home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: soc.singles
- Path: sparky!uunet!s5!sethb
- From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
- Subject: Re: nkill
- Message-ID: <1992Nov17.222507.26632@fid.morgan.com>
- Organization: my opinions only
- References: <MARTINC.92Nov11205329@hatteras.cs.unc.edu> <1992Nov16.232936.196@fid.morgan.com> <1992Nov17.021554.28446@adobe.com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 22:25:07 GMT
- Lines: 27
-
- In article <1992Nov17.021554.28446@adobe.com> mmwang@adobe.com
- (Michael Wang) writes:
- >In article <1992Nov16.232936.196@fid.morgan.com> sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:
- >>I don't like the form of AA that requires discrimination. I'm in
- >>favor of the initial meaning (e.g. advertise your opening in Veterans'
- >>Weekly and Minorities Monthly as well as the Wall St. Journal, then
- >>hire the best applicant.)
- >
- >Suppose we have the following situation. In 1990, employee A who is
- >female, is not given promotion, which is instead given to employee B,
- >a male who was much less qualified than A. Despite this clear-case of
- >sex discrimination, A stays with the company. In 1992, the same
- >position becomes available again. However, this time, employee C, a
- >male who is much more qualified than A is also in the running for the
- >promotion. Should A be granted preferential treatment and be given the
- >promotion over C (who is better qualified) because of the
- >discrimination against her in the past?
-
- A can be compensated by the company for the discrimination. Why
- should C suffer because somebody else discriminated?
-
- More importantly, suppose they now grant the preferential treatment to
- A. C has now been a victim of discrimination; in 1994, the position
- opens up again and now D is more qualified. Should C get it anyway?
- When does this end?
-
- Seth sethb@fid.morgan.com
-