Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
RE: [SEAOC] Re: Affirmative Action[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org
- Subject: RE: [SEAOC] Re: Affirmative Action
- From: nmends(--nospam--at)mt.net
- Date: Sun, 4 Feb 96 09:15:34 MST
On Sun, 4 Feb 1996 01:03:19 -0500 IrishBYTE(--nospam--at)aol.com wrote: >Nigel Mends writes: >>>>>>Could it possibly be that a lot fewer females go into engineering in the >first place? When I was in >school ten or so years ago, we only had two or three females out of an >engineering student body of two or three hundred. Of course, we wouldn't >want to let mere facts get in the way... > >Response: Twenty years ago, when I was in school, 1% of all PEs were women. > My graduating class was 2% women at U C Davis, and most of us had been >influenced by the AA recruitment team. I know this because I headed the SWE >group (all thirteen of us.) Now, with the advent of AA programs, women >comprise more like 6% of all engineers. Thank you for illustrating my point >with mere facts. That makes a great throwaway line, but the connection between reverse discrimination in hiring and promotion on the job and increased enrollment in college escapes me. > >David Owens writes: >>>>>>Why can't you accept the fact that most women do not wish to be >engineers? > >Response: Perhaps we need to address the reason WHY more men than women want >to become engineers - on a ratio of sixteen to one. Why would we need to? Certain vocations have a tendency to attract more of one sex than of the other. Why on earth must we demand absolute numerical equivalency in every profession? Shouldn't we "cherish diversity"? >perhaps we all need to evaluate whether we are truly looking at the >qualifications and skills of each person when we hire or recommend promotion >- rather than the person's sex, skin colour, sexual preference, age, or Yet you promote "AA" programs that institutionalize discrimination, and insist on attaining professional populations based only on gonads; the only difference is you want a different group of victims. As long as you insist on purity of a population based on something as irrelevant as glandular status you perpetuate the very discriminatory practices you so stridently claim to abhor. Nigel _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ Nigel Mends, PE email: nmends(--nospam--at)mt.net _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ ...
- Prev by Subject: [SEAOC] Re: Affirmative Action
- Next by Subject: Re: [SEAOC] Re: Affirmative Action
- Previous by thread: [SEAOC] Re: Affirmative Action
- Next by thread: Re: [SEAOC] Re: Affirmative Action