Discrimination
A.P.K.
Hi. I'm in a bit of a predicament for a couple of reasons,
and I'm not sure what my response to the situation should be,
and besides, this might open up another thread of discussion (Oh
NO!!!) <grin>
I'm ex-military (for those who don't know me from Adam yet),
and when I returned to the States and Civilian life, I was quite
the Johnny Kleencut type. I wasn't before the military, having
hair almost down to my waist (when wet) and listening to The
Rolling Stones and bad-mouthing the country. Nice quote from
An Officer and a Gentleman, huh? Anyway...
When I returned to the States, I remained the Johnny Kleencut
type and started college. Soon, however, I noticed a pattern.
I was frequently asked if I had drugs, wanted to party, etc,
although I considered myself to be the geeky type at that point.
I didn't get it. So I started to make some observations. I
want to shy away from generalizations, although what I'm about
to say may well sound like such. DISCLAIMER: I know that as
a generalization, this isn't true for _everyone_, however, it
does seem to be a majority response. It seems as though the
majority of heavy partiers around here are the Johnny Kleencut
types, if we're to go on looks. They are the ones who can
afford to be doing drugs while in college. They are the ones
least likely to be viewed as dopers. They are the ones who can
blatently get away with it, and do. This was not for me...
Being a poor, starving college student with a mild past
of partying myself, and wanting nothing to do with that
life-style anymore, I decided to let my hair grow again. When
viewed as being too poor to afford drugs, the questions stopped
rolling in my way nearly so much, thusly I'm able to avoid that
part of my past which I may still find to be a temptation from
time to time. (And NO, I never did anything heavy in my
youth, but even smoking a little grass can be a temptation
during severely stressful times.) Now I have longer hair
again, though no where nearly as long as it used to be.
Jump to today... I'm burnt out on school, having attended
three years now with absolutely no breaks (not really even between
semesters, having jobs and such.) I have to take some time off
but I have to get a job if I'm to survive while "taking a break."
Some "break," huh? Ah well. So next week I have a job interview
lined up, and everyone keeps telling me that I simply HAVE to
get my haircut before I go in for an interview. I don't have
any desire/intention of doing this, for two reasons. One, I
have no desire to conform to the closet-druggie standard of
being a Johnny Kleencut look-a-like (which is a blatent farce
which I find disgusting.) Not only that, but I view the
societal standard of men having to be clean cut to be sexual
discrimination against men. No, I've no intention of wanting
to wear makeup and earings and skirts next! I keep myself
shaved and my hair clean and combed and I'm no dirtbag or
anything. But forcing men to conform to the standard of having
hair kept exceptionally short, and then perhaps not being
hired on the grounds of being a "longhaired maggot infested
freak of nature" (to quote Rush) is a form of sexual
discrimination, is it not? Not only that, but it's too
reminiscent of the way Hillary Clinton conformed to the standards
of being a "preppy-type" just in order to further her husband's
cause of running for president. It would almost sicken me
to lower myself to such a standard just to get a much needed
job.
Hopefully, my predicament is fairly clear at this point.
Is it considered sexual discrimination not to be hired on the
grounds of having longer hair than is deemed appropriate? Am
I correct in asserting myself in such a manner, or should I
conform to the standards of this society? Couldn't it be
considered a form of stereotyping that warrents such behavior
against me on the mere grounds of length of hair? I mean,
I'd pass any drug test, I've nothing to hide. I only grew my
hair long again to avoid the temptation which just 15 years
ago came from the opposite direction of HAVING longer hair.
Well, any comments or such are obviously being solicited, so
would be most welcome.
Jim
david.j.rea
To avoid sounding like your father, or rather mine, if you are really
burnt out on school, taking a break would help. But, you only have one
more year to go for your BS, if that's what your going for. Why take
a year away from college to work full time! Finish the year and then
take your break.
The reason I say this is, I took a break. It was very hard for me to
return to school. Once you get into a mode it is hard to change this
mode. I am now 28 and am still working towards my degree. Almost done
though.
As far as cutting your hair, as long as you keep it clean, it should not
matter how you wear it. Although ;-) keep in mind that if you are trying
to land a job that is high visibility were you are representing the
company's image in some way, the hair might effect the final solution. I
feel that it's the company's right to have a particular image if they
want it. They can't MAKE you cut your hair, but they do not have to hire
you either.
Why not finish school; this will give you a year to think about the hair
situation and maybe the company's will change ;-)
David
Nathan Engle
jno...@andy.bgsu.edu (A.P.K.) writes:
> Hi. I'm in a bit of a predicament for a couple of reasons,
>and I'm not sure what my response to the situation should be,
>and besides, this might open up another thread of discussion (Oh
>NO!!!) <grin>
Let me get this straight. You're in a predicament and you want *us*
to offer suggestions on how to get out of it? You really are in trouble.
[condensation: Jim was a long hair in his youth, but cleaned up when
he got out of the military.]
> When I returned to the States, I remained the Johnny Kleencut
>type and started college. Soon, however, I noticed a pattern.
>I was frequently asked if I had drugs, wanted to party, etc,
>although I considered myself to be the geeky type at that point.
Hey, I was substantially geeky during my college days and it was my
experience that the geeky-types had the best drugs and threw the best
parties.
[another condensation: Jim noticed that the clean-cut kids were the
heaviest partiers, so he grew his hair long again so that people would
leave him alone.]
> Jump to today... I'm burnt out on school, having attended
>three years now with absolutely no breaks (not really even between
>semesters, having jobs and such.) I have to take some time off
>but I have to get a job if I'm to survive while "taking a break."
>Some "break," huh? Ah well. So next week I have a job interview
>lined up, and everyone keeps telling me that I simply HAVE to
>get my haircut before I go in for an interview.
This is not always true, but it really isn't bad advice. I've never
heard of any cases in which anyone was rejected due to their squeaky-
clean appearance, but I've heard of lots of cases in which people were
rejected on poor appearance (particularly in sales).
>I don't have
>any desire/intention of doing this, for two reasons. One, I
>have no desire to conform to the closet-druggie standard of
>being a Johnny Kleencut look-a-like (which is a blatent farce
>which I find disgusting.)
Hey, if you're *not* a closet druggie then you're not conforming to
the standard, right? This country will have come to a very sad state if
drug-users ever corner the market on good grooming habits. IMHO there's
not much danger of that happening in the near future.
> Not only that, but I view the
>societal standard of men having to be clean cut to be sexual
>discrimination against men.
Oh, for crying out out. Last time I checked being clean cut was a
standard which applied equally to both men and women.
> No, I've no intention of wanting
>to wear makeup and earings and skirts next! I keep myself
>shaved and my hair clean and combed and I'm no dirtbag or
>anything. But forcing men to conform to the standard of having
>hair kept exceptionally short, and then perhaps not being
>hired on the grounds of being a "longhaired maggot infested
>freak of nature" (to quote Rush) is a form of sexual
>discrimination, is it not?
Who are you planning to interview with? I had pretty long hair when
I hired on at AT&T, and that was only a couple years ago. I generally
keep it shorter these days but that's because I'm married. If you think
that hiring criteria constitute sexual discrimination, then I just can't
wait to hear your thoughts on marriage...
> Not only that, but it's too
>reminiscent of the way Hillary Clinton conformed to the standards
>of being a "preppy-type" just in order to further her husband's
>cause of running for president. It would almost sicken me to lower
>myself to such a standard just to get a much needed job.
Man, you're breaking my heart. You're really trying to say that you
don't want to dress up for fear of being reminiscent of Hillary Clinton?
Have you ever seen any photos of Barbara Bush? Marilyn Quayle? (Now
*there's* a long hair if ever I saw one).
You know, I've noticed that Hillary Clinton breathes oxygen. Are you
going to stop breathing oxygen too?
> Hopefully, my predicament is fairly clear at this point.
Yes, it is. You're almost hopelessly confused.
>Is it considered sexual discrimination not to be hired on the
>grounds of having longer hair than is deemed appropriate?
Nope, sorry. Employers are free to choose and enforce whatever dress
codes and standards of personal grooming that they feel are appropriate
for the position being filled.
>Am I correct in asserting myself in such a manner, or should I
>conform to the standards of this society?
That depends. As I found at AT&T, having long hair is not necessarily
a fatal drawback. I would say that engineers and technical types get a lot
of leeway in personal appearance, particularly if they have very desirable
skills.
>Couldn't it be considered a form of stereotyping that warrents such
>behavior against me on the mere grounds of length of hair?
Yes, it could be be considered a form of stereotyping, but I don't
believe that it's a violation of the law, especially considering that
hair length is almost never going to be the sole make-or-break criterion
in deciding whether to hire someone or not. If they don't like you on
account of your refusal to cut your hair, then there are bound to be at
least a half dozen other things they could state as the reason you don't
get hired (probably with "Poor communication skills" at the top of the
list).
>I mean, I'd pass any drug test, I've nothing to hide. I only grew my
>hair long again to avoid the temptation which just 15 years
>ago came from the opposite direction of HAVING longer hair.
I can just see myself trying to explain *that* to a prospective
employer...
Jim, there's something about hiring that a lot of people don't realize.
There are occasional cases when a company is trying to fill a position and
they come across a resume that's an exact perfect match. Those are no-
brainers; that person gets hired. But far more often the case is that
there are a half-dozen or more people who're more or less equally qualified
for the job, and the one who wins the cigar is going to be the one with
the least "red flags". Being adamant about keeping long hair is a red flag,
because companies don't want people who're inflexible. *Having* long hair
is not necessarily a problem, but being adamant about it almost always is.
>Well, any comments or such are obviously being solicited, so
>would be most welcome.
Best of luck. In my experience, a positive "can-do" attitude is the
first and best ingredient for a successful interview. I think that my
ultimate advice to you is if you decide to keep the long hair when you
go in for the interview, don't even raise it as an issue unless they ask
you about it first. They may just not care, but if they do (and if they're
interested enough in your other merits to want to hire you) then they'll
ask. If they do think it's important and that's the difference between
working and not working, then IMHO you'd be crazy to fight. You could
always use your lucrative salary to buy yourself a long-haired wig...
--
Nathan Engle Software Juggler
Psychology Department Indiana University
na...@psygate.psych.indiana.edu nen...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Jim Shirreffs
>
> Hi. I'm in a bit of a predicament for a couple of reasons,
>and I'm not sure what my response to the situation should be,
>and besides, this might open up another thread of discussion (Oh
>NO!!!) <grin>
>
> I'm ex-military (for those who don't know me from Adam yet),
>and when I returned to the States and Civilian life, I was quite
>Well, any comments or such are obviously being solicited, so
>would be most welcome.
>
>Jim
>
That is this group turning into, Dear Abby?
Jim be happy I'm a conservative and not a flammer.
Get your hair cut, get damn job, and don't brother us
until you can make these tuff decisions for yourself.
jim shirreffs
Greg Bradt aka The Lensman
> Hopefully, my predicament is fairly clear at this point.
> Is it considered sexual discrimination not to be hired on the
> grounds of having longer hair than is deemed appropriate? Am
> I correct in asserting myself in such a manner, or should I
> conform to the standards of this society? Couldn't it be
> considered a form of stereotyping that warrents such behavior
> against me on the mere grounds of length of hair? I mean,
> I'd pass any drug test, I've nothing to hide. I only grew my
> hair long again to avoid the temptation which just 15 years
> ago came from the opposite direction of HAVING longer hair.
> Well, any comments or such are obviously being solicited, so
> would be most welcome.
In answer to your first question... No, I don't think you have grounds for
any sort of charge of discrimination, certainly not sexual discrimination.
To the 2nd question... You are only obliged to conform to the standards of
any "society" (including the workplace) if you want to be accepted into it.
Employers can "discriminate" in any way they want to, as long as it is not
expressly prohibited by law, and as long as they do it consistently.
Yes, you are dealing with a stereotype, but one that you really can't do
much about, except to seek out an employer who doesn't have such arbitrary
rules about appearance. They =are= out there... I know, I work for one.
Greg Bradt aka ()The Lensman()
greg_...@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com | tFreedom means sometimes
Genie: G.BRADT | having to put up with
Compuserve: 70206,172 | things that really
BBS: (303)290 9243 | piss you offa.
Rosemary Waigh
>Is it considered sexual discrimination not to be hired on the
>grounds of having longer hair than is deemed appropriate?
I would consider it sexual discrimination if women with a similar hair style
were hired by that company for similar positions. I don't know how far you
could get in court with this though. Up here in Canada Gwen Jacobs has not
had much luck (yet) in convincing the courts that the laws which make it
illegal for women (but not men) to go topfree are sexual discrimination. (Does
anyone know what the current status of this case is?)
Ro
--
Rosemary Waigh Undergraduate, Computer Science / Linguistics
g9rw...@cdf.utoronto.ca University of Toronto
"Looking at the Earth from afar you realize it is too small
for conflict and just big enough for co-operation." Yuri Gagarin
A.P.K.
> <my monolog deleted>
>
> That is this group turning into, Dear Abby?
I should hope not. I was seriously trying to probe the legalities
and ethics of such matters, as I'd been working on for some time anyway.
Unfortunately, I've been prematurely put into the position of dealing
with just such a problem, prior to having all of the technicalities of
the problem resolved in a logical and acceptable sense.
>
> Jim be happy I'm a conservative and not a flammer.
It wouldn't have bothered me, I've been flamed before... :)
And I'm mostly a consevative, too, although to see the
length of my hair, you'd never believe it.
> Get your hair cut, get damn job, and don't brother us
> until you can make these tuff decisions for yourself.
Actually, this isn't a tough decision, excepting as it
conflicts legally and ethically with all other forms of
discrimination. Why should males be forced to conform to
certain standards which no one anywhere else is forced to
conform to such standards. It'd look rather funny if all women
were suddenly forced to get their hair hair cut short, not
allowed to wear makeup, forced to only where suits and
ties, no jewelry allowed except weeidng bands, etc...
Personally, I'm flexible on the issue. I had to be if
I was in the military for eight years with short hair, I'll
live with it again if it's that necessary. But when everyone
around me tells me to get a haircut for a job interview with
no logical basis behind their statements whatsoever, other
that to conform to some social standard or possibly be
discriminated against during job selection, I can't justify
that as a direct reason for doing it. If an employer expects
a person to maintain some sort of standard on hygiene, to
include dress and hair and such, then fine. If selected on
all other merits and given the choice, I can do that. In
fact, I already would meet all qualifications on standards
of hygiene (dress, and all), other than length of hair.
But to be expected to put up a facade for a job interview,
especially when I know that so many are already conforming
to such a standard to get away with such negative things
as previously stated, I can't find it in my personal morals
to do such a thing.
Jim
>
> jim shirreffs
Nathan Engle
>jp...@NeoSoft.com (Jim Shirreffs) writes:
>> Get your hair cut, get damn job, and don't brother us
>> until you can make these tuff decisions for yourself.
> Actually, this isn't a tough decision, excepting as it
>conflicts legally and ethically with all other forms of
>discrimination. Why should males be forced to conform to
>certain standards which no one anywhere else is forced to
>conform to such standards. It'd look rather funny if all women
>were suddenly forced to get their hair hair cut short, not
>allowed to wear makeup, forced to only where suits and
>ties, no jewelry allowed except weeidng bands, etc...
I'm afraid that I find your moral dilema less convincing when you try
to justify it on those grounds. Males are *not* the only ones who are
'forced' to conform to standards. Certainly the standards are different
for different groups and under different circumstances, but that *can't*
be what's bugging you unless you're one of those people who tries to use
a screwdriver to hammer in nails.
> Personally, I'm flexible on the issue. I had to be if
>I was in the military for eight years with short hair, I'll
>live with it again if it's that necessary. But when everyone
>around me tells me to get a haircut for a job interview with
>no logical basis behind their statements whatsoever, other
>that to conform to some social standard or possibly be
>discriminated against during job selection, I can't justify
>that as a direct reason for doing it.
If you don't consider the possibility of not getting a job because of
having long hair a logical reason for cutting your hair then I'm not sure
what to tell you. There really isn't much rhyme or reason to it besides
that, and that rule is *not* cast in stone. I've known plenty of long-
haired software jugglers, but in practically every case those guys had
effectively 'earned' the privelage of having long hair by having superlative
skills which tipped any balance in their favor. If you feel that your skills
are good enough to tip the balance for you then by all means keep your long
hair. In some ways it might be a psychological advantage in that it sort
of projects the image that *you* think your skills are good enough that
your hair doesn't matter. Maybe that's enough.
Todd J. Dicker
> Hopefully, my predicament is fairly clear at this point.
> Is it considered sexual discrimination not to be hired on the
> grounds of having longer hair than is deemed appropriate? Am
> I correct in asserting myself in such a manner, or should I
> conform to the standards of this society? Couldn't it be
> considered a form of stereotyping that warrents such behavior
> against me on the mere grounds of length of hair? I mean,
> I'd pass any drug test, I've nothing to hide. I only grew my
> hair long again to avoid the temptation which just 15 years
> ago came from the opposite direction of HAVING longer hair.
> Well, any comments or such are obviously being solicited, so
> would be most welcome.
-----
I have no sage wisdom to offer on this subject-- but if I were given the
choice of who I prefer making judgements based on my looks, I'd rather
cut my hair and look clean cut to impress a potential employer rather
than adjust my appearance just to keep college pukes from asking
me for drugs or to party.
It's easier to ignore the moronic judgements of college students with no
life experience and even less influence over my life than the opinion of
the person hiring me for a job.
Todd
A.P.K.
> jno...@andy.bgsu.edu (A.P.K.) writes:
>>jp...@NeoSoft.com (Jim Shirreffs) writes:
>>> Get your hair cut, get damn job, and don't brother us
>>> until you can make these tuff decisions for yourself.
>
>> Actually, this isn't a tough decision, excepting as it
>>conflicts legally and ethically with all other forms of
>>discrimination. Why should males be forced to conform to
>>certain standards which no one anywhere else is forced to
>>conform to such standards. It'd look rather funny if all women
>>were suddenly forced to get their hair hair cut short, not
>>allowed to wear makeup, forced to only where suits and
>>ties, no jewelry allowed except weeidng bands, etc...
>
> I'm afraid that I find your moral dilema less convincing when you try
> to justify it on those grounds. Males are *not* the only ones who are
> 'forced' to conform to standards. Certainly the standards are different
> for different groups and under different circumstances, but that *can't*
> be what's bugging you unless you're one of those people who tries to use
> a screwdriver to hammer in nails.
I know that males are not the only ones discriminated against,
on the lines of discrimination I was using as an example. It's just
that to base a hiring policy on such grounds may be considered to be
unfair (as are other examples.) Having never really been in the
private sector of the job market, I didn't know what to expect. Then,
when so many people around me started insisting that I had to have
a haircut just to go in for an interview, it seemed as though the
job market may well be unfairly discriminatory. Considering many
of the responses I've received, especially e-mail, it seems as
though this isn't as prevalent as some people here around me may
have implied.
As for pounding nails with a screwdriver ... I haven't done
that often. Just when I'm trying to set a finishing nail and I
don't have a punch handy. Then I might use a very small screwdriver
as a punch... :)
>
>> Personally, I'm flexible on the issue. I had to be if
>>I was in the military for eight years with short hair, I'll
>>live with it again if it's that necessary. But when everyone
>>around me tells me to get a haircut for a job interview with
>>no logical basis behind their statements whatsoever, other
>>that to conform to some social standard or possibly be
>>discriminated against during job selection, I can't justify
>>that as a direct reason for doing it.
>
> If you don't consider the possibility of not getting a job because of
> having long hair a logical reason for cutting your hair then I'm not sure
> what to tell you. There really isn't much rhyme or reason to it besides
> that, and that rule is *not* cast in stone. I've known plenty of long-
> haired software jugglers, but in practically every case those guys had
> effectively 'earned' the privelage of having long hair by having superlative
> skills which tipped any balance in their favor. If you feel that your skills
> are good enough to tip the balance for you then by all means keep your long
> hair. In some ways it might be a psychological advantage in that it sort
> of projects the image that *you* think your skills are good enough that
> your hair doesn't matter. Maybe that's enough.
Which is exactly as I'd wish to be judged by an employer
at an interview, by skills and abilities alone. I'm confident in
my abilities as a programmer, within the bounds of that which
I've already learned and know, although I can admit that I've
still got a lot to learn when it comes to programming, as well.
But then, is it possible for any programmer to truly know it
all? There may well be a small few, but I'm forced to think
that it would be almost impossible.
Well, hopefully tomorrow I'll be able to post some really
GOOD news. But keeping with proper net protocol, I'll stick it
on alt.good.news...
Jim
Nathan Engle
>na...@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>> If you feel that your skills are good enough to tip the balance for
>> you then by all means keep your long hair. In some ways it might be a
>> psychological advantage in that it sort of projects the image that *you*
>> think your skills are good enough that your hair doesn't matter. Maybe
>> that's enough.
> Which is exactly as I'd wish to be judged by an employer
>at an interview, by skills and abilities alone.
Unfortunately skills and abilities are about the hardest thing to gauge
in an interview, particularly if your first interview with the company is
with someone from Personnel rather than Engineering (all too common, I'm
afraid, especially in large companies). The poor stooge working in personnel
probably doesn't know a compiler from a hole in the ground, and you can bet
that person is going to form a first impression based on the things that
were important when they hired in (and in personnel appearance is almost
the only thing that matters; sorry about that).
If you're lucky you'll end up like Rush (or me) and get a job in which
your success can be based on just being yourself.
> I'm confident in
>my abilities as a programmer, within the bounds of that which
>I've already learned and know, although I can admit that I've
>still got a lot to learn when it comes to programming, as well.
Well, if you were just coming out of school with no real prior work
experience then I'd say that you sound a little unrealistic, but I'm not
sure what your background was in the armed services. If your college work
has been anything like mine, then I wouldn't bet too heavily on the
applicability of what you learned in classes to what you need to know in
the business world.
>But then, is it possible for any programmer to truly know it
>all? There may well be a small few, but I'm forced to think
>that it would be almost impossible.
If any programmers really knew it all then they wouldn't be programmers,
now would they? No way, they'd be national talk radio hosts with burgeoning
footholds in the late night TV market...
> Well, hopefully tomorrow I'll be able to post some really
>GOOD news. But keeping with proper net protocol, I'll stick it
>on alt.good.news...
Best of luck!
Martin Pagnan
A >I was frequently asked if I had drugs, wanted to party, etc,...
A >I didn't get it. .... It seems as though the majority of heavy
A >partiers ... are the Johnny Kleencut types. ...
A >everyone keeps telling me that I simply HAVE to get my haircut
A >before I go in for an interview. I don't have
A >any desire/intention of doing this .... I
A >have no desire to conform to the closet-druggie standard of
A >being a Johnny Kleencut look-a-like ....
A >forcing men to conform to the standard of having
A >hair kept exceptionally short, and then perhaps not being
A >hired on the grounds of being a "longhaired maggot infested
A >freak of nature" (to quote Rush) is a form of sexual
A >discrimination, is it not?
A >
A >Jim
A >
Jim,
As someone who considers himself to be conservative in the sense that I hold
to be true what is loosely defined as traditional western values, I have noted
more than once that the major conservative speakers will often say things which
hurt the very people they are trying to reach. The worst is R. Emmet Tyrrell,
Jr., of 'The American Spectator' fame.
On more than one occasion I have noted that a long-haired tightly-black-clothed
person is very likely to be hard working, anti-drugs, strongly Christian,
parent loving, etc. sort of a person. I have also noted on numerous occasions
that the Hillary-dressed yuppy-flavoured individual is most likely to be the
ones with all of the problems. Those who like to have fun with hard rock are
usually quite laid-back and unthreatening while those into "pop" music are
often excitable spoiled brats, no matter what their age.
Still, there is a public image that the opposite is the case. It is not
sexual discrimination - the hard working girl who has a taste for leather
jackets, tight-fitting skirts and heavy metal will be subject to similar
discrimination.
What determines what a person wears, how they cut their hair, what music they
like, etc. can be as simple as who their friends are, or a desire to not
appear as different. I have known people to hang out with motor-cycle crowds
because that is the only place they found nice people. Yet from time to time
conservative thinkers will fall into the trap of insinuating that the external
trappings are indicative of internal moral fibre. They do not seem to see that
there are conservative versus liberal battles fought at all levels of our
north american society. There are good and bad interspersed throughout the
long-haired crowd as much as there are in the licky-clean-cut.
That being said, if you want a good job get a haircut. This has nothing to do
with liberal versus conservative or good versus nasty. The conservative
elite and the champain liberals who run corporate america are
ultimately, and only, sales-driven. If the imagined proverbial little old
lady or some corporate president will not want to buy from you because you
have long hair then you are a disservice to your company. You might want to
argue that this is unfair because the little old lady and the corporate
president are bigoted. Well, no one would doubt that but you want to make the
sale, not start an argument with a potential customer. It is not generally
perceived that a long-haired person will refuse to deal with you because you
have short hair. The reason for getting a hair cut is only because the
corporate image requires it because experience has PROVED to the people who
can give the better jobs that it is more acceptable to consumers, and better
to shareholders on inspection tours. Do I agree with such people? Obviously
not, but I want their money so that I can make them happy with the goods I
provide. Maybe 50 years from now long hair will be the mark of business
success but not now.
With that I pass the soap box over to you.
---
. KingQWK 1.00 . To be a top salesperson try to not feel embarrassed acting like a scuzzbag
Glen Sonnenberg
that government must make laws to end discrimination. First, let me
state that I have a fundamental belief that government should take as
small a role as possible. With that in mind, I don't think that the
government should make laws to "protect" select groups of people or
set aside extra rights to these groups. I think that employers should
hire the best person for the job. I DO NOT, however, think that we
should make a law that says they MUST. If an employer wants to hire
someone who is not the best for the job, then they will suffer. If
they are willing to face the consequences then they shouldn't have
to worry about being sued based on their hiring preferences. If I
don't want to hire a homosexual because I disagree with their lifestyle
(be it chosen or genetic) then I should have that right. Laws that are
being made to protect small minority groups are making "some people more
equal than others". I think these laws are being made to solve a problem
that would eventually work itself out. These laws may have a quicker
short-term effect but I think they eventually do more harm than good
because of resentment in other groups who perceive these laws as reverse-
discrimination. GOVERNMENT CANNOT MAKE THE PLAYING FIELD LEVEL. If it
tries, it provides disincentives for those who excel beyond the average.
I would prefer a chance at being the best, than having to live with mediocrity.
ljf
>I am writing this because I am unable to understand why people think
>that government must make laws to end discrimination. First, let me
>state that I have a fundamental belief that government should take as
>small a role as possible. With that in mind, I don't think that the
>government should make laws to "protect" select groups of people or
>set aside extra rights to these groups.
I keep hearing about these extra rights, but I've yet to see them.
What extra rights does the state of California give Jews, for example,
by saying that it is illegal to discriminate in hiring, promotions,
and housing on the basis of religion?
I think that employers should
>hire the best person for the job. I DO NOT, however, think that we
>should make a law that says they MUST. If an employer wants to hire
>someone who is not the best for the job, then they will suffer. If
>they are willing to face the consequences then they shouldn't have
>to worry about being sued based on their hiring preferences.
And yet State Farm seemed to suffer no financial loss by
discriminating against female insurance agents for years. How do you
explain that? Cracker Barrel, a restaurant chain in the South, seems
to have done very well despite firing many lesbigay employees.
If I
>don't want to hire a homosexual because I disagree with their lifestyle
>(be it chosen or genetic) then I should have that right.
Queers have lifestyles but straights have lives. If I never hear that
bogus term "lifestyle" again, it will be too soon.
Laws that are
>being made to protect small minority groups are making "some people more
>equal than others".
Bullshit. A state law that makes it illegal to fire a lesbigay person
for her/his sexual orientation also protects you as a straight. As it
stands now, a business such as Cracker Barrel can fire employees
solely on the basis of their being queer. Believe me, if you ever
walk into a gym to apply for a job and are told sneeringly, "We don't
hire breeders," you'll have my support if you decide to sue that gym.
I think these laws are being made to solve a problem
>that would eventually work itself out. These laws may have a quicker
>short-term effect but I think they eventually do more harm than good
>because of resentment in other groups who perceive these laws as reverse-
>discrimination. GOVERNMENT CANNOT MAKE THE PLAYING FIELD LEVEL. If it
>tries, it provides disincentives for those who excel beyond the average.
>I would prefer a chance at being the best, than having to live with mediocrity.
Bullshit again. You didn't happen to see the NBC Primetime episode
where they followed a black man and a white man in St. Louis to see
how they were treated, did you? The black man was told apartments
were taken while the white man was shown the same empty apartments.
The black man was told jobs were taken while the white man filled out
applications for the same jobs, apparently still open. Laws that
prevent this kind of discrimination don't solve all the problems, but
they offer some recourse to its victims. And if you think the
government shouldn't (or can't) make the playing field level, consider
the alternatives. It's not altruism that makes a society try to
prevent discrimination, it's the fear of what happens when those
discriminated against stop taking it. How many LA riots do you need
to see before realizing that?
Pat Murphy
> I am writing this because I am unable to understand why people think
> that government must make laws to end discrimination. First, let me
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
then how do you propose to end discrimination...
> state that I have a fundamental belief that government should take as
> small a role as possible. With that in mind, I don't think that the
> government should make laws to "protect" select groups of people or
> set aside extra rights to these groups. I think that employers should
> hire the best person for the job. I DO NOT, however, think that we
> should make a law that says they MUST. If an employer wants to hire
> someone who is not the best for the job, then they will suffer. If
we cannot hire based upon the *best qualified* until every
child is afforded an equal chance at a great education...
until the educational system in america is reformed, we
need to give those who are educationally disadvantaged a
chance to show they can perform in the job. but i agree
that we need to make as a goal *hiring the most qualified
applicant*
> they are willing to face the consequences then they shouldn't have
> to worry about being sued based on their hiring preferences. If I
> don't want to hire a homosexual because I disagree with their lifestyle
> (be it chosen or genetic) then I should have that right. Laws that are
> being made to protect small minority groups are making "some people more
> equal than others". I think these laws are being made to solve a problem
> that would eventually work itself out. These laws may have a quicker
> short-term effect but I think they eventually do more harm than good
> because of resentment in other groups who perceive these laws as reverse-
> discrimination. GOVERNMENT CANNOT MAKE THE PLAYING FIELD LEVEL. If it
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
on the other hand, they cannot refuse to ackowledge that there
IS an unlevel playing field...
Carl M. Kadie
[...]
>If an employer wants to hire someone who is not the best for the job,
>then they will suffer.
[...]
You underestimate the stability of systematic discrimination.
A system in which one group (call it the blue group) keeps another
group (call it the red group) working very hard in very bad living
conditions is quite stable. If a few members of the blue group try to
to get economic advantage by defecting from the discrimination policy,
they will find that advantage lost because of retaliation by other
members of the blue group. If a few members of the red group try to
rebel they will be blacklisted.
To take a case in point, according to yesterday's "60 Minutes" the
U.S. Department of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) used to
discriminate in hiring in of men. They now try to hire the most
qualified person without regard to sex. You predicted that this would
make them more productive, but in fact, they have become less
productive because the women employees are being so harassed that they
have trouble doing their job. Morale for all of ATF is very, very low.
I believe that the same thing happens at many private workplaces.
If it wasn't the threat of outside punitive actions from (other
branches of) the government, ATF would probably just give up on hiring
women, because it doesn't seem to pay.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
= ka...@cs.uiuc.edu =
Glen Sonnenberg
>
>And yet State Farm seemed to suffer no financial loss by
>discriminating against female insurance agents for years. How do you
>explain that? Cracker Barrel, a restaurant chain in the South, seems
>to have done very well despite firing many lesbigay employees.
I explain that very easily. Their clients didn't care or didn't know.
If people don't like the policies of a given company then they are more then
welcome to take their business elsewhere. Lesbigay groups have so
many boycotts going it's hard to keep track. That's fine by me, just
don't leglislate it. If there are enough people that make enough noise
then corporation, who are run usually with a profit motive, will change.
Many public groups have changed corporate policies. I am in favor of
this type of activism. But, our government has enough problems just
keeping our country going let alone having to deal with problems that
will eventually work themselves out. I believe that Lesbigay groups,
along with many others, turn to the government as a quick fix. Believe
me, there are a lot of people out there that don't decide what is right
and wrong based solely on legislation. These laws only make people just
as mad as you are when they are forced to accept things that they consider
wrong. Simple as that. But I guess you would be happy.
>
>Queers have lifestyles but straights have lives. If I never hear that
>bogus term "lifestyle" again, it will be too soon.
When I receive conclusive proof that homosexuality is a genetic trait
then I will probably stop using that term. Also, I consider homosexuality
wrong. If that is considered by you as irrational, so be it. When you
prove to me that you make all your moral decisions based completely on
rationality then you can come back and we'll talk.
>Bullshit. A state law that makes it illegal to fire a lesbigay person
>for her/his sexual orientation also protects you as a straight. As it
>stands now, a business such as Cracker Barrel can fire employees
>solely on the basis of their being queer. Believe me, if you ever
>walk into a gym to apply for a job and are told sneeringly, "We don't
>hire breeders," you'll have my support if you decide to sue that gym.
I DON'T WANT YOUR SUPPORT!! I WOULDN'T SUE! It's their right. If
they don't want to hire me because I have sex with women, FINE! I
probably wouldn't want to work for them. If I was surrounded by people
who wouldn't hire me because I believed heterosexuality was right,
then I guess I would have to reevaluate my beliefs. If I felt
completely right, then I guess I would have some tough job decisions,
but I would stand by my beliefs. I wouldn't go whining about how
these people's beliefs contradict mine and that they OWE me a job.
You are whining.
>Bullshit again. You didn't happen to see the NBC Primetime episode
>where they followed a black man and a white man in St. Louis to see
>how they were treated, did you? The black man was told apartments
>were taken while the white man was shown the same empty apartments.
>The black man was told jobs were taken while the white man filled out
>applications for the same jobs, apparently still open. Laws that
>prevent this kind of discrimination don't solve all the problems, but
>they offer some recourse to its victims.
I guess it goes to show that anti-discrimination laws don't solve the
problems. All they do is provide ways to punish people for their
beliefs and pay people for the UNFAIRNESS they had to endure. When you
can show me that LIFE IS FAIR, maybe I'll agree that we need to compensate
people for being treated unfairly. As it stands, I still disagree.
>And if you think the
>government shouldn't (or can't) make the playing field level, consider
>the alternatives. It's not altruism that makes a society try to
>prevent discrimination, it's the fear of what happens when those
>discriminated against stop taking it. How many LA riots do you need
>to see before realizing that?
Sorry, but I don't buy it. What you are saying is that the government
is trying to do this to appease all of the small minority groups so
that they won't riot. Are you just lame or do you want a government
that sacrifices everything to small groups that make a lot of noise
and threaten to riot? Can't you see that this is just another form
of the tyranny of the minority? If the government locksteps everytime
that a small group threatens to riot, what type of place will this
become? I believe that the term anarchy might describe it.
Gerald A. Josephson
|> ka...@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
|>
|>To take a case in point, according to yesterday's "60 Minutes" the
|>U.S. Department of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) used to
|>discriminate in hiring in of men. They now try to hire the most
|>qualified person without regard to sex. You predicted that this would
|>make them more productive, but in fact, they have become less
|>productive because the women employees are being so harassed that they
|>have trouble doing their job. Morale for all of ATF is very, very low.
|>I believe that the same thing happens at many private workplaces.
|>
|>If it wasn't the threat of outside punitive actions from (other
|>branches of) the government, ATF would probably just give up on hiring
|>women, because it doesn't seem to pay.
Your example shows the problem with Harassment, not hiring practices or
discrimination. A few well timed firings would probably help the situation.
The big problem is you can't get rid of civil servants easily enough when
they don't do thier job.
gaj
Carl M. Kadie
[...]
>Your example shows the problem with Harassment, not hiring practices or
>discrimination. A few well timed firings would probably help the situation.
[...]
So you want to make on-the-job harassment illegal, but not on-the-job
discrimination? Assumed that the libertarian position was that even
have-sex-with-me-or-lose-your-job harassment should be legal.
Charlie Fulton
>>Queers have lifestyles but straights have lives. If I never hear that
>>bogus term "lifestyle" again, it will be too soon.
>
>When I receive conclusive proof that homosexuality is a genetic trait
>then I will probably stop using that term. Also, I consider
homosexuality
>wrong. If that is considered by you as irrational, so be it. When you
>prove to me that you make all your moral decisions based completely on
>rationality then you can come back and we'll talk.
I don't understand what you *mean* by lifestyle. Would you, for
example, hire a fundamentalist Christian homosexual who claimed
to be cured? Who lived the Christian lifestyle to a T and practiced
unerring celibacy? Who tempered his effiminacy so as not to offend
anoybody, yet spoke openly of having been homosexual and saved by
Jesus? Who might still harbor homosexual desire in his heart of
hearts but would *never* succumb to it because of his religious
convictions?
You'll probably dismiss this case as too rarified, but it makes my
point. Do you disapprove of homosexual *sex* or do you think it's
a thought crime? Is being guilty of this thought crime what you
mean by "lifestyle?"
Charlie
ljf
>In article <1993Jan11....@leland.Stanford.EDU> fart...@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>>
>>And yet State Farm seemed to suffer no financial loss by
>>discriminating against female insurance agents for years. How do you
>>explain that? Cracker Barrel, a restaurant chain in the South, seems
>>to have done very well despite firing many lesbigay employees.
>
>I explain that very easily. Their clients didn't care or didn't know.
>If people don't like the policies of a given company then they are more then
>welcome to take their business elsewhere. Lesbigay groups have so
>many boycotts going it's hard to keep track.
But how are we, as customers, supposed to know that a business
discriminates against women, or blacks, or lesbigays? When I
discussed my car insurance with State Farm, my agent never said, "Oh,
btw, we discriminate against women agents. I just want to tell you
that to be on the up-and-up so you can decide to be a customer or take
your business elsewhere."
At least Cracker Barrel was semi-upfront about their discrimination.
That's fine by me, just
>don't leglislate it. If there are enough people that make enough noise
>then corporation, who are run usually with a profit motive, will change.
>Many public groups have changed corporate policies. I am in favor of
>this type of activism. But, our government has enough problems just
>keeping our country going let alone having to deal with problems that
>will eventually work themselves out.
I think you missed something here. How these companies are usually
found out and change their policies is when employees show
discrimination on the basis of sex, age, color, etc., which is illegal
in the state where the company is operating. Since you're against
laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, age, color,
etc., these employees have no recourse except to seek public boycotts.
Also, I'm curious about how you think these problems will eventually
work themselves out. Are people supposed to be content with
discrimination with the hopes that their children or grandchildren
will be better treated?
I believe that Lesbigay groups,
>along with many others, turn to the government as a quick fix. Believe
>me, there are a lot of people out there that don't decide what is right
>and wrong based solely on legislation. These laws only make people just
>as mad as you are when they are forced to accept things that they consider
>wrong. Simple as that. But I guess you would be happy.
I would be happy personally if there were no need for laws against
discrimination. But there is a need.
>When I receive conclusive proof that homosexuality is a genetic trait
>then I will probably stop using that term. Also, I consider homosexuality
>wrong. If that is considered by you as irrational, so be it. When you
>prove to me that you make all your moral decisions based completely on
>rationality then you can come back and we'll talk.
I'm always a bit curious about this. So, when did you choose to be
heterosexual, if you don't mind my asking? Did you weigh the pros and
cons of heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality? Was it an
informed choice, trying out all three lifestyles and coming to the
conclusion that heterosexuality is the best of the three?
>I DON'T WANT YOUR SUPPORT!! I WOULDN'T SUE! It's their right. If
>they don't want to hire me because I have sex with women, FINE! I
>probably wouldn't want to work for them. If I was surrounded by people
>who wouldn't hire me because I believed heterosexuality was right,
>then I guess I would have to reevaluate my beliefs.
I see. And you'd make a similar suggestion to blacks who aren't hired
because they're black? Or Jews because they're Jewish?
If I felt
>completely right, then I guess I would have some tough job decisions,
>but I would stand by my beliefs. I wouldn't go whining about how
>these people's beliefs contradict mine and that they OWE me a job.
>You are whining.
So, if 90% of the businesses were owned by lesbigays and you knew that
most lesbigays didn't want to hire an "admitted heterosexual," what
would you do?
What I find ludicrous about your claims is that lesbigays face job and
housing discrimination on a daily basis, but you can only conjure up a
scenario where someone would not hire you or rent to you because
you're hetero.
>Sorry, but I don't buy it. What you are saying is that the government
>is trying to do this to appease all of the small minority groups so
>that they won't riot. Are you just lame or do you want a government
>that sacrifices everything to small groups that make a lot of noise
>and threaten to riot? Can't you see that this is just another form
>of the tyranny of the minority? If the government locksteps everytime
>that a small group threatens to riot, what type of place will this
>become? I believe that the term anarchy might describe it.
I'm saying that a reasonably fair and equal treatment of all people is
in a society's self-interest, not just altruistic. I want a society
that helps to accomplish this fair and equal treatment. If it's lame
to expect this society to do its best to ensure the fair and equal
treatment of minorities and women, even when the majority and men
don't want it, yes, then I'm lame.