicitly) but I *still*
        have not been satiated.
    
        At the same time I know that for those of you opposed to
        AA descrimination is at the forefront of all your political
        concerns.  I know this from your weekly donations to major
        Anti-Apartied funds.
    
    2.) For those of you who have expressed a desire to *do*
        something to stop the spread of this insidious hatred
        here's what you can do...
        Educate yourself and those around you (an impossible task I
        know - one that I've been working on for a long time but 
        with little success).  I don't want to make the mistake
        of someone else I know of and patronize about "what you 
        should do".  I'll just say that the mortal enemy of 
        prejudice is knowledge.  
    
    
    I'd like to thank those of you who have added much to this
    discussion and maintained your composure after being nit-picked
    and baited.
    
    I can't help but reply to those who have entered inflamatory
    remarks...
    (as many of you already have)
    
    A) "If our country has the obligation why does AA only pertain
       to a SUBSET of our country"
    
       I suppose it would be because only a subset has been the 
       victims of racial prejudice over the last 400 years.
       (Yes, Columbus brought slaves with him)
    
    B) "If my state elects a KKK governor I won't be the one to lose"
    
       Quite to the contrary.  Not only will you be adrift amongst
       the politically Neanderthal but I happen to know that people
       who's names start with Z and end in A are fourth on the
       Klans s**t list.
    
    
    Luis R. Gonzalez  who started in this company BEFORE AA!!!
    

    	RE:  .97
    
    	Paul, you've brought up a good point.
    
    	Definitions of the word "discriminate" range from the innocuous
    	(such as discriminating between flavors of ice cream cones,)
    	to the positive (such as being able to make sound judgments
    	in the course of decision-making,) to the despicable (such as
    	the systematic blocking of opportunities for an entire race/
    	creed/nationality/sex.)
    
    	It is obvious to me that much of the controversy surrounding
    	the use of a word like "discrimination" comes from the fact
    	that the range of possible innocuous/good/evil meanings of
    	the word is way too broad (making intelligent use of the word
    	more and more difficult.)
    
    	Perhaps a stronger word should have been used to describe the
    	atrocities that have been committed against minorities (in various
    	cultures and countries,) but I suspect that a potentially
    	innocuous word was deliberately chosen as a "euphemism" to make
    	awareness of the treatment of minorities more palatable to our
    	culture as a whole.
    
    	However, what has happened is that the word has taken on a new
    	dimension such that almost ANY PROGRAM that attempts to address
    	widesspread cultural unfairness to minorities (in the past and 
    	in the present) can become a target for the assignment of this 
    	currently one-dimensional label, thus bringing in arguments and 
    	objections that have little or nothing to do with the programs 
    	being discussed.
    
    	When a word has such a wide range of meanings, it is both
    	dangerous and destructive to group actions that have little
    	in common as though they are one and the same (and as though
    	they deserve the same sort of contempt.)
    
    	It would be as if we tried to use the same word for a pebble
    	and a rock avalanche (or for a drop of salt water and a tidal wave.)

    Ok, how about we try it without the word discrimination?

    There is both objective and subjective criteria in making a
    hiring decision. (Or picking a spouse) There appears to be little
    debate that says that unqualified (by objective means) people should
    be hired. Picking a wife requires that candidates be women otherwise
    you're looking for something else. :-) Hiring a ditch digger requires that
    the candidate be able to operate ditch digging tools.

    AA says that all else being equal in objective criteria that
    the additional subjective criteria of race and/or sex should be
    used to tip the balance in favor of minority or female candidates.
    For example in an AA audit a company must give, according to a
    personal person who was going through such an audit, solid objective
    reasons why every minority candidate was not hired if a white male
    candidate was hired. I fail to see how giving the edge in an even
    situation to a black is intrinsically better then giving it to a white. 
    It would seem that ignoring race would be the best thing for all
    concerned.

    For example, two identically qualified people apply for a job. One is
    white and one is black. Both are dressed the same but one smells bad
    and continually blows his nose on his shirt sleeve. What do you make
    the final decision on? AA says color. Personal preference for me says
    the clean one. Which is right? When I get AA audited am I going to be
    asked to prove that one candidate is dirty and the other neat or am I
    going to be judged on the color on the candidates?

    In effect AA says give much higher weight to color then any and all
    other subjective criteria. Suppose my two candidates are both qualified
    and both clean but one shares my interest in the Boston Celtics and the
    other is a *shudder* Lakers fan. If there are no other difference but
    color and team support it would appear racist to me to pick based on
    race. This appears to be kind of a silly comparison as obviously what
    basketball team someone likes is a trivial thing in the scheme of life.
    But isn't the idea of a perfect society that the regarding of color 
    become a trivial thing? I always thought so but people keep telling me
    and legislating (via AA and the like) that color is an important thing
    to consider. This is a mixed message. 

    If color should not be an important consideration in the hiring process
    then it should not be. If 'extra credit' is to be given for being black
    no one has successfully proven that that is different then giving
    'extra credit' for being white. So they can't one be right and one be
    wrong.

    			Alfred

    Alfred,
    
    How then would you deal with the fact that there has been an
    ingrained preference to hire white men over minorities and women.
    If we make no special efforts to ensure those who have been
    previously excluded are hired, how then will we ever reach something
    approximating 'level ground' for all.
    
    Bonnie

    <--(.100)
    
    Alfred, you're absolutely right, there should be no reason to factor in
    race or sex or sports interest or anything else.  The problem that AA
    was designed to solve was that there were only two possible
    explanations for the overwhelming stratification that prevailed up til
    the mid-70s:  either white men were in fact "better qualified" for the
    good jobs 90-100% of the time�...or there was something fishy going on.
    Which do you think?  What do you think the people making the decisions
    said?  How would *you* solve that problem? 
    
    						=maggie
                                                                      
    �Example:  around 1973, Shyamala Rajender was denied tenure in the
    Chemistry Faculty of the University of Minnesota on the grounds that
    she wasn't qualified despite having a solid PhD and a publications list
    the equal of anyone elses.  She went back to school, took a law degree,
    passed her bar, and sued the school!  It became a class-action suit,
    and the school lost.  But it dragged on thru appeal for nearly ten
    years if I recall correctly, despite the fact that the evidence
    included jewels such as the fact that no woman had *ever* been given
    tenure in that faculty since 1910!!  Now, did the university
    administration ever say "Oh yeah, jeez, you're right, we've been
    screwing up.  We'll fix it right away"? No, they protested their
    innocence til the bitter end!  How do you solve problems like that? 

    
      MLK said it best: People should be judged by the content of their
                        character, not the color of their skin.

    One can not change the past. What one does is start doing things
    right today. If everyone starts doing the right thing today we will
    achieve balance in a generation. I firmly believe that attempting
    to correct the sins of the past by adding 'balancing' sins will
    increase the time to balance because it encourages and supports the
    idea that using race is valid in some cases. I believe it is wrong
    in all cases and that for me to support AA is support for racism.
    It is not a message I want my son or his generation to learn. I ask
    you all "Would you support racism?" If not then please understand that
    I can not either. If you feel that correcting the past by using race
    to give 'extra credit' to blacks is not racism I believe you but I
    have heard and seen nothing to convince me that it is anything other
    then a second wrong to make right a first wrong.

    			Alfred 

    Alfred, it's all very well to argue that "it's best to be perfect", but
    what do you do in the real world *today*?  Until you have a practical
    alternative to propose, simply saying "Well AA is wrong!" doesn't carry
    a lot of intellectual weight. 
    
    						=maggie 

    re:-.1
    Much of what you say is true BUT....
    The problem is that everyone will NOT start doing things right
    today. If everyone did, this discussion would be meaningless. 
                                        
    doug
    

re .87

>    That's what AA is, Mark.  Taking positive action to balance the
>    workforce rather than hoping for a different outcome from the same old
>    processes. 

	How, by any stretch of the imagination, can perpetuating continued
	discrimination and bigotry be considered "positive"?

							Tom_K

    re:.100
        
    I do not believe this analogy of hiring someone who smells bad and
    blows his nose on his shirtsleeve. Alfred, this was a rather animated
    analogywhich has little bearing on reality. No one, not the deepest
    Affirmative Action supporter would suggest, or insinuate that a 
    manager hire anyone with so little self respect. 
    
    Is this conversation for real? All these people saying they don't
    believe in descrimination, reverse or otherwise. What have they
    done to rectify it? I'm sorry to be so action-oriented but how can
    you people rant and rave about someone lighting a candle when you've
    done nothing but curse the darkness? 
    
    A Very Weary,
    Kate

    	RE:  .107
    
    	>> That's what AA is, Mark.  Taking positive action to balance 
    	>> the workforce rather than hoping for a different outcome from the 
	>> same old processes.
    
    	> How, by any stretch of the imagination, can perpetuating
    	> continued discrimination and bigotry be considered "positive"?
    
    	The very fact that some white males can see absolutely nothing
    	positive about taking action to provide a few opportunities
    	for groups who have historically had almost *NO* opportunities
    	is the reason why AA was necessary in the first place, and why
    	it is still necessary today.
    
    	In order to "perpetuate continued discrimination and bigotry,"
    	we'd have to take a step backwards and IGNORE the problems that
    	centuries of atrocities to minorities have created in this
    	country today.  That could effectively be accomplished by
    	abolishing programs like Affirmative Action in favor of just
    	"letting the problem solve itself naturally" (which is the same
    	as IGNORING it.)

    Maggie, I'm sorry if you really did read my reply but it's hard
    for me to believe that you did. I was trying to show a positive
    step. I'll elaborate if it will help though.

    One. Promoting hiring based on race is wrong. If you tell people
    that it is not wrong you delay the time when hiring based on race
    goes away. AA says that hiring based on race is ok and a good thing.
    Conclusion: AA promotes racism and delays the day of its demise. This
    is more then just saying AA is wrong; it says why.

    Two: The way to erase racism is for everyone to act in a positive
    non-racist manner and to raise our children to treat everyone as
    equals regardless of race. We must do this by example as well. This
    means that we do not make hiring decisions based on race or we defeat
    our purpose and teach bad things to our children.

    Sure not everyone is going to start doing the right thing today. But
    if *we* all start things will be better. If society starts to regard
    race as a none issue it will become a non-issue. If the standard in
    society is that race is a non-issue then people who treat it as an
    issue will gradually lose power and influence. After a time the people
    who make hiring decisions will all be equality minded and balance will
    happen. There are no short cuts to this. All the so called short cuts
    have done to date is make small improvements in hiring balance and
    large increases in resentment and racism. We are talking about a long
    needed and fundamental change to a long lived situation.

    Many short cuts in the whole area of racial equality have backfired
    already. I think I've explained how AA is doing so but other examples
    abound. Forced bussing for example has been a significant factor in the
    deterioration of our schools. Not because putting blacks in good schools
    is bad but because it has allowed the school officials to avoid doing
    the painful long term job of making *all* schools good. It has also
    perpetuated the wrongful idea of racial inequality by promoting the
    idea that bussing white students to bad schools will make the bad
    schools better automatically. This leads to my other 'pet' idea for
    ending racial unfairness. Let's make all the schools good schools.
    Let's let people pick what schools they want their children go to 
    regardless of race. Smart parents will send their kids to good schools.
    Bad schools will either die or become good schools. Sooner or later
    everyone will be getting a good education. Why has society picked to
    lower the standards and goals rather then raise them?

    There that's two positive steps.

    			Alfred

    <--(.107)
    
    Tom, it's easy to complain and as I argued to Alfred it's easy to
    advocate perfection, neither takes much thought.  Instead, as Doug,
    Kate, and I have all asked:  suggest a _practical_alternative_.  Until
    you do that, your complaints sound both hollow and self-serving. 
                                                                    
    						=maggie

Solutions based on the willingness of people in general to do the right thing
will never work. Because people, in general, will not do the right thing.
It's not in their nature.

    <--(.110)
    
    Alfred, I did read your note.  Let me try couching it as a practical
    problem.  Let's say that you apply for a job in an engineering
    organisation but although *know* you've substantially more experience
    in the particular flavor of work that's being done there, you lose out
    to an asian woman who is judged to be better qualified because she has
    "more potential". You notice that this organisation has 50 engineers,
    and somehow it has worked out that 48 of them are asian women.  You
    notice the manager is also an asian woman and, not unreasonably, wonder
    whether there's some favoritism going on.  But when you ask, the
    manager says "No, absolutely not!  I hired each person on a strictly
    competitive basis, and each one was the most qualified of the available
    applicants.  I never discriminate unfairly and I resent the
    allegation!"  When you ask about your greater experience, she tells you
    that she judged you to have less potential and as far as she is
    concerned, potential is more important than experience.  You know that
    a friend of yours also got turned down, and the reason given him was
    that experience was more important than potential.  You bring that up,
    and she says "Different job".
    
    How do you solve that problem using your method?  This woman maintains
    that she *is* being fair.  
    
    						=maggie 
    
    					 

    RE: .108  What about the Celtics fan vs the Lakers fan? Also I'm
    afraid I don't believe that no one would suggest that the nose blower
    should get the job if his color was politically correct. Sorry but I
    don't. I've seen first hand people abusing their racial situation to
    do things that I believe noone would tolerate in a truly color blind
    world.

>   I'm sorry to be so action-oriented but how can
>    you people rant and rave about someone lighting a candle when you've
>    done nothing but curse the darkness? 

    You do understand that from where I sit it is you who are trying to
    blow out the candle that I am trying to light? You do understand that
    from where I sit it is the AA backers who support racial hiring
    practices? You do understand that I have suggested positive steps that
    AA prevents?

    RE: .109

>    	The very fact that some white males can see absolutely nothing
>    	positive about taking action to provide a few opportunities
>    	for groups who have historically had almost *NO* opportunities
>    	is the reason why AA was necessary in the first place, and why
>    	it is still necessary today.

    I don't know that people have said that taking action to provide 
    opportunity for groups who have historically had almost *NO* opportunities
    wasn't positive. What I, at least, have been trying to say is that
    AA is *not* a good way to do that. What I have been trying to say is
    not that the goal is bad but that the means are bad.

    No one is saying that the problem will solve itself naturally, least
    of all me. What I am saying is that education in needed and that AA
    is the opposite message. What I am saying is that we have to make hiring
    based on race socially unacceptable and that AA makes hiring based on
    race socially, not only acceptable, but mandatory. Of course part of
    the problem in this country is we start too late in peoples life. You
    don't change the heart of a 55 year old white male by beating him up
    with rules that limit his option. Rather you start by teaching a 5 year
    old boy (girl) by word and deed. Not that you give up on the 55 year
    old but you don't win him over to your side by telling him that the
    wrongs of the world are all his fault and that now he must pay.

    		Alfred

    RE: .113 What problem? If her group is meeting all it's goals and
    her people are developing up to their potential what's the problem?
    Is her boss happy with the work? If her boss happy that his staffing
    money is being spent wisely? If so then what is the problem? If not
    well then that is something for him/her to address at review time isn't
    it?

    Oh, I see I didn't get the job. Well, maybe I'm upset but what 
    evidence to I have that the person hired did not have more potential
    then I? Or I guess I can argue that potential is not more important
    then experience. But I have to convince that I tried that argument once
    and lost. Seems that we were hiring someone into the group I was in.
    I was the senior technical person in the group. We worked it down
    to two people. We both agreed that one had more experience but my
    boss felt that the other had more potential and so could grow into
    the group better. Guess which one we hired? Right the one with
    potential. Not my choice then but in the long run I think perhaps
    my boss did the right thing.

    Oh I see there is an other problem. I lost out to a minority woman.
    Sorry but that doesn't bother me. It's happened before and I guess
    it will happen again and I don't see any reason to let it bother me
    now.

    Now perhaps this woman is discriminating. What is accomplished if I
    force this woman to hire me? Well on the plus side I get a job. No
    small thing. But I've also got a boss who doesn't like me because
    I've made them do something they feel is wrong. Not a comfortable
    thing. Have I convinced them that they were wrong? I doubt it. Is
    she going to be any more likely to willingly hire a white male? I
    doubt it. She is going to be resentful of a system that doesn't let
    her run her group the way she feels best about. What's the right thing?
    I honestly don't know but I honestly don't believe AA is it because
    AA says "hiring based on race is ok but you've been picking the wrong
    race."

    				Alfred

    <--(.115)
    
    Alfred, are you arguing that biased hiring is okay or that there is no
    such thing?  I can't tell from your response.  Remember, this is
    a paradigmatic problem.
    
    To make the problem clearer, let me stipulate that you *know* that this
    manager is using race and sex as qualifiers:  she unwittingly admitted
    it to a friend of yours, but still remains adamant in public that she's
    being perfectly fair.  And let's tighten the screws: she runs the only
    engineering shop in your area, and you cannot ever move house.  If you
    cannot get her to hire you, you have to take a job digging ditches at
    $6.- an hour, you'll lose your house because you won't be able to
    afford it anymore, and your kids will sometimes go hungry.  Now what is
    your position?  How do you use your method to solve the problem?  Do
    you dig ditches for the rest of your life and hope that everyone will
    altruistically train their kids to discard their advantages so that
    *your* kids don't have to dig ditches? 
                   
    						=maggie

    I think we may have run into a problem analogous to one my class
    had in college physics.  There, people were getting the wrong
    result in calculating the acceleration needed to lift a rocket
    into orbit, or to achieve escape velocity.
    
    What was the difficulty?  We were forgetting that the earth has
    a gravitational pull of its own, and had not been compensating for
    that.
    
    Here, Alfred says, ~But now we're condoning taking race into account.~
    But he has not allowed for the gravitational pull (as it were) of
    racism.  Let's look at two hiring managers, one with and one without
    a bigoted outlook, and without and with AA.  The bigot without AA
    hires the best qualified Caucasian male without overmuch mental
    effort.  The non-bigot without AA hires the best qualified person
    without overmuch mental effort.  The bigot *with* AA now has to
    go through great gyrations and double-checking before finally
    hiring the best qualified person.  The non-bigot with AA still hires
    the best qualified person, but with a tad more mental checking.
    
    AA forms the extra acceleration needed to just balance out the
    "natural" pull of racial favoritism.  How else can you compensate
    for CURRENT behavior that is ALREADY morally wrong?  Wait 50 years,
    as Alfred hints?  Put these people in jail, as no one suggests?
    Or say, "Since you have been hiring some people and not others because
    you have refused to be thorough in looking at their qualifications,
    we are going to make you document your qualification-examination
    process, and justify your conclusions.  And no fair claiming that
    a crumb on the beard of a black man counted against his neatness,
    but that one on the beard of a white man could be ignored because
    you are happier with someone who doesn't spend all his time gazing
    into a mirror."
    
    You see, to claim that AA is "wrong" because we wouldn't need it if
    everyone were prejudice-free is as silly as claiming that you
    shouldn't *have* to produce that much acceleration, because we won't
    need it at L5.
    
    							Ann B.

    This talk of individual cases is not really relavent to AA (at least,
    as far as my understanding of AA is concerned).  AA doesn't say that
    for each pair of equally qualified candidates, the job should go to the
    one from the minority background; What it does say is that for a
    statistically significant number of pairs (let's say 100, for the sake
    of argument), the decisions should be in proportion to the different
    populations involved (within an acceptable statistical deviation).  If,
    over a significantly large sample, this does not occur, then one can
    reaonably conclude that discrimination (in the very negative sense) has
    occured.  AA just suggests a way of ensuring that such discrimination
    does not occur, and I can't see that any of the case-based arguments
    presented so far even address this. 
    
    Now, some wish to take this basic concept a step further, and apply it
    not to new hires, but to the workforce in general, and to weight the
    hiring ratios to achieve the same balance in the corporate population
    as occurs in the real population in a shorter time than would be
    achieved by simply fixing the hiring ratios the same as the real
    population ratios.  It is not so clear that this is justifiable.
        
    ("It is not so clear that..." is code for "I'm not really sure where
    I stand myself" :-)

    It'd be helpful to those of us who haven't nailed our colors to the
    mast yet, if replies (especially the vitrioloc ones) made it clear
    precisely which variety of AA they are attacking or defending.

    John

>    Alfred, are you arguing that biased hiring is okay or that there is no
>    such thing?  I can't tell from your response.  Remember, this is
>    a paradigmatic problem.

    Neither.

    I was saying that there was not sufficient evidence to make a conviction
    of discrimination.  With out evidence that someone is doing other then
    what they say they are doing (which is hiring fairly) why should I
    be allowed to force someone else to dig ditches? If there are more
    people then jobs someone has to be out of work. Why is it more right
    for that person to be an Asian woman then a white male? You're asking
    me to say that since 48 Asian woman have jobs that it's somehow unfair
    that a white male doesn't. 

    The other thing I was saying is that it is possible that the most
    qualified 48 out of 100 applicants for a job could possibly be Asian
    women. Or White Males. Or pick any group. You can not judge
    qualification just by race or sex. If one hires x people of one
    race and x times 5 on an other that is not in and of itself proof
    of biased hiring.

    What to do in your enhanced .116? Interesting question. Do I stick
    to my convictions or turn them in for expediency? That's what you're
    actually asking isn't it? Perhaps if I'm going to drop the belief
    in racial equality I might as well also drop the belief in the sanctity
    of life and kill this woman. The difference is one of degree rather
    then principal BTW. After all this is like saying 'will you steal to
    feed your children?' In your artificial example (no moving, no job
    change) violent revolution would appear to be a justifiable option to 
    many people. Is killing, stealing right? I think not and so would try
    to find other options.

    But since you are allowing for the possibility of AA there may be other
    options. Let's look around and take a closer look at the situation.
    Now as you say I know this woman is hiring based on race. I can sue
    her and her company for damages. They are not being fair. This is
    different then asking to preferential treatment. I'm asking for equal
    treatment. Not 'hire me because I'm white' but 'hire me because I'm
    more qualified.' This comes in under EEO not AA. I've never been
    opposed to equal opportunity just inequality attempting to give the
    appearance of equality.

>	Do
>    you dig ditches for the rest of your life and hope that everyone will
>    altruistically train their kids to discard their advantages so that
>    *your* kids don't have to dig ditches? 

    Interesting that you think racial equality is an altruistic sort of
    thing. It is in some ways altruistic but I tend to believe that there
    is some value beyond altruism to promoting racial equality. I also
    believe that there is some advantages to me and to society as a whole
    to the removal of racism. It is to my advantage, even though I am
    a white male, for blacks and woman to be able to develop and work to
    their full potential. Society only grows and gets stronger when all
    the talented people in it can grow and use those talents to be
    productive people. This is the kind of thing we have to communicate
    to our children.

    Question: How many people are teaching their children that they are
    better or worse then people of an other race? How many of you have a
    majority of their friends who are teaching racial bias to their
    children? Do you first hand know of a lot of people who are trying to
    raise their children as bigots? Isn't education in racial equality
    starting to happen in America? Isn't it time we backed up what we
    really want our children to learn with actions that support rather
    then contradict our message?

    				Alfred

    	RE:  .119
    
    	> Isn't it time we backed up what we really want our children
    	> to learn with actions that support rather than contradict
    	> our message?
    
    	Alfred, what good is a message of racial/sexual equality if
    	children can look around their culture and see that ONLY WHITE
    	MEN are doctors, ONLY WHITE MEN are lawyers, ONLY WHITE MEN
    	are in national politics, ONLY WHITE MEN control corporations,
    	and ONLY WHITE MEN'S perspectives/commentaries are worth
    	listening to on any given subject.
    
    	Without Affirmative Action to put more minorities into visible
    	positions (so that children and bigoted adults could finally
    	envision someone besides a white male doing any kind of important
    	work,) it wouldn't have mattered WHAT you told the children.
    	They would have seen for themselves that "we're all equal" was
    	merely a lip service payment from a culture that didn't want
    	to risk its "important work" to people who have never been given
    	the chance to do that kind of work before (which was the current
    	situation during the advent of programs like Affirmative Action.)
    
    	In the current generation of children, there may be more bigoted
    	parents around, but our culture now accepts the fact that there
    	are many, many, MANY talented women and minorities doing quite
    	well in positions that only white males were allowed to do before.
    
    	That is a more important message than just "saying" we're all
    	equal (while allowing minorities to spend hundreds/thousands
    	of years waiting for real progress.)

    <--(.119)
    
    Alfred, Ann's analogy said it much better than I have, though somehow
    it doesn't seem to have made any more an impression.  
    
    Let me have another go, using your latest example.
    
�     What to do in your enhanced .116? Interesting question. Do I stick
�     to my convictions or turn them in for expediency? That's what you're
�     actually asking isn't it? Perhaps if I'm going to drop the belief
�     in racial equality I might as well also drop the belief in the sanctity
�     of life and kill this woman.    

    Here's the first example:  because I flopped the genders on you, you've
    gotten confused about what side to take. If you are *actually*
    committed to "racial equality" then in this case you must fight what's
    happening because if you walk away you are condoning biased hiring.
    
�     In your artificial example (no moving, no job change) 

    Those are so my individual example can serve as paradigm:  for women
    and people of color before AA, all companies in all areas of the
    country presented functionally identical barriers.
    
�     Now as you say I know this woman is hiring based on race. I can sue
�     her and her company for damages. They are not being fair. 

    And you lose, because the evidence gained by your friend is not
    evidence that *you* lost the job because of race and sex, only that
    this woman has practiced unfair discrimination in the past.  She
    gets on the stand and say "Yes, there are times when I did that,
    but that's not what happened here."  The judge nods and throws out
    your case.  What now? 
    
� >	Do
� >    you dig ditches for the rest of your life and hope that everyone will
� >    altruistically train their kids to discard their advantages so that
� >    *your* kids don't have to dig ditches? 
� 
�     Interesting that you think racial equality is an altruistic sort of
�     thing. It is in some ways altruistic but I tend to believe that there
�     is some value beyond altruism to promoting racial equality. I also
�     believe that there is some advantages to me and to society as a whole
�     to the removal of racism. 

    You didn't answer the question:  do you accept this woman's mendacious
    assertion at face value and resign yourself to digging ditches for the
    rest of your life in the hope that people will, for whatever reason,
    teach their children to give up unfair advantages so that your children
    don't have to dig ditches in their turn?  Remember which side you're
    on.
    
�     It is to my advantage, even though I am
�     a white male, for blacks and woman to be able to develop and work to
�     their full potential.                                     
    
    How much to your advantage?  More than for you yourself to get the good
    jobs?  

>    Alfred, Ann's analogy said it much better than I have, though somehow
>    it doesn't seem to have made any more an impression.  

    Yes you're right, Ann's analogy was much better. Actually though since
    I was writing my last reply while see was writing hers I did not see
    it until after. It did make a big impression. IN fact I'm still
    thinking about it.

>    Here's the first example:  because I flopped the genders on you, you've
>    gotten confused about what side to take. If you are *actually*
>    committed to "racial equality" then in this case you must fight what's
>    happening because if you walk away you are condoning biased hiring.

    Yes if I'm convinced that the woman is deliberately doing biased hiring
    I must and would fight. You and I just, so far, disagree on method.

>    And you lose, because the evidence gained by your friend is not
>    evidence that *you* lost the job because of race and sex, only that
>    this woman has practiced unfair discrimination in the past.  She
>    gets on the stand and say "Yes, there are times when I did that,
>    but that's not what happened here."  The judge nods and throws out
>    your case.  What now? 

    Try try again. Try something else. Have my wife work. She's a great
    programmer with tons of potential. Try and convince her boss that she
    is bad for the company. If I can't make a case that I'm more qualified
    then maybe I'm not.

>    How much to your advantage?  More than for you yourself to get the good
>    jobs?  

    If the other person is more qualified, yes, I think it is more to my
    advantage that they get the job. On the other hand if I am more 
    qualified it is to both our advantage that I get it.

    			Alfred

>    Question: How many people are teaching their children that they are
[etc.]

I strongly believe that most of the people that I care for in Hometown USA (my
way of referring to all places that aren't liberal greater Boston/Nashua) are
indeed perpetuating sexism. I have evidence to believe the same for racism.
Since I care for these people, I tend to make sure to forget the examples
[isn't the mind amazing?]. But I can dredge them up, with a lot of painful
effort.

I am still pondering this issue. But I suddenly believe I understand where
you're coming from. And I don't agree that change is happening outside of
liberal DEC-Mass. 
	Mez

    	RE:  .122
    
    	>  If I can't make a case that I'm more qualified then maybe
    	>  I'm not.
    
    	Alfred, try to imagine belonging to a race or a gender
    	about which there has existed the firm belief for thousands
    	of years that no matter WHAT qualifications you possess, you
    	are not qualified for a job based on the belief system that
    	people of your race and/or gender are intrinsically inferior
    	to the race and/or gender of the ONLY PEOPLE who ARE ever
    	hired for jobs like the one you are seeking.
    
    	If you could truly imagine being in that situation yourself,
    	you wouldn't have made the suggestion as quoted above.

	re .109, .111:

	So if I am aboard a ship and I notice it is sinking, but
	don't know how to repair it, I should keep my mouth shut?
	I don't think so, I think it's better to point out the problem,
	and maybe someone else who is smarter than I am will know how
	to fix it.

	But you want a solution? If you don't want people to be
	discriminated against based upon certain factors, then pass 
	a law that says that it is illegal to discriminate against anyone
	based upon those factors. Don't pass a law that says it is now OK
	to discriminate against a different set of people.

	re .116:

	What have you got against people who dig ditches? It's honorable
	work.

							Tom_K

    	RE:  .125
    
    	> So if I am aboard a ship and I notice it is sinking, but
    	> don't know how to repair it, I should keep my mouth shut?
    
    	Is this "ship" supposed to be our country?  If so, then I
    	disagree that it is sinking.  Sure, it is under a strain,
    	but that's only because the ship was designed to carry only
    	white males (while minorities swam along in the water beside
    	it, fending off shark attacks and storms.)
    
    	If all it takes to nearly "sink" the ship is for a few minorities
    	to get opportunities, then perhaps it's time to rethink the
    	ship's design (rather than blaming the minorities who never
    	should have been left off the ship in the first place.)
    
    	> If you don't want people to be discriminated against based
    	> upon certain factors, then pass a law that says that it is
    	> illegal to discriminate against anyone based upon those
    	> factors.  Don't pass a law that says it is now OK to
    	> discriminate against a different set of people.
    
    	What I want to stop is the systematic blocking of opportunities
    	for people of an entire race/creed/sex (and I don't want the
    	people of these groups to have to wait thousands of years to
    	see something close to equitable treatment in our culture.)
    
    	At no time have I ever advocated (nor have I seen anyone else
    	advocating) the systematic blocking of opportunities for all
    	white males.
    
    	So what are some white men so afraid of when it comes to a few
    	minimal attempts to give opportunities to minorities?  Why
    	does the whole idea seem so threatening to some of you?

re .126

	Nah, don't read to much symbolism in my choice of analogy...

>    	What I want to stop is the systematic blocking of opportunities
>    	for people of an entire race/creed/sex (and I don't want the
>    	people of these groups to have to wait thousands of years to
>    	see something close to equitable treatment in our culture.)

	Hey, looks like we are in violent agreement for a change.

>    	At no time have I ever advocated (nor have I seen anyone else
>    	advocating) the systematic blocking of opportunities for all
>    	white males.
 
	Being a minority myself, I don't want to see any blocking 
	(systematic or not) of anyone.
   
	Give me a level playing surface and I'm not afraid to compete
	with anyone.

						Tom_K

>	Give me a level playing surface and I'm not afraid to compete
>	with anyone.
    
    The problem is *getting* the playing surface *level*. It's not level
    at present, and there are people standing all over it. The process
    of leveling it will at least require that some people move their
    feet...

    	RE:  .127
    
    	> If I do it to you it is discrimination.
    	> If you do it to me it is affirmative action. 
    	> Equality is out the door......
    
    	When was equality ever IN the door?
    
    	We've never had equality for non-white-males in this
    	country, and I doubt that we ever will in my lifetime.
    	
    	Women have a few opportunities now (140 years after we
    	first asked for them,) and people of color are finally
    	seeing some progress, too (after hundreds of years of
    	slavery, and 100 years after slavery was abolished,)
    	but we aren't anywhere *close* to equality yet.
    
    	> Good news: The feminists who demand this double standard,
    	> although they are quite vocal, emotional, and in my opinion
    	> often irrational, are relatively small in number.
    
    	When all else fails, it must be time to throw in a few
    	stereotypes about women being "emotional" and "irrational,"
    	right?  :-)
    	
    	What do you call white men who support Affirmative Action?
    	(Or maybe I'd better not ask.)  :-)
        
    	> (Is it a clever tactic to ride the injustices of minorities
    	> to justify their own crusades for the desire of power and
    	> domination over males?...
    
    	If this is meant in answer to my earlier question (about what some 
    	white men are so afraid of when it comes to women and minorities 
    	getting a few opportunities,) I thank you, even though I find it 
    	hard to believe that you are serious about it.
    
    	It *sounds* like an attempt at justification for trying to hold 
    	women and minorities back, to be quite honest.
    
    	Hopefully, there aren't many people in this country who would
    	take an idea like that seriously.

    Alfred, the problem I find with your arguments is that they boil
    down to (unintentionally, I'm sure):
    
    	"Well, yes, it's unfortunate for the minorities, but they'll
    	just have to live with the inequities until society learns
    	how to treat everyone equally."
    
    That's easy to say when you're part of the majority. I agree that
    we shouldn't necessarily have to pay for "the sins of the fathers".
    But perpetuating their sins until bigotry is no more is idealism
    to a naive degree.
    
    The way I see it, the operative word in "Affirmative Action" is
    "affirmative". I see it as choosing *for* the minority, not choosing
    *against* the majority.
    
    --- jerry

    <--(.129, .131)
    
    Paul & Jerry, *lovely* analogy & summary!  Why t'hell couldn't I
    think of those?!
    
    						=maggie

 I think what this whole discussion boils down to is that nobody believes that
there will be an end to discrimination soon. The AA people just want to 
discriminate against white males. Given that white males have a history of
discriminating against all others (and still do in far fewer cases), it is 
simply a case of tit for tat. Neither is correct, but the end result is that
the playing field is somewhat more level than without AA.

 The Doctah

    in re .127 Arpad
    
    If you really believe that what women are after is to gain power
    over men, and that expression of interest in the rights of
    minorities is a smoke screen, then we really are very far apart.
    Tho I realize that those women I know are only a small subset
    of women, I know no women who have told me that those were their
    goals and intentions. I know many women who want to be treated
    equally with men, and who want the same opportunities.
    
    Do you feel that minorities and women currently have equal
    opportunities and advantages as compaired to white men? and if
    (as I believe to be the case) they do not, how do you recommend
    rectifying the situation?
    
    Bonnie
    
    

    Mark
    
    The amount of discrimination that a white male may suffer as the
    result of AA is a whole order of magnitude less than what minorities
    and women have had to suffer. (and let me add here that I believe
    that the discrimination against minorities is far greater than
    that against women, both in the past and in the present.) Men are
    not being told that they cannot be hired in certain kinds of jobs
    at all, they are not being kept out of particular kinds of training,
    they are not being paid lower salaries for the same or similar work.
    In general, AA has had the effect (as I see it) of increasing the
    competition for particular jobs, but not prohibiting white men
    from entering into the competition.
    
    Bonnie

    	The one thing that still amazes me about the attitude shown
    	by some members of the majority is that they can't accept
    	that Affirmative Action is REALLY about someone other than
    	themselves.
    
    	Affirmative Action is about helping minorities get some
    	opportunities (it is NOT about doing something negative
    	to the majority.)
    
    	In my opinion, the idea that everything under the sun HAS
    	to be about the majority (as if the whole universe revolves
    	around them and no one else can ever be central to any effort
    	or idea) is born of ethnocentrism.
    
    	It really amazes me that some members of the majority still
    	have this blind spot in their consciousnesses.

        <-----

    
    .131
    > Well , yes it's unfair for the minorities, but they'll just have
    > to live with the inequities until society learns how to treat
    > everyone equally.
    
    That was PERFECTLY put!!!!!
    
    When the Civil Rights Movement really started with Rosa Parks refusing
    to give up her seat on the bus, the same thing was said..What's
    the matter with the black folks. What do they want. They have jobs.
    After all,they are our maids,our gardeners. We give them our clothes
    that we do not want..some we have not even worn yet!! Now they want
    to be equal with us. That's not FAIR...
    
    All these things were said by the majority. If Dr. Martin Luther
    King had listened, we would still be riding the back of the bus
    ( we would never be able to afford a car ) ..we would still be
    without a decent education  (so most of us would still be maids
    and gardeners etc.), and I certainly would not be here writing
    in this notes file. After all, whoever heard of a black person
    being capable of studying something as complicated as engineering.
    
    D.
    

    I would like to ask those who think that AA is reverse discrimination
    to tell me again, how is it reverse discrimination? How does it
    discriminate against a non-minority/none-female person? Don't just
    say, "it's discriminatory." Tell me how so. Give me examples.
    
    _karen

       Arpad, "tit for tat" huh, I like it, if we wanted to just reverse
       the tables you would be worried wouldn't you? Kind of scary
       thinking about what life would be like if men were treated the
       way women are treated. If you find that so appalling then you
       must understand why we do to. liesl

re .140

	I don't think it is "reverse discrimination". It is discrimination
plain and simple. For example, an employer is required to expend special 
effort to recruit employees of class X and not of class Y. That alone
is sufficient.

						Tom_K

re: .120:
    	Alfred, what good is a message of racial/sexual equality if
    	children can look around their culture and see that ONLY WHITE
    	MEN are doctors, ONLY WHITE MEN are lawyers, ONLY WHITE MEN
    	are in national politics, ONLY WHITE MEN control corporations,
    	and ONLY WHITE MEN'S perspectives/commentaries are worth
    	listening to on any given subject.

Boy, are my cousins going to be suprised to find out that they are are
really WHITE MEN.  Their husbands are going to be suprised, too.  (I have
four who are laywers.)  They'll also be suprised to find out they
were successful only because of AA.

My running buddys' will be shocked to learn that they are WHITE MEN
(one ran the Democratic Convention platform, one was a speechwriter
for Dukakis: you can guess which was the white woman and which the
black male.)

And, I haven't the faintest idea how I'll break the news to my doctor,
dentist, and project leader.

Martin.

    re .142
    
    Okay then, Tom, how do you propose we take care of the problems
    brought about by past discrimination. Given that minorities
    and women are under employed in positions of greater responsiblity
    and over employed in positions such as janitor, secretary, clerk,
    manual laborer how do we redress the balance. If we do nothing,
    then we allow discrimination to continute, if we try and do some
    thing we are accused of discriminating against white men.
    
    What are your action items? How would you make things more fair.
    
    Bonnie

    
    
    You could start with a little LESS legislation and a damn sight
    MORE education.
    
    

    re .144  I'd like to see some sort of process for hiring,
    possibly a double-blind, where the person making the
    decision has the facts but *not* information about the
    candidates re. race, sex, age. If it comes down to a real 
    tie, a coin toss or some such. 
    
    I realize that interviewers could slant their reports on
    each candidate. This could be overcome by two interviews,
    by persons of different race/gender/etc., with the identity 
    of the interviewer hidden from the person making the
    final decision.
    
    The bottom line is to eliminate hiring on any basis other
    than qualification. 

    	RE:  .143
    
    	> Boy, are my cousins going to be surprised to find out that
    	> they are really WHITE MEN.
    
    	Well, I suppose I deserve your sarcasm for not taking the time
    	to add 100 lines of disclaimers to my note to say that the
    	"impressions" of there being only white men doing important
    	work is what we HAD before AA, and what we would probably STILL
    	have had without 1) awareness of the lack of opportunities for
    	minorities, 2) overt programs like AA to provide a greater number
    	of opportunities in all professions for the people who had very,
    	very few opportunities in those areas before.
        
    	Martin, when *I* was growing up in the late 50's and 60's, from
    	what I could see as a child, there were NO (or hardly any) women
    	or minorities VISIBLE to me as doctors, lawyers, politicians,
    	etc.
    
    	Alfred was talking about messages that we give to our children.
    	The point of my note (which you obviously missed) was that there
    	seems little point in telling generations of children that we
    	are all equal if we are not willing to put our money where our
    	mouths are and SHOW we think people are equal by allowing the
    	opportunities for visible role models of other races/genders
    	in important/responsible jobs.
    
    	Now, to prevent another note, here is a partial list of
    	disclaimers:
    
    	No, I don't think that AA is directly responsible for every
    	woman and minorities success.  It opened a few doors here and
    	there (and the intelligent and talented women and people of
    	color did ALL the rest, whether they ever were able to get
    	direct benefit from programs like AA or not.)
    
    	Of course, I mean that the "role models" (i.e., women and people
    	of color in responsible jobs) are part of the group of intelligent,
    	educated, talented, exceptionally qualified women and people
    	of color that we have been blessed with in our country.
    
    	If I left any furthur important disclaimers out, please let
    	me know.  Perhaps I can have them listed in a catalog (cross-
    	referenced) so that we can refer to them by number and save everyone
    	time.

I hate to repeat myself (actually, I love to repeat myself but it is
unseemly to admit that)...but what follows is what I had to say about
affirmative action in WOMANNOTES-V1.  It still seems to me that AA is
the only way out of the bind we're in.  At least no one here has come
up with a better idea (they're just content to throw rocks at this idea, 
which is of course an easy thing to do).

JP


           <<< MOSAIC::$2$DJA6:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V1.NOTE;1 >>>
                   -< Original Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 250.28                   Supreme Court Ruling                      28 of 42
MYCRFT::PARODI "John H. Parodi"                      47 lines  27-MAR-1987 09:42
                            -< lesser of two evils >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  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

    I can see sparks flying all over these notes.
    
    Some people have already reached what I call the (stone wall effect.) 
    
    After reading a good portion of these notes, it appears to me
    that some people really beleive that things are ok the way they
    are and nothing needs to be changed. 
    No matter how you explain the facts, they twist themselve to deny
    and dispose of them  while making a fool out of themselve.
                    
    What is it? Is it a close mind? or just insecurity?
    
    They must be lagging behind on what is going on around them.
    When technology permits, I think brain reprogramming will 
    come handy. Anyone has a good backup copy for those guys?
    
    						_Patrick_

re .144

	I never claimed to provide a solution. As mentioned
	previously, I hold that identifying a problem is useful
	in and of itself. I believe that you do not find it
	useful. So be it. It is not unreasonable for intelligent 
	people of good will to disagree.

	Ideally, one solution would be for people who were victims of
	past discrimination to receive compensation from those who
	discriminated against them. Certainly this can and is done in
	some cases where the discrimination took place after the
	laws were passed. However, I believe that the bulk of the
	damage was done prior to the enactment of these laws, and
	the US Constitution forbids the enactment of post-facto laws.

	If a person is overqualified for their present work, there is
	nothing to stop them from applying for another position, and 
	given present anti-discrimination laws, they should be competing
	on an equal footing with others of similar experience.

	Two wrongs don't make a right, although some times it is tempting
	to believe that it is fair. I personally doubt that a solution
	exists that is satisfactory to all concerned. I hope I am wrong.

						Tom_K

    	RE:  .138
    
    	Arpad, don't even bother starting up with me.  Obviously, I
    	was too lenient on you when I replied to you last night (or
    	you wouldn't have bothered to close in on me for the "kill," 
	using ridiculous personal insults that have no bearing on the
    	issues being discussed, and that no one here gives a damn
    	about, anyway.)
    
    	Your note last night (and the repetition of your ideas today)
    	about feminists "exploit[ing] the injustices against minorities
    	to justify their own crusade for the desire of power and domina-
    	tion over males" is a blatant, boldfaced, malicious lie.
    
    	It is MORE than just merely putting words in our mouths (although
    	it succeeds in doing that as well.)  It is a LIE, pure and simple.
    
    	If you want to discuss the issues at hand, then discuss them.
    	However, if you have come here to write malicious slurs against
    	women who happen to be feminists, don't bother.  
    
    	The tactic of using stereotypes (like "emotional" and "irrational")
    	against women (feminist or not) instead of exchanging logical
    	ideas to debate issues is as distasteful as it is futile
    	(especially in this particular forum.)
    
    	If you have something intelligent to say, then say it.  Otherwise,
    	don't trouble yourself.

I don't have the time to read the last ~20 replies to decide whether or not to
write-lock this topic for 24 hours. So, I am officially asking for people to
take a deep breath, and maybe even do the 24 hour-bit themselves.

I thought of saying this when I checked in at lunch time. I'll learn to trust
those rumblings next time!
	Mez

    I second Mez in her request for people to give themselves
    24 hours to cool off. 
    
    Bonnie

    I think JP hits the nail on the head in .149. At its worst, AA
    is just the lesser of two evils. It's not a perfect solution,
    and I don't think that anyone here thinks it is, but it's the
    only one we have, and it's accomplishing its goals.
    
    Tom, I agree that identifying a problem is a reasonable step,
    and that calling for better solutions is a reasonable next step.
    But, until those better solutions are proposed, AA, whatever
    its shortcomings may be, is our best chance at "leveling the
    field".
    
    --- jerry

    	RE: .157
   
    	-<re .156: given 2 evils, one the lesser, they are both evil>-
    
    	Jerry said AA was the lesser of two evils "at its worst" (which,
    	as Maggie pointed out earlier, is a very, very, *very* rare
    	occurrence.)
    
    	Even if you *were* able to call the "lesser" choice evil, is
    	that a good reason to go back to the "more evil" choice?
    
    	Abolishing programs like AA without replacing them would be
    	the same as accepting/affirming the original discrimination
    	that AA was designed to offset.
    

Re: < Note 461.159 by ANT::ZARLENGA "I know I am, but what are you?" >

>						As late as 1982, and
>    probably still today, Digital had federally-imposed minority hiring
>    quotas.

    Presumably these quotas are/were expressed as a proportion of new
    hires?  Assuming that these proportions are not wildly different from
    the proportions of suitably qualified applicants, what is the problem?
    After all, a x% 'quota' for {insert favorite 'minority' here} is the
    same as a (100-x)% quota for {non-members of favorite 'minority'}.
    Since everybody (regardless of minority status) is subject to these
    quotas, they don't seem to be discriminatory.  Now, maybe there aren't
    _federally_imposed_ quotas for the number of male WASPs hired, meaning
    that it would be legal for Digital (or whoever) to offer 100% of new
    positions to female Eskimos (for example).  When such a situation
    occurs, you too would be justified in crying "discrimination", and
    demanding male WASP quotas.  Until then, what's the problem? 
    
    Of course, if the quotas are significantly out of line with the
    proportions of suitable candidates, then there might be cause for
    concern.  But that's not a problem with AA per se; It's a problem with
    the specific quota figures.

    	RE:  .160
    
    	> What I find so appalling is this so called goal of "equality"
    	> which seems to be defined as women are more than equal to
    	> men and should be treated as such.  That is appalling. Feminists
    	> say one thing and then do quite another.
    
    	Arpad, the goal of feminists is NOT for women to be "more than
    	equal to men" (and to be "treated as such.")  You're putting
    	words in feminists' mouths *and* you are twisting the meanings
    	of what other people have said (rather than addressing their
    	actual words/ideas.)
    
    	>> Your note...about feminists...justify[ing] their own crusade
    	>> for the desire of power and domination over males" is a
    	>> blatant, boldfaced, malicious lie.
    
    	> I only asked a question.  You interpreted it as more than
    	> that...You twisted it around as if it were something other
    	> than a simple question.
    
    	Your question was similar to asking, "Was it clever for <insert 
    	name of person who is the target of slur> to stop his career as 
    	an axe-murderer before he was caught?" 
    
    	A question that presupposes an unsubstantiated accusation is
    	*not* a simple question.  You should know that.
    
    	> This topic has been somewhat off-topic for quite some time.
    	> I only joined the crowd.
    
    	This topic was started by yours truly, so I guess that makes
    	me the best judge of whether the topic has been on or off track
    	(according to the ideas that I had when I wrote the basenote.)
    
    	In my estimation, general accusations about the "noting trends"
    	of an individual noter is the one thing that has been the most
    	completely and totally out of line in this topic (and I am glad 
    	that you have chosen to stop making comments along those lines
    	here.)
    
    	Please try to stick to the ideas under discussion next time.
    
    	Thanks.
    

    	RE:  .159
    
    	Mike Z., do you have any definite figures on the number of
    	people who were hired "as late as 1982" in federally-imposed
    	quotas?
    
    	Also, you are aware, of course, that there ARE *other* kinds
    	of quotas for new hires which *include* white males among those
    	who benefit.  (I'm thinking specifically of the slots set aside
    	for recent college graduates, which is a quota I support.)
    
    	If you have any definite figures on the number of new hires that
    	were affected as late as 1982 by AA, I'd appreciate seeing them.
    

    
    C'mon, Mike, better answer up now...Sounds like she's got 
    you now.....
    
    
    
    

    	RE:  .164
    
    	In .159, you said, "Simply typing it in doesn't make it true"
    	after challenging the accuracy of another noter's facts about
    	AA.
    
    	If you have no sources to cite yourself, then you have no grounds
    	for claiming that *your* facts are more accurate than the ones
    	you are contesting.

    	Rather than adding to the empty accusations against individuals
    	in this conference, why not support your view with facts (if
    	you can.)
    

    Folks, I have a simple solution:  if you don't like AA, just go to work
    for a company whose workforce is already a clear reflection of EEO.
    Such companies are not required to ever practice AA and thus should
    suit you very well. 
    
    						=maggie 
                       

re: .158:
    	Abolishing programs like AA without replacing them would be
    	the same as accepting/affirming the original discrimination
    	that AA was designed to offset.

Or, of course, realizing that the problem that AA was designed to offset
no longer exists due to other changes in society.  This is alluded to
in another, more recent, response to this note.

Martin.
    

Note 493.0                    Point of information                    No replies
HPSCAD::TWEXLER                                      14 lines   9-MAR-1989 09:53
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I attempted to write an informational note to 461...  but was unable to,
and yet I felt it quite important, so here goes...

Mike Z. in note 461.76 you made the statement

>"And from where I'm standing rape is not a threat."

a powerful statement that clearly got your point across...  However, while
you may not perceive rape as a threat to yourself, it *is* a threat.  I
have volunteered at the Boston Area Rape Crisis Center and, please believe
me, men were among those who were raped.  And, not only homosexual men were
raped. 

Tamar

    Let's see if this can be done with little heat and perhaps some
    glimmerings of light.
    
    In regards to the AA issue, the objections sound very much like
    the "not in my backyard" response -- "Yes, we need to improve the
    status of minorities, but not if I'm left shouldering the burden."
    If I remember correctly, edp produced a mathematical proof a few
    years ago demonstrating that the odds of an eligible white male
    being 'displaced' by an ineligible minority were a fraction of a
    percent.  If an eligible white male loses out to an eligible minority,
    that's life in the rat race.  Since the number of people entering
    the work force is going down now that the baby boomers have all
    graduated from college, competition for jobs won't be as high.
    
    The argument against AA is that employees should be hired on the
    basis of qualifications, like education and experience, alone. 
    If you want to get rid of AA, it looks like the easiest way is to
    provide equal access to education and experience.  To head off an
    incipient rebuttal, we currently have equal access to *an* education
    on the public school level.  This is not the same as equal access
    to *education*, since the educational levels of schools vary greatly.
    
    Why is this the easiest way?  Well, if you try to abolish AA, you
    incur the expense of alienating people and making enemies.  You
    are stuck fighting a battle, the expense of which falls on your
    shoulders alone.  Even if you win, you have depleted your resources.
    So has the other side.  All in all, an expensive process.
    
    On the other hand, if you work for equal access to education and
    experience, you don't have to go it alone.  You don't have near
    as many enemies.  You can share the costs of the efforts among more
    people.  As you progress in your effort, you expend resources but
    at the same time you create more or better resources.  Now then,
    which sounds like a better business decision?
    
    As far as Duke's affect on the extreme conservative agenda, well,
    one of the reasons the conservative agenda persists is that it does
    have a few points.  The concerns and issues raised by the conservative
    agenda hold some truth and some importance.  What extremists (on
    any side) do is not so much change this issues and concerns as to
    lock them into absolute terms.  One of the things I most dislike
    about extremists is that they're terribly simplistic.  Life isn't
    like that.  However, it would be a lot easier if life were that
    simple, and therein lies the extremist appeal.  I suppose a good
    way to discredit the extreme conservative agenda would be to point
    out that it's too simplistic.  This implies that the people behind
    it don't have the intelligence to handle complexity.  While this
    won't have any effect on the truly converted, it might help sway
    those who are still trying to define their belief systems.  And
    it's certainly a lot easier to do than to attack the conservative
    positions themselves.  As long as these positions have some truth
    to them, discrediting them is a tricky job.

    
>          <<< Note 461.140 by PACKER::WHARTON "Is today a holiday?" >>>
>
>    I would like to ask those who think that AA is reverse discrimination
>    to tell me again, how is it reverse discrimination? How does it
>    discriminate against a non-minority/none-female person? Don't just
>    say, "it's discriminatory." Tell me how so. Give me examples.
    
>   _karen

    
    I have a friend who related a story to me of when he was hired.  After
    he had been hired for his current job (within DEC) he saw (by accident)
    the job rec on which he was hired.  It CLEARLY stated minority
    hire only. Needless to say it took some of the wind out of his sails.
    Now karen, if there was, lets say 2 or 3 white men applying for the job
    too then I guess since they never had a chance at it (didn't meet one
    of the clearly stated QUALIFICATIONS for the job) then there was
    some discrimination, right? As a side note this person is a fine
    engineer but that really isn't the issue.
    
    Suzanne, Margret etc.  please don't try to tell me these Minority Only
    job recs don't exist. They do.  Also have any of you ever seen the
    resume book for college summer hires? I have. it's seperated into to
    catagories,  1: women/minorites, 2: white men.  Now why do you suppose
    they do that?  
    
				- A.J.
    

It seems to me that there is nothing like a discussion of Affirmative
Action to strip away our "civilized" veneer of equality and expose the
ugly racist and sexist underpinnings of our culture.  It is also
interesting to me that any discussion of a racially-related issue seems
to get off into a tangent about Affirmative Action and how it propagates
unfairness toward the "majority".

Many of those who oppose Affirmative Action do so because they view this
kind of program as a punishment inflicted on them for the sins of a past for
which they are not personally responsible or guilty.  They see it as
impeding their own opportunities to achieve success based solely on their
own personal ability.  They perceive that anything that stands in
the way of an individual achieving the maximum of which they may be
personally capable is a great injustice, and justifiably so.  They look
around and see that African-Americans are no longer owned as slaves and
can sit where they like on busses, women have the legal right to get
jobs, own property and vote, and imagine that since most of the
obviously nasty evils are now history, nothing prevents these people from
also achieving success in our society on the basis of their own ability
and hard work, just as they themselves expect to do.  To think such a
thing implies a degree of blindness and self-centeredness that does not
cease to amaze and dismay me.

If it were true that with the passage of a few laws and the repeal of a
few others we had created an "equal" society, then we should be able to
look around now, a generation after the American civil rights movement,
and find that all strata and professions in our society reflect more or
less the general population distribution.  Doctors, lawyers, drug
dealers and heads of welfare families should be nationally about 52%
female, 12% African-American, 7% Asian, 10% Latino, and so on.  This is
clearly not the case.  Those positions that our society values and
considers good, important, and powerful are still statistically
disproportionately filled by heterosexually-appearing white men.  Positions
of little value, low income, and criminality are statistically
disproportionately filled by persons who are not.  

There are only two possible conclusions we can draw from this
observation.  One is that if the society does provide truly equal
opportunity for success based on "objective" criteria of ability, then
those who are succeeding are indeed more intelligent, capable,
hard-working, and generally able than those who are not.  Since it is
white men who seem to have these "qualifications" in statistically more
generous amounts, and females and non-whites who do not, we can only
conclude that whiteness and maleness seem to carry with them a naturally
greater amount of these qualities.  The criteria for success are
"objective" of course, and hence do not imply any racism or sexism.
However, one must be in a coma not to draw the silent conclusion: white
men really are just better than women and people of color.  

The other conclusion we can draw from observing a picture in which
success, power, and significance are still overwhelming painted white and
male, is that there are indeed subtle racist and sexist values that
affect our judgement about "objective" qualifications for success.  These
values are rarely spoken of in an obvious way, that being in very bad
taste in these times.  I suspect that most often, they are not even
conscious.  Just as one type of lighting can make one apple look bigger,
redder, more appealing and more valuable, and another type of light can
make an identical apple look less so, what we see through the light of
racism and sexism naturally make what is white and male look better, more
valuable, more significant, more deserving of power, influence, and
success.  

We can't necessarily see the light itself that colors our vision, but
like gravity, we can infer its existence through the results we observe.
The statistical distortions we see must be due to some interference that
is keeping some types of human beings from succeeding on the basis of
their own personal ability.  This is not ancient history; it is very much
present reality.

Affirmative Action is not a penalty for the past.  It is theoretically a
correcting filter that should help us to adjust for the racist, sexist
light that colors our vision in the present.  Without this filter, we
could easily go on always seeing whiteness and maleness as conveying
greater worthiness on some people.  Unless we are required to challenge
this assumption by telling ourselves that the proportion of worthiness
must be more or less consistent across race and sex boundaries, the "most
qualified" will almost always turn up white and male.  

It is understandable that some people will find this very threatening.
One must expect that many persons who are white and/or male will have
internalized the value that they are "better" because of their whiteness
and/or maleness (just as many other persons who are female or non-white
have internalized the value that they are less valuable, good, and
worthy).  As the value is internalized, a white man, for example, comes
to feel merely that he is "better" intrinsically, not that he is
consciously "better" because he is white and male.  He ends up seeing
himself as "better" than that black person over there, not because of his
whiteness, but of his superior "qualifications".  The fact that his
whiteness and maleness are what make his "qualifications" superior is not
visible to him, and to many who will be judging between the two for a job
or promotion.  

When a filter is placed over the favorable light of his whiteness and
maleness in the form of AA and he is placed in competition under the same
light as someone else, he's got to feel that he is losing something.  It
is unfair!  He knows he's "better" than the other candidate!  If we were
only judging on qualifications, of course he is more qualified!  Of
course, if the other is chosen, it could only be because their minority
status has been used to cancel out his greater qualifications.   Of
course he feels he is being denied his right to compete strictly on the
basis of his "personal" qualifications.  By definition, they could never
be as "qualified" as he is, because whiteness and maleness are part of
what define his qualifications. But because these values have been
so deeply internalized, and whiteness and maleness are the normative
state, it is very hard to truly see the connection.  Many white men can
only feel a sense of loss and unfairness, and direct it at those whom
they feel are "depriving" them of their personal value.  

Much racism and sexism these days masks itself as campaign for
"equality" against the "reverse" discrimination of "unqualified" women
and people of color.  This is only a creative adaptation of the deep
racist and sexist roots of our society to the surface conditions of our
times.  It really says that without Affirmative Action, white men would
enjoy the "equal" opportunity of being naturally more deserving and
successful than others.  The appropriation of the words for freedom,
justice and equality by this movement should fool no on into believing
that we no longer live in a highly racist and sexist world.

    RE:< Note 461.177 by CADSE::SANCLEMENTE >

>    I have a friend who related a story to me of when he was hired.  After
>    he had been hired for his current job (within DEC) he saw (by accident)
>    the job rec on which he was hired.  It CLEARLY stated minority
>    hire only. Needless to say it took some of the wind out of his sails.

    This seems to me to be a case where whoever is responsible for setting
    AA policy within DEC has been over-zealous, unless:
    
    i)  there was some job-related reason for the "minority hire only" tag
    	on the rec,
    or
    ii) this was just one of a number of recs for equivalent vacancies,
    	a proportion of which specified "minority hire only" while the
    	rest were "open" recs.
    
    The latter may well have been the case, and if so I see nothing
    wrong with this method of implementing AA.  If, however, this was
    a rec for a single and unique job placement, with no coordination
    with other recs within Digital, then I would have to concur that
    this sort of rec is counter-productive, in that it is both demeaning
    to the hire, and might cause resentment among co-workers.
            
    It is things such as this that can get AA a bad name, and therefore it
    is important that they are properly investigated before anyone jumps to
    conclusions about them.  Does anyone know what criteria are used to
    designate certain recs as "minority hire only" within Digital? 
    
    That's lousy wording, too - what minorities are being referred to? 
    I'm sure that everyone can legitimately claim to be a member of
    some minority or another.
    
    John

	No matter how you put it, discrimination is discrimination,
	is wrong. I like to think that I do my part in combating 
	discrimination by not participating. I happen to think that
	is sufficient for any individual. It may not seem much, but
	if everyone did as much, we wouldn't have a need for this 
	conversation.

						Tom_K

    	RE:  .178
    
    	Catherine, thank you for your exceptionally well-written comments
    	on this issue.  As usual, I find your insights to be amazingly
    	accurate, and the expression of your thoughts to be both articulate
    	and moving.
    
    	In one way, however, you were far more generous to the new movement
    	for 'Civil Rights for [male] whites' than I would have been when
    	you called it a "creative adaptation of the deep racist and sexist 
    	roots of our society to the surface conditions of our times."  I 
    	wouldn't have used the word "creative."
 
    	It takes almost no thought or imagination at all to "reverse" 
    	roles with minorities by distorting the conceptual definitions of 
    	cultural racism and sexism, and then throwing twisted images back
    	into the faces of disenfranchised groups (for merely having sought 
    	a small number of opportunities in a world that is *still* quite 
    	highly racist and sexist, in the traditional senses of those words.)
    
    	Neither does it take much effort to respond to an exceptionally
    	articulate reply by repeating sections of it word for word (and
    	substituting terms for gender and/or race with their "reverses.")
	This tactic has been over-employed to the point where it has
    	gone beyond being merely laughable, unimaginative, dishonest
    	and manipulative.  It has become annoying in its predictability.
    
    	It is my guess that the term "reverse discrimination" got its
    	name from the very practice of twisting the definitions of 
    	traditional racial and sexual bigotry and discrimination -- a
    	documented and indisputable part of the history of our culture
    	-- into justification for the fight *against* programs that attempt 
    	to correct for the *EFFECTS* that these injustices have had (and
    	are still having) on the number of opportunities available
    	to qualified women and minorities in our culture.
    
    	As you so eloquently put it, however, "the appropriation of
    	the words for freedom, justice and equality by this movement
    	should fool no one into believing that we no longer live in
    	a highly racist and sexist world" (in the traditional senses
    	of those words.)
    
    	Thanks very much for the inspiring reply, Catherine!

    re .178 (Catherine)
    
    I think you did a very good job of describing a several aspects
    of racism and sexism in the area of qualifications for jobs or
    positions of responsibility in general.
    
    However, I do not think the historical perspective was addressed
    sufficiently. The past, unjust discrimination not only caries forward
    in perceptions, but also caries forward in more fundamental ways.
    
    I think that there are many qualified women and/or national minorities
    that are still being discriminated against in hiring and promotions
    and this should be ended.
    
    But if you look at the population as a whole you will find that
    many woman and/or national minorities are *not*, in reality, as qualified
    as their white, male counterparts in many of the choice occupations.
    We should not deny this.
    
    But this raises the next question: why is this so? Well, you do
    not have to go far to see that not everybody gets the same educational
    opportunities. Not everybody everybody has the same cultural support
    infrastructures.
    
    The real question is: how do we break this? This is not an easy issue
    to deal with. How does affirmative action fit in with this? In my
    opinion, one thing that it is *not*, is *just* equal opportunity.
    I think that it *must* include *preferential* opportunities. This
    *will* mean that a *lesser* qualified, woman and/or national minority
    *should* be hired or promoted over the white male.
    
    Equal opportunity will *not* work as long as we perpetuate an *unequal*
    social base, and the social base is becoming less equal under present
    circumstances and promises to get much worse. How can we expect
    to get anywhere with *equal* opportunity when more and more people
    are finding themselves homeless, or are succumbing to despair and
    are becoming greater and greater victims of crime, poor health and
    nutrition?
    
    Can we say "Well, we have bent over backwards, and we know that
    we are not racist or sexists, but in these McDonalds kitchen jobs,
    you are competing against workers with high school diplomas, or
    at least ninth grade for the table cleaners. We have no control
    over who gets what education, you Blacks and women should pull yourself
    up to at least minimal levels."
    
    Society must face this! We cannot point to some other level that
    is not *our* responsibility. In the McDonalds case above we should
    insist that members of the community that want those jobs should
    be fairly represented by racial and sexual categories and if their
    "qualifications" are not up to the competition, then we must make
    allowances for this. We should let the woman or National minority
    be hired in this case but let them attend 2 hours of the workday at
    school *with pay*.
    
    This sort of thing should be done at all levels of occupations.
    And yes, this should go all the way up to the brain surgeon or
    whatever other high level of skill. The less qualified (not ninth
    grader here, but maybe a little less qualified) should be used as
    an assistant, but with the *same* pay as the regular brain surgeon.
    Again, this assistant should get extra training opportunities *while*
    on the job and be paid for them.
    
    And the government should pay any extra costs that these workplaces
    incur because of these policies. This would require drastically
    different priorities on the governments part as to where the wealth
    and resources of our society went. And the workweek should be shortened
    so that there will be many more jobs to go around.
    
    And how do we expect women to have *equal* opportunity when child
    care is so hard to find and/or is so expensive and/or of such poor
    quality? Child care should be free or very inexpensive and plentifully
    available to all who need it.
    
    Another area that we cannot treat women the same as men is in the
    area of childbirth. Childbirth and child rearing is a fundamental
    necessity for society. Why should the family, and the woman primarily,
    be held responsible for this function to the detriment of her earning
    potential?
    
    Employers should be required to give *extra* allowances for the
    childbearing role of women. There should be maternity pay and extra
    training when the woman comes back to work.
    
    And of course, how can anyone say they are giving the women the
    *same* opportunities when she is not allowed to control her own
    body? We should end all government, church, and other family members
    rights to decide reproductive questions for the woman. Abortion
    procedures should be available and affordable to all. And no forced
    sterilization.
    
    Les 

    	Another classic case of the pot calling the kettle black in
   	a number of ways (too numerous to list in full here)...
    
    	The person who uses words like "complete and utter drivel" now
    	complains about the use of words like "laughable" and "unimagi-
    	native."

    	The person who likes to tell minorities that the free expression
    	of their point of view will "hurt" their cause now complains about
    	the use of a word like "manipulative."
        
    	The person who repeatedly calls the opposition "the big lie"
    	now complains about the use of words like "dishonest."

    	The person who repeatedly fills his notes with personal attacks
    	against his opponents now complains that they now appear to have
    	no respect for his position.
    
    	The person who keeps insisting that others "put words in his mouth,"
    	takes long (and short) passages from others and literally REWRITES
    	them (substituting his own words for theirs,) and TRANSLATES
    	other people's words for the general audience (insisting that
    	certain phrases mean "revenge," whether those other people deny it
    	or not.)
    
    	The person who routinely conducts a slur campaign against minority
    	individuals who speak out for equality is asking us to believe
    	that the equality that HE seeks (when he isn't busy berating
    	minorities, that is) is the only REAL form of equality and that
    	we shouldn't listen to minority groups who work for equality
    	(but should listen and trust the kind of equality that an indivi-
    	dual white male wants to shove down our throats instead.)

    	In this country, there are millions of women and minorities who 
    	face discrimination and oppression EVERY DAY, yet this individual 
    	asks us to worry about the possibility that he (as a white male) 
    	*might* have a remote *chance* of being affected by AA someday in the
    	future if it is left in place (as if this should be a higher
    	priority than the futures of dozens of millions of women and minorities
    	who haven't even had as many opportunities as he has had SO FAR.)

    	Fears about what will happen if minority groups "ever reach
    	a position of power" are what this is all about.  After having
    	been part of a group that used its power to commit crimes against
    	minorities -- crimes that will be a shameful part of our history 
    	and will probably *horrify* future generations -- I don't blame
    	him for worrying that other groups might be seeking ultimate
    	power (and could be as ruthless/exploitive/dehumanizing as his
    	group has been.)
    
    	In the late 60's, I remember hearing someone say that whites
    	NEED to hold blacks down for our own safety.  (He told me that
    	it is part of "human nature" for one race to dominate the other,
    	and that if we whites didn't dominate blacks, they would dominate
    	us instead and would treat us as bad or worse than we have treated
    	them.)  
    
    	The sentiment made me physically ill at the time, but I'm not
    	surprised to see echoes of it here and now about women.  The
    	comparisons to feminists as "the invading army" (and the talk
    	of what will happen if we "ever reach a position of power")
    	make it rather obvious what the supposed quest for an individual 
    	white man's concept of equality is all about (not that it comes
    	as a surprise, either.)

The following summarizes my thoughts on this subject as best I can.  
I believe some of my previous note may have been misunderstood, and I 
wish to acknowledge that I don't consider it all-inclusive of the many 
other issues involved in addressing racism, sexism, and equality in our 
society.  

1.  I believe we live in a racist and sexist society.

2.  I believe we are all affected by the images our culture bombards us with 
from birth: news, television, books, stories, myths, folklore, religion, 
history, and all the other media of popular culture.  These images are shaped 
by a racist and sexist society and, in spite of laws and wishes to the contrary,
have in turned shaped people to be part of a racist and sexist society.

3.  Few assessments of "merit" are truly objective.  We often respond 
to perceived worth, and then justify the perception with a list of 
"objective" qualifications.  For example, the set of behaviors that would get 
a man labelled an articulate, assertive go-getter would frequently 
get a woman labelled a strident, aggressive bitch.  The set of behaviors 
that would get a man labelled sensitive and easy-to-get-along-with, 
could get a woman labelled emotional and weak.  Socially-conditioned 
perceptions of "merit" are liable to kick in at a very deep level, 
because they are fundamental to the values we have imbibed with our baby 
formula.  There is more than one way to see the same thing: more than 
one reality, perspective, frame of reference.

4.  Although it is difficult, it is worth it to try to see reality in 
all its diversity, and to strip away our biases as much as possible.  Since 
it is natural to settle into the known and comfortable, this requires a 
constant challenging of one's self and one's assumptions.  Being 
born into the world we have, we cannot truly imagine what a true equal 
opportunity society would be like anymore than we can truly imagine life 
on other planets.  Even though the ultimate conception of such a thing 
may be beyond us, I believe it is also worth it to use such tools as we 
have to take steps toward such a future.  The set of tools currently to 
hand include AA.

5.  I do not view AA as any kind of panacea, or even as a tool that necessarily
addresses the fundamental wrongs of society.  There is a great weight of 
history that has brought all of us to the place we are in now, and that 
history continues to work itself out in the present.  Access to education 
is a significant part of the picture, as is the double burden laid on women 
of doing the overwhelming bulk of unpaid labor necessary to maintaining 
life in the society and nurturing its future citizens.  I see the idea 
of "equal opportunity" as necessarily challenging all these areas, and 
all the economic, social, and psychological structures that promote 
inequality of opportunity.  Nothing occurs in a vacuum, and the fabric 
of life is all interconnected.

aside:

Some people may be sufficiently ego-centric that they view themselves as 
a kind of self-created entity, and cannot imagine that the world outside
of themselves can really have anything to do with shaping their 
consciousness.  Such persons are not inclined to examine themselves 
deeply to question their own thought/feeling processes or to view their 
frame of reference in a critical way, because they cannot really imagine 
that there are any other possible frames of reference besides their own.
Paradoxically, they frequently project any discomfort or negative feelings 
they have onto the outside world, viewing it as the "fault" of whatever "other"
has provoked the discomfort within them, and laying the guilt of the 
unacceptable response on the "other".  This is particularly common mindset
among those who have been raised to think of themselves as normative humans -- 
they live with the paradox of believing themselves and their viewpoints 
to be the "only" ones, while believing other kinds of people and frames of 
reference are "wrong" or inferior.  This is an amazing feat, and should 
perhaps be kept in mind when we have these discussions.

    	Arpad, I wish that Catherine had been able to submit her calm,
    	intelligent, articulate reply without having it followed by
    	your remarks about her words being "complete and utter drivel."
    
    	However, I do accept your apology for degenerating this topic
    	into another rathole with your unsolicited personal attacks.
    	
    	One thing I'd like to address with you (since you have made
    	this mistake twice now...)
    
    	>> The person who uses words like "complete and utter drivel"
    	>> now complains about the use of words like "laughable" and
    	>> "unimaginative."
    	
    	> Only when you apply it to the words "justice", "freedom",
    	> and "equality."
    
    	Nowhere have I done this.  My use of these words was as follows:
    
    		"Neither does it take much effort to respond to an
    		exceptionally articulate reply by repeating sections
    		of it word for word (and substituting terms for gender
    		and/or race with their 'reverses.')  *THIS TACTIC*
    		[emphasis added for clarity] has been over-employed
    		to the point where it has gone beyond being merely
    		laughable, unimaginative, dishonest and manipulative.
    		It has become annoying in its predictability."
    
    	Although you misrepresented my replies in a number of other
    	ways, as well, I won't bother refuting the obvious (since you
    	were kind enough to QUOTE my real words along with your
    	misrepresentations in many cases, saving me the trouble now.:-))
    
    	We do have different views, and I don't have a problem with
    	that.  If you can keep from including personal attacks in your
    	notes, you won't have any future problems with me.

    	RE:  .189  Catherine
    
    	> This is particularly common mindset among those who have been
    	> raised to think of themselves as normative humans -- they
    	> live with the paradox of believing themselves and their view-
    	> points to be the "only" ones, while believing other kinds
    	> of people and frames of reference are "wrong" or inferior.
    	> This is an amazing feat, and should perhaps be kept in mind
    	> when we have these discussions.
    
    	It's worth mentioning that women and members of minority groups
    	were raised in the same culture (and got the same messages about
    	being "wrong" or "inferior" as people *ourselves*, along with
    	*our* frames of reference.)  
    
    	Coming to the realization (that the established cultural viewpoint 
    	is both racist and sexist) has been an empowering experience for many
    	of us, but it often takes an enormous amount of courage to be
    	open about this in a culture that is still so overwhelmingly
    	afflicted with both racism and sexism today.
    
    	Thanks again for your thoughts on some of these issues.

    	RE:  .194
    
    	Arpad, it isn't necessary to get down on your knees or anything.
    	I already accepted your apology.
    
    	No need to start getting mushy on me.  :-)
    

    Catherine, thank you for continuing to present your position in
    a calm and rational matter, without resorting to personal insults
    as some others are wont to do.  I for one appreciate it.
    
    And Marge, I applaud your integrity.  It takes a strong person to
    refuse a benefit that is offered to you solely on the basis of
    what you are, rather than what you can do.
    
    
    In some other note, I made an observation about AA that perhaps bears
    repeating.  I think that there are very few people who believe that
    AA is the best solution to the predicament our society has found itself
    in.  AA is the result of our government attempting to effect social
    change in the only way it seems to know how - making arbitrary rules
    and then enforcing them by the "big stick" method.   The disadvantage
    is that it is inherently unfair, and may not ultimately be the most
    effective.  But the advantage is that it works - at least to a degree -
    and it is enforceable.  THAT is the key.
    
    Arpad and others (including myself) would say "hey, why discriminate
    against ME?  I don't oppress women!"  And presuming that was true, that
    would be fine, as far as it goes.  But sadly, such egalitarianism is
    by far the exception than the rule in our society, and it seems 
    desireable to find some method of convincing those who feel otherwise
    to "even the scales".  And furthermore, there is a large degree of
    impatience at work.  People want results TODAY, not thirty years
    from now.
    
    So what to do?  What CAN the government do about it?  Engage in a
    massive education campaign, and say "Pretty please, hire some women
    and minorities - you'll be glad you did"?  Not terribly effective.
    
    Being the sort-of libertarian that I am, I personally wish that
    government would stop trying to meddle in such intrusive fashions as
    AA.  But that would have to be done on a grand scale, affecting
    all aspects of our life, and I just don't see that happening soon.
    
    The easy way, chosen by government, is numbers.  Numbers are simple
    in that you can write them down, people understand them, and you
    can measure against them.  Too simple, perhaps, as it is akin to using
    a blowtorch to light a candle.  But it works, even if some innocents
    get burned in the process.
    
    Those of you who are against AA - do you have any better ideas?  Ideas
    which would get real, measurable results soon?  Ideas that don't cost
    our society much more than what's in place today?  I'd like to hear
    about them.
    
    I'm in the process of reading a recent book by ex-DECcie James P.
    Hogan called "The Mirror Maze".  Part of the vision of the US in the
    year 2000 he shows us is AA sharpened past absurdity - employers being
    required to hire minority workers selected by the government, which
    provides them with fake degrees and work histories, so that the
    employers don't know if the person they're hiring is any good, often
    until it is too late.
    
    I hate what AA does to us - it goes out of its way to tell us that
    some people ARE better than others, just because of their sex or
    ancestry or how they spell their last name - exactly the evil it
    is intending to battle.  The ends attempts to justify the means.
    But does it?  I wish I knew the answer to that.  However, in the
    meantime, I'm willing to accept it in lieu of something better.
    
    				Steve

    	RE:  .196
    
    	> I hate what AA does to us - it goes out of its way to tell
    	> us that some people ARE better than others, just because
    	> of their sex or ancestry or how they spell their last name
    	> - exactly the evil it is intending to battle.
    
    	Steve, in what way do you think this message is promulgated
    	by AA itself (and how does AA itself go out of its way to
    	do this?)
    
    	The message I've always gotten (from the existence of AA) is
    	that our government is not going to allow women and minorities
    	to be systematically blocked out of certain occupations anymore
    	(by making sure that we have at least *some* opportunities now.)
    
    	What is it about AA that (you think) tells us that "some people"
    	are "better"?  (What is your definition of "better" used in this 
    	context, and does "some people" refer to those who benefit from
    	AA?)  Please explain.
    
    	Thanks.

    Re: .197
    
    Sorry, thought that was obvious.  AA says "hire person A instead
    of person B because person A is a woman, or a minority, etc."  It
    implies that person A is better (more qualified) merely on the basis
    of their sex, etc.  Or, the way it is often implemented (such
    as in police officer exams), "person A is worth X amount more (15
    points on an exam, etc.) than person B, solely on the basis of their
    skin color, etc."
    
    Viewed from this perspective, separate from the social goals that
    motivate, it's terrible and discriminatory.  From the larger
    perspective, it's attempting, in a clumsy fashion, to compensate
    for the unwritten but still extant biases in the opposite direction
    that have plagued women and minorites for years.
    
    Is government-imposed bigotry good while cultural bigotry is bad?
    
    Please understand that while I loathe the method chosen by the
    government to implement its social goals, I support those goals and
    thus do not oppose the method (AA).  But I do wish we could find
    a better, more effective and less hurtful way - one in which
    everyone gets a fair shake, and doesn't have to spend the rest of
    their life wondering if they got their job simply because they
    were born a woman, or had black skin, or perhaps a Spanish-sounding
    surname.
    				Steve

    	RE:  .198
    
    	>  Sorry, thought that was obvious.  AA says "hire person A
    	>  instead of person B because person A is a woman, or a minority,
    	>  etc."  It implies that person A is better (more qualified)
    	>  merely on the basis of their sex, etc.
    
    	Thanks.  That message wasn't obvious to me at all, but now I
    	understand a bit better why some people have such strong emotional
    	objections to AA.  (I don't agree, but perhaps I understand
    	a bit more now than I did before.)
    
    	From what you're saying, it seems that AA provides almost a
    	personal insult to someone like person B (who may not get a
    	particular job in cases where AA quotas are being used.)  When 
    	you say, "It implies that person A is better (more qualified) 
    	merely on the basis of their sex, etc.," it starts to sound very
    	personal from the perspective of person B.  Is that what
    	you meant?
    
    	If so, that would "tie in" to all the comments I've heard in
    	this note along the lines of "why should *I* be discriminated
    	against" and "why should *I* be punished?"  It would seem that
    	some people take AA as a personal threat, in some sense.
    
    	Now I think I see why the various perspectives differ so drastically.
    
    	It would seem that some opponents of AA are looking for a world
    	where they will never (EVER!) be turned down for any kind of
    	job/promotion/etc. for being white and male.
    
    	Most people who *support* AA are looking for a world where 
    	women and minorities in general will not be turned down ~100%
    	of the time for their sex/race anymore (as we once were.)  We 
    	already know that minorities will be turned down for their sex/race
    	*some* of the time (and maybe even *most* of the time.)
    
    	We just don't want to be turned down *ALL* the time anymore.
    
    	Affirmative Action hasn't even *begun* to stop women and minorities
    	from being turned down (or treated badly once they are hired)
    	in all cases.  Discrimination against minorities in hiring is
    	still with us on a grand scale.  (I don't know of anyone who
    	ever thought that AA could keep us from being discriminated
    	against in all/most cases.)  AA is not the entire answer to
    	the problems of racism and sexism (not by any means.)
    
    	It gives us *some* opportunities.  Not all the time or most
    	of the time.  Just *some* of the time, in *some* situations.
    
    	Not all women and minorities are in a position to benefit from
    	this -- I know that I'm not.  There are no AA quotas in my current
    	career path (and I'm sure there never will be.)
    
    	I do *not* support AA because I want something for myself.  I support
    	it because I don't want to see women and minorities face a situation
	where young members of our sex/race are slowly starting to be
    	systematically blocked from certain careers again (as was the
    	case before AA.)

    	Perhaps it seems horrifying to think about a world where it is
    	even remotely *possible* that one could experience pain or
    	discomfort (EVER!) because of one's sex or race (i.e., male
    	and white.)
    
    	Myself, I can't even imagine a world where a woman or a person
    	of color might *NOT* (EVER!) experience pain or discomfort because
    	of one's sex or race.  I can only imagine a world where it
    	doesn't happen *most* of the time (and that is the best I have
    	ever dared to hope we could accomplish in my own lifetime.)
    
    	Thanks for your comments, Steve, because now I think I understand
    	what the differences are between the opponents and proponents
    	of AA.  (I don't know how to solve them, but I think I understand 
    	them better now.)

    Re: .199
    
    Perhaps there are some who are against AA because it is a personal
    threat, but I'm not one of them.  (I am neither against AA nor do I
    view it as a personal threat.)  And that wasn't my point, though
    it is likely a valid observation nonetheless.
    
    In fact, I was answering your question of .197, saying why I felt
    that AA told some people that they were better than others because
    of sex, color, etc.   I don't find it necessary to put myself in
    the shoes of "person B" to see that.
    
    What I hoped to do was to show that AA is merely government-imposed
    discrimination, just as morally bankrupt as the cultural discrimination
    it is meant to battle.  But just as you have said you can see why
    some people are opposed to AA, I can see why some people (those
    in the "person A" position, but not all in that position) wouldn't agree 
    with my view of AA's methods, if they view AA as being only "getting
    what I deserve" and not looking at it objectively.
    
    I believe it is necessary to distinguish between and discuss separately
    the goals and the methods of AA.  Furthermore, I believe that it is
    possible to do so without bringing personal involvement into the
    matter.  It's all too easy to dismiss arguments with a "oh, you
    feel that way because you feel threatened", and then refuse to look
    at it from an objective stance.   Unless we remove the emotional
    involvement, we'll just go around in circles.
    
    
    Harking back a moment to the subject of the base note, I don't find
    David Duke's success to be meaningful in the larger picture of AA - but
    it is a reminder that the battle is not won.  If there were a dozen
    or more like him elected to similar offices, I'd really start to worry,
    but I don't see that happening.
    
    					Steve

    RE .199

    I'm rather surprised that you weren't aware of the "this affects me"
    angle - as Steve indicates, it seems patently obvious. Actually,
    there's another way to look at it. If you're passed over in favor of an
    AA selectee, you might think "this says that person is better than me
    due to *x minority status*". On the other hand, the person hired might
    equally well think "this [the fact that AA helped me get the job] means
    that I'm not the best qualified person for this job, and only my
    *x minority status* made them give me the job". So at the purely
    personal level, AA can be somewhat degrading to both sides.

    That's the problem with "programs" - they're dealing with statistics
    and large populations, a macrocosm with a very different perspective
    from the microcosm of the actual people involved.

    As indicated in earlier replies, I'm not an opponent of AA. But at the
    same time, I'm not blind to its effects on the individuals directly
    affected by its workings.

    	RE:  .201
    
    	> I'm rather surprised that you weren't aware of the "this affects
    	> me" angle ...
    
    	Actually, I was well aware that many individuals consider
    	AA as being threatening to white males, in general (and to
    	themselves, as individual white males, in particular.)
    
    	The part that threw me was the concept of "this says that person
    	is 'BETTER' than me due to *x minority status*".  This sounds
    	like much MORE than "this affects me."  It sounds more like
    	an affront to someone's sense of self worth (and if that's what
    	it is, I can sympathize with the feeling, even if I don't agree
    	with this perception of the message he is getting from AA.)
    
    	All I meant to say is that if some/many white males are objecting
    	to AA on the basis that it makes them feel as if others are
    	"better" than they are, then I can understand why they get so
    	uptight about this issue.  (I still don't agree that this is
    	the message being sent out by AA, tho, as I have stated before.)
    
    	> On the other hand, the person hired might equally well think
    	> "this [the fact that AA helped me get the job] means that I'm
    	> not the best qualified person for this job, and only my *x
    	> minority status* made them give me the job".  So at the purely
    	> personal level, AA can be somewhat degrading to both sides.
    
    	There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that any individual
    	who is hired under AA is less qualified than any other individual.
    	If a 'minority req' needs to be filled, companies hire the most
    	qualified minority individual that they can find.  It is entirely
    	possible that this same person was also the most qualified of
    	*ALL* available candidates (in all sexes/races/etc.)
    
    	The person can "think" that perhaps s/he wasn't the best available
    	candidate, but without definite proof, that assumption is totally
    	unfounded.
    
    	.200 Steve Lionel> In fact, I was answering your question of
    	         > .197, saying why I felt that AA told some people that they
    	         > were better than others because of sex, color, etc.

    	Hold the phone.  I've lost score here.  Are you two saying that
    	non-minorities feel they're being told that other people are
    	better, or that minorities are told that they aren't the best
    	qualified person [because they were hired by AA], or are you
    	saying that minorities are being told that they are BETTER than
    	non-minorities because they are hired based on gender/color
    	by AA??  
    
    	AA can't be saying all these things at the same time, so let's
    	make up our minds here.  :-)

    	Well, instead, let me say something here.  I don't think that
    	AA tells anyone ANYTHING about who is "better" than anyone else.
    	What AA says is, "The government is making sure that women and
    	minorities are not systematically blocked from certain occupations
    	anymore."  I don't see where it says ANYTHING to either group
    	about who is better (or who is not.)
    
    	As for what a minority might "think" about being given an opportunity
	because of AA, I'll tell you what I thought when I got my "break"
    	(thanks to AA) in the mid-1970's (since it is the only time
    	that AA has ever affected me directly.)  
    
    	I knew that the television studio (where I was employed) was
    	being forced by the government to use women for two (out of
    	the five) camera positions on a show about the US Bicentennial
    	celebration.  The studio *told* me they were forced to use me
    	(and another woman) in the show, even though they made it clear
    	that they didn't want to do it.  They had no choice.
    
    	Did I feel "better" because I was a woman?  Or did I feel "less
    	than qualified" because the government had to force them to
    	use me?  Neither.  I felt "better" because I *was* better,
    	and I knew it, even though they obviously didn't.  I worked
    	harder than anyone else in that studio, and when the 'guys'
    	were having a smoke break on the set, I would turn up the
    	lights and practice camera shots on my smoking co-workers while
    	they goofed around and laughed every day.  Besides, I'd seen
    	their camera work, and I'd seen mine.  I watched the post-
    	production editing for almost everything we did, and I would
    	watch the finished shows at home later to critique my camera
    	work, and theirs.  I knew I was the best they had at that time,	
    	regardless of whether it took AA to get me into a particular 
    	show or not.  I also knew how good the other woman was.
    
    	After that show, however, they knew how good we were, too, and
    	they told us.  (Later, most of the top people at that studio
    	admitted that they had been prejudiced against women, but that
    	they now knew that men were not "better" at camera than women.)
    	It took AA to show them this, though.  Otherwise, they never
    	would have given women the chance to show what we could do in
    	the "heat of battle" (and they would have wasted some of their
    	best resources.)
    
    	That's what AA is designed to do.  I disagree that it sends
    	any kind of message about "who is better" to anyone.

    	RE:  .202
    
    	.200> What I hoped to do was to show that AA is merely government-
    	.200> imposed discrimination, just as morally bankrupt as the
    	.200> cultural discrimination it is meant to battle.
    
    	.202> It still amazes me that this is not obvious to everyone.
    
    	It's not obvious to everyone because it is not true.  (I'm glad
    	I could clear this one up for you so easily.)  :-)
    
    	Seriously...  I disagree with the above statement (and will
    	add that I think the government felt, and rightly so, that they
    	had a moral obligation to make *sure* that long-oppressed minorities
    	were given employment opportunities in our society.)

    Marge,
    
    Going to the courts takes both time and money. Very often those
    who have been discriminated against in the job market are lacking
    in both.
    
    Bonnie

    Are you an anarchist, Marge?  Or do you mean "...that which governs
    *me* least"?
    
    Clearly, the government that "governs least" is no government at
    all, i.e., anarchy.  And yet I think there are very few people who
    could think through the implications of such a state and remain
    convinced of the dictum.
    
    						=maggie

    
    It seems to me that what AA programs are trying to do is to say
    to hiring managers, "Hey, given the percentage of women and minorities
    there are in this community, your hiring practices ought to reflect
    the diversity of that population."  I have often heard tales of woe 
    about the woman or minority who got hired instead of the more
    qualified white male.  It strikes me that in that scenario there are
    at least two places where racist and/or sexist assumptions could lie.
    
    	1. Maybe the minority or female candidate really is more qualified.
    	   I have often (in the heat of competitions of various sorts)
    	   believed myself to be superior to my opponent, and in many
    	   of those cases, I later decided that I really wasn't the
    	   best candidate (not always, but sometimes.)
    
    	2. The hiring manager is playing out his or her racist or sexist
    	   attitudes by hiring an underqualified candidate to fill a
    	   "quota" of some kind.  Then when the new-hire doesn't work
           out (because of his/her skills, not because of his/her
     	   membership in this EEO-protected group), the hiring manager
    	   can throw up his/her hands, and say, "Well, that's what
    	   happens when you have AA."  
    
    I don't believe that we should take a job away from a qualified
    candidate and give it to an under-qualified candidate, but 1. I
    don't think that happens nearly as often as anecdotal "evidence"
    might suggest and 2. I think it's unnecessary.  AA may be an imperfect
    tool, especially, because it doesn't do much to safeguard against
    racist hiring practices; it just holds some of us accountable to
    numbers.  However I think that working toward a goal of reflecting 
    our cultural diversity in the workplace is an important one.  
                                                                
    I think that without any kind of EEO/AA, exceptionally bright white
    males flourish, and average to slightly above average white males
    also flourish, and the exceptionally bright minorities and women
    get what's left over.  Minorities and women who are not exceptionally
    bright or gifted in some way get mostly left out.  I think that when 
    the government tries to mandate some kind of fairness in hiring with 
    AA programs, exeptional white men still do very well.  Exceptional
    women and minorities do better than they ever did before, and the rest 
    of the resources (e.g., jobs, educational opportunites) get divided
    (more equitably than before) among the rest.  Let's face it if AA
    means that there are more viable candidates, and the number of jobs 
    remains constant, then white men will lose more than they did when the 
    number of candidates was smaller.
    
    Justine             

re .187 (Arpad)
      
>    -< you can be sure someone will take .185 seriously >-
    
    It was meant seriously.

>    Re: .185

>    Is that some kind of joke?
>    If so then it must be feminist humor as it just isn't funny at all.
>    Besides, somebody will take it seriously.
    
    Did you have any substantive critism?
    
>    Anatomically incorrect,
    
    What does this have to do with .185? Or is it how you sign in
    WOMANNOTES? I think this shows a certain lack of respect for members
    of the opposite sex.
    
    Les

re: % in each job

 Catherine et al, it is incorrect to claim that "if we had a non<biased> society,
there would be percentages of people in positions corresponding to their
population." This is true for two reasons. One, it does not take into account
the INTEREST level of each group in each job category. Two, it would make alot
more sense for you to claim that the number of new entrants into a particular
field in the last year would correlate more closely to population. Since we
have had a society where for many years minorities were excluded from certain
professions, it makes sense that minorities would still at any one time be 
underrepresented in any particular field. When all of the people who were hired
during the "racist time" either retire or die, then you can compare populations,
still remembering that it does not take into account interest. Even in an
absolutely perfect society, I doubt that your statistical analysis would
show perfect correlation between race and vocation. I do think it would show
an excellant correlation between interest and vocation, though- and that's what
is important.

 re: who's better wrt  AA

 I don't think that AA tells anyone that they are better for any position than
anyone else. It says that all else being equal- hire the minority in x% of
cases. That is the intent, at least.

 In practice, a minority candidate is seen as having an additional benefit for
any job, since (s)he is also a minority and will help with the percentages. 
Because of this, the person doing the hiring might hire a slightly less 
qualified candidate, since (s)he is also getting a minority in the bargain.

 To me, AA always makes the beneficiary look worse. If you are up against a
minority when going for a job, if they get it, you can always say "Well, I
woulda had the job but <the other> was a minority, and with AA and all..." to 
the nodding heads of agreement. The problem is when a more qualified candidate
happens to be a minority. They are still looked upon as having benefited from
AA while they actually didn't. They are looked down upon equally by the majority.

 The Doctah

    In .159, Mike Zarlenga says...
    
    "I'm trying to avoid a urinating contest, but it should be known
    that Maggie's recount of AA is not correct.  As late as 1982, and
    probably still today, Digital had federally-imposed minority hiring
    quotas."
    
    I have checked this with two senior women in Personnel, one an ER
    Manager, the other a Consultant in Corporate EEO.  The manager, who has
    been at DEC since '81, says she has never heard of any such quota.  The
    Consultant says that as far as she knows, we have no imposed AA quotas
    of any kind,  have never lost or had a contract delayed because of
    non-compliance with EEO requirements, and in fact have numbers that
    look better than those of most corporations.       
    
    						=maggie
     
                                               

(This is from memory, so forgive me if I get the spelling incorrect).

Samuel Flores, who wrote "The Existential Pleasures of Engineering" published
a book of essays in 1981 with a decidedly pro-engineering (and
anti-Luddite) bias.

One of those essays was about why there are [were] so few women in
Engineering.  One of his points was that, traditionally, engineers
came from the "working class" while scientists came from the upper
classes.  He then pointed out that the "working classes" did not
tend to educate their female children as well as their male children.

His remedy was to upgrade the status of engineering so it would be
as respectable as general sciences.

I could dig up the book title if anyone's interested.

Martin.

    <--(.213?)
    
    Marge, Mike's claim was that such quotas certainly existed in 1982 and
    might yet exist today, and that's what my informants were asked to
    address. It's possible that DEC was in such wretched shape at some
    point during the 6 years between the EEO/AA laws (1974) and Reagan's
    election (1980) that there were quotas imposed, but on the available
    evidence it's at least unlikely wouldn't you say?
    
    <--(.216)
    
    Mike, where did you get the basis for your earlier categorical
    assertion? 
    
    
    You state here:  "The only possible explanation (to me) is that DEC,
    not the government, is imposing its own minority hiring quotas." I can
    suggest two other possible solutions to the apparent contradiction: (1)
    the person who claims to have seen the "minority only" flag is mistaken
    or (2) the person who flagged the req was misguided.
                                                        
    						=maggie

    One point in general:  I've seen several references to AA forcing
    people to pass over a more-qualified person in order to hire a
    minority.  First off, minorities are not necessarily under-qualified,
    so it's not clear that the hiring manager is doing the company a
    definite disservice by hiring the minority.  Secondly, as long as
    the chosen candidate is qualified, I don't think there's anything
    intrinsically wrong in not choosing the most-qualified candidate.
    It's a precedented option.  The most-qualified candidate can be
    passed over for various reasons -- you think another candidate will
    get along with your group better or you feel another candidate is
    more motivated or any number of things.
    
    Since more-qualified candidates can and have been passed over, in
    order to show that AA is truly a bad influence, you need to show
    that qualified candidates are being passed over for *unqualified*
    candidates in significant numbers.  Even then, that might not be
    such a terrible thing.  You might want someone who needs training
    so you can train them to your methods and practices.  Strictly
    speaking, I was probably under-qualified when I was first hired.
    Although I had experience with software support, it was in a very
    different environment.  I had no experience with the *type* of products
    we support, let alone the products we sell.  Obviously I don't know
    of what other candidates were interviewed, but I was hired and,
    from my reviews, it seems that I have not disappointed them.
    
    
    Re: .196
    
    >do you have any better ideas?
    
    Not that I'm entirely against AA, but I've already presented mine.
    
    >Ideas which would get real, measurable results soon?
    
    Depends on what "soon" is.  Given the size of the problem, I don't
    expect complete success (or even 90% success) for at least a couple
    of decades.  After all, this is a major shift in societal attitudes
    and priorities we're discussing.
    
    >Ideas that don't cost our society much more than what's in place
    >today?
    
    Cost in terms of what?  Money?  Time?  Energy?  Stress?  I don't
    know how much we're spending these days.  But I seems to me that
    an active attempt to solve the problem (which is the only good option
    I see) will cost more than a superficial band-aid.
    
    >Part of the vision of the US in the year 2000 he shows us is AA
    >sharpened past absurdity - employers being required to hire minority
    >workers selected by the government
    
    I doubt this will happen.  Given the fact that the pool of new entrants
    to the workforce is shrinking now that the baby boomers are grown
    up, employers will have to start hiring whomever they can get to
    fill their positions.  AA won't force them to hire under-qualified
    workers, the job market will.  They'll simply have to invest more
    in training.  That's why it makes sense to me to invest money earlier,
    starting with grade 1, to ensure the basic skills are in place.
    Hopefully this will increase the number of qualified people and reduce
    training time for those who need to learn skills.
                                                                

    in re .216
    
    Mike, do you really, honestly, mean to suggest that all people
    who can't afford to go to court to argue discrimination cases
    can just blithely go off to the ACLU and expect that they will have
    the time and money to handle their cases? Or did you mean to imply
    that there are so few cases that the ACLU as it exists can easily
    handle them?
    
    I think it is unreasonable for anyone assume that the courts system,
    especially given how over loaded our courts are, is going to provide
    a solution to job discrimination. 
    
    Bonnie

    Indeed, Bonnie!  As I pointed out in Shyamala Rajender's case, the
    court action took TEN YEARS even though there was an overwhelming
    amount of evidence in her favor.
    
    						=maggie 

    Well, Bonnie, perhaps Mike thinks that the ACLU has time machines.
    How else could he think that they could resolve these cases in the
    timely fashion that the plaintiffs really need?  (It also solves
    the financing problem:  Go back 200 years and invest some gold.
    Modify your investment every 30 to 50 years.)
    
    						Ann B.

    
    RE: .216, .218
    
    	In this particular instance the minority or woman requirment had
    	been written by hand on the job req.  The thing that makes it
    	really hard to understand is that the particular organization 
    	looks like the UN.
    
    	This is only one example (I know of two others) of this sort of
    	thing happening.  I am not going to get into the right or wrong 
    	aspects of AA, I am only trying to point out that it DOES happen.
    
    
					- A.J.
    
    	PS   I would like to see the discussion move more in the following
    	   direction.  What should be our objective?  A totally 
    	   color/gender blind socitey?  If we can agree thats  what we want
    	   then maybe we can discuss how to get there.  
    
    	   I 'll say it first: " I would like to see hiring practices based
    	   solely on merit, with no regard to race/gender".
    
    		who else agrees with me?
    
    	   Now if you agree with this maybe we can rationally discuss a 
    	   way to reach this goal.

    Re: .224, .226
    
    How do you define merit?

    <--(.225)
    
    I can believe it, Marge.  It wasn't really my intention to argue that
    there never have been INternal quotas imposed on local organisations,
    I'd guess that's one of the main reasons why we're in such good shape
    today.  My argument was that it's unlikely, on the evidence, that
    there've ever been the FEDERALLY-imposed quotas at DEC as Mike asserted
    there were. 
               
    Call me what you like, if I were ever to inherit an organisation that
    were badly enough balanced that it could get me in trouble with the
    feds, you can bet your last shekel that I'd get my quotas in there
    first.  If my managers couldn't get with the program without numbers,
    then I'd see whether they could get there _with_ numbers.  And then
    find them new work if they tried to hire duds out of spite. 
                                      
                                              =maggie

Re: < Note 461.224 by CADSE::SANCLEMENTE >

>     	   I 'll say it first: " I would like to see hiring practices based
>   	   solely on merit, with no regard to race/gender".
>    
>    		who else agrees with me?

    I certainly agree with that as a goal, although I don't think you're
    the first to say it in this note-string.  Now, what are the options for
    achieving, maintaining and monitoring it in a reasonable time-frame,
    given where we're starting from?

    I apologize if I have already posted this article someplace else
    in this conference.
    
>          <<< Note 461.140 by PACKER::WHARTON "Is today a holiday?" >>>
>
>    I would like to ask those who think that AA is reverse discrimination
>    to tell me again, how is it reverse discrimination? How does it
>    discriminate against a non-minority/none-female person? Don't just
>    say, "it's discriminatory." Tell me how so. Give me examples.
    
>   _karen


The following is taken from "The Albuquerque Tribune,"  9 Aug., 1988,
p. A4.  This was an editorial article by Guy Wright.


		NEW LIEUTENANT'S BARS LOSE TEHIR SHINE

  Johnny Lo should be one happy fellow.  He's a brand new lieutenant in 
the San Francisco Fire Department, promoted along with 80 other men
under Judge Marilyn Hall Patel's civil rights order that put race above
merit.  And that's the rub.
  Lo would have won promotion anyhow, because he scored high on the 
competitive exam that the judge threw out.  And because his lieutenant's
bars didn't come that way, they lost a lot of their shine.
  He wrote to Patel: "I thought being appointed lieutenant would be one 
of the happiest days of my Fire Department career."
  Then he explained why it wasn't: "It is very difficult to be in a 
position of authority over men who deserved the same promotion, but because
they were not the right race this year, they received no reward for the 
time and effort they invested.  I can understand their bitterness because I
know how I would feel if I were in their position."
  He concluded:  "Please reconsider the way you have handled this difficult
problem.  there must be a better solution."
  Indeed there must.
  Because the promotional exam didn't produce a racial rainbow, Patel 
decided it must have been biased, and she declared the results invalid.
  But first, she used those results to decree promotions in a manner that
smacks of apartheid.  She divided the 400-odd candidates by race.  Then she
promoted an arbitrary number from each race, based on how well they 
scored within their racial group.
  
  As a result, many white firefighters who scored high were passed over for
promotion and are now taking orders from minority colleagues who scored
far below them.

  Promotional exams in the Fire Department are killers.  They have to be,
what with all the exotic chemiclas, synthetic building materials, and
spaceage construction firefighters encounter today.
  No one does well on these exams without months of study.  Most who 
finish high have taken a fire science course at City College on their
own time.  But under Patel's order, promotions went to men who leaped
far ahead simply because of their skin color.
  That was the injustice that turned Johnny Lo's promotion bittersweet.
But he did more than express disappointment.  He told the judge how she
could reduce the injustice of her ruling.
  His suggestion:  "Allow the list to run its course."
  He was talking about a list of all the firefighters who took the exam,
ranked according to their scores.  Normally that list is posted and
remains the basis for promotions for two to four years.

  But Patel junked the list after using it in a twisted way to fill racial
quotas.  As Lo pointed out, she could show a sense of fairness by permitting 
its use for the rest of its normal life as the basis for strictly merit 
promotions.

  She is unlikely to do that.  Early in this case, she decided to put group
justice above justice to the individual.  In signing her decree she said:
  "It is both fair and reasonable to require those who have been the "passive
beneficiaries" of the past discrimination to bear some of the burden in
remedying the harm caused to others."

  Common sense says not every firefighter has benefitted from discrimination.

  On the contrary, many have seen their careers stunted - some are still 
denied promotions the won 10 years ago.
  Too bad Judge Patel's sense of justice isn't as clear as Johnny Lo's.

                       

    	RE:  .231
    
    	Well, it's too bad that Johnny Lo doesn't recognize that without
    	the social changes that have occurred since the inception of
    	programs like AA, he could have had the highest score in the
    	history of the Fire Department (but wouldn't have had a real
    	chance of seeing *any* kind of promotion because of the routine
    	sort of discrimination that would block out even the most
    	remarkably talented women and minorities because of their sex
    	and/or race.)
    
    	Let's not forget that AA was started because women and minorities
    	couldn't even get in the door of careers that were dominated
    	by white males (and even SINCE the inception of AA, there are
    	still some employers who will overlook the exceptionally high
    	qualifications of minority individuals because of prejudice.)
    
    	I don't blame Johhny Lo for wanting people to know that he scored
    	high on his exam (and deserved the promotion apart from minority
    	considerations.)
    
    	However, the problem was with the implementation of the program,
    	and not with the basic guidelines of the program itself.
    
    	We should "fix" the person who made the decision to grant promo-
    	tions in this particular fashion (which was obviously this 
    	individual's personal decision and not an order from the govern-
    	ment) rather than using her mistake to damn the whole thing.

    As several people have asked, John Wray being the most recent and
    Steve Lionel next most I think:
    
    If you don't like AA, but you do think EEO is the right idea, then
    PROPOSE AN ALTERNATE SOLUTION THAT WILL PRODUCE DOCUMENTABLE EEO.
    
    Without proposing a program that will have a measurable effect on the
    current imbalance that has resulted from entrenched UEO (_UN_equal
    Employment Opportunity), any claim that AA is unacceptably unfair is
    just so much pious, self-serving rhetoric.  Just because something is
    bad doesn't mean making it go away is better! 
                                                                     
    	                                          =maggie

    <--(.234)
    
� Frankly, I am surprised that the advocates of AA haven't commented on your 
� ideas.

    Les is an acknowledged Radical, Arpad, something like one of the Red
    Trade Unionists in the '20s; he's allowed to say utterly outrageous
    things without having them ripped to shreds by _both_ sides.  In some
    ways, he's the analog of Tom Krupinski, who says utterly outrageous
    Reactionary things without getting shredded by you and your mob (tho
    there may be some differences there:  I'm not sure you guys regard
    Tom's stuff as being outrageous :'}
    
    						=maggie 

    	RE: .234
    
    	> I was laughing throughout most of it.
    
    	Arpad, where is the respect for ideas that you asked for (some
    	replies back)?
    
    	> ...these ideas are beyond even AA.
    
    	That's the whole point of what he is trying to suggest (i.e.,
    	that we go "beyond" AA.)  It is a suggestion for additional
    	programs, that's all.
    
    	> Frankly, I am surprised that the advocates of AA haven't
    	> commented on your ideas.
    
    	Why?  He listed some ideas for programs that fall in line with
    	his basic political philosophy.  Unless the political climate
    	in our country changes drastically in the next decade or so,
    	we are unlikely to see programs like the ones he suggested go
    	into effect.
    
    	If we are discussing AA in terms of whether it should exist
    	at all (or not,) then I see no point in discussing aspects of
    	it that don't currently exist (and have little chance to exist.)
    
    	> It was simply in the context of AA and my views on how AA
    	> and feminism tie in together with unequal opportunity for
    	> males.
    
    	Your views of feminism are not the issue in this topic.  AA
    	is a program that benefits women and minorities, and as such,
    	it has had the support of people and groups that want women
    	and minorities to have equal opportunities.  
    
    	Feminists are only a subset of the larger group of advocates
    	of AA.  Feminism is not the topic being discussed here.

    For the record, I should have made clear in my .245 that although I
    perceive Les as saying "outrageous" things, that's just me being
    empathetic with the Conservatives and Reactionaries who are actually
    the ones experiencing the outrage.  The Red Trade Unionists and their
    spiritual ilk are indirectly responsible for much of what is bearable
    about the modern industrialised workplace, and as such are owed thanks
    of all of us, Liberal and Conservative alike.  Workers like Les Slater
    here and Winton Davies in the UK are carrying on a proud tradition. 
    
    						=maggie

    Yes, Steve, that is indeed the same article that you've posted
    before.
    
    Come now, people!  If Affirmative Action is such a big problem,
    shouldn't *someone* have been able to find another example of it
    in the last six months?
    
    Did anyone else read the feature article in "Time" last week?  It
    demonstrates (among other things) that Johnny would have had the
    *same* problems no matter how he achieved his promotion.  He could
    have a gold star tattooed on his forehead, and Caucasian males would
    still question his abilities and authority.
    
    							Ann B.

There are things that can be done that will eventually yield EEO without
AA.  None of them offer short-term solutions with *direct* connection
between cause and effect.  They will also be attacked as Big Brother
Big Government Socialism (etc.) and will probably prove unacceptable
politically.  In part:

-- Free education (no tuition at any state-supported school at any level)
   with readily available student loans.  25% of the loan is forgiven
   upon graduation, more (all?) if the graduate works <x> years in
   socially-necessary occupations (teaching and nursing, for example).

-- National Health and child-welfare programs that focus on preventing
   infant malnutrition.  (Infant malnutrition results in poor brain
   development which, in turn, blocks the individual from high-status
   work).

-- Child-centered programs such as day care that make it possible for
   parents to participate in the workplace.  This alleviates some of
   the "Mommy Track" causes for low-paid workers.  Note that day care
   also creates entry-level, but responsible jobs for, primarily, women.

-- Full employment (as in the 1930's WPA/NRA).

"Minority" is, to some extent, a code word for "poor."  We can't hire
the children of poor parents for high-tech jobs if the kids didn't
eat enough for their brains to fully develop, couldn't afford
college, couldn't find a summer job, etc. etc.

Martin.

Ps: I also claim that the above will lower crime and drug problems.

re .235

>	In some ways, he's the analog of Tom Krupinski, who says utterly 
>	outrageous Reactionary things without getting shredded by you and 
>	your mob (tho there may be some differences there:  I'm not sure 
>	you guys regard Tom's stuff as being outrageous :'}
    
	I don't know why, but I had expected better from you, than such a 
	offensive personal attack. Just goes to show...

						Tom_K

    re .234 (Arpad)
    
>    I thought that the gist of what you wrote in .185 was an attempt by you to 
>show the ills of AA through humor. I was laughing throughout most of it.
>I had obviously misunderstood your intent and must now re-read it in a 
>serious light.
    
    Thank you for reading my .185 and responding to it seriously. Quite
    often, what I write is *so* different than what is expected, that
    it is misunderstood. I can be flippant sometimes, but I try to make
    it clear that is what I am doing. However, you will very seldom
    see me use the smily face :-). Anyway, in .185, I was being very
    serious.
 
>    When many (most?) advocates of AA are saying that given equal 
>qualifications, a minority individual, or a female should be hired you 
>wrote:

>>             ... How does affirmative action fit in with this? In my
>>    opinion, one thing that it is *not*, is *just* equal opportunity.
>>    I think that it *must* include *preferential* opportunities. This
>>    *will* mean that a *lesser* qualified, woman and/or national minority
>>    *should* be hired or promoted over the white male.

>The above paragraph is frightening!
    
    I think this is pretty clear, I do not see why it is frightening.
    And I think this is what affirmative action is. A couple of notes
    back Steve Marshall entered a note about court mandated promotion
    practices by racial quota. This *is* what I am talking about and
    I support it. I do not support every aspect of it or how it may
    be implemented but most attacks against it are not against a particular
    shortcoming but against affirmative action itself.
    
>You contradict yourself here. First you say that there should be 
>preferential opportunities for minorities/women, and then you write that
     
>>    Equal opportunity will *not* work as long as we perpetuate an *unequal*
>>    social base, and the social base is becoming less equal under present
>>    circumstances and promises to get much worse. How can we expect
>>    .......

>Could you please clarify this difference? Are you saying that some people 
>should be more equal than others?
    
    I try not to contradict myself. I said that a *preferential* (ie
    not equal) hiring and promotion mechanism (affirmative action) should
    be used to promote bringing people closer to equality. I said that
    the present social base does not have equal opportunities. I am in
    favor of unequal methods to remedy this.
    
    I am willing to recognize that people have not had the same
    opportunities in the past and this will continue into the future
    as long as *only* equal opportunity is offered now. It is sort of
    like a boxing match where one of the boxers just hit his opponent
    over the head with a 2x4 while the referee conveniently looked
    the other way. The one boxer is brought to his feet (with birds
    chirping around his head) and told that we are sorry for this *past*
    incident and we will now proceed as equals.
 
>>    Society must face this! We cannot point to some other level that
>>    is not *our* responsibility. In the McDonalds case above we should
>>    insist that members of the community that want those jobs should
>>    be fairly represented by racial and sexual categories and if their
>>    "qualifications" are not up to the competition, then we must make
>>    allowances for this. We should let the woman or National minority
>>    be hired in this case but let them attend 2 hours of the workday at
>>    school *with pay*.
    
>I'm amazed. First you say that an underqualified minority/woman should be 
>hired over a qualified white male candidate, then upgrade their education 
>at who's expense?
    
    See below.

>It is bad enough that AA is legislated discrimination, but these ideas are 
>beyond even AA.
    
    Yes, I do not think that affirmative action by itself (certainly
    as it is now implemented) will not bring social justice. And I am
    not talking about some ideal society here, I'm talking about a society
    where people will have a reasonable expectation of making it, according
    to their own abilities, not the color of their skin, their gender,
    or religious or political beliefs.
    
    It will take a major commitment by society.
    
>>    This sort of thing should be done at all levels of occupations.
>>    And yes, this should go all the way up to the brain surgeon or
>>    whatever other high level of skill. The less qualified (not ninth
>>    grader here, but maybe a little less qualified) should be used as
>>    an assistant, but with the *same* pay as the regular brain surgeon.
>>    Again, this assistant should get extra training opportunities *while*
>>    on the job and be paid for them.
>>
>>    And the government should pay any extra costs that these workplaces
>>    incur because of these policies. This would require drastically
>>    different priorities on the governments part as to where the wealth
>>    and resources of our society went. And the workweek should be shortened
>>    so that there will be many more jobs to go around.
    
    The above paragraph begins to explain your earlier question of who
    would pay.

>It is suggestions such as those above that will never endear AA to business.
>If business = government, then there will be very little acceptance of AA 
>by business unless or until their profit margins are maintained.
    
    This may be a serious problem for business. But why should we pay
    for *their* problems. It might be *more* profitable to hire children
    starting at age six, or maybe... re-institute slavery.
      
>Government legislation which will (at the very least) threaten 
>profitability will have little chance of implementation by business. And 
>business does the hiring.
    
    Business should obey the law and government should enforce the law.
    If we do not have a government that enforces these laws, then we
    should find a new government.

>>And while the goal of equal opportunity is a goal which should be achieved 
>>eventually, AA may not be the way, and most certainly additional 
>>legislation which threatens to erode profits, has an even lesser chance of 
>>survival let alone success. Regardless of wherever your politics falls, I 
>>think we must accept that we are a profit-driven society.
    
    Never mind politics here, any society must make a long term profit
    or they will decline and maybe die. A society must produce *more*
    than it consumes. The only question remains is: What are these
    surpluses used for, who controls them, and to who's benefit?
    
>>    And how do we expect women to have *equal* opportunity when child
>>    care is so hard to find and/or is so expensive and/or of such poor
>>    quality? Child care should be free or very inexpensive and plentifully
>>    available to all who need it.

>Who would pay for this child care? Who is responsible for the child's
>care?
    
    This begs the question. Do we favor women having an opportunity to
    work at her level of capability? Do we also favor a decent environment
    for the development of children? If we say yes to both these questions,
    then we must find a way of allowing this. Saying it is the family's
    responsibility brings the woman or the child down or at least adds
    an enormous (read unequal) burden on the woman.
    
    The only answer to this is that it is the responsibility of society
    as a whole, to provide whatever mechanisms and resources from its
    productive surplus to accommodate this.
                
>>    Another area that we cannot treat women the same as men is in the
>>    area of childbirth. Childbirth and child rearing is a fundamental
>>    necessity for society. Why should the family, and the woman primarily,
>>    be held responsible for this function to the detriment of her earning
>>    potential?
>>    
>>    Employers should be required to give *extra* allowances for the
>>    childbearing role of women. There should be maternity pay and extra
>>    training when the woman comes back to work.
>>    
>>    And of course, how can anyone say they are giving the women the
>>    *same* opportunities when she is not allowed to control her own
>>    body? We should end all government, church, and other family members
>>    rights to decide reproductive questions for the woman. Abortion
>>    procedures should be available and affordable to all. And no forced
>>    sterilization.
    
>I guess I should have taken this note seriously before. I found that with 
>the contradictions, the suggested preferential treatment for minorities 
>and women (women particularly in light of the feminist movement), all under 
>the guise of equal opportunity, which as you've written apparently 
>illustrates implies anything but equal opportunity.
    
    I hope I have cleared up what you (and I am certain others) have
    seen as contradictions.

>Frankly, I am surprised that the advocates of AA haven't commented on your 
>ideas.
    
    I believe Catherine has commented on these ideas and seems to agree
    with at least part. I have also gotten support off line.

>>                                  -< race too? >-
>I have no idea whatsoever as to what you may have meant by that.


>>>    Anatomically incorrect,
>>    
>>    What does this have to do with .185? Or is it how you sign in
>>    WOMANNOTES? I think this shows a certain lack of respect for members
>>    of the opposite sex.
    
>I thought it was simple and obvious as to what I meant with "Anatomically 
>incorrect,". I won't make the mistake of thinking that something is simple  
>enough to understand again, so I'll explain it to you. In light of the 
>current theme in this topic (that is AA etc) and how you were proposing 
>that women be afforded better opportunities than males, I believe that 
>how I signed off was appropriate and not intended to be offensive. It had 
>everything to do with .185! If you believe that it shows a certain lack 
>of respect for members of the opposite sex, then I suggest you are reading 
>far more into it than was ever there. It was simply in the context of AA 
>and my views on how AA and feminism tie in together with unequal 
>opportunity for males.
    
    I have a hard time seeing things "simply." I guess I was offended
    by the off-hand summing up what your feeling were on this subject
    with this sign-off. "Anatomically incorrect" implies that you are
    the grieved, the victim, with respect to sexual and racial bias.
    I believe this *is* a narrow view.
    
    Women and/or racial minorities *are* the grieved, the victims with
    respect to sexual and/or racial bias in hiring, promotion, housing,
    education, and other areas. I think others in this file and in this
    note have shown this quite well. I think *that* is obvious and should
    be accepted.
    
    Affirmative action is one *necessary* component of the rectification
    of these injustices. I also do not believe that there is much
    difference between David Duke's opposition to affirmative action
    and that of the mainstream.
    
    Les

 I agree with Martin's note and I feel that the best solution to the problem is
through education and improved conditions for the future generations of <your
favorite minority group>. 

 One of the problems which I see demonstrated in this note is the current demand
for or belief in a "quick fix".  The only lasting solution to the problem which
AA/EEO is trying to solve is through education.  That won't solve the problem
today, nor tomorrow, but our children will be much more integrated than we are.
 As we are much more integrated than our parents were. 

 To me, one of the lessons of history is that you can't change society
overnight. Even bloody revolutions have only had a historically short term
effect on society. I am not advocating complacency; but let's use our energy,
intelligence and drive to solve the *PROBLEM*, not to provide a short term fix
to some of the *SYMPTOMS*. Yes, it will take a generation or two to achieve the
desired result, but isn't something this important worth a little effort? :-)

 In my opinion,short-term "fixes" may have a retrograde effect, in that they may
move the focus of discrimination and prejudice from one group to another. Are we
in fact empowering a white male special interest group (such as the Klan) by the
actions which are being taken to suppress discrimination??  That _would_ be
ironic! 


			Nigel

    	RE:  .242
    
    	Nigel, I see what you are saying, but I don't think it is fair
    	to ask people who have NEVER had justice in this country to
    	wait and hope that PERHAPS their grandchildren (or their grand-
    	children's grandchildren) might see it.
    
    	That sounds fine in theory (about it being worth the wait,)
    	but if we can't expect to see changes until after we're dead,
    	that's asking a lot.  (That's asking too much, in fact.)
    
    	It's easy for some members of the majority to suggest it because
    	they aren't the ones that would have to give up all ideas of
    	justice in their lifetimes in exchange for vague promises that	
    	their descendents might fair better.
    
    	We have no reason in the world to trust that things will get
    	better when the last 100 years (since the abolition of slavery)
    	has seen so little change for people of color, and the last
    	70 years (since women won the right to vote) have seen so few
    	changes for women (*BEYOND* what programs like AA have
    	accomplished, that is.)
    
    	Arguing against programs like AA because of increased racism
    	and sexism doesn't make sense in an historical sense.  We needed 
    	AA because of racism and sexism.  Getting rid of AA because of an 
    	increase in the very racism and sexism that it was designed to offset
    	is not progress.  It means we would be giving in to racism and
    	sexism instead of fighting it.
    
    	We can't let ourselves be ruled by the very hatred and bigotry
    	that put us in this predicament in the first place.  It would
    	make no sense.
    
    	If opponents of AA are so "hot" on the "Why can't you be willing
    	to wait" idea, then surely they should be willing to wait another
    	100 years for AA to end (if we promise that 100 years should
   	be sufficient to accomplish our goals.)
    
    	The argument of opponents of AA is "why should *I* be affected?"
    	In light of that, how you can ask women and minorities to give
    	up all hope of personally seeing progress (expecting us to be
    	happy to imagine our descendents having it possibly instead?)

>       Getting rid of AA because of an 
>    	increase in the very racism and sexism that it was designed to offset
>    	is not progress.  It means we would be giving in to racism and
>    	sexism instead of fighting it.

 Your logic is faulty on this point, Suzanne. If we accept the premise that AA
has caused an increase in the very racism and sexism [sic] that it was designed
to offset (and I'm not saying I do), than AA is clearly counterproductive. 
If you burn your hand over a match, then attempt to stop the burning by putting
it on a hot stove- you are not making progress. Removing your hand from the 
stove does not indicate that you are giving in to the idea that you ought to be
burned by the lit match- it merely shows a recognition of the fact that putting
one's hand on the stove is not an acceptable alternative.

 The Doctah

    Re: .243
    
    >I rather doubt that because I, as an individual, am opposed to
    >AA, after having been its' victim once, and not having a ready
    >alternative handy, that any claim I may have is "just so much pious,
    >self-serving rhetoric.".
    
    1.  It's rather unlikely that *anyone* will see their own arguments
    as pious, self-serving rhetoric.
    
    2.  It is not necessarily true that your arguments are rhetoric.
    However, by your own admission, you have an axe to grind with AA.
    This does make it more likely that you will indulge in rhetoric.
    Because you are personally and emotionally involved in the issue,
    it can be harder for you to take an objective or broader view.
    
    >Can one just disagree without a counter-proposal?
    
    Sure.  But it implies that you'd rather just sit around and complain
    rather than do something, which is not a flattering picture.

re: .244:
    
    	We have no reason in the world to trust that things will get
    	better when the last 100 years (since the abolition of slavery)
    	has seen so little change for people of color, and the last
    	70 years (since women won the right to vote) have seen so few
    	changes for women (*BEYOND* what programs like AA have
    	accomplished, that is.)

This shows a very limited view of the changes that have actually occurred
outside of AA for racial minorities and women.  Among which are:

-- the end of segregation, in education, the military, public accomodation.
-- women/minorities elected to public office.
-- women and minorities as radio/television announcers (used to be that women
   were barred from radio because their voices were considered less
   understandable than men) and minorities were only considered for programs
   aimed at minority offices.  (Did Bill Cosby get his job through AA?)
-- women/minority access to higher education for the middle/working classes.
-- the pill, which gave women reproductive freedom.
-- fractional-horsepower electric motors, that minimized the need for
   strength in many occupations (not to mention housework).  The electric
   starter made the home automobile practical for people with limited
   strength.  Before the electric starter, there were few women drivers.
   The electric motor also minimized the amount of time needed to maintain
   a household, making it easier for women to enter the larger workforce.

You might consider asking someone in their 80's what life was like 70
years ago.

Martin.

    	RE:  .245
    
    	Your analogy doesn't work.  Not by a long shot.
    
    	Try this one instead.
    
    	If your house is on fire and the fire department comes along
    	to put your fire out, let's say that the use of water in the
    	firehose causes the neighboring houses to have less water 
    	available.
    
    	So, instead of saying, "Well, for the good of these people and
    	the neighborhood, I guess we can stand to be low on water for
    	awhile," people come running out of their houses demanding that
    	the fireman stop using up their water (because they need coffee
    	and want to take showers.)
    
    	(Oh, and by the way, the fire started in the first place because
    	the neighbors who are now trying to keep the water for themselves
    	also tried to keep the gaslines to themselves but did it badly,
    	causing the house to have a gas explosion.)
    
    	Only now the neighbors are each saying, "Well, I wasn't home
    	when the gaslines were tampered with, so why should I be made	
    	to go without my coffee or my shower because of something someone
    	else did" (and "If you use our water to save this house, it'll
    	only make us so grumpy that we'll take our caffeine-deprived
    	and sweaty selves over to the house and burn it down anyway!")
    
    	So meanwhile, the house burns down, the neighborhood looks
    	terrible and the neighbors spend so much time arguing with each
    	other about who fiddled with the gaslines (and who was the one
    	who insisted that they shouldn't help put out the fire,) that
    	one day the whole neighborhood explodes (just from tension alone.)
    
    	How's that?  :-)  :-)

    	RE:  .247
    
    	Oh yeah, Martin, I forgot about the 100 lines of disclaimers
    	for you.  Excuse me.
    
    	>> ...[since] we have seen so few changes for women (*BEYOND*
    	>> what programs like AA have accomplished, that is.)
    
    	> This shows a very limited view of the changes that have
    	> actually occurred outside of AA for racial minorities and
    	> women.  Among which are:  [etc.]
    
    	Martin, programs like AA, desegregation, and hell, even birth
    	control, are part of the total work of the movements to gain
    	rights and/or opportunities for women and minorities.
    
    	Perhaps I should have taken an extra 100 lines or so to include
    	all the things you mentioned, but I keep forgetting that I need
    	dozens of footnotes and disclaimers to make you happy when I
    	make general comments that involve an historical perspective.
    
    	Perhaps it would help if I just included a long list of reference
    	books at the end of my notes (so that it will be clear that
    	I do not intend to encapsulate all history at once when I make
    	a simple sentence about the experiences of women and minorities
    	in this country, encouraging the reader is to do furthur study on 
    	his or her own.)

    Potential rathole alert, but let's hope not:
    
    In order to be really and truly consistent, people who think that
    AA should be abolished, that progress is being made and the rate
    of progress without AA is acceptable -- should also believe that
    the end of apartheid in South Africa need not really be accomplished
    for another several years.  After all, there *has* been significant
    progress over the last few years.  If we just let the South Africans
    continue on that course, the problem will eventually be solved,
    n'est-ce pas?

    	RE:  Arpad (.180, etc.)
    
    	Arpad, you've mentioned a number of times that you have been
    	the "victim" of AA, and here is where you described it (back
    	in .180)...
    
    	> At one time a few years ago there was an opening at a firm
    	> at which both a female and I were employed on a contract basis.
    	> A full time opening became available.  We both had two dependents.
	> We were both aptly qualified except I had more business experience
	> than she did, which BTW was a necessary qualification....The
    	> only other difference was our genders.  Guess who got the
    	> job?...She really played on everyone's emotions. Poor single
    	> mother, despicable ex-husband, woe-is-me, etc.  What could
    	> I do?  I was anatomically incorrect.  I could only hope that
    	> our qualifications would settle the matter.  (Oh such a dream
    	> world I was in then.)...
    
    	Arpad, if the woman had to "play on everyone's emotions" to
    	get the job, she was not hired as part of an AA quota.
    
    	AA doesn't work like that.
    
    	Is it possible that you felt that people gave her the job because
    	she was a woman (but that, in fact, an actual AA quota had nothing
    	to do with it?)

    Fine, Arpad.  Whose authority?  And on whose authority do you have
    it that *your* business experience was better than hers and -- this
    is the kicker -- that your experience was of a positive nature
    (i.e., that you did not alienate more people than you charmed)?
    
    Oh, yes, one more thing.  Since women had been paid less than men
    for the same work for many generations on the grounds that men "have
    a family to support", why should she not have used this argument
    that has been considered valid for men for so long?
    
    							Ann B.

    	RE:  .255
    
    	> Quotas were in effect, and playing on everybody's emotions
    	> did not weaker her position.  In fact, I have it on authority
    	> that it most definitely helped.
    
    	If quotas had been in effect, then play-acting and/or "playing
    	on everyone's emotions" would not have had any affect whatsoever
    	(except possibly to help her get the job over another minority,
    	which is doubtful since overt displays of emotion by women is
    	seen as such a "weakness" at the workplace.)
    
    	When quotas are in effect, it doesn't matter who cries (the
    	minority or the white male.)  They hire the most qualified woman
    	or minority PERIOD, and sympathy for the minority has no bearing
    	on it.
    
    	It sounds to me like you have only been the "victim" of rumor,
    	gossip, urban legend (whatever you want to call it) that often
    	happens when women are hired over men.  ("Oh, she only got the
    	job because she is a woman." or  "They probably **HAD** to hire a
    	woman for that job.")

    	There is no way that the woman was hired on a quota if you say
    	that her "play on emotions" got her the job.  The two are completely
	different things.
    
  	It still sounds to me like you feel that she got the job for
    	being a woman, but that doesn't necessarily mean that AA was
    	directly involved.  (AA rarely is.)
    
    	You are confused between two different phenomena.

>    	It sounds to me like you have only been the "victim" of rumor,
>    	gossip, urban legend (whatever you want to call it) that often
>    	happens when women are hired over men.  
    
    Sounds more like a simple fox and grapes story, colored with a bit
    of sexism here and there, than anything else.         

>    However, by your own admission, you have an axe to grind with AA.
>    This does make it more likely that you will indulge in rhetoric.
>    Because you are personally and emotionally involved in the issue,
>    it can be harder for you to take an objective or broader view.
 
 How eloquent. This perfectly describes all women and minorities since they are
all affected one way or another by AA. Does this mean that all women and 
minorities are more likely to engage in rhetoric and polemics? I doubt it.
It seems to me that everyone is affected by AA in some way whether positively
or negatively. To say that because of this we are all more likely to engage in
rhetoric is rubbish.

 Chelsea- by your definition, anyone who is for or against AA is unable to
speak about it on a purely logical basis (at least that's what it looks like).
It kind of rules out any logical discussion. While that may be true in this 
forum, certainly it cannot be true everywhere. :-)

 The Doctah

    	RE:  .259
    
    	> You do realize that the house burning down (the small picture)
    	> can be likened to the white male being the wrong race for
    	> the job req?
    
    	On the contrary.  What I realize is that if some white males
    	got flushed from standing too close to the fire, they'd ask
    	the firemen to forget about saving the house and worry more
    	about *their* problems instead (letting the house burn down.)
    

>    	Your analogy doesn't work.  Not by a long shot.

 No, it doesn't cater to your neat and tidy view of things, but it does work.
In any case, your logic on that matter is faulty, LION.

 The Doctah

    Levesque,
    
    Since Arpad speaks only in terms of the personal, and insists that
    his experience may be extrapolated to infinity without applying
    any corrective factors, it is legitimate to mention to him that
    it is possible to take the personal too far.
    
    Others, who may find themselves close to the problem, have shown
    themselves to be aware of the pitfall, by citing exact sources,
    and numbers whenever possible.  For example, when Suzanne gave her
    personal experience with Affirmative Action, she made it clear that
    this was *her* experience -- and that of the woman hired with her.
    
    You will notice that other people writing in this note in favor
    of Affirmative Action do not speak of having such personal experiences.
    Their writing demonstrates that they are speaking on the behalf
    of others, rather than themselves.
    
    Now, since you are in this note, you therefore care, one way or
    another, about Affirmative Action.  Which way is it?  NO, you don't
    reply here.  You tell yourself, and that is it.  It's not our
    business.
    
    						Ann B.

    	RE:  .262
    
    	> ...but it does work.
    
    	Well, I noticed that you aren't willing to back that statement
    	up with any sort of logical argument, so I guess my analogy
    	wins by default.  :-)
    
    	However, I am willing to tell you where your analogy went wrong.
    
    	You talked about being burned by a match, and then trying to
    	fix it by putting the hand on a stove, right?
    
    	The persons being "burned by a match" were women and minorities.
    	AA didn't make our burns hurt worse -- we were able to get some
    	relief by having "doors open" for us where they had never opened
    	before.
    
    	Now some white males feel like *they* are getting burned (yet,
    	white males are still disproportionately represented in almost
    	every good-paying job/profession compared to minorities, so
    	obviously the burns are minor compared to what minorities are
    	STILL going through.)
    
    	Even if you consider the match burns as racism/sexism/hatred/
    	bigotry, and think that the fact that these things have gotten
    	worse is "putting the hand on the stove," the analogy STILL
    	doesn't work because as long as there are laws that protect
    	minorities, we may not keep from getting burned, but we are
    	wearing asbestos suits now (so our chances for survival and
    	for not suffering from actual burns has increased considerably
    	over what it was before.)

    	In other words, I'd rather *sit* on part of the damn stove (if 
    	I am wearing some degree of protective clothing) than watch my 
    	hand get burn after burn from matches for the rest of my life.

    	NOTE:  [Regarding my one-time personal experience with AA.]
    
    	Actually, I wasn't hired for my first technical job (as a
    	camera operator in a television studio) through AA.  I was
    	hired as a clerk in the videotape library (working for the
    	Production department.)  When the Production Manager saw how
    	much time I spent in Engineering (working with the machines,)
    	he "drafted" me for the studio floor crew by simply moving my
    	existing req over to it (and not replacing me in the library
    	until he could move some other req there from somewhere else.)
    	I didn't beat anyone out of my actual job, since it was more
    	or less created for me by moving my own req over.  
    
    	When AA came into play happened when the Federal government
    	paid our studio giant bucks to do a huge production involving
    	the Bi-Centennial.  The Feds literally dangled the check over
    	the studio's heads until they produced a list of who would work 
    	on the show (by sex/race/etc.)

    	I consider it my big break because it was the biggest show
    	the studio had ever done (and through a strange set of events, 
    	I ended up on the most important camera, out of five.)  It was my
    	turning point in terms of recognition of my camera work (altho
    	I'd been a camera operator there for 2 years when it happened.)
    	It was the best opportunity I'd ever been given (even compared
    	to getting the job itself,) and the studio's heads couldn't
    	have been more pleased with how the production turned out.

    	RE:  .265
    
    	>  Ahh, I see : "burn some non-minorities along with the
    	>  minorities."	
	>  Great solution.
    
    	Non-minorities still have most of the best jobs and the best
    	opportunities in our culture.  If you call that being burned,
    	how about sharing some.
    
    	Unfortunately, you just don't understand what a true long-lasting
    	stay among the flames is all about.  One little flush next to
    	a cinder and you think you've seen the depths of hell.

    	You just don't know.

    This has been said before, probably more than once: *None* of us has
    a clear, uninhibited course in front of us for our career development.
    However, some of us (I am a white male) have had some advantages
    (statiscally) over other members of the population.
    
    I personally have had the advantage of good (almost all white) schools.
    I was tracked in a college and technical direction from an early
    age. I knew that since that I was *white*, that there was no stopping
    me. I also knew it was a "man's" world.
    
    I had plenty obsticles along the way, many of them quite severe,
    but me *being* a white male gave me an extremely valuable edge.
    I have been quite successful and much of it was due to my hard work.
    
    But, I would be very foolish to think my abilities *alone* got me
    where I am. There was a lot of luck, but being a white male was
    and *is*, overall an advantage. Why should I, or any other white
    male object to giving others a *compensating* advantage?
    
    Les

    Re: .254
    
    >I don't see where it makes me more likely to indulge in rhetoric.
    
    First of all, you will note that I have not rendered any judgement
    about whether you've indulged in rhetoric.  Since a fair evaluation
    would require going back and reading all your notes, I doubt I ever
    will.  Now then, it seems to me that people who carry a grudge are
    more likely get caught up in an emotional and biased view of the
    situation.  I've noticed that viewpoints like these tend to produce
    rhetoric rather than discussion.
    
    >I cannot see how a lack of a solution signifies sitting around
    >and complaining.
    
    In isolation, it might not.  However, once someone has taken the
    productive approach and raised the banner of finding a solution,
    anyone who fails to rally to that call is going to lose points.
    Producing solutions is always a good way to win the PR edge, which,
    in a public forum, is not to be discounted.

    Re: .260
    
    >by your definition, anyone who is for or against AA is unable to
    >speak about it on a purely logical basis (at least that's what
    >it looks like).
    
    Then perhaps you should look again.  They are not necessarily (by
    definition, if you will) unable to approach the matter in a purely
    logical basis.  (Is anyone capable of approaching anything in a
    purely logical basis?)  The emotional aspect is something to overcome.
    Some people are better at that than others.  Also, the less personally
    affected one feels, the smaller the individual emotional stake in
    the matter.  If something actually touches my life, I am much more
    affected than if I observe it touching the lives of people around
    me, expecially when those people do not have significant roles in
    my personal relationships.

    Re: .254
    
    I had the feeling I forgot something.  (On a 1200 baud line, forgetting
    is a painful thing.)
    
    >What progress has there been in South Africa in the past few years?
    
    In specific?  I haven't followed the issue that closely.  I think
    travel has gotten easier, possibly better access to education. 
    It's been a while since South Africa has been actively discussed,
    so I've lost track of what's been done versus what's being called
    for.
    
    >How did you connect the two?
    
    I think it had something to do with improving the situation of
    minorities (though in this case, it's actually improving the situation
    of people without significant political power other than what they
    can create).  We didn't start making any real progress until the
    1960s, on the order of 25 years ago, when minorities started to
    organize.  Of course, that was about 100 years after we declared
    blacks to be citizens, so we were awfully slow in getting started.
    As far as progress goes, we have minorities starting to establish
    a significant foothold in the middle class and middle-level jobs.
    Of course, that was with AA.  If the South Africans don't implement
    something similar, we can expect them to take longer to progress
    to our current position.
    
    So, anyone who is willing to pitch AA out and let momentum do its
    laborious stuff should also be willing to accept a decades-long
    process to make a societal and cultural shift of similar magnitude
    in South Africa.  We can't expect them to do more than we're willing
    to do ourselves, after all.

Couple of random thoughts.

It is important for me to remember that the US is basically a colonial
power.  This country was actually inhibited by another race before we
got here and we basically stole all the land and comitted
near-genocide on the original inhabitants.  The remaining land base
of Native Americans is still being eroded every day.

While everyone should be given the same opportunities regardless of
sex, race, creed, basically these opportunities are still in the realm
of male Anglo culture and values.  Not everyone (see above) wants
equal opportunity in the this system (see above).  Some would just
like their land back so they can be free to live their own life in
their own culture. I also beleive that this "system" of male Anglo
values is also worth questioning on both a philosophical and personal
level.  As a white male, it is not hard to see the terrible personal
cost of sexist (and other) conditioning for me.  It's hard to imagine
how bad it must be for other groups like Native Americans, blacks,
women, and gays who are conditioned that they are not as good as white
males. 

I personally have no problems with AA.  I have never been affected by
it.  In my own job, there is occasionally talk about AA but nothing
was ever really done about it (I had two female managers too).  Since
I having hiring responsibilites, I took it upon myself.  I had to
point out to my manager that this should be considered desirable
corparate behavior on my review (mentioned in Stone Center report).

I guess I don't spend a lot of time arguing about these issues with
other people but try to live my life from the assumption that
ultimately all people are made of the same stuff - the same basic
matter that pervades the whole universe.  In my relationships with
women especially my lover, this is where the business of realizing
no-sexism is most able to be realized.  In work, this is where the
business of no-sexism at work can be realized.  In own activities at
home, this is where I can enjoy doing things considered to be
traditionally female such as baking and cooking and cleaning which I
enjoy so much.  In my own emotional life, I can claim back the ability
to accept my own feelings and share them with those close to me even if
they are threatening.

Ultimately, it all goes back to myself.  In my own images of myself,
ideas, and beliefs, what is there?  What is there that is prediced?  I
can not fear it, push it away or deny it.  I have conditioning as much
as the next. But in looking at it and being with it, seeing it, it can
begin to dissipate.  In this way, I can hopefully begin to understand
the perspective of women, Native Americans, gays, blacks - all the
wonderful and varied people that live on Mother Earth.  The world can
be so wonderful!!!

So I hope everyone can find their bliss, live every moment 100%, and change
the world.

 >    	AA didn't make our burns hurt worse -- we were able to get some

 I agree with that. What I was talking about was the premise that AA made things
worse (which I did include a disclimer about).

 Actually, to make my analogy work exactly (according to the premise) I would
have had to have said that you don't actually remove your hand from the
burning match, you simply add the heat of the stove to it. Then, when the stove
is taken away (as a source of heat) the match still remains. Now it parallels
the AA/premise to a 'T.' So I admit that my analogy did fall short in one
detail. It was not by a long shot, however.

 You seem to have confused my analogy with an analogy parallelling the reality
(perceived) of AA. I never tried to make an analogy regarding how I perceive
AA to be. I made an analogy based on the premise which you also based your
logic on (that AA did indeed make things worse).

 The Doctah

    	RE: .276
    
    	> I made an analogy based on the premise which you also based
    	> your logic on (that AA did indeed make things worse).
    
    	That was not the point of my analogy, nor does it reflect what
    	I believe.
    
    	AA made things better for minorities.  While it is true that
    	the same people who hated us before hate us even more now, I
    	don't consider that a problem (unless we, as a nation, let
    	the bigots rule our lives with "Don't give opportunities to
    	minorities because it will only make us more racist and sexist
    	than we already are, and it will only make us look down on them
    	more than we always have.")
    
    	AA made things better.  Some bigots in our culture are determined
    	to turn AA into something ugly by directing their own actions
    	towards proving that AA "forced them" to feel more racist and/or
    	sexist than they did.
    
    	I don't see why we should let them off the hook by buying into
    	the idea that their racism and sexisms "isn't really their fault"
    	(but is the fault of programs instead.)
    
    	Don't you think bigots should be expected to be responsible
    	for their own hatred?

re .268

>    	Non-minorities still have most of the best jobs and the best
>    	opportunities in our culture. 

	What so-called "non-minorities" would this be? Everyone I know
	or work with is a minority of some sort.

					Tom_K

    re .278
    
    Hi Tom,
    
 >    Everyone I know or work with is a minority of some sort.
    
    I do not necessarily know the people that you work with but I have
    met you. I did not notice that you were a minority.
    
    Les

What really slays me about the AA portion of this discussion is how darn
complex life is. As a computer dweeb, I want to be able to measure it, to
program it. Yet we can't agree on what harm or help a program designed to be
measured has done us. Any there any numbers?
	Mez

re .277

	All of that is true, but it addresses only a fraction of those
	who oppose AA. What about the rest of us?

re .279

	You didn't notice I'm white? (Minority in the world) Or that
	I'm male (Minority in US). Or that I am Polish surnamed? (How
	many Polish surnamed engineers do you know?) You probably have
	no way of knowing I'm Roman Catholic (A religious minority).



	Everyone is a minority in some fashion. So before you go and
	hurt a minority, remember, you are a minority too, and if you
	think hurting minorities is OK, someone will eventually get
	around to hurting you.
						Tom_K

    	RE:  .282
    
    	> The personnel manager was a decent and empathetic person,
    	> who off the record stated that my business qualifications
    	> were superior to the other applicant's, and without AA *AND*
    	> the other applicant's woe-is-me type of manipulation (which
    	> generated much sympathy among the predominantly female depart-
    	> ment managers), I would most certainly have had the position.
    
    	*Predominantly female managers* (and the company was still supposedly
	in so much trouble for not hiring minorities that QUOTAS were
    	being used?)
    
    	No way.  Affirmative Action does not work by saying that 
    	1) the job goes to the person with the biggest sob story, and
    	2) the use of quotas will be in place even where minorities
    	outnumber white males.
    
    	I'm not denying that you felt horrible at losing a job opportunity
    	to a woman, but from your own description of the events, it
    	sounds less and less possible that any sort of Federally-imposed
    	AA quota was in effect.  Quotas don't work at all the way you've
    	described.  It's that simple.
    
    	> The real world doesn't operate like that and I'm surprised
    	> that you believe it always goes by the book. Or law...
    
    	One of the biggest objections to AA in this note has been the
    	fact that members of the majority will "assume" (or accuse)
    	women and minorities for having gotten the job through AA whether
    	they actually did or not.  That sounds much more like the real
    	world to me than your scenerio.
    
    	Also, I have seen this phenomenon in action.  In every case,
    	the men didn't merely express anger that they thought the woman
    	was hired because of AA.  (Like you, they all went on and on
    	to insult the woman, etc.)
    
    	It's a recognizable pattern.

    To head off the "we're all a minority somehow" digression, perhaps
    we could define minority to be those who have traditionally held
    little political power and are therefore still a minority in the
    process of defining the needs and goals of society/government/industry.

re .285

	We could do that, but then we'd be wrong.

					Tom_K

    re .285 (Chelsea) .286 (Tom)
    
    >To head off the "we're all a minority somehow" digression, perhaps
    >we could define minority to be those who have traditionally held
    >little political power and are therefore still a minority in the
    >process of defining the needs and goals of society/government/industry.
    
    I agree. I would like to add that this be on a world scale and in
    modern time, like the last couple hundred years.
    
    Tom,
    
    Being Polish is not, in general, any obsticle to getting a good shot
    at jobs.
    
    Les

       re minority:
       
       Liguistically speaking--as if there's any other way--a male
       Polish-American (and most anyone else) is a member of a minority
       group.  In terms of minority hiring (or minority ownership of a
       business) which is what this discussion is occasionally about, the
       federal government has a list of ethnic groups that qualify as
       minority groups.  (In addition to women, the minority groups
       include African-Americans, N American Indians, and some Hispanic
       and Asian groups.) 
       
       --Mr Topaz

    In the past in this file and in the earlier version of womennotes
    women have entered notes describing an experience that happened
    to them and men have responded that it didn't happen or didn't
    happen the way the woman described it. When this has occured, people
    became extremely upset with the men. The right of women to say
    'this happened to me' without voices saying 'no it didn't' has been
    very strongly defended in both files. May I sugggest that the
    same courtesy be offered in this situation to Arpad? It is not
    necessary to agree with his views on AA to grant him the right
    to be believed in re the experience that he had.
    
    Bonnie

    	RE:  .284
    
    	Arpad, if you believe that AA was really used in the
    	situation you described, then I will accept your word
    	for it.
    
    	However...it is important to point out...
    
    	*NOT* every situation where someone decides "Let's hire the
    	woman" or even "Let's hire *a* woman" is the result of AA.
    	AA is a formal program that is very, very seldom used.  (As
    	others have mentioned, it is common to *assume* AA is being used
    	when it isn't.)  
    
    	At least that what the opponents of AA keep telling us.  :-)
    
    	>> Like you, they all went on and on to insult the woman, etc.
    		                                           ^^^^^
	> I'll take your word that I have insulted women...
    
    	"Woman" is singular (as in, the woman who got the job you both
    	sought.)  "Women" is plural.
    
    	> I did lose out on my livelihood in that instance...
    
    	Someone always loses out on potential livelihood when competing
    	with others for the same job.  You aren't the first one in the 
    	world to lose a job that you thought you should have had.  I
    	know it must have hurt you a lot.
    	
    	At least you are lucky that you've never had to face systematic 
    	blocking on a cultural level.  You wouldn't like it much either, 
    	take MY word for it.

re .290

	I believe the term is "protected minority", and is a fabrication
	of the bureaucracy. The term denotes the groups that the government is
	giving favors to this week. To believe that discrimination
	against individuals who are members of other minority groups (but
	not of "protected minorities") does not occur is to ignore reality.

	Note: I personally don't like the term "protected minority", it
	smacks too much of paternalism to suit me.

							Tom_K

    	RE:  .287
    
    	Well, actually, Arpad, when feminists in this country make a
    	point of including people of color when they talk about their search
    	for equality, they are accused of "exploiting" minorities for
    	their own purposes (which, come to think of it, was an accusation
    	that *you* made about feminists in a note in this very topic.)
    
    	I find it ironic that you should be the one to reprint an article
    	that discusses Canadian feminists not mentioning people of color
    	when they talk of equality (considering your earlier accusation.)
    
    	I guess it comes in handy to be able to make accusations against
    	people from both sides of an issue (so that you can call them
    	ugly and hateful names no matter what they do.)  
    
    	However, feminism is *still* not the topic here, regardless
    	of your desire to make it so.

re .283

Suzanne, you're falling into a bit of a trap here. You appear to be assuming 
that a program *always* works and is administered the way it is *supposed* to
work on paper. The world is full of examples to the contrary. (Yes, I realize
this comment was *sort* of covered a couple of replies back. Too late; I'd 
already got this note started in my head.)

It may be the case that much of the furor over Affirmative Action derives not
no much from the program being correctly used, but from abuses. Yes, there
would still be protest based on the philosophy. But mishandling of the program,
when it occurs - as it must - will only add fuel to the fire.

Denying that mishandling can occur (because you agree with the program, or
whatever the motivation might be) has the tendency to further polarize the
discussion.

Similarly, a day or two ago there was a reply (I think from Suzanne again;
good statistical guess, anyway) which said that "AA doesn't tell you you're
less qualified" whether you (1) got the job as a minority or (2) were passed
over in favor of a minority. This is entirely true (AA doesn't tell anybody
anything - it's a program, not a conversationalist) - but misses the point,
which is that people in situations (1) and (2) can *infer* things not actually
intended. 

I wouldn't indict the AA program because of inference drawn by people affected
by it. But in discussing how people react, you can't ignore the fact that 
these inferences *will* be drawn. 

Bottom line is, you can't discuss AA, nor administer it, without taking both
-cosms (macro and micro) into account, and understanding them.

(And this from someone who believe that after we eliminate all the lawyers
we should start in immediately on the psychologists. Amazing.)

	Paul

    	RE:  .295
    
    	> It may be the case that much of the furor over Affirmative
    	> Action derives not so much from the program being correctly
    	> used, but from abuses.
    
    	It is most likely the case that *most* of the furor over Affirmative
    	Action derives *more* from assumptions that AA is being used
    	when it isn't!
 	
    	Every time I've ever seen AA given credit for a job hire (in
    	situations where I was close enough to know the truth,) AA was
    	*not*, in fact, being used at all.
    
    	Only once in 15 years have I ever seen a situation where AA
    	was actually being used at a place where I was working (and
    	the one time that I saw it was only for one single 3 hour TV
    	program, and addressed nothing beyond that one show,) although
    	I've seen a number of times when people blamed AA for not getting
    	jobs when they lost to minorities strictly on merit.
    
    	Although it could be said that this very likelihood (that people
    	will make erroneous assumptions about job hires) should be used 
    	against AA, I still contend that it would be a mistake to abolish
    	AA because of the damage being done by people in whose interest
    	it is to keep minorities from being assured of opportunities,
    	as AA attempts to do.

Does anyone know what 'groups' (for lack of a better word) are on the
'official protected minorities' list? And how they get there? And who keeps the
list, and how it gets changed?

Every once in a while someone throws a fact into this discussion and piques my
interest. Unfortunately, we don't seem to have a community with the information
to answer further questions (prove me wrong! answer my questions!).
	Mez

       re .297:
       
       I never heard of the term "protected minority" until Krupinski
       wrote it.
       
       Some government contracts are set aside in whole or part for
       women- or minority-owned small businesses.  For these contracts,
       the government defines "minority" as African-American, native N
       American, some Asian-Americans (Chinese is definitely one group,
       Japanese might be another), and some Hispanic-Americans (Puerto
       Rican and Mexican, for example, but not European or S American). 
       
       I've also seen government contracts where bidders were required
       to list the percentage of minority employees, but I don't remember
       if the groups were the same.  
       
       If you really want to know the specifics of who the government
       considers to be a minority, you might give a call to the regional
       office of the Small Business Administration and ask about the
       minority-owned business program.
       
       --Mr Topaz

    <--(.300)
    
    Arpad, feminists (in the US at least) have been very aware of the
    disparity since the early '70s.  The article is valuable, but it
    doesn't actually illuminate so much as remind.  
    
    The problems pointed out by the article are not at all simple to solve
    or even understand. Feminists concentrate on the issues we do because
    they tend to be universal.  No, they're not the most pressing for some
    women, but they are by far the most universal.  Equal opportunity.
    Equal pay.  Day care.  Civil rights.  These issues affect *all* women.
    Issues such as ESL and credentials-transfer are critical for thousands
    of women, but don't have as much impact on the millions of other women
    who already have english as a milk language and already have
    credentials from US schools...but who still can't get the same pay, or
    the same access to jobs and promotions.   But once those immigrant
    women DO learn the language and DO get their credentials recognised,
    they'll still face the same barriers that their native-born sisters do
    now.  Unless we solve those problems.  
    
    So which problems do we work on?   The ones that are straightforward to
    solve, but whose solution will benefit relatively few?  Or the really
    hard ones that will make life better for all women once solved? It's a
    hard choice, and there is no one Right Answer. 
    
    						=maggie
    

                            <** Moderator Plea **>

    Might I ask that people remain civil toward one another?  Please
    let's keep the heat for the issues, not the people.
    
    						=maggie

re: .291

Thanx Bonnie. On things both inncuous and non I've been called to question in
notesfiles. Unless the questioner tried very hard to make it clear that they
were empathizing, helping, and would take my word for it if I told them they
were wrong, I always got pissed.
	Mez

    	RE:  .291 and .304
    
    	One thing I'd like to bring up here is that I don't think it
    	"invalidates" someone's experience to question the role of
    	the LAW in the incident s/he is describing.  
    
    	Granted, the personal impact can be the same (and I made a point 
    	of sympathizing with Arpad for the pain he must have felt when he 
    	lost a job to a woman,) but if one is basing objections to a LAW
    	on what one incident that one is claiming is an ABUSE of that
    	LAW, isn't it pertinent to know for sure whether or not the
    	incident was indeed the RESULT of the LAW's being employed?
    
    	Arpad lives in Canada.  In another note, he raised some concerns
    	about *proposed* legislation that sounded a lot like the REAL
    	Affirmative Action that is a REAL LAW down here in the U.S.
    
    	If Canada doesn't have the same kind of actual Affirmative Action
    	laws that we have, then I don't think it invalidates the obvious
    	pain and humiliation that he felt to point out that his incident
    	may or may not have actually involved employment of the LAWS
    	that we have been discussing here.
    
    	In a real debate, do people who are discussing the use (or non-
    	use) of LAWS stop to worry that they might be invalidating each
    	other's experiences?
    
    	While it is admirable for us all to worry about the feelings
    	of others, the employment of a LAW is a fact.  No matter what
    	Arpad thinks he experienced, either there was a LAW in place
    	that performed as he claimed, or there wasn't.  That's simply
    	an historical fact.  It's not his subjective experience.
    
    	If AA was not in effect in his case, then he is obviously not
    	talking about the same things that we have been discussing in
    	this topic (which I think is worth realizing at some point.)

    Nice point, Suzanne.  I keep forgetting that Arpad isn't talking
    about the US (or at least I don't think he is).
    
    						=maggie

    <--(.307)
    
�     It seems like a clever smokescreen too so that stats and studies
�     don't have to be produced on how aa has improved things.

    Huh?  What are you talking about?  What do you think those stats and
    studies would "really" show, that AA is effective or that it isn't?
    And whose AA are you talking about, ours or Canada's?
    
    						=maggie 

    <--(.309)
    
    I'm afraid you didn't understand correctly, Arpad.  Feminists *already*
    support minority women (some *are* minority women).  Now, do feminists
    focus on problems *unique* to minority women?  No, typically not.
    Should they?  Maybe, maybe not. 
    
    For example, the problems of language are experienced at the individual
    level, and there is no practical societal change I know of that can
    make that problem go away or even ameliorate it to any great extent.
    What could feminists do about that problem?
    
    						=maggie

    re.309
    
    <I'm going to make a stab at being 'character witness' here...>
    
    I am a caucasian female person of Celtic descent, US & Irish citizen by
    birth, with a stable work history, and a history of involvement in
    'social causes.' 
    
    I'm a feminist. Because I am. Having been a part of 'the movement'
    for some time I would like to state the 'aggregate goals' espoused
    will indeed vary from the the individual priorities of those active
    in the movement.  Along the lines of 'feminists are people, too'
    I would like to share with you some observations:
    
     - there are feminists who feel that one-hundred-thousand men at
       the bottom of Lake Victoria would be a good start and there are
       those that would not like to face a world that didn't have men
       in it
    
     - there are feminists that feel abortion is murder plain and simple,
       and there are those who support abortion-on-demand
    
     - there are feminists that feel AA is necessary so that
       women/minorities can be 'more equal' until parity is achieved
       and there are feminists that feel that this _attitude_ is on a
       collision course with the equality we seek to attain
    
    I could go on, and will do so if you so wish, but I think you get
    the point.
    
    In any broad-scope 'movement' such as feminism, each individual
    will have her own particular agendas and priorities and will work
    hard to achieve them.  Individuals, not being clones, will not always
    align themselves behind them same banners.  Averaging occurs.
    
    You have exhibited/asserted your perception rather militantly here,
    so I hardly think the normalisation effect would be a new concept
    to you.
    
    Hence, it appears your question [?] in re feminists only supporting
    AA for women/minorities that already have a formidible command of
    English is merely contentious.  I'm sure you realise that some of
    us _must_ have had English as a 2nd language and hence work very
    hard to promote equal opportunities for others like us.
    
    I cannot speak for =maggie, but what I do know of her hardly leaves
    me with the impression that she's ready to jettison the right
    to equality of a person with broken English.
    
      Ann
   

    Enough about Arpad.  Maybe he's right, maybe he's mistaken.  Either
    way, his experience provides but one sample point, which is
    insufficient evidence from which to draw any solid conclusions.
    So while the matter is certainly of importance to Arpad, it is not
    necessarily of great import in the context of the entire issue.
    (Interesting, certainly, but perhaps without the significance this
    discussion seems to have attributed to it.)
    
    While no studies have been presented to show that AA makes things
    better, neither have any studies been presented to show that AA
    has made things worse.  Statistically speaking, the jury is out.
    
    From what I can tell, there is one point of consensus:  AA is not
    the optimal approach to the situation.  The argument on one hand
    seems to be that, since it has drawbacks, it should be discarded.
    There is some debate over whether another corrective measure should
    be put in place or whether the situation should be allowed to evolve
    into equality.  The other side of the argument apparently holds
    that the benefits outweigh the drawbacks, which justifies the
    continuation of the policy.  Since the main thrust of this argument
    is that some steps must be taken, I assume that proponents on this
    side of the argument are willing to support other methods to achieve
    the goals set by AA.  Have I made any outrageous errors in this
    summation?
    
    Now then, I have already presented an argument that the best decision,
    from a business standpoint, is to continue to use AA while working
    on a more long-term solution.  I have yet to see any arguments
    disputing my points; therefore, it seems reasonable to assume that
    there is nothing wrong with my argument.  If there is nothing wrong
    with my argument, it should be acceptable.  If it is acceptable,
    there should be nothing to prevent its being accepted.  So, what's
    taking you so long?
    
    Don't brangle about whether AA is right or wrong.  That's an argument
    with no possible resolution except an agreement to disagree.  Since
    the argument has continued for years, I doubt there is anything
    new to be added and I submit that the time has come to settle on
    the only possible resolution.  It's time to move on to brangling
    about what to do about the situation -- not the policy.  Let's stop
    dancing around the surface issues and get to the real problem.

    	RE:  .315
    
    	Excellent note, Chelsea.
    
    	> While no studies have been presented to show that AA makes
    	> things better, neither have any studies been presented to
    	> show that AA has made things worse.  Statistically speaking,
    	> the jury is out.
    
    	Although there are statistics in my encyclopedia that show the
    	increase in the number of women and minorities in the workplace
    	over the past two decades or so, even cold, hard numbers such
    	as these can not assign personal value (i.e., "better"-ness) to 
    	any sort of program.  When someone talks about something being 
    	"better [period]," it is a personal opinion (based on subjective 
    	analysis,) and as such, is neither supportable nor refutable with 
    	objective data, as I'm sure is obvious to most of us.
    
    	> Now then, I have already presented an argument that the best
    	> decision, from a business standpoint, is to continue to use
    	> AA while working on a more long-term solution.
    
    	You have my complete agreement (although we may want to define
    	our terms here, since too much time has been wasted already
    	in situations where people who thought they were arguing about
    	AA turned out to be arguing about different things.)
    
    	Chelsea, do you have any particular suggestions in mind that
    	would eventually replace AA?  (Or did you mention those earlier?)
    
    	Working toward a replacement for AA instead of the abolition
    	of AA (with no replacement program in place) sounds like the
    	most reasonable solution to me (with "hope for the future"
    	for all concerned.)
    
    	Thanks very much!

    	One suggestion that I would like to make is that we use two
    	different terms for "government-imposed" Affirmative Action
    	and any other kind of hiring policy that is voluntary among
    	employers.
    
 	When I refer to "government," I am theoretically referring
    	to the government of any country.
    
    	Voluntary employer programs should be separate because in
    	the context of businesses deciding on their own programs,
    	decisions are made less on moral issues than on good
    	employee/customer relations and sound profits.  
    
    	Also, where a government is concerned, we (some of us) can
    	vote for programs (or for legislators who will support programs,)
    	while in the business world, most of us do the voting "with
    	our feet" (as the saying goes.)  Somewhat different processes.

    re: .319
    
   > 	Voluntary employer programs should be separate because in
   > 	the context of businesses deciding on their own programs,
   > 	decisions are made less on moral issues than on good
   > 	employee/customer relations and sound profits.  
    
    	or because of the potential threat of government imposed 
        programs being institued.  The premis remains the same:
    	hiring someone because of their race/gender is wrong no
    	matter how "enlightened" the reasoning may seem to some.
    
   

    	After giving it some thought, I've got a few ideas about what
    	kinds of programs could begin the process of replacing AA.
    
    	It seems to me that there would have to be some kind of
    	'interim' programs (during which federally-imposed regulations
    	could gradually be released, starting almost immediately.)
    
    	I was thinking about a program of employer education/awareness
    	(and brain-storming) about how to make the work place more
    	accepting of people of diverse cultures/backgrounds/sex/race.
    
    	If companies would commit to this, perhaps "experts" (like
    	contracted management companies) could come in to evaluate
    	a particular work environment, making recommendations on
    	ways to improve employee relations between people of difference.
    	(The experts don't necessarily have to be from outside the
    	individual companies, of course.  Our own Valuing Differences
    	sounds like a good example of this type of effort.)
    
    	Although I admit that I'm not personally familiar with this
    	program at DEC, I intend to become so (in the near future.)
    
    	In the process of releasing regulations, perhaps the gov't
    	could keep "an eye" on things (not so much for the potential
    	to punish those who fail to keep their goals, but to help
    	monitor various companies efforts and perhaps offer help
    	in finding solutions if some problems are particularly difficult
	in some way.)
    
    	The main thrust, of course, would have to be education (from
    	early childhood.)  We need to make major changes in that area,
    	and I'd be very interested to hear any/all suggestions on what
    	we could do to help make our young citizens (across the board)
    	better prepared to share in the future.
    
    	Let's face it, life expectancies are getting longer all the time.
    	By the time most of us are senior citizens, we could be looking
    	at a much longer retirement than is average now.  We need to
    	think about how to help *all* our young and future citizens
    	to be prepared for their adult lives.
    
    	Just a few thoughts, anyway...

    My focus has been on education.  It seems that recent efforts at
    improving education have been directed at providing magnet schools
    to encourage excellence.  I like that.  But unfortunately, I think
    it's a much greater priority to encourage competence.  Spend money
    where it will do the most good.  What is the most important stage
    of education?  Elementary school.  That is where attitudes toward
    learning are set, that is where basic skills are learned.  The first
    grade is critical.
    
    Unpopular though it might seem, I believe in setting required skill
    sets for elementary school students -- and not letting them proceed
    to the next grade without having acquired those skills.  I'm willing
    to provide teachers with the funding they need to accomplish the
    task.  I don't think classes should be larger than 20 students or
    so per teacher.  This, of course, means encouraging people to become
    teachers.  (So many of these problems are intertwined.)
    
    I'd like to see more books in the hands of all children.  Libraries
    and programs like RIF should be supported.  A full library is not
    necessarily needed.  Just set up a reading room with lots of paperbacks
    or whatever, but give children plenty of access to books and encourage
    them to use them.  (Not only are books a great escape mechanism,
    they're a lot cheaper than drugs and certainly better for you.)
    
    The long-range solution is to improve the abilities of today's
    children.  The more immediate problem is addressing the educational
    deficiencies of today's adults.  Illiteracy is high on the list.
    
    Child care is a real obstacle, especially for lower income women.
    On the professional level, perhaps the best organizer for child
    care is the company.  I also see community and neighborhood efforts
    as important.  Flexible hours would be a help here -- 4 10-hour
    days or 7 5-hour days.  Some jobs won't conform well, though.  Small
    businesses could pool resources.  I'm not advocating that the companies
    bear the total cost; certainly employees could be expected to pay
    for the service.
    
    How to fund all this?  Encourage corporations to contribute.  It's
    their future work force being trained here, after all.  Why not
    invest now instead of later?  Some programs might be considered
    tax-deductible.  Community and infividual involvement are essential
    to the success of any program.  Perhaps people could get tax credits
    for the time they volunteer for certain programs.

    re .324 Hispanic and American-Indian

    This morning's brainstorm:  Colleges provide tuition grants to students
    for volunteer tutoring.  This will be particularly useful to poorer
    students and they are the ones who could be most effective by supplying
    role models to young children.  ("See?  It's not a waste of time;
    you *can* get college.")  With the baby boom over, colleges are
    going to have to compete more for applicants, just as companies
    will.  By getting their students out with future students, they
    can create a relationship from early on and get their name out in
    the community.  Colleges need PR, too.  And it exposes college students
    to the career of teaching, which might encourage more of them to
    go into it.

    All right.  Arpad has now given us a full description of his
    experience with [Canadian] Affirmative Action.  I'll trim off
    the flashing (aka personal involvement), and show what I see
    in what's left:

    A company has a job opening.  A woman has (according to Arpad)
    familiarity with the company's operation, and the skills required
    for the job.  Since the only other applicant for the job is a
    Caucasian male, Affirmative Action requires that she be given the
    job.  However, this does not happen, and she must (as Arpad was so
    diligent as to find out) reveal details of her personal life
    (I presume to demonstrate that she would become a grateful and
    therefore loyal/exceptionally productive worker.) before she is
    given the job.

    Now, we already knew that mere competence did not get women jobs.
    Now we learn that competence and Affirmative Action do not get
    women jobs.  They must have or do something beyond that.

    So, those males (if any) who objected to Affirmative Action for
    personal reasons can stop worrying.  Those people who objected to
    it on theoretical grounds can relax; it changes nothing.  Those
    women who had hopes for Affirmative Action can either take hope
    because it means that superbly qualified women can get jobs, or
    become distressed because it means that some women must demean
    themselves ior lose their privacy in order to get jobs.  (Those
    of you in categories I did not mention are free to think what you
    like (along with everyone else).)

    						Ann B.

    P.S.  If the Canadian Affirmative Action laws *require* the disclosure
    of personal information beyond that of Caucasian male job applicates,
    I want to know that RIGHT NOW.

RE: .327
    
    >    P.S.  If the Canadian Affirmative Action laws *require* the 
    >    disclosure of personal information beyond that of Caucasian
    >    male job applicates, I want to know that RIGHT NOW. 
                             
    I'm not sure what you mean by this Ann, but I'll try and answer
    both of MY interpretations:
    
    1. If you mean 'disclosure by an employer to the Government', all
    that is required is what Digital Canada is doing:  provide the
    government with raw numbers of women and "visible" minorities (included
    are native Indians, people of African descent, etc.) employed and
    percent of such groups in functions which I believe are broadly
    defined into Upper, Middle, Lower Management, Technical, Clerical,
    Manufacturing, etc.
    
    2. If you mean 'as a job applicant, what information do I have to put
    on the application form?', then in Canada (I believe this is still
    true), it is illegal for an employer to ask any questions on an
    application form that relate to race, creed, age, marital status,
    handicap, etc.  Sex (M or F, not Y or N as some :-) may think) is still
    an acceptable question it seems (probably to allow the personnel person
    to avoid embarrassment by asking for Mr. X if it's really Ms. X).
    
    3. You may have been asking something else entirely!
    
    Otto.

    Since I put it in the title of .328, I realized after hitting <RETURN>
    I better explain that remark about AA being optional in Canada (I
    can't remember what we really call it!):
    
    Only those companies who wish to deal with the federal government
    and bid on tenders for work or products over $2000.00 have to comply
    with this legislation (that may even be too strong a word).  TO
    comply means supplying the government with the facts mentionned
    in .328, at which point the government determines whether the company
    is "AA" enough by comparing that company's stats to some kind of
    average and also to the government's minimum standard (i don't know
    what that is).  If your company is average and /or meets the standard,
    no problem.  If not, no government contracts until you do.  Passing
    once is not enough; it is the responsibility of the company to keep
    the government updated regularly.  Otherwise you lose your
    'certification' and have to start all over again.
    
    To meet these requirements, all Digital Canada employees wer required
    to fill out a survey, and all new employees must also do one.  Since
    this information does not change (per individual), it will never
    have to be re-done if not lost and kept up to date.
    
    Hoping I got all the facts straight!
    Otto.

Re:< Note 461.330 by TROA01::DEAK >

>Why does personal involvement make any experience less worthwhile than 
>something about which you have neither experienced nor been involved in?

    This has recently been discussed in another note.  Personal involvement
    does not make an experience less worthwhile (you can't _have_ an
    experience without being personally involved in it).  However, it can
    tend to color one's perceptions of an experience.  What Ann was trying
    to do was to do (perhaps with a little too much sarcasm) was to remove
    all traces of "interpretation" from your account of events, leaving
    only the facts. 
        
>>    P.S.  If the Canadian Affirmative Action laws *require* the disclosure
>>    of personal information beyond that of Caucasian male job applicates,
>>    I want to know that RIGHT NOW.
>
>Who said anything about the female applicant requiring to submit additional 
>info? Other than you, nobody here has said that. Or were you bewing 
>sarcastic, and I missed it?
    
    Ann is referring to your statement that the woman involved had to
    reveal personal information to "play on the sympathies" of the hirers,
    and the point is that if this truly did affect their decision, then
    I agree with you that you have probably been unfairly treated, but
    this has nothing to do wih AA;  Rather the people making the decision
    allowed themselves to be swayed by non job-related issues.

    You _may_ have been the victim of a poor implementation of AA; No one
    in this file has the information available to determine that.  Most of
    the people who are pro-AA in this file seem to accept that it is not an
    ideal system, because it is so easy for it to be perceived as
    discriminatory, and indeed when poorly implemented it really can be
    discriminatory.  It is simply seen as being the best available method
    for correcting the racial and sexual imbalance in the labor force.
    
    I certainly think you reduce the strength of your argument against AA
    in this particular case-history, by bringing in details not related to
    AA (such as the other candidate having to reveal extra personal
    information in order to get the job) that are seen as contributing
    to the job being given to the other candidate.

    John

    Ignoring personal experiences (which may or may not be related to
    particular implementations of AA) for the moment, I would like to hear
    some opinions of the following "monitoring" system:
    
    Assume a corporation hires (say) 1000 people in a year to fill
    "entry-level" vacancies, and the corporation's personnel department
    maintains records categorizing each applicant according to gender
    and racial background.
    
    If the proportion of successful applicants in each category (either
    single classification or multiple classifications) compared with
    unsuccessful candidates in the same category are (within statistical
    error bounds) the same over all categories, is it likely that the
    corporation has exhibited discriminatory hiring practices? If not, why
    not? 
    
    If there _are_ statistically significant differences between the
    proportions in the various categories, then is it likely that the
    corporation has exhibited disciminatory hiring practices?  If not, why
    not? 

 It is difficult to really say one way or another with more facts. 
One would have to know things like how qualified were the applicants from each
group (statistically) compared to the jobs they applied for and any other
number of things which could skew results. All things being equal, one would
assume that a corresponding proportion of successful applicants from each 
category related to the total number of applicants in each category would 
indicate a "fair" hiring practice. The absense of such a correlation would tend
to indicate some sort of discrimination.

The Doctah

    Arpad,

    You seem to have entirely misunderstood my intentions.  *You*
    wrote about your experience with Canadian Affirmative Action.
    Fine.  *I* wrote about the experience of the nameless woman you
    encountered during your experience.  I do not see anywhere that
    I have adjudged your experience to be "less worthwhile".  I chose
    not to speak to it; that is all.  How can you object to that?
    (Only a monster of egotism would demand that generic-his experience
    is the only experience worth discussing.)

    You ask many questions which seem to have no anchoring point, and
    therefore no meaning.  For example, you quote my line, "Now, we
    already knew that mere competence did not get women jobs." then you
    talk about perfection, and lastly ask, "Is this a personal belief
    of yours?"  I must ask "Which?" for I cannot tell if you are asking
    if I think perfection is obtainable in this world, or if you question
    whether I should believe the observations of myself and many others,
    or if you are simply unaware of these documented observations.

    By the way, in response to your question, "Who said anything about
    the female applicant requiring [sic] to submit additional info?", the
    answer is *you* were the one who raised the need for the question.
    You stated quite firmly that she would not have gotten the job if
    she had not revealed that she was the sole support of herself and
    her two (?) children.  Therefore, it was a *necessary* action for
    her to get the job.  My question was: Was it a *required* action.
    (The response, from Otto, was No.)

    						Ann B.