Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site whuxlm.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!whuxlm!mag From: mag@whuxlm.UUCP (Gray Michael A) Newsgroups: net.flame Subject: Re: net.men.only Message-ID: <676@whuxlm.UUCP> Date: Tue, 12-Feb-85 01:11:31 EST Article-I.D.: whuxlm.676 Posted: Tue Feb 12 01:11:31 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 12-Feb-85 06:47:31 EST References: <476@topaz.ARPA> <1132@houxm.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Whippany Lines: 143 > > From: brisco@topaz.ARPA (T.p.) > > > I am sorry, but I am PISSED. > > > What would you say about a company that preferentially (<- under > > line that) hires race x over race y, or sex q over sex p. Welcome to > > my nightmare. You hear (all the time) about such and such Co. being > > sued and having to hire oodles of negros/women/gays(whatever). Sorry, > > but that sounds like preferential hiring to me. > > > Fact is: White males are getting the shitty end of the stick > > out of this (bullshit) legislation. > > I am sorry, but I am PISSED. > > What would you say about a nation that legislates [1] the right of a man to > own another one, [2] to work him like an animal, [3] to split up his family, > [4] to deny him the rights of all humans. [Numbering mine.] That's bad. Are nations doing this now? The USA hasn't done the first three for 120 years. [4] lasted in part until 20 years ago. What are the "rights of all humans"? This is an interesting concept to me. Everybody talks about them, but no one defines them or justifies them. > Sorry, this sounds like indecent (and immoral) laws to > me. I agree. But you're talking mostly about slavery. The original author is complaining about affirmative action. Are you suggesting that the previous existence of slavery justifies AA? How? > Fact is, blacks, women and gays got the shitty end of the stick (and still do) > out of this bullshit organization. What organization? The USA? Are all employers everywhere responsible for the past actions of the US government? Since I'm a disabled veteran, does Bell Labs morally have to give me preference? [For the record, I refused to claim this status when I was hired. The personnel office went bananas. They had a form all ready for me to sign claiming minority status and I wouldn't sign it! BUT, they cried, you'll have more opportunities and it won't cost you anything! I pointed out that I saw a severe cost to me in being promoted for reasons other than my ability. That didn't compute.] > > > Let me make something clear: > > > 1) I never owned a negro. > > 2) I never hired a man over a women. (I've never hired anyone) > > > Why is all this shit coming down on me then? > > I am sorry that you are suffering for the sins of your predecessors. But you apparently think it morally right that he is, if you support AA. If you think it right, why are you sorry? > In the > hopes that such things do not come to pass again, I would hope that you would > labor for blacks, women and gays to obtain equal rights (which at this time, > means giving them chances which they otherwise would not be able to get) until > such a time as such chances would no longer need to be granted because there > would be true equality. > Any estimate as to when this will come to pass? 500 years, maybe? As long as there is money or political hay to be made by supporting AA, I think it unlikely in the extreme that AA types will EVER declare: "As of now, blacks or women or gays are afforded equal opportunity. We hereby abolish our jobs." Anyway, I work at Bell Labs, same as you, and (so far) I hire by merit and only merit. This has meant that I've hired blacks and women, which is personally satisfying to me, since it points to equality of opportunity spreading throughout our company. I wouldn't feel good about it if I had had to hire blacks and women who were less qualified than their white and male competitors. The ones I've recommended hiring were more qualified than the white male applicants. > > BECAUSE: this is what happens when you let a bunch of pansy-a**ed > > liberals run a country. It never occurred to someone that > > maybe men are better suited for some jobs than women? > > (face it: if you were hiring furniture-movers would'nt you > > hire the 200 lb (male) lug over the 115 lb (female) lug?). > There are some pretty strong 115 lb women out there. Why should they be denied > jobs moving furniture because they are women? No reason at all. > Have they been tested for their > strength, or did the employers just look at them and say "she'll never be able > to lift that lug". > Consequently, there are some 200 lb men out there who > couldn't pick up a card table (perhaps I exaggerate) but because they look like > they can haul furniture, they get the jobs. I suggest that if they can't haul furniture, they won't keep the jobs. > This argument can be extended to > hiring of white males in preference to blacks, women and gays. So can the above rebuttal. > -- > If you wanna ride, don't ride the white horse. > > Greg Skinner (gregbo) > {allegra,cbosgd,ihnp4}!houxm!gregbo For the record, I support affirmative action, partially for the reason that it is Bell Labs policy. By "support", I mean that I adhere to Bell Labs AA Guidelines. So far, I haven't had to apply the guideline that says, (I paraphrase) "If you encounter a choice between a minority/female and white/male and their abilities are approximately equal, hire the minority/female." If I do encounter it, I'll hire the minority/female, since I have agreed to adhere to company policy. I won't feel so great, though. I do support heavily our programs dedicated to encouraging minorities and women to meet our standards and helping them to do so. I'm in favor of the programs we have that give support to Black Colleges, and that hire Blacks for the summer as interns, for example. But, we are a business, we have to produce top-notch products. I support our efforts to aggressively recruit minorities and women who can contribute to this effort. If we compromise on the quality of our technical staff, we will not do this. If we fail, there is a real danger that the advancement of minorities and women in our society will be stymied. We cannot afford to practice racism and sexism under the benign label of AA. If we do, we will alienate the people who produce our products. Like it or not, the output of Bell Labs is 80% that of white males. If they are unfairly treated, they will leave. I know some who have. One last question, Greg: you implied to the original author that it is right that he and other white males sacrifice so that minorities and women may achieve equality. Why is it morally right? Do the means justify the ends? Do means ever justify ends? Equality of opportunity is a laudable goal. I devote considerable time and effort to bring it about. But it has nothing to do with AA. Although the same groups lobby for both, generally, the first brings hope and strength, and the second is only well-intentioned racism and sexism. Mike Gray, BTL, WH