---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 09:49:57 PST
From: Nancy B. Kurland <[log in to unmask]>
To: Multiple recipients of list IABS-L <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: affirmative action
 
IABSers:
Every session, I too open a dialogue on affirmative action.  I have
found though that students go both ways, although I have not actually
counted hands either way.  As someone observed in this discussion,
African-Americans are highly underrepresented in my classroom.
HOwever, I do try to encourage them to speak without pinpointing them
directly.  This year, a few minority students (Asians and
African-Americans) were brave enough to share their personal
experiences with the class.  Moreover, the overwhelming consensus of
the students was to revise affirmative action policies to focus not
on race and sex but on socio-economic status.
 
I have also attended debates on affirmative action in the community
here in Los Angeles.  THere the disagreement centered on whether
we should affirm the participation of groups or of individuals.  If
we focus on individuals, we can redress instances of direct
discriminatation.  The challenge becomes implementing such a
practice, which requires identifying discrimination on a case by case
basis.  Obviously, redressing discrimination at the group level is
easier.  However, the challenge here becomes (as we probably are all
well aware) to redress those individuals in that targetted group who
have been discriminated against--be it intentional, institutionalized
(and t/f not entirely cognitively intentional), or not--at the risk
of affirming the participation of individuals in that targetted group
who have not been discriminated against, and of course of avoiding
instances of reverse discrimination.
 
Apparently, this dialogue is one that has a lot of life left in it.
 
Nancy
 
 
 
Professor Nancy Kurland
University of Southern California
Department of Management & Organization
Los Angeles, CA  90089-1421
213-740-6647
[log in to unmask]