Reinforcement (awards and other incentives) do lead some organisations to look at their structure to see if they measure up to standards such as diversity and equal opportunity. That, and spreading word of opportunities among target communities, are probably the best affirmative actions. Lots of people just don't notice their blinders, and would gladly correct their errors. Then programs need to provide guidelines to avoid the well-intentioned "reverse discrimination" overreaction.

Enforcement should be used with much more caution. LtS's example of mismanagement is precisely what gives affirmative action the bad name expressed in Hubby's #2: special treatment to minorities. Quotas are infamous for this kind of failure. Emphatic agreement to all expressions of the need for AA to be strictly a temporary measure to combat institutionalised restrictions not based on competence.

How about some pointers on the problem of identification of issues? We have discussed some obvious candidates, but discrimination against men (as in a Canadian government agency's official definition of domestic violence as violence against women and children) is just as prejudiced. Saying "now it's your turn" doesn't make it right. We all lose when Powers That Be decide that we need either a Minority Person or an Old Boy, or that male counsellors should be barred from offering their services to a shelter for battered women, however qualified.

Surely there must be models for building just and healthy organisations with effective communication and open decision processes?

Maureen