6 ms·

> I am curious if anyone can find the text for "IBM's Policy Letter #4" written by IBM's chairman in 1953, which is referenced in this article. https://web.arc

> I am curious if anyone can find the text for "IBM's Policy Letter #4" written by IBM's chairman in 1953, which is referenced in this article. https://web.archive.org/web/20110409171021/http://www-03.ibm.com/employment/us/diverse/50/downloads/eo-policy-letter.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20110409171021/http://www-03.ibm... It has both the original typewritten scan and a searchable-text version right underneath.

maerF0x0 1y ago
That's a pretty solid letter given the 1953 date! Consider it predates MLK's and Rosa Park's most famous activism. Not bad.
- eddieroger 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - hdjjhhvvhga 1y ago
    To people downvoting the above comment - could you explain your reasons? You may feel all arguments have already been said on this issue but the situation is different today. And especially young people, whether white or colored, feel they have more bleak future in front of them than the previous generations and basically refuse to reproduce globally. In this light, it's worth having this discussion again because it is not the same.
    - fc417fc802 1y ago
      I didn't but I would have. It appears to be dragging the discussion towards political flamewar. It doesn't present any substantial observations or reasoning, just ideological talking points that we've all heard countless times by now. If there had at least been some attempt to tie things back to the headline article in a nontrivial way then maybe I'd be more sympathetic.
    - scoofy 1y ago
      I didn't downvote, but I gave a long, good faith response as to why I think it's sub-optimal reasoning at best. I think this divide is a huge problem for the left, and it's actually creating new problems while the left pats itself on the back thinking we're solving them.
  - scoofy 1y ago
    There is a conflation in the idea behind this comment that drives me crazy. This version of equity based on race is using race as a proxy for outcomes in life that are actually based on a wide variety of factors. Equality based on race is treating peoples race as equal. The idea that we care about equity is important, but using race as a proxy means we need to care especially about the proxy and making sure the proxy is representative of the outcomes and how the inputs are effecting the outputs. And, if we're being honest, it's kind of an arbitrary proxy beyond the correlation. We are already seeing huge problems here with men vs women using gender as a proxy for outcomes, where we've basically flip-flopped graduation rates, but since it's a lagging indicator, we've really gotten ourselves into a pickle where we are creating an equity problem while trying to solve an equity problem, because we're so focused on outputs throughout every stage of the life process that we're missing a massive shift in the inputs (like who we're graduating). Equality is important. Equity is important. They are different things, that should have different attention. Equality uses identity directly. Equity uses identity as a proxy for outcomes. We need to be very careful when we focus too much on one over the other.
    - fc417fc802 1y ago
      Why use various proxies at all? Most of the group differences seem to largely share poverty as a primary root factor, and this impacts plenty of sub-groups within the supposedly advantaged groups as well. So why are we not simply addressing that directly? A refrain I've been seeing a lot lately is that the outcome of a system is its purpose. Perhaps that reasoning should be equally applied to an analysis of the implementation choices made by various social programs and the solutions espoused by various political movements.
      - scoofy 1y ago
        Why? I presume that people don’t look for second and third order effects. They see disproportionate numbers of people of color struggling, they blame the first order grouping as the cause. Statistics is complicated. People reject even straightforward theories with obvious scientific bases. It makes sense.
      - 1y ago
repiret 1y ago
Veering off topic, but this letter is in a variable width font. Were there typewriters that could do that? Was this so widely distributed that it was typeset on a printing press? The letterhead and body text aren’t aligned, so if it did go through a press it took two passes. The signature is also in ink, so that’s either a third pass for color, or an actual signature, and the letter doesn’t have the notation to indicate that it was signed by the secretary, so that leads me to think that it wasn’t widely distributed. Does anybody have any other insights?
- lexicality 1y ago
  IBM made a lot of very fancy typewriters so while I don't know what they had in 1953, one would assume that the president of the company would have access to the fanciest model they offered
  - ghaff 1y ago
    Or his secretary would have :-)
- js2 1y ago
  Looks like it was written on an IBM Executive Model A: https://old.reddit.com/r/typewriters/comments/178vjlf/sample_of_the_chrome_ibm_executives_proportional/ https://old.reddit.com/r/typewriters/comments/178vjlf/sample... There were variable-width font typewriters starting in 1930: https://old.reddit.com/r/typewriters/comments/3ltlgn/have_variablewidth_typewriters_ever_existed/ https://old.reddit.com/r/typewriters/comments/3ltlgn/have_va... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vari-Typer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vari-Typer
  - nunez 1y ago
    That is a REALLY nice typewriter; wow.
- trebligdivad 1y ago
  Well of course IBM made typewriters! It looks like the 'IBM Executive' landed in 1944 with the ability to do proportional spacing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Electric#Executive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Electric#Executive
hn_throwaway_99 1y ago
Thank you, I appreciate the find.

maerF0x0 1y ago

That's a pretty solid letter given the 1953 date! Consider it predates MLK's and Rosa Park's most famous activism. Not bad.

eddieroger 1y ago
[flagged]
- hdjjhhvvhga 1y ago
  To people downvoting the above comment - could you explain your reasons? You may feel all arguments have already been said on this issue but the situation is different today. And especially young people, whether white or colored, feel they have more bleak future in front of them than the previous generations and basically refuse to reproduce globally. In this light, it's worth having this discussion again because it is not the same.
  - fc417fc802 1y ago
    I didn't but I would have. It appears to be dragging the discussion towards political flamewar. It doesn't present any substantial observations or reasoning, just ideological talking points that we've all heard countless times by now. If there had at least been some attempt to tie things back to the headline article in a nontrivial way then maybe I'd be more sympathetic.
  - scoofy 1y ago
    I didn't downvote, but I gave a long, good faith response as to why I think it's sub-optimal reasoning at best. I think this divide is a huge problem for the left, and it's actually creating new problems while the left pats itself on the back thinking we're solving them.
- scoofy 1y ago
  There is a conflation in the idea behind this comment that drives me crazy. This version of equity based on race is using race as a proxy for outcomes in life that are actually based on a wide variety of factors. Equality based on race is treating peoples race as equal. The idea that we care about equity is important, but using race as a proxy means we need to care especially about the proxy and making sure the proxy is representative of the outcomes and how the inputs are effecting the outputs. And, if we're being honest, it's kind of an arbitrary proxy beyond the correlation. We are already seeing huge problems here with men vs women using gender as a proxy for outcomes, where we've basically flip-flopped graduation rates, but since it's a lagging indicator, we've really gotten ourselves into a pickle where we are creating an equity problem while trying to solve an equity problem, because we're so focused on outputs throughout every stage of the life process that we're missing a massive shift in the inputs (like who we're graduating). Equality is important. Equity is important. They are different things, that should have different attention. Equality uses identity directly. Equity uses identity as a proxy for outcomes. We need to be very careful when we focus too much on one over the other.
  - fc417fc802 1y ago
    Why use various proxies at all? Most of the group differences seem to largely share poverty as a primary root factor, and this impacts plenty of sub-groups within the supposedly advantaged groups as well. So why are we not simply addressing that directly? A refrain I've been seeing a lot lately is that the outcome of a system is its purpose. Perhaps that reasoning should be equally applied to an analysis of the implementation choices made by various social programs and the solutions espoused by various political movements.
    - scoofy 1y ago
      Why? I presume that people don’t look for second and third order effects. They see disproportionate numbers of people of color struggling, they blame the first order grouping as the cause. Statistics is complicated. People reject even straightforward theories with obvious scientific bases. It makes sense.
    - 1y ago

repiret 1y ago

Veering off topic, but this letter is in a variable width font. Were there typewriters that could do that? Was this so widely distributed that it was typeset on a printing press? The letterhead and body text aren’t aligned, so if it did go through a press it took two passes. The signature is also in ink, so that’s either a third pass for color, or an actual signature, and the letter doesn’t have the notation to indicate that it was signed by the secretary, so that leads me to think that it wasn’t widely distributed. Does anybody have any other insights?

lexicality 1y ago
IBM made a lot of very fancy typewriters so while I don't know what they had in 1953, one would assume that the president of the company would have access to the fanciest model they offered
- ghaff 1y ago
  Or his secretary would have :-)
js2 1y ago
Looks like it was written on an IBM Executive Model A: https://old.reddit.com/r/typewriters/comments/178vjlf/sample_of_the_chrome_ibm_executives_proportional/ https://old.reddit.com/r/typewriters/comments/178vjlf/sample... There were variable-width font typewriters starting in 1930: https://old.reddit.com/r/typewriters/comments/3ltlgn/have_variablewidth_typewriters_ever_existed/ https://old.reddit.com/r/typewriters/comments/3ltlgn/have_va... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vari-Typer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vari-Typer
- nunez 1y ago
  That is a REALLY nice typewriter; wow.
trebligdivad 1y ago
Well of course IBM made typewriters! It looks like the 'IBM Executive' landed in 1944 with the ability to do proportional spacing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Electric#Executive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Electric#Executive

hn_throwaway_99 1y ago

Thank you, I appreciate the find.