NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/discrimi/5488

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-03 | 2.1 KB

Xref: sparky alt.discrimination:5488 soc.culture.african.american:13402 misc.education:5626
Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!enterpoop.mit.edu!stanford.edu!rutgers!uwvax!uchinews!ellis!thf2
From: [e-mail] (Ted Frank)
Newsgroups: alt.discrimination,soc.culture.african.american,misc.education
Subject: Re: Institutional racism in education
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 4 Jan 93 04:40:58 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News System)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Followup-To: alt.discrimination,soc.culture.african.american
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Chicago
Lines: 29

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Terry Parks) writes:
>>>>1.  Union seniority rules
>
>>>Could you explain how giving a Blak worker with 20 years service
>>>preferences over a Caucasian worker with 5 years serivce benefits the
>>Caucasian worker?
>
>>It doesn't.  However, Blacks are more likely to be more recently hired
>>than Whites.
>
>I thought the party line was that whites are 3 to 5 times more likely to
>be hired than blacks. It would better serve the pro-racism forces to
>get their propaganda in sync.

Get your common sense "in sync."  The two statements aren't mutually
exclusive.  For any one position, a white is more likely to be hired.
For any one worker, a black is more likely to be *recently* hired.

Take the example of a company that didn't hire any blacks until 1970,
and then started hiring blacks that year, but is still less likely to
hire a black than a white.  If it lays off workers by seniority, blacks
are more likely to be laid off than whites, even though whites are
more likely to be hired than blacks.

Followups out of misc.education.
--
ted frank                     | [e-mail]
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637