Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that many women and minorities are unhappy with affirmative action. Specifically, they are unhappy with the disparity between the promises of equality that they hear and the realities of the glass ceiling and the golden cuffs. In my opinion, the basic problem is that affirmative action is currently controlled by the federal government, which, of course, is dominated by white males. I think that affirmative action programs should be put in the control of women and minorities themselves. Women and minorities in colleges and in businesses should decide how it is to be implemented and they should have the final say in whether or not its implementation is satisfactory. For example, if women and/or minorities at a corporation decided that someone had been given a token job, they wouldn't have to file a lawsuit. They could simply go to the government and the person(s) responsible for the sexist or racist practices would be forced out their jobs. Misuse of this power, would of course, be a criminal offense, but such misuse would have to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt. Is this practicable? Thank you very much.

The problems is that their are poor white men that are in the same situation as poor women or poor minority men. I think it should be based off of income so that it level plain is somewhat equal.

__________________
In the land of the blind, the man with one eye is the king
- Nas

That is an interesting point, but ultimately inequality of power is the greatest problem for women and minorities. They are often given high-paying "token" jobs that carry no real authority. That is known as the "golden cuffs".

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

in the federal program, one must be both socially AND economically disadvantaged to qualify.

thus, minority/women program administrators may not meet the criteria.

if they did meet the criteria and were most (or equally) qualified then there would be no problem. however, if they were not most (or equally) qualified to those passed over to administer the program, you have unfairly discriminated against the most qualified prospective administrators for no reason other than their gender or ethnicity. institutionalizing discriminatory practices would appear to be exactly the opposite of what the affirmative program is trying to accomplish.

Keep in mind that the administration of such a program would be open to all women. Also note that the level of effectiveness of affirmative action would be much higher if it were implemented by women and minorities then if, as is the case right now, it was implemented by white men.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

If affirmative action relies on quotas, then I would oppose it. For whatever reason, women and minorities don't flock to certain industries. The only way to meet quotas in those industries would be to literally draft women and minorities. And in order to make room for the draftees, you'd have to displace employees who were there of their own free will and desire.

In my previous life, I worked in banking. There, you did find a fair number of women. A lot of women are in finance. For the past decade or so, I've worked in the manufacturing sector. There are very few women in this sector - though there are many more with the company I'm with now than the company I just left. For whatever reason, not that many women pursue jobs in this sector. I don't know why. I believe there is discrimination, or a reluctance to bring women in. But with only a few pursuing jobs, and even fewer hired, it would be difficult to prove without a whistleblower.

To work your way through the ranks of a company, you have to in some ways become one of the boys. For some women and minorites, that may not always be easy. I'm not a sociologist, but from the classes I took many moons ago, I recall that it was a proven fact that people tend to associate with those most like themselves. And people tend to want leaders who project strength and power. That's one of the reason that tall men tend to be chosen as leaders. But tall or short, anyone who seems like too much of a maverick is going to have a reduced shelf life. Women and minorities who learn to work within the social fabric of a particular corporation or sector have greater chances of finding success. And as more women and minorities work their way into upper management, the unwritten rules will change. They already have. Compared to 20 years ago, when I first started working, many more companies are family and female friendly. It just takes time and steady work. There are no magic bullets.

But to dictate that 51% of the corporations in America must have female CEO's and/or managers and X% of this minority or that minority, I would be incredibly opposed to that. But if it happened, those would be companies that I would select for stock shorting. Social engineering seldom works in business, and I feel that I could make a mint from those business failures.

Education and enforcement of existing anti-discrimination measures are what's needed most, IMO. But quotas?

__________________
"Tweeter was a Boyscout before she went to Vietnam and found out the hard way... nobody gives a d@mn."

Current quota systems are ineffective because they result in women and minorities being hired but never promoted (the "glass ceiling"), or being promoted to high-paying jobs with no real authority (the "golden cuffs"). For that reason, I think that my plan would have two advantages. First, I would imagine that women and minorities know what is best for them. Putting them in control of affirmative action, therefore, would make it more effective. Second, in the example that you gave, LoSconosciuto, one complaint by a woman or a member of a minority group would be given immediate attention by the government, which would certainly discourage discrimination.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

But I don't see that putting women and minorities in charge of affirmative action programs would lead to anything other than business inefficiencies and increased government involvement in the business sector.

Promotions into the executive suite or upper management are seldom based on test scores. At this level, there are no tests... not written ones anyway. It most often comes down to your professional/social network, or your contacts. By the time you get that far, your college GPA and SAT scores have been long forgotten. The smartest guy/girl or the most qualified on paper does not always get the job. As an (anecdotal) example: the management job that I just got... three other people were also in the running. It's an engineering related position, but I don't have an engineering degree. One of the other people did. One of the others actually had more years in management than I did, as he was older. What was in my favor was that I am well traveled and I know a lot of people in the industry. I took a tour of the facility and shook hands with the supervisors and managers. I played politics and made myself one of the boys from interview #1. I had the job before the others had even interviewed. I was negotiating salary, benefits and bonus by the time they got their rejection letters. If the other applicants had been women and/or minorities, I'm sure they could propose a claim of a rigged game and/or discrimination. I'm not saying that someone else couldn't do as well or better than I have thus far. But as much as I don't care about fitting in... I can fit in nearly anywhere - if you are paying me enough. I've seen that some women and minorities resent facing that realization. It is unfortunate, but in a corporation, you cannot remain 100% your own person. That's why some people go into business for themselves. Corporate life is not for everyone.

A government mandate would not make an unwanted applicant fit in or do a good job. We're not talking Brown vs. The Board of Education. I mean simply: someone who wants a position, doesn't get it... but can't accept or learn how the system works. That person will probably never learn how the game is played, if Big Brother has to give them the job. Someone who is thrust into a position, but will then have to work within a social network (which is all a corporation is) will have an uphill battle from day 1. Is it fair? Very seldom is it fair. I do not believe in exclusion. But to be included, you have to be prepared to fight your way in and be ready to fight to stay. When/if you eventually conclude that a particular fight is not worth the potential gain, it is time to leave. That is the decision that I recently made.

In short, I don't see how shareholder value would be served by this. And that is the actual and expressed purpose of a corporation.

__________________
"Tweeter was a Boyscout before she went to Vietnam and found out the hard way... nobody gives a d@mn."

Since I would apply the same program to the faculties of colleges and other schools, women and minorities would be better educated, which would help the economy. Moreover, a well-run affirmative action program would decrease the number of people on welfare, which would benefit the economy as well.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

Are you assuming that women and minorities would be any more efficient (or fair) in administering these programs than is currently the case? And if the answer is "yes", why?

Nothing that I'm aware of prevents young women from taking more mechanical engineering courses or getting those types of degrees now. In order to be better qualified for say, my field, that would be helpful in working their way up.

Perhaps I don't understand your proposal. What would the actual mechanics be in accomplishing this goal of increased female and minority representation in certain fields and positions? Whether in business or academia, it sounds like if someone isn't happy with an outcome, they have the option of calling Big Brother. That option exists now. How would it be any easier to prove with this plan than now? I am opposed to most anything that strikes me as social engineering. Short of actual discrimination, I would leave it up to the individual to do the best he/she can do for himself. If you succeed, you succeed. If you fail, you fail.

__________________
"Tweeter was a Boyscout before she went to Vietnam and found out the hard way... nobody gives a d@mn."