Employment, Quotas, and Affirmative Action
!

 

Home
Up


In the area of employment law, political correctness shoulders gender realities aside.  Gender quotas in hiring and promoting employees – the politically correct term is “Affirmative Action” – are mandated by social levelers, ignoring traditional sex roles.

Thanks to Affirmative Action, males are finding it increasingly difficult to obtain employment and to gain admission to institutions of learning.  If a well-qualified man applies for work or promotion in government or big business, and a woman applicant is even remotely qualified, it is likely she will get it; though it is usually the men who must bring home the bacon.

Male news anchors, for example, are becoming an endangered species.  In the early days of Affirmative Action, C.B.S. Television made Sally Quinn into a major network news broadcaster when, according to her book, We’re Going to Make You a Star, she didn’t even know until some time later that the red light on top of a camera meant that it was active.  The failed nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court was another example.  Miers was chosen ahead of far more qualified men.  I know from personal experience that for years the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) hired women and minorities who did not know the front end of an airplane from the back; and tried, largely unsuccessfully and at great expense, to train them as air traffic controllers and flight service specialists, while experienced male pilots were passed over.

“Affirmative Action” sex quotas became official quite by accident.  On June 19, 1963, President John F. Kennedy sent a Civil Rights Act (CRA) to Congress to counter racial discrimination in the work place.  The Civil Rights Act, intended primarily to help blacks, met stiff political opposition from Southern politicians.  On November 22, 1963, Kennedy was assassinated.  His successor Lyndon B. Johnson proclaimed, “No memorial oration or eulogy could more eloquently honor President Kennedy’s memory than the earliest passage of the civil rights bill for which he fought so long.”  But opposition was still stiff.

On February 8, 1964, Congressman Howard W. Smith of Virginia made a colossal miscalculation in the House of Representatives.  In an attempt to block the CRA, he suggested inserting the word ‘sex’ after the word ‘religion’ whenever it appeared in Title VII, which guaranteed ‘fair’ employment practices.  By tying it to the then controversial women’s movement, Smith hoped to kill the Civil Rights Act.

In his book Freedom Will Conquer Racism and Sexism, J. Edward Pawlick, comments on reaction in the House, “[T]he laughter became too great... and Congressman Smith had to stop.”  Disingenuously, Smith assured the House that he was serious.  The bluff backfired.  The Civil Rights Act passed, the U.S. Government threw itself into new areas of human endeavor, gates opened and Feminists ululated.

Incredible pressure is put upon government agencies, like NASA, to conform to affirmative action quotas.  The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) requested a budget of $310 million for fiscal year 2002.  It certainly doesn’t take a budget like that or a staff of thousands to enforce the principle of equal opportunity.  Their mission is largely to move women (and minorities) into certain positions and to force employers to accept them regardless of qualifications.  The Labor Dept. sponsors symposiums designed to condition women to reject traditional patterns and to rely on government.  Orwell’s Ministry of Truth is busily engaged.

This dangerous idea has done more harm than good.  Its mandates have created dangerous, inefficient and bizarre results.  Female police officers have often failed in violent situations.  On March 11th 2005 at his trial Brian Nichols, an Atlanta rapist and 200-pound former linebacker, disarmed a woman deputy, a 5-foot-tall 52-year-old grandmother, murdered four people, wounded one and made a getaway.  The New York Times proclaimed the cause of this problem was insufficient government spending on courthouse security; it figures.  During a phone interview I had on radio station WXYZ Detroit, the evening of 10/6/75, a policeman called in to relate the following incident: another Detroit policeman and his female partner, answering a domestic call, accosted a shotgun-toting angry man.  Drawing his own revolver the policeman forced the man to lower the shotgun, after deadly serious confrontation.  Looking around afterward he found the police-woman, who was supposed to be covering him, hiding behind the squad car.  No action was taken against her.  A man would have been summarily fired for cowardice.

It was absurd to put Lisa Nowak, that diaper-wearing, would-be-murderer astronaut, in a position to endanger others’ lives and billions of dollars worth of space equipment.  In Detroit, during a reduction in force due to budget shortages and by court order, senior male policemen were laid off, but not newly hired female “policepersons,” understandably sparking a riot.  The Royal Canadian Mounted Police ceased recruiting male officers until the number of female officers attained a politically correct percentage.

Consider the female “firepersons” who are incapable of lifting a ladder or a two-hundred pound man or climbing a six-foot fence, and who prove their upper body strength by performing push-ups from their knees rather than from their toes as men are required to do?  Three Saint Paul Minnesota firemen called me to complain that their Department hiring policy, and probably those all across the nation, maintains two lists of firefighting applicants – one for men and one for women.  They informed me that the top woman applicant can be hired before the top applicant on the men’s list, though her qualifying score would be equivalent to the 45th on the men’s list.  “Diversity (is maintained) at all costs,” one official ruefully explained.  While they can be good paramedics, it’s only a matter of time before female firepersons cause tragedies.

Norway has said it might close down companies that fail to meet proposed boardroom quotas for women.  The new coalition government in Oslo said it was considering introducing a law which would require 40% of boardroom posts to be filled by women.  As I write this, the Spanish Senate is expected to pass a reform to the nation's divorce laws that would require men to contribute as much as their wives to housework and dependent care.  Nothing is included about requiring housewives to have outside jobs.

Affirmative Action is sometimes called “reverse” discrimination, but incorrectly so, because the original discrimination did not exist.  “Quota” is a more accurate term.  Employment quotas, arguably based on law, are inefficient, dangerous and unfair; they hinder the functions of government and business.  What if affirmative action/quotas were applied in the other direction?  What if it were decreed that henceforth all children of divorce be placed with fathers until their numbers equal those placed with mothers, or that professional basketball teams must be composed of 70 percent Caucasians?  I have no objection to quotas, per se, provided that said quotas mandate that favored parties are qualified.

Not all persons fit into, nor should they, traditional sex roles.  I recall a very exceptional lady, one of my flight students with a dual personality.  Sometimes she acted like a second mate and was better at business than most men; but when she wanted to be feminine she appeared highly attractive.  Recently I flew on an airplane staffed by a male steward and a female First Officer.  Neither exhibited outward signs of hormonal imbalance, but it might be interesting to peek inside their heads.

Reasonable sex roles are suggested, and affirmative action is rebutted in Part III.
 


Send mail to Webmaster  with questions or comments about this web site.
Copyright © 2013 Men's Defense Association
Last modified: October 12, 2013