Is Affirmative Action for Women an Appropriate Instrument for Achieving Gender Equity

[Jenson71]

Myth: Affirmative Action is "reverse discrimination" — let's stop giving special rights to certain groups while others are left out.

Fact: Affirmative Action is fair!

Affirmative Action levels the playing field so people of color and all women have the chance to compete in education and in business. White men hold 95% to 97% of the high-level corporate jobs. And that's with affirmative action programs in place. Imagine how low figures would be without affirmative action. Of 3000 federal court decisions in discrimination cases between 1990 and 1994, only 100 involved claims of reverse discrimination; only 6 of those claims were found to be valid.

http://www.now.org/issues/affirm/talking.html

http://www.umich.edu/~urecord/9596/Jan16_96/artcl12.htm

Is Affirmative Action for Women an Appropriate Instrument for Achieving Gender Equity?

PRO

By Ruth Barnard
School of Nursing

Yes, affirmative action was and is needed to achieve full gender equity in employment. Despite 30 years of non-discrimination law, gender prejudice and discrimination still persist. Let's just look at the facts. Comparably qualified women still make less money than men. The proportion of women in regular University of Michigan faculty appointments is low, and most are in the lower paid non-tenured positions. Of the 10 University of Michigan executive officers, only two are women.

Women have made inroads into previously all-male bastions like the Supreme Court and the ranks of astronauts. But at The University of Michigan, the proportion of tenure-track women professors has changed little. In 1984, 16.6 percent of tenure-track faculty were women. Despite affirmative action being the law, in 1994 this had increased to only 21 percent, with most of the increase at the assistant professor level.

The supply of women was certainly available in the pipeline. At least since 1979, women comprised over 30 percent of Ph.D. graduates in the U.S. By 1990, this proportion had increased to 42.3 percent.

It is important to know what affirmative action is. Universities are required to take affirmative action to attract qualified women and minority candidates to applicant pools for positions in underutilized areas. The affirmative action process is accomplished by vigorously seeking a diverse pool of candidates, by a consistent and fair hiring process, and then by hiring the best qualified candidate regardless of race or gender.

There are no quotas, nor preferential hiring practices, imposed by affirmative action. Hiring people because of ethnicity or gender regardless of qualifications has never been sanctioned. The purpose of the regulations is to provide equal opportunity (or a level playing field) for persons who are seeking positions. Thus, affirmative action is a means to guarantee serious consideration of persons qualified for the position. Both hiring practices and promotion decisions require attention to ensuring openness and fairness. Achieving a diverse workforce is of paramount importance in today's global economy.

In most areas of society, women must overcome male advantage and conferred male dominance. Most men are not even aware of their privilege. The predominately white male leadership with its mentoring and networking already in place leaves women at a disadvantage. As more women and minorities enter the workforce, there has been increased competition for jobs. The current and recent downsizing of workforces compounds the problem by decreasing the numbers and types of jobs available. Affirmative action becomes a scapegoat because those who fail to get a job claim unqualified women and minorities have taken their jobs.

Education is the key to understanding and to obtaining equal opportunity for all members of our society. Affirmative action must be a strategy in our centers of learning. Academia has a special responsibility to prepare people to achieve in our complex society. To do this, our teachers and researchers must be diverse. Currently, our faculty numbers do not reflect our population in diversity and complexity, even though trained women and minorities are in the workforce and hiring pool. It is to meet this responsibility that affirmative action is needed in the hiring and promotional activities of our faculty.

Affirmative action is seeing that qualified people, including women and minorities, are in the candidate pool. Affirmative action is about hiring the most qualified person. Equal opportunity and fair consideration should be practiced, not because of rules or regulations, but because equal opportunity and fair consideration are among the fundamental values upon which our country is built.



CON

By Stacy G. Bike
Department of Chemical Engineering



I have been asked by SACUA to prepare a statement contrary to the following question: "Is affirmative action for women an appropriate instrument for achieving gender equity?" The statement that follows is meant to invoke critical thinking and initiate a thoughtful dialogue about this important issue.

Let me begin by defining affirmative action. According to Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, affirmative action is "an active effort to improve the employment or educational opportunities of members of minority groups and women." I will focus specifically on the role of affirmative action in achieving gender equity in the faculty at the University.

The role of affirmative action in achieving gender (and racial) equity has recently been questioned in academia and in society as a whole. Affirmative action programs have been used to construct a faculty and a student body whose compositions mirror the population at large. As the relative proportion of women increases on this campus, it is now the time to ask if affirmative action was (and is) the appropriate instrument to achieve this equality---that is, do the means justify the ends?

Before I address this question, let's consider the following situation. Suppose that I have been elected the president of the United States or, for that matter, have been appointed as president of the University of Michigan. It would not be in my best interest to have risen to these positions on the basis of special privileges without being unquestionably qualified for the positions. If it is perceived that I received these positions simply because I am a woman, I would not have the support of my constituents and colleagues.

Herein lies the problem. Yes, there probably was discrimination against women in gaining faculty positions in higher education---and in pursuing higher education in general. And yes, special programs ("affirmative action") were probably required to encourage women to assume faculty careers, especially in traditionally male-dominated fields like engineering. But these programs have now undermined their initial goals. The mere existence of affirmative action programs can potentially raise questions about the ability of women hired into faculty positions, regardless of whether or not these women were hired as a result of such programs. And if a person's ability is questioned, then her success will never be taken seriously---or worse, she will doubt her own success.

Overlying all of this is a larger problem. In many fields the relative proportion of women decreases during each stage of the educational process so that the relative proportion of women who choose to pursue a faculty career in a given field is much less than those who choose to pursue an undergraduate degree in that field. This is a problem that cannot be "fixed" solely by affirmative action. The expectations of significant research efforts coupled with teaching and service can be overwhelming to younger women---and men---with significant dependent care responsibilities, especially in two-career families. Indeed, the problem here is the requirements of the position. Not surprisingly, women comprise the majority of the lecturers at the University, likely the result of the reduced demands of this position relative to a tenured faculty position.

Affirmative action is not the solution to the problem. This problem is not the result of a structural bias in the system rather, this problem transcends gender and the solution to this problem will require a re-evaluation of the requirements of the tenured faculty position.

[StcChief]

eh. NO. This bad experiment with Affirmative Action needs to be abolished in all areas.

Hire the most qualified and be done with it.

the White Males are tired of reverse discrimination to meet Affirmative Action quotas.

oh and dump this Tenured jobs too....

Keep earning your way, no entitlements (tenured) guaranteed work.

Those can DO. Those who can't TEACH.

[BucEyedPea]

Hire the most qualified and be done with it.

No one should be compelled to do this either, and many still don't.
What about nespotism? Or people hiring friends and those from their church?
What about women who get in the doors of business because of their looks?

This is supposed to be a free country, not a managed country to achieve some socialistic sense of equity.

I oppose Affirmative Action for women as it's none of the govt's business and I would personally be insulted if I got a position or won a govt bid due to it.

I'm not into the use of force on private enterprises as the country is a big sociology clinic.

Equity comes naturally anyway with changing cultural attiudes, plus skills that show competence. Many women have broken the glass ceiling by starting their own businesses—even stay-at-home moms. Some have been extraordinarily successful like Mrs Field's cookies or Party Express. No one knows if the owner is male or female.

Affirmative Action is for losers.

[BIG_DADDY]

Affirmative Action is for losers.

Amen sista!!!

[StcChief]

No one should be compelled to do this either, and many still don't.
What about nespotism? Or people hiring friends and those from their church?
What about women who get in the doors of business because of their looks?

This is supposed to be a free country, not a managed country to achieve some socialistic sense of equity.

I oppose Affirmative Action for women as it's none of the govt's business and I would personally be insulted if I got a position or won a govt bid due to it.

I'm not into the use of force on private enterprises as the country is a big sociology clinic.

Equity comes naturally anyway with changing cultural attiudes, plus skills that show competence. Many women have broken the glass ceiling by starting their own businesses—even stay-at-home moms. Some have been extraordinarily successful like Mrs Field's cookies or Party Express. No one knows if the owner is male or female.

Affirmative Action is for losers.
:clap:

Agree completely.

Private sector or Public jobs.

Nepotism sucks, but happens. Eventually even if the 'hiree' FU enough
he will likely be gone or moved out of the way. Pressure from above/stockholders etc.

[banyon]

I do not support this either.

[go bowe]

It is important to know what affirmative action is. Universities are required to take affirmative action to attract qualified women and minority candidates to applicant pools for positions in underutilized areas. The affirmative action process is accomplished by vigorously seeking a diverse pool of candidates, by a consistent and fair hiring process, and then by hiring the best qualified candidate regardless of race or gender. affirmative action comes in different flavors...

the article is about what universities are required to do under affirmative action...

which is not quotas in terms of actually hiring a person (at least not in academia)...

but quotas are apparently required in the selection/hiring process whatever it is (depending on how you define the word "is")...

it's really quite similar to the nfl's program afaict...

teams looking for new head coaches have to interview some number of black coach(es) but they are free to hire the best canidates, black or white...

as far as the nfl goes, i don't think race is realy an issue any more in terms of who's getting hired, because there are successful black head coaches and coordinators who were hired because they were the best candidates (think lovie smith), not because what race they are...

having said all that, i think affirmation action (in terms of quotas for actual hiring) sucks...

[Adept Havelock]

eh. NO. This bad experiment with Affirmative Action needs to be abolished in all areas.

Hire the most qualified and be done with it.

the White Males are tired of reverse discrimination to meet Affirmative Action quotas.

oh and dump this Tenured jobs too....

Keep earning your way, no entitlements (tenured) guaranteed work.

Those can DO. Those who can't TEACH.


Yeah, toss tenure. Brilliant notion. Then the first time a conservative prof (yes Virginia, they do exist) says something the administration doesn't like, he can be shown the door without any fuss. :rolleyes:

Granted, if you make a statement like "Those can DO", I can certainly understand your dislike of educators.

BTW- Teachers are the one profession that make almost every other profession possible.

And yes, affirmative action sucks.

[alnorth]

The time has come for affirmative action to come to a complete, total, and abrupt end. Equality of opportunity is close enough to reality that the need for this policy no longer exists.

[MarcBulger]

Why don't we need affirmative action in SPORTS?

[Taco John]

I'm going to say yes just to piss off Big Daddy. In fact, I'll take it a step further. I think we should give women and minorities jobs killing pit bulls with automatic rifles. :)

[BWillie007]

I am generally for affirmative action when referring to race, however, with gender I disagree. White women and men are culturally connected more so than white women and black men. What I mean is, white women typically marry older white men who make more money...so how does this help our economy by bringing affirmative action to gender? The point of affirmative action is to eliminate social and economic classes. As a whole, affirmative action is a good thing. It helps decrease the gap between rich and poor. Macroeconomically it makes perfect sense. If I was up for a job, and a black guy got it because he was black, and I was a better candidate,..of course I would be pissed..but I'm logical enough understand that over the course of years it's going to (and has) help the economy of this nation.

[StcChief]

Yeah, toss tenure. Brilliant notion. Then the first time a conservative prof (yes Virginia, they do exist) says something the administration doesn't like, he can be shown the door without any fuss. :rolleyes:

Granted, if you make a statement like "Those can DO", I can certainly understand your dislike of educators.

BTW- Teachers are the one profession that make almost every other profession possible.

And yes, affirmative action sucks.

BTW - If your a teacher, sorry I offended you. But ALL SHOULD BE required to spend some time outside the class room working in industry. A working sabbatical yearly.

Night school teachers that have a 'day job' teach practical vocational skills. That apply to the real world.

Most of what I learned in college has had little value.

Most everything worth doing I taught my self.

[NewPhin]

Those can DO. Those who can't TEACH.

ROFL

Another gem from one of DC's great minds.

[StcChief]

ROFL

Another gem from one of DC's great minds.

It's an old saying, but holds very true.

Try it some time.

[NewPhin]

It's an old saying, but holds very true.

Try it some time.

Try what? I've worked in industry. I was a copywriter for one of the leading outdoor retailers in the world. I received 15% raises every year I worked there. I succeeded by every standard that profession uses to judge success. I then chose to go into teaching. Not because I couldn't do anything else, but because I enjoy it.

It's a stupid saying. Anyone that examines it with any sort of critical eye could see that. Try it sometime.

[StcChief]

Try what? I've worked in industry. I was a copywriter for one of the leading outdoor retailers in the world. I received 15% raises every year I worked there. I succeeded by every standard that profession uses to judge success. I then chose to go into teaching. Not because I couldn't do anything else, but because I enjoy it.

It's a stupid saying. Anyone that examines it with any sort of critical eye could see that. Try it sometime.Glad you enjoy....being a teacher.

I impart my industry knowledge and skill to younger IT developers daily.

I've met too many 'teachers' when I was in college that couldn't hack it in industry.

and what /how they taught and used for examples in IT are dated and worthless. But they got their Tenure....

In industry they would have had to keep up or be fired.

[banyon]

BTW - If your a teacher, sorry I offended you. But ALL SHOULD BE required to spend some time outside the class room working in industry. A working sabbatical yearly.

Night school teachers that have a 'day job' teach practical vocational skills. That apply to the real world.

Most of what I learned in college has had little value.

Most everything worth doing I taught my self.

So, I guess we can shut down all of the Humanities departments then?

[StcChief]

So, I guess we can shut down all of the Humanities departments then?
That would be a start.

[BucEyedPea]

Glad you enjoy....being a teacher.

I impart my industry knowledge and skill to younger IT developers daily.

I've met too many 'teachers' when I was in college that couldn't hack it in industry.

and what /how they taught and used for examples in IT are dated and worthless. But they got their Tenure....

In industry they would have had to keep up or be fired.
At the same time some of the most brilliant teckies cannot teach anybody anything, because they don't know how to take a technical subject, break it down into simple terms, use gradients that build upon each level of understanding, talk over people's heads which does not communicate at that person's level of understanding etc. etc. etc. and so are failed educators.

I see this phenomena on the job all the time. Have interacted with it and been extrememy frustrated by it at times myself in learning something technical. It's a few that can really do this.

[StcChief]

At the same time some of the most brilliant teckies cannot teach anybody anything, because they don't know how to take a technical subject, break it down into simple terms, use gradients that build upon each level of understanding, talk over people's heads which does not communicate at that person's level of understanding etc. etc. etc. and so are failed educators.

I see this phenomena on the job all the time. Have interacted with it and been extrememy frustrated by it at times myself in learning something technical. It's a few that can really do this.

I agree lot of bad techies too....I don't even like talking with them. focused on their subject only.

I guess I would be that exception.... Part of consulting is being able to talk to CEOs all the way down to shop floor guys that barely get out of HS or not even that....
Know your audience.

Explaining things in real life terms.
Using good real world analogies. and explaining as it relates to what they do or could do with it.

Soft selling value.

[BucEyedPea]

I agree lot of bad techies too....I don't even like talking with them. focused on their subject only.

I guess I would be that exception.... Part of consulting is being able to talk to CEOs all the way down to shop floor guys that barely get out of HS or not even that....
Know your audience.

Explaining things in real life terms.
Using good real world analogies. and explaining as it relates to what they do or could do with it.

Soft selling value.
I'm a teacher too but as a working professional.
I've been an adjunct faculty at three different colleges by now. Not voocational schools but colleges. I deal with the creative learner.
I teach my profession. That involves some academic courses, including one history, creative, visual communication problem solving and technical classes which usually programs. Some classes are a mix of these.

[StcChief]

I'm a teacher too but as a working professional.
I've been an adjunct faculty at three different colleges by now. Not voocational schools but colleges. I deal with the creative learner.
I teach my profession. That involves some academic courses, including one history, creative, visual communication problem solving and technical classes which usually programs. Some classes are a mix of these.

The 'working professional' teacher is involved outside school with business etc. Creative learners, problem solvers. That would be a challenge.

It's like teaching 'knowledge workers'...some learn easier than others.

some of those SMEs (subject matter experts) can be too much into the
way things are done and have trouble thinking outside the box.

Stepping back to look at problems from 10K foot level again.

[patteeu]

Those can DO. Those who can't TEACH.

I was never able to make it as a professional swimmer but I was a swimming teacher at one time, so I guess there's some truth to it. :D

[StcChief]

I was never able to make it as a professional swimmer but I was a swimming teacher at one time, so I guess there's some truth to it. :D

Right but you didn't remain a swimming teacher, got on with your life and found a career. Realizing their is more to life than teaching.

[BucEyedPea]

Realizing their is more to life than teaching.
That's an aweful thing to say.

Nothing beats the experience of seeing the lightbulb go off in a child or young adult.Teaching touches lives daily and can change them. Granted there's much to be corrected in this area but it still touches and changes lives.

Just because you haven't experienced such or get the same out of it doesn't mean there are those that do.

[StcChief]

That's an aweful thing to say.

Nothing beats the experience of seeing the lightbulb go off in a child or young adult.Teaching touches lives daily and can change them. Granted there's much to be corrected in this area but it still touches and changes lives.

Just because you haven't experienced such or get the same out of it doesn't mean there are those that do.

I'm glad their are those that do. At the EL ED, Jr H, HS level find it rewarding "helping shape young minds"

One of my best teacher at HS Math level. Taught us to push our selves. Maybe thats where it get it from.

The light bulb theory is rewarding to some.

I do like teaching as an informal activity of helping others. (Imparting knowledge/how to).

I just prefer that they think and have the will power to continue on THEIR OWN. Learn by doing and where to look and discover how to do it. Try things out. I don't want to be The Answer Man. that limits people.

They will get so much more out of doing it themselves with just a little push. And I get the Thank you's for steering them to do it....

I have done and developed course work for companies. Delivered and taught it.
It can be rewarding, some adults see the value of what I.T. has done to help them in their jobs/careers.

Others dont really want to adapt to improve their lives and jobs.
Some just view technology information as something that upper mgmt is forcing on them.

[cdcox]

I've served on close to a dozen faculty search committees over the last few years, so I've seen first hand how affirmative action works in academia. We'll get typically between 50 and 100 applications for a given opening. We first screen them to see who we want to consider further and who really isn't qualified. AA has zero role in this. Of the smaller list we will eventually select a group that we want to interview (primary pool) of 3 to 5 applicants and a secondary pool that we will interview only if we are unable to find a good hire in the primary pool. AA action might give you an edge at this stage. For example, we might have found two very well qualified people that we are very interested in hiring and need a third person for the primary pool. Several applicants may be very close to each other, but not quite up to the level of the first two candidates. If one of those second teir candidates is a woman or other under-represented group, they'll get the chance to interview. Or maybe we have three candidates that look good, but there is a woman who is pretty close to them. We might decide to interview 4 candidates instead of 3, just so that we get the opportunity to interview the woman.

Once the interveiwing starts, its a clean slate. Based on the interview visit, the seach committee recommends who is qualified and who is not and lists strenghts and weaknesses. It is at this final stage that AA can make a real difference. If an under-represented candidate gets an acceptable recommendation from the search committee, they will almost always get the first offer.

I don't see much problem with AA in this context. Any female that we have hired or made offers to have been strongly qualified for the position. Even with this version of AA in place, we've had a total of 3 women on our faculty in the 16 years I have been on the faculty and never more than one holding a position at any given time out of around 20 faculty positions. I'd like to have more women (and minorities) on the faculty because they would be more effective in mentoring and serving as role models for our women students (who are about 15-25% of our student body in my department).

I'm not in favor of quotas, but that is not what is practiced.

[Rain Man]

I'm not sure that what you're doing is really affirmative action, cdcox, because it sounds like you're doing it for a rational reason, which is (in my paraphrasing) to ensure that your school has role models with whom your students can identify. There's probably some decision point where you decide that Candidate A, the white male, is a slightly better candidate in all other ways, but Candidate B, the [minority or female] brings this extra presence to the table, and is therefore a more attractive overall candidate. If Candidate B's advantage doesn't make up the objective difference, I would bet and hope that you would go with Candidate A. The real challenge is figuring out where that threshold lies.

While at one point in my life I thought it was bogus, I've come to believe over time that having good role models is very important, not just personally but professionally. Within this reality, it may simply be good business to say, "A [minority or woman] in this position may be good for morale among other [minorities or women]." That's not reverse discrimination but rather an evaluation of one of hundreds of subjective factors that enter into any hiring process.

The sad thing about our culture, though, is that apparently most people can't fathom having a role model that doesn't look like them in terms of race or gender. Even in the sports world, which is the ultimate performance-judged environment, if you ask about role models, the black athletes will typically mention black role models and the white athletes will typically mention white role models. Why can't a female student see a male professor as an inspiration, and why can't a white male see a female manager as an inspiration? It seems to be a very shallow worldview, but it is apparently pervasive.

In contrast to the above discussion, I see affirmative action programs as being programs that are based not on what the person can bring to a job, but rather the very fact that they are a minority or female. It's an irrational decision, because it's based on a philosophy that women or minorities need help to overcome discrimination against a group. In theory, it's possible that such programs are warranted. If a group faces discrimination, it's not unreasonable for the government to step in and say, "Hey, we're going to do something about this." Does anyone here have an issue with the Indian government setting a quota that a certain percentage of government jobs be held by people in the Untouchable class?

However, the sticky issue is in the implementation and fairness of such programs. In particular, are the group's troubles equally shared amongst all of its individual members? Is a well-spoken, reasoning, and intelligent Hispanic man discriminated against as much as an illiterate and coarse Hispanic man? Probably not. So should the two people get the same preference? Probably not, but the systems aren't sophisticated enough to account for the fact that people discriminate not just on race and sex, but also age, class, physical appearance, cultural issues, and a zillion other factors. This is above and beyond the fact that the same preferences will likely exist for an immigrant from Africa who may have been the oppressing majority for his entire life, as opposed to an American-born black man whose family was oppressed in the South for a couple of hundred years.

A related challenge, and more important, is that if a program mandates or "strongly encourages" preferential treatment for a certain group, which people in that group are going to benefit the most? There's a 100 percent guarantee that it will be the top performers in that group, who are the ones who are most likely to succeed anyway. In cdcox's example above, the woman who gets hired was strong enough to make the initial cut anyway, so if she didn't get hired by his school, she was probably strong enough to get hired by some other school. If they were "forced" to hire a woman, it would've been her, so there's not net impact other than geography. This is less of an issue for things like college admissions and hiring than it is for contracting affirmative action programs. If a government forces a firm to hire minority and women subcontractors, they're going to hire the same firms that offer the best services and costs. A few minorities and women will get rich, but the rest will still be shut out by the top performers. Is the goal of these programs to make a few minorities and women rich, or is to increase the breadth of opportunity to those further down the ladder?

I question affirmative action not in theory, but more in practice. I think there needs to be a lot more thought put into how it's implemented, and to what extent discrimination exists in different settings - hiring, college admissions, contracting, etc.

[StcChief]

I'd like to have more women (and minorities) on the faculty because they would be more effective in mentoring and serving as role models for our women students (who are about 15-25% of our student body in my department).

I'm not in favor of quotas, but that is not what is practiced.

Glad to see the screening plan in action. To avoid discrimation law problems. You would have to.

Good idea in theory AA should work that way. to get better rep/role models.

But Private/Public sector, Gov't , Industry it's quota. unforunately.

Contracts awarded to Women/Minority owned business etc. Quota again

[Rain Man]

Women have made inroads into previously all-male bastions like the Supreme Court and the ranks of astronauts.

Ha-ha. Astronauts.

[Rain Man]

Glad to see the screening plan in action. To avoid discrimation law problems. You would have to.

Good idea in theory AA should work that way. to get better rep/role models.

But Private/Public sector, Gov't , Industry it's quota. unforunately.

Contracts awarded to Women/Minority owned business etc. Quota again

Hey, you stole my ideas, but in 1,000 fewer words.

[StcChief]

Hey, you stole my ideas, but in 1,000 fewer words.
I know at least two consulting firms that made 'the wife' the President
just to be inside on AA contract awards. :p :D

Playing the game...

[Rain Man]

I know at least two consulting firms that made 'the wife' the President
just to be inside on AA contract awards. :p :D

Playing the game...

Yeah, my wife is a 50 percent partner in our firm, and we've occasionally considered bumping her to 51 percent so that we could be disadvantaged. Since she's a full contributing partner it would be perfectly legal. We're not going to do it, though.

Along similar lines, I know a consulting firm around here that set up a "nonprofit" arm. It's housed in the same offices as the consulting arm, has the same staff, and the Board of Directors is made up of the employees of the company, but the only difference is that they don't have to pay taxes. That's a "Channel 9 Investigation" that's just waiting to happen. Total scam, in my opinion, and if people think it's legal then I might have to set one up, too. I pay way too much in taxes, especially when this other firm (a big competitor of ours) can undercut me on price by funneling a project through his "nonprofit arm".

[StcChief]

Yeah, my wife is a 50 percent partner in our firm, and we've occasionally considered bumping her to 51 percent so that we could be disadvantaged. Since she's a full contributing partner it would be perfectly legal. We're not going to do it, though.

Along similar lines, I know a consulting firm around here that set up a "nonprofit" arm. It's housed in the same offices as the consulting arm, has the same staff, and the Board of Directors is made up of the employees of the company, but the only difference is that they don't have to pay taxes. That's a "Channel 9 Investigation" that's just waiting to happen. Total scam, in my opinion, and if people think it's legal then I might have to set one up, too. I pay way too much in taxes, especially when this other firm (a big competitor of ours) can undercut me on price by funneling a project through his "nonprofit arm".

These are real reason to DUMP AA.

[BucEyedPea]

Interesting points coming up now.

I interviewed a few years back for a creative director position for a firm owned by a woman. I was very impressed by her operation. Her place had original artwork on her walls everywhere worth $10k min apiece. Very hi-class! Then I saw her accounts. A lot of them were govt ones. I asked her how she had built her design firm. She said with AA business. Her hubby worked for her, but not at first. I think he became a partner. Figures!

It was a sweat shop anyways!

I guess that's better then puttin' out sexually to get to the top....I know female professionals who've done that too.

[StcChief]

Interesting points coming up now.

I interviewed a few years back for a creative director position for a firm owned by a woman. I was very impressed by her operation. Her place had original artwork on her walls everywhere worth $10k min apiece. Very hi-class! Then I saw her accounts. A lot of them were govt ones. I asked her how she had built her design firm. She said with AA business. Her hubby worked for her, but not at first. I think he became a partner. Figures!

It was a sweat shop anyways!

I guess that's better then puttin' out sexually to get to the top....I know female professionals who've done that too.

Actually the puttin' out gets your further or leveraged.

Depending on the size of the firm.

Of course it cost Boeing VP Stonecipher his job.

www.agsm.edu.au/~bobm/teaching/BE/Cases_pdf/Stoneciphercase.pdf

[Rain Man]

I guess that's better then puttin' out sexually to get to the top....I know female professionals who've done that too.

Yeah, but that's at least based on objective merit.

[Valiant]

BTW - If your a teacher, sorry I offended you. But ALL SHOULD BE required to spend some time outside the class room working in industry. A working sabbatical yearly.

Night school teachers that have a 'day job' teach practical vocational skills. That apply to the real world.

Most of what I learned in college has had little value.

Most everything worth doing I taught my self.



I have the feeling you thought you knew everything in college and really didn't care when you were there...

And it is laughable that you are comparing your IT career towards colleges and teaching when IT field is just a part of what goes on there...

[BucEyedPea]

Yeah, but that's at least based on objective merit.
I'm having difficulty understanding what you really, really mean here.
Could you please, provide more details.
Be very specific and use pictures if necessary. Thanx much. :)

[WilliamTheIrish]

Those can DO. Those who can't TEACH.

How do you butcher this simple quote?

[Rain Man]

How do you butcher this simple quote?

Perhaps he teaches about famous quotes.

[Rain Man]

I'm having difficulty understanding what you really, really mean here.
Could you please, provide more details.
Be very specific and use pictures if necessary. Thanx much. :)

I try and I try and I try, but the mods keep deleting my diagrams.

[Amnorix]

Yeah, my wife is a 50 percent partner in our firm, and we've occasionally considered bumping her to 51 percent so that we could be disadvantaged. Since she's a full contributing partner it would be perfectly legal. We're not going to do it, though.

Along similar lines, I know a consulting firm around here that set up a "nonprofit" arm. It's housed in the same offices as the consulting arm, has the same staff, and the Board of Directors is made up of the employees of the company, but the only difference is that they don't have to pay taxes. That's a "Channel 9 Investigation" that's just waiting to happen. Total scam, in my opinion, and if people think it's legal then I might have to set one up, too. I pay way too much in taxes, especially when this other firm (a big competitor of ours) can undercut me on price by funneling a project through his "nonprofit arm".

This kind of abuse of non-profits is incredibly widespread through a number of industries. I've even seen/heard of some religious non-profits that are really just business taking advantage of the tax laws. Not just the absurd Church of Scientology, which is nothing more than being in the business of snookering people through religion, but people running relatively ordinary businesses but using religion as a cover story to make it non-profit. It's a f**king scam.

Putting your wife in as a 51% owner is what 99% of people in your situation would do. I don't even view that as at all illegitimate. Drop a dime on this consulting arm...

[Amnorix]

Here's my one and only real concern about AA -- when does it end? Are we still going to have it 500 years from now?

We're practically the only country that has them. Are we uniquely discriminatory or something?

At some point, quotas etc. should be abolished. The answer, I'm sure, is that quotas can be abolished when discrimination also ceases to exist, but the reality is that quotas, affirmative action and anti-discrimination policies give rise to absolutely tremendous costs that are endemic to all businesses over the size of about 25 employees. It's an entire industry unto itself, one that damages our efficiency and our economy.

Sooner or later, we just have to declare that it all becomes merit based, and best of luck, because to compete in the world marketplace, we can't continue to have such a huge, ongoing drain on our efficiency.

[StcChief]

I have the feeling you thought you knew everything in college and really didn't care when you were there...

And it is laughable that you are comparing your IT career towards colleges and teaching when IT field is just a part of what goes on there...

No I didn't think I know everything, but went thru their mill for the sheep skin.

Some teachers did help most were regirgatating text we read.

They were testing compehesion. Design concepts were in the book.

Their class toy projects in IT geared down for kids not in IT work .

I learned more outside of School by doing REAL projects.

I'm not comparing my IT career to college but how LEARNING can occur.

I don't care about college IT depts. They are stepping stones for students to get experience managing systems for enrollment, payroll, attendence, etc.

The research work using /building adv IT systems would be interesting....Genomics etc.