Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83 based; site houxm.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxb!mhuxn!mhuxm!mhuxj!houxm!gregbo
From: gregbo@houxm.UUCP (Greg Skinner)
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: net.men.only
Message-ID: <1134@houxm.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 13-Feb-85 00:30:21 EST
Article-I.D.: houxm.1134
Posted: Wed Feb 13 00:30:21 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 14-Feb-85 00:40:39 EST
References: <476@topaz.ARPA> <1132@houxm.UUCP>, <676@whuxlm.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ
Lines: 150

Once upon a time, I thought I'd never be able to work for Bell Labs ...
Remember that Mike?  Long, long ago way back in net.politics/net.tv.da.
Anyhow, back to the ranch ...

> From: mag@whuxlm.UUCP (Gray Michael A)

>> me:
>> 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.

> 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.  

The USA isn't doing this anymore.  To my knowledge, no other nations are doing
it (unless they're not saying it).

> 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.

Well, for one, the right that a human being not be owned by another, and forced
to work for the other human against his will (I believe this is the right to
liberty).  The right to life, I guess, is beyond human control (but during
slavery, some slaveowners saw fit to whip their slaves to death).  As far as
the pursuit of happiness goes, nothing is guaranteed in this life, but no
human should have the right to forcibly take away the liberty of another human.

>> 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?

Not so much slavery, but the ill treatment of blacks up until the early 60's,
which occurred because of slavery, so I guess slavery is the original cause.

> 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?  ...

No, no one is responsible for the past actions of the US government, however,
there is a moral obligation on the part of employers to give qualified minor-
ities opportunities (this is what AA is supposed to be, not fulfilling quotas,
which is what I fear it has become). 

>> 
>> >	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?

I'm sorry because he is suffering.  For 200 years, blacks were suffering out-
right, then were suffering for 100 years after that because of civil injustice.
Knowing this, I would not see another suffer on my account.  However, I must
take advantage of all opportunities that come my way.  Such opportunities did
not exist before the civil rights movement.  In order for some to gain oppor-
tunities, others must lose.  That's just the way life is.   At least, until
there is a discernible equality among everyone in the workplace.  You must
admit that at this time, this does not exist. 

>> 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?

Well, as the song goes, "When the moon is in the seventh house ..."  Honestly,
I don't know.

> 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.

Well, if I were in your shoes, I wouldn't feel great about it either.  But think
of it this way -- you are helping to accomplish the equality of the races/sexes.
You may be doing some harm to the non-minority you didn't hire, but you are 
doing a greater good for the minority that you do hire. 

> 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 minori-
> ties 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.  

Presumably, if you hire a minority of approximate technical skill to the non-
minority, the quality of technical staff will not be lessened.  

> 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.

I can sympathize (up to a point) with those white males who have lost oppor-
tunities to minorities.  Certainly, some were well-deserving of jobs/promo-
tions/pay raises.  AA is a touchy issue.  In our department, it is an extreme-
ly touchy issue (so touchy, that I'd better not forget to leave my disclaimer
off this article).  I can appreciate how some white males would feel slighted
(better yet, cheated) out of opportunities because of AA.  However, I said,
up to a point I can sympathize, because I have to look at things from the
perspective of a minority, who cannot leave opportunities to chance, since they
are often few and far between.   A white male can go most anywhere in the USA
and make a career for himself.  I (and most other minorities) can't.  Which is
the better position to be in? 

> 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?

I didn't mean to imply that it is right, but it is necessary.  Whenever their
is a goal to be accomplished, there are sacrifices that must be made.  I don't
mean to say that white males today should blame their ancestors for their
mistakes, however they can look upon their sacrifices as "putting to right"
the injustices that were done to minorities over the past 300 years.  Again
(as above) this is not an easy thing to do, even to reconcile to yourself,
if you have worked hard to get where you are on your own merits.

> 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.

I agree to both.  I don't approve of quota-filling any more than anyone else.
I only wish that there could be some less painful solutions than the current
implementations of AA.
-- 
If you wanna ride, don't ride the white horse.

Greg Skinner (gregbo)
{allegra,cbosgd,ihnp4}!houxm!gregbo